More Saturday Male Beauty

Frank Rich; Angels in America; Making a Difference

There are days when I feel very discouraged over the status of gay rights in this country and feel the urge to give up on my activism and even this blog. Some days it just seems so hard to make a difference and the effort simply becomes exhausting. Then a ruling like the one handed down in Perry v. Schwarzenegger occurs or I read of inspiring stories of individuals who improbably step forward and made a statement for change and equality and I rally my spirits and resolve to carry on my efforts in Equality Virginia, Legends, HRBOR, blogging and other endeavors. Each of us in our own fashion need to keep up the fight so that evil doesn't occur merely because good people fail to oppose it. Frank Rich has a column that gives a much needed jump start to one's level of enthusiasm and shows that despite the set backs that occur, there are amazing people who dare to take a step forward and do what is the morally right thing to do even if it is frequently looked down upon the majority. In his latest column, Frank Rich looks at women in New York's Peabody family who took unlikely steps, the odd couple Ted Olson and David Boise and others. He also takes on the forces of anti-gay discrimination and underscores just how empty their arguments truly are. Would that more in the main stream media would decisively take on the demagogues of the right and expose their lies and ridiculous arguments to the bright light of day rather than simply provide them with a platform from which to disseminate their venom. Here are some highlights:
*
Judith Dunnington Peabody, . . . died on July 25 at 80 in her apartment on Fifth Avenue in New York. . . . As the fashionable wife of Samuel P. Peabody in the decades to follow, she shared the society pages with Pat Buckley, Babe Paley and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. But to quote Tracy Lord, the socialite played by Katharine Hepburn in the classic high-society movie comedy “The Philadelphia Story,” “The time to make up your mind about people is never.” In 1985, Judith Peabody, a frequent contributor to the traditional good causes favored by those of her class, did the unthinkable by volunteering to work as a hands-on caregiver to AIDS patients and their loved ones. Those patients were then mostly gay men, and, as Guy Trebay recently wrote in The Times, they were “treated not with compassion but as bearers of plague.”
*
Thanks to Peabody’s prominence, her example had a discernible effect in beating back ignorance and fear in New York. But 25 years ago, few could have imagined a larger narrative that might lead to full civil rights for gay Americans. That was change almost no one believed in. Nor could many have imagined that a day would come, as it did 10 days after Peabody’s death, when a federal judge in San Francisco would rule it unconstitutional for same-sex couples to be denied the right to be lawfully wedded in sickness and in health.
*
I didn’t know Peabody, but I can only imagine that her determination to make a difference was in some part influenced by her mother-in-law, Mary Peabody. The wife of an Episcopal bishop and the mother of a governor of Massachusetts, Mary Peabody spent two nights in jail, at the age of 72, after participating in sit-ins to protest racial segregation in St. Augustine, Fla., in 1964.
*
The Peabody women were among the countless players in these larger civil rights dramas. They are testimony to the courage, big-heartedness and sense of fundamental fairness that can flower in our country in the most unexpected quarters even as the angrier and more malign voices dominate the debate. And sometimes over the long term — an obscenely long term in the case of black civil rights — the good guys and women can win real victories.
*
Much has been said about the triumph of the odd-couple legal team, the former Bush v. Gore adversaries Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed Prop 8 in court. But of equal significance is the high-powered lawyer on the other side, Charles Cooper. He was named one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington in the same National Law Journal list that included Olson and, in his pre-Supreme Court incarnation, John Roberts. Yet, as Judge Walker made clear in his 136-page judgment, Cooper, for all his talent and efforts, couldn’t find facts to support his argument that full civil marital rights for same-sex couples would harm the institution of marriage, children or anyone else.
*
There has already been an attempt to discredit Walker, who has never publicly discussed his sexual orientation but has been widely reported to be gay. The notion that a judge’s sexuality, gay or not, might disqualify him from ruling on marriage is as absurd as saying Clarence Thomas can’t rule on cases involving African-Americans. By this standard, the only qualified judge to rule on marital rights would be a eunuch.
*
No less ridiculous has been the attempt to dismiss Walker as a liberal “activist judge.” Walker was another Reagan nominee to the federal bench, recommended by his attorney general, Edwin Meese (an opponent of same-sex marriage and, now, of Walker), in a December 1987 memo residing at the Reagan library. It took nearly two years and a renomination by the first President George Bush for Walker to gain Senate approval over opposition from Teddy Kennedy, the N.A.A.C.P., La Raza, the National Organization for Women and the many gay groups who deemed his record in private practice too conservative.
*
This, like the states’-rights argument, is a replay of the battle over black civil rights. Eric Foner, the pre-eminent historian of Reconstruction, recalled last week via e-mail how Strom Thurmond would argue in the early 1960s “that segregation benefited blacks and whites and had nothing to do with racism” — as if inequality were O.K. as long as segregationists pushing separate-but-equal “compromises” claimed their motives were pure.
*
Still another recurrent argument from the Thurmond era has it that no judge should overrule the voters, who voted 52 to 48 percent in California for Prop 8 in 2008. But as Olson also told Chris Wallace, “We do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote.”
*
[S]ometimes we do hit that note, however tentatively. How one wishes that the many gay Americans who were left to die in the shadows during that horrific time — and, in most cases, without a Judith Peabody, let alone a legal spouse, by their side — could hear Judge Walker’s clarion call.

American Family Association Would Bar Any Additional Mosques in USA

I have long stated that the "family values" and "pro-family" Christian organizations in this country all have an overarching agenda of making their toxic version Christianity into the official religion for all citizens. One of the reasons gays and gay marriage send them into apoplexy is that our existence, not to mention our lives and committed loves fly in the face of their fear based beliefs. By desperately clinging to a literal application of the Bible - or at least those passages that further their ego centric mindset and allow them to freely condemn others - they have set their house of cards religious world view for total collapse once a piece of it , such as alleged Biblical condemnation of homosexuality proves to be untrue. In their typical opportunistic and exclusionary manner, the good folks at the American Family Association ("AFA") - which borders on a hate group in my opinion - wants the further construction of mosques banned nationwide. They don't give a damn about the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion to all citizens regardless of their faith. Instead, it is all about them and using the laws to inflict their beliefs on all. They are no better than the Islamic fundamentalists whom they hate with a passion. Here are highlights from Bryan Fischer's anti-Muslim screed at AFA:
*
Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government. Each one is a potential jihadist recruitment and training center, and determined to implement the “Grand Jihad” of which Andy McCarthy has written.
*
Here is the strategy, in their own words, in the words of “An Explanatory Memorandum” circulated by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1991 which outlines “the General Strategic Goal” for the Islamic movement “in North America.”
*
Read it and shudder: Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions...It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny...” (emphasis mine)
*
Because of this subversive ideology, Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. They are currently using First Amendment freedoms to make plans to destroy the First Amendment altogether. There is no such thing as freedom of religion in Islam, and it is sheer and utter folly for Americans to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.
*
Bottom line: it’s suicidal for America to allow terrorist training cells to crop up all over the fruited plain. And each mosque is an actual or potential terrorist training cell, as Anwar al-Awlaki has demonstrated. His north Virginia mosque was used to radicalize three of the 9/11 jihadis as well as the Major Hasan who shot up the infidel idolaters at Fort Hood.
*
If a mosque was willing to publicly renounce the Koran and its 109 verses that call for the death of infidels, renounce Allah and his messenger Mohammed, publicly condemn Osama bin Laden, Hamas, and Abdelbaset al Megrahi (the Lockerbie bomber), maybe then they could be allowed to build their buildings. But then they wouldn’t be Muslims at that point, now would they?
*
The irony is that the folks at AFA are endeavoring to do exactly what they would blame the Muslims of doing. Is the AFA willing to denounce anti-abortion extremists, those who would murder gays, and renounce the passages in the Bible that laud the murder of non-believers and other heinous acts? I suspect not. They want others to do what they themselves would never do.

Saturday Male Beauty

Dedicated to Douglas - hope you enjoy this group shot. :)

Radio Host Stephanie Miller Comes Out

I have long advocated since my own long belated coming out others who are able to do so without being fired (I was forced from a law firm for being gay) or suffering other severely negative consequences need to come out publicly. Why? Because it is the best mechanism to destroy the stereotypes that our Christianist enemies seek to disseminate daily to our detriment. As more and more ordinary citizens come to know LGBT individuals who are not what are detractors claim, we strike continuing blows against those who want us legally sanctioned for not abiding with their fear and hate based religious views. Radio host Stephanie Miller has struck such a blow. While "out" amongst friends for some time, now she has made it official and came out on her show yesterday. AfterEllen has these highlights:
*
Miller’s sexual orientation was not a secret among her friends and family, but she rarely talked about her private life on air — other than to make jokes about being single.
*
If you’re not a radio fan, you still may have seen Miller. She had a brief stint on MSNBC before Rachel Maddow came on the scene and she frequently appears on TV talk shows, often sparring with conservative hosts or guests. Since her dad is a former running mate of Barry Goldwater, Stephanie is quite familiar with the GOP.
*
Stephanie, thank you for your courage. It does make a difference.

We Must Save the 14th Amendment

Section one of the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution reads as follows:
*
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
*
Not surprisingly, the recent pro-gay court decisions in the federal courts have all relied on the equal protection guaranties found in this language as the basis for striking down Prop. 8 and portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Obviously, this reality makes it important to the LGBT community that the elements of the far right not be allowed to attempt to amend this important provision to the U. S. Constitution.

*

But gays are not the only ones at risk if the Tea Party crowd, Christianists and white supremacists are allowed to have their way and either repeal or severely modify this incredibly important constitutional provision. Virtually EVERY minority would be put at risk without the protections afforded by the equal protection and due process provisions 14th Amendment. Of equal importance are the rights of citizenship it grants to all those born in this nation. Since the nation's beginnings being born in the USA - regardless of whether or not codified - being born here (except in the case of slaves and American Indians prior to the 14th Amendment's addition to the Constitution) granted citizenship. This long standing right could be radically altered if anti-immigrant activists, white supremacists and GOP members of Congress were to succeed in pushing a proposal to end this citizenship by birth. The obvious goal? To strip citizenship from mostly Hispanic born in the county to unnaturalized parents. Such proposals ought to to scare the Hell out of rational people. An op-ed in The Advocate looks at this topic and the faulty history of those seeking to sully the 14th Amendment. Here are some details:
*
Gay people have a real interest in fighting the effort to strip birthright citizenship from the 14th amendment, says Immigration Equality executive director Rachel B. Tiven.
*
Don’t know much about history, do they? That’s a sad statement to make about the U.S. Congress, but evidently a true one, given the recent pile-on of Republican senators calling for repeal — or “investigation” — of birthright citizenship. Senate majority leader Harry Reid noted that his colleagues have “either taken leave of their senses or their principles.” In fact, they may have taken leave of both, as their ridiculous, racist campaign betrays a basic misunderstanding of American history and of the Constitution.
*
Before the Civil War, there was no definition of American citizenship. Slaves were not citizens, and women’s citizenship was tenuous at best. A woman who married a foreign national could be stripped of her citizenship, and of course, women, slaves, and most nonwhites could not vote. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution, as originally ratified, defined who was an American citizen or how to become one. The Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision — which brought pre-Civil War tensions closer to a boil by holding that Congress could not prohibit slavery in federal territory — reaffirmed that “Negroes” were not and could not be citizens.
*
The Fourteenth Amendment was the centerpiece of Reconstruction, and it finally provided the United States with a definition of who exactly was a citizen. Its very first words read: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
*
Reread that sentence and ask yourself, Without it, who would be an American? Would I? On what basis? In a nation where 98% of us are here as the result of immigration at some point in time, who among us has been here “long enough”? Who gets to decide?
*
LGBT people should find this particularly disgusting. At Immigration Equality, we hear every day from people who face double discrimination: because they are immigrants and simultaneously because they are also lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
*
Those dual lines of attack are no coincidence: The very same people who are leading the charge to strip citizenship from the children of immigrants are those who have long led the charge to strip the rights of full citizenship from LGBT people. On the latter front, their crusades are beginning to falter, with historic judicial and legislative victories affirming the rights of LGBT people. Sadly, politicians desperate for a scapegoat in an era of recession and war are attacking not only the newest citizens, they are attacking our precious Constitution.
*
Personally, I'd like to see more individuals and politicians go on the attack against the GOP white supremacists like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. They took a oath to uphold and support the U. S. Constitution and now they want to gut one of it's most important provisions. If they want to go on a campaign against the Constitution, fine, but they need to resign from office in order to do so.

Why the Proposition 8 Trial Results Are so Threatening to Christianists

In a prior post I looked at David Boies' analysis of why the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial was so damaging to and so feared by fundamentalist evangelical Christians, the Mormon Church and Opus Dei style Catholics (who for convenience I refer to as "Christianist"). In a nut shell, the case forced the opponents of gay marriage to back up their lies about and slander of gays and same sex couples with scientific evidence and objective facts. As the trial transcript confirmed and as Judge Walker ruled, they utterly failed to do so. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence supported the claims and allegations of the plaintiffs, not the Prop. 8 supporters. Absent any scientific or objective factual evidence, the only support shown for Prop 8 was revealed to be religious based discrimination and a general dislike of LGBT individuals by the Christianists. Regardless of the Christianists' disingenous claims - both at trial and apparently in the filing with the 9th Circuit - that they they bear no animus towards gays and lesbians, the facts and evidence entered in the trial demonstrated clearly otherwise. A column in Huffington Post reiterates this reality that religious/moral disapproval of a minority does NOT justify depriving that minority of equal CIVIL rights. Again, despite all their whining and posturing with bogus experts, the supporters of Prop 8 have nothing except their personal opinions and religious beliefs to back up their desire to penalize and punish gays for not living their lives and forming their relationships in accordance with Christianist religious beliefs. Here are some highlights:
*
[Notre Dame Law School Professor Gerard]Bradley's attack on Judge Walker as unfit to decide the case if the reports of him being gay were accurate has received considerable attention, but Bradley and Whelan's attack on the trial itself is equally revealing. Bradley explained in his 2003 National Review article "Stand and Fight: Don't Take Gay Marriage Lying Down" why he feared a trial by any judge. The fundamental problem for the anti-gay forces was the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas declaring unconstitutional the state law making consensual adult sodomy a crime. The Supreme Court decision confirmed its unwillingness to treat "traditional attitudes towards homosexuality" as legitimate bases for discriminating against gays.
*
Bradley recognizes that whether we describe these "traditional attitudes" as revulsion, discrimination, or homophobia, they provide no rational basis for laws that discriminate against homosexuals.
*
Indeed, Scalia's dissent proved the point that the majority made in Lawrence -- the majority was discriminating because it despised a minority group, a classic violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Bradley warned his readers that trying to prove to a court that there was a "rational basis" for discriminating against gays was a disastrous legal strategy.
*
This is why opponents of homosexual marriage are desperate to avoid any trial in which they would be required to support their claims that such marriages would harm heterosexuals' marriages. Note that the disasters that Bradley fears are not televised hearings or the harassment of experts testifying in opposition to homosexual marriage. The disaster he fears is any fair trial because it will expose the fact the attacks on gays are baseless. He recognizes that this will cause immense harm to those that wish to discriminate against homosexuals by exposing their bias and by demonstrating that gays are normal rather than demonic.
*
Bradley's primary strategy is passage of a constitutional amendment removing the protection of the 14th amendment from homosexuals who wish to marry. His secondary strategy, which he believes would fail, is to create a new "natural law" theory that would provide a rational basis for the return of even the most draconian forms of discrimination against gays.
*
Bradley and Robert George, a fellow new natural law theorist, have acknowledged in their articles, the "rational basis" for prohibiting homosexual marriage that they claim arise from their theories cannot be demonstrated. . . . This is why those hostile to gay rights feared a trial on Proposition 8 rather than relishing the opportunity to back up their claims in court.
*
Regardless of what happens in the short term in respect to Judge Walker's ruling in Perry, in the long term the dam has been broken and a full blown trial with high media coverage has sent the message to many more Americans that there is no legitimate reason - and religious belief is NOT a legitimate reason - to deprive same sex couples of full equality. Ted Olsen and David Boies did a masterful job of documenting the lack of any non-religious justification for Prop 8 - or any other anti-gay laws or state constitutional amendments.

Friday Male Beauty

Family Reunion Weekend

UPDATED: We arrived safely in Somerset and spoke with the friend staying at our house while we are gone and confirmed that all is well on the home front. We brought food with us for a multitude and had a nice dinner this evening at the home of the boyfriend's aunt near Shanksville. Then we came back into town and had an after dinner drink (or two) with our friends who we see each year for the informal "yah yah brotherhood" reunion. Tomorrow there is a huge antique show in the center of town surrounding the courthouse (pictured below). After that, we will head back out to Shanksville for my father in law's family reunion. Tomorrow evening we will again likely end the day by getting together with Dennis, Douglas, Jon and David for some more catching up. The weather was wonderfully cool this afternoon with temperatures in the low 70's - a wonderful break from yesterday's 98 degrees in Norfolk.

We are headed off this morning to the boyfriend's dual family reunions in the Somerset, Pennsylvania area - his dad's family reunion is tomorrow and his mom's on Sunday. While there we will see our friends Dennis and Douglas (Douglas is the one who lets us use his place in NYC). Tomorrow's event is at a location a mile from the Flight 93 memorial - the boyfriend's aunt heard the plane go down in fact. The photo above is the County Court House which sits on a commanding hilltop location.

*

I should have some Internet access over the weekend and I will post as possible. I am definitely hoping for cooler weather after this week's blast furnace temperatures here in Tidewater.

Gay Marriages Resume in California - It's Decision Time for Obama

Judge Walker has ruled that he will not stay his decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and, therefore, same sex marriages will resume in California starting on August 19, 2010. Walker's decision to allow marriages to resume is due largely to his view that the non-governmental Prop 8 supporters cannot appeal unless the State of California in the form of the governor or the attorney general files an appeal. It comes down tot he "standing" issue I've previously discussed on this blog and in related posts at The Bilerico Project. Needless to say, the Christo-fascists are none too happy (see the photo above) and claim that Judge Walker mocks God. Meanwhile, of course, they totally mock the U.S. Constitution and forget that this nation is governed by the civil secular laws, not their twisted and hate based version of Christianity. The Virginian Pilot has this on Judge Walker's latest ruling:
*
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.
*
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.
*
Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed an request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday.
*
San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, who during the trial helped argue that Proposition 8 should be overturned, said that while it will not be up to Walker to decide the eligibility issue, "it's very realistic" that the 9th Circuit could reach the same conclusion.
*
As previously discussed here, the Ninth Circuit would seem to have the case law precedent to readily refuse review of Judge Walker's ruling. Such a refusal could set the stage for a similar rejection of the Prop 8 supporter's efforts by the U.S. Supreme Court.
*
With this setting, the time has come for Barack Obama to declare once and for all whether he is friend or foe of the LGBT community and LGBT Americans. The days of his parsing words and trying to be only half pregnant if you will are over. Having alienated so much of the activist base of his own party, Obama's continued defense of bans on gay marriage are a "deal breaker" for me and I am moving more and more towards hoping Obama has a primary challenge in the run up to the 2012 presidential election. Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly has a good analysis as to why Obama has come to a crossroads where he must put up or shut up and poses four questions that Obama must now answer. Here are highlights from Chris' article:
*
The caution bred by seeing gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has preached about ''curing'' homosexuality, on the campaign trail and Pastor Rick Warren, who endorsed Proposition 8, at the inauguration turned into suspicion or even distrust. This was seen many times, most clearly in the lackluster LGBT response to the Obama administration's action on hospital visitation and the animosity in some corners to the certification language in the ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' compromise amendment.
*
Over the course of the next two or three months, however, marriage – whether Obama wants to deal with it or not – is very much going to be an issue for the Obama administration. What's more, Obama did not hold and, from Axelrod's comments, continues not to hold the view that most LGBT Americans and liberal activists wish he held.
*
The way in which Obama handles the appeals of these [DOMA]cases is likely to have a long-lasting, if not permanent, effect on his relationship with the LGBT community. As was clear at the LGBT media meeting with Barnes, communication – or the lack thereof – will be key. But, substance must underlie that communication if it is to be effective.
*
In addressing these cases, four substantive questions to be answered by the administration are:
*
Will the Justice Department appeal the decisions in Gill and Massachusetts, thus continuing to defend the validity of Section 3 of DOMA in the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals?
*
Will Obama take an individual position on the constitutionality of DOMA, and what is it?
*
Will Obama take an individual position on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and what is it?
*
Will the Obama administration address its views on Proposition 8 to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through the filing of an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief in any appeal of Perry?
*
Regardless of whether Obama or Axelrod believe or want it to be so, two judges in three lawsuits have put same-sex marriage front and center on the national stage. Pretending it not to be so is no answer, and failing to communicate more effectively and substantively about the administration's actions and Obama's positions regarding same-sex marriage could be disastrous.
*
Although Obama may say he no longer favors legalizing same-sex marriages, he has opposed restrictions on those marriages as discriminatory and promised to work toward equality for same-sex couples.
*
I and many, many others in the LGBT community are watching and waiting. If Obama continues to throw us under the bus again, he's likely lost my support permanently - he lost my trust long before now. It's up to him to prove that he's not just another cynical, lying politician who has played the LGBT community for a bunch of suckers.

More Thursday Male Beauty

Pope Rejects Resignations of Irish Bishops

If Barack Obama is seeking con solution in the context of his apparent tone deafness and seeming deliberate alienation of would be supporters, he now has the shining example of Pope Benedict XVI who has shown even more idiocy and disregard for public opinion in the form of his decision to not accept the resignations of Irish bishops who were excoriated by the government reports that investigated the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy. Unlike Obama, Benedict, who rules as the equivalent of a supreme dictator and who has no 60 Senate votes to worry about amazingly has decided to retain bishops that if anything need to be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for lengthy periods. Politics Daily noted in part as follows:
*
If Pope Benedict XVI is trying to dig the Catholic Church out of the sex abuse scandal, he only seems to be making the hole deeper.
*
That's the apparent consensus after it was reported that the pope has rejected the resignations of two bishops in Ireland who asked to quit last December after they were named in an independent report for their lack of diligence and action in the country's awful history of the sexual and physical abuse of children by priests.
*
Other analysts suggested that behind the Vatican's rejection was the fear of a "domino effect" in which any bishop or cardinal implicated in the abuse crisis could be pushed to resign, which is a nightmare scenario to a tradition-minded pope like Benedict XVI.
*
"In other words, there may still be many Irish bishops with 'mishandling/bureaucratic,' sex abuse skeletons still in the cupboard who would also have to resign," Paddy Agnew wrote in The Irish Times. That would be fine with sex abuse victims, who were outraged at the decision to reject the resignations.

*
Media reaction was blistering as well. Writing in The Herald of Ireland, Terry Prone accused the Vatican of "arrogance." He said the way the news was communicated was typical of the Vatican, and said that "somewhere along the line, the officer class in the Catholic Church decided they no longer needed to explain and persuade and motivate. They could just tell the faithful. Or not tell them, as in this case."
*
"Latest Papal diktat spells doom for people's church" ran the headline in John Cooney's column in the Irish Independent, while Kevin Clarke, writing on the blog of America magazine, a leading Catholic weekly in the United States, searched for an explanation.
*
A letter to the editor in the Irish Times summed up popular feeling as follows:
*
In refusing to accept their resignations Pope Benedict is showing his contempt for our attempts in Ireland to heal the immense human suffering and damage to the church with which we have been left to grapple.
*
The continued presence of these men in any capacity in the hierarchy of the church sends a strange and confused message to all of us. Following so closely on the proclamation that the ordination of women into the priesthood would constitute grave sin, I am left wondering how the pontiff defines sin. Leaving the specious categorisation of sin as sacramental sin and moral sin aside, I wonder about Christ’s teaching on those who harm children and whether they have read that in Rome?
*
The conduct of the Pope and the Church hierarchy in refusing to deal honestly and credibly with the sex abuse scandal is the principal reason I chose to leave the Roman Catholic Church. I simply got tired of feeling dirty by my mere association with such a morally bankrupt institution. Barack Obama's endless broken campaign promises are the principal reasons I wonder how much longer I will consider myself a Democrat. Independent and/or political cynic seems to best describe my political leanings. I don't do well with liars and arrogance.

Costa Rican court: Legislators, Not Voters, Can Decide on Gay Marriage

While still lagging far behind other parts of Latin America such as Argentina and Mexico City in terms of gay equality under the civil laws, Costa Rica's Supreme Court has grasp a concept still lost by the majority of courts in the USA: the rights of a minority are not to be put up to a vote where the prejudices and bigotry of the majority may block or strip minorities of civil rights. This development arose out of an effort to place a referendum on the national ballot that would bar same sex marriage. The Costa Rica Supreme Court struck down the effort and said it was unconstitutional. Are you folks in Maine and elsewhere listening? The Advocate has coverage on the court decision as does the U.S. Catholic which not surprisingly notes that the Roman Catholic Church has its panties in a knot over the issue. First these highlights from The Advocate:
*
The top court in Costa Rica on Tuesday ruled against a proposed referendum that would have asked voters to decide if the country should recognize same-sex civil unions, the Associated Press reports.
*
In a 5-2 vote, the constitutional court said that a referendum planned for December would put a minority group—gay people—at a disadvantage. It also ruled that civil unions are a legislative issue, not an electoral one.
*

These additional details come from US Catholic:
*
The majority (of the court) considers that the rights of minorities cannot be subject to a referendum process where the majority decide," the judges said. "The court believes that persons in a same-sex marriage belong to a disadvantaged group and are the object of discrimination, which requires the help of the public powers to recognize their constitutional rights."
*
Judges also noted that a negative vote by the electorate would violate international treaties, as Costa Rica would be seen as acting counter to basic human rights. Under Costa Rican law, international treaties supersede the country's constitution.
*
Costa Rica is following a trend in Latin America to move toward the recognition of same-sex marriages. Such marriages have been legal in Argentina since July, and, much to the dismay of church officials, the Mexican Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in Mexico City.
*
The Catholic Church in Costa Rica has responded to the decision by saying that it does not resolve the issue going forward and that the church will continue to stand in opposition of gay unions because they don't coincide with the word of God.

Hispanic Media Turns on Obama

I realize that I have been - and continue to be - very critical of Barack Obama's leadership. At times he seems more concerned with trying to appease the far right of the GOP which will hate him and endeavor to destroy him no matter what he does than he is concerned about pushing initiatives to those who put him in office. At this point many in the LGBT community, many environmental groups, and many in the labor movement are feeling very disillusioned with their "fierce advocate." Now, add to that list the Hispanic community. One would almost believe that Obama is out to destroy the allegiance of the party base by his across the board failure to deliver on campaign promises. Personally, I don't know whether it's Obama's White House advisers who are to blame or if its Obama himself. Regardless of where the bad decisions are coming from, the threat to the larger party remains the same. Here are highlights from Politico from on the Hispanic media's active sense of betrayal by Obama:
*
President Barack Obama has lost the most trusted man in the Hispanic media. Univision’s Jorge Ramos, an anchor on the nation’s largest Spanish-language television network, says Obama broke his promise to produce an immigration reform bill within a year of taking office. And Latinos are tired of the speeches, disillusioned by the lack of White House leadership and distrustful of the president, Ramos told POLITICO.
*
“He has a credibility problem right now with Latinos,” Ramos said. “We’ll see what the political circumstances are in a couple of years, but there is a serious credibility problem.”
*
Ramos has been called the Walter Cronkite of Spanish-language media, an unparalleled nationwide voice for Hispanics. And just like the famed CBS newsman’s commentary helped turn the country against the Vietnam War, Ramos may be on the leading edge of a movement within the Hispanic media to challenge the president on immigration — a shift that some observers believe is contributing to Obama’s eroding poll numbers among Latino voters.
*
The editorials and commentary from the Spanish-language media have been brutal since April, when Arizona passed its controversial immigration enforcement law — a moment that crystallized a sense of urgency among Latinos but also underscored how little progress the White House had made on reform.
*
“Words matter,” Telemundo anchor Jose Diaz-Balart said in April on NBC’s “Meet the Press” — adding that Obama’s campaign promise, known as “La Promesa de Obama,” has gone unfulfilled. “We haven’t seen it.”
*
“It is unprecedented what Spanish-language media has been doing over the past several months,” Cancela said in an interview. “Many in the administration thought there was a cozy relationship and the Spanish-language media would play the role of quiet cooperator. It has been a wake-up call.”
*
They [Latino voters] held great hopes for the president — given his promise in a May 2008 interview with Ramos to draft an immigration reform bill during his first year in office — but he has deeply disappointed them so far. “Latinos voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, and they expected him to keep his promise and he broke his promise,” said Ramos, author of the recently released book “A Country for All: An Immigrant Manifesto.”
*
The swing in opinion couldn’t come at a worse time for Democrats, who need a strong Latino turnout in November if they hope to maintain control of Congress. That voting bloc could be decisive in dozens of competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial races across the West, according to a report by America’s Voice, an immigration reform advocacy group. But polls show signs of trouble.
*
Editorial page editors and Spanish-language journalists told POLITICO that their coverage reflects rising frustration in their community. For years, they said, Democratic leaders told Hispanics to be patient; now, their patience has run out.
*
At the same time, the Obama administration is set to deport more illegal immigrants this year than during the last year of the Bush administration, expelling otherwise law-abiding workers and tearing families apart.
*
Not that it's any great consolation, but the LGBT community is not the only portion of the Democratic Party base to be deliberate thrown under the bus by the Obama administration. If the Democrats are decimated in the November mid-terms, much of the blame for the debacle will be able to be summed up by two words: "Barack Obama." It's far past time that Obama boot Rick Warren from his circle of advisors and if Rahm Emanuel and/or others are involved in the decsions that are pissing off the entire party base, they need to be shown the door as well.

Thursday Male Beauty

Victor Fehrenbach Sues to Block Discharge Under DADT

Living in this heavily military region, I run into service members frequently - i.e., several times a week or more - who live with the cloud of DADT hanging over their head. With even 56% of Republicans supporting repeal of DADT, one has to wonder WTF is wrong with our "fierce advocate" in the White House and Congressional Democrats. Why the fear of repealing a bad policy that up to 77% of Democrats support? Is it really that important to give Elaine Donnelly and similar religious extremists an orgasm every time a highly qualified LGBT service member is discharged? For many in this area, the failure to repeal DADT is a daily reminder of Obama's many broken promises and his utter lack of any real leadership on this issue - indeed, on most issues. With Dan Choi recently discharged, Victor Fehrenbach has filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin his discharge. The false accusation made against him to ruin his career is sadly all too typical of the reality under DADT. I have had clients who suffered similar false allegations levied against them simply to destroy their careers. The New York Times has coverage on the development. Here are some highlights:
*
In early 2008, just eight days before he was to deploy in support of the war in Afghanistan, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a decorated Air Force flight officer, was told he was under investigation on charges of sexually assaulting a civilian and of violating the military’s ban on homosexuality.
*
Within three weeks, the sexual assault allegation was dismissed for lack of evidence. But the Air Force investigation into his sexuality continued. Now, just a year from completing his 20th year in the military, Colonel Fehrenbach, 40, believes he is about to be discharged under the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He would be among the highest-ranking service members discharged under the policy.
*
On Wednesday, Colonel Fehrenbach’s lawyers filed papers in Idaho federal court requesting a temporary order blocking his discharge. The petition contends that a discharge would violate Colonel Fehrenbach’s rights, cause him irreparable harm and fail to meet standards established in a 2008 federal court ruling on don’t ask, don’t tell.
*
For advocates of abolishing the ban against gay men, lesbians and bisexuals serving openly, Colonel Fehrenbach’s case has become something of a line in the sand.
*
Lawyers for Colonel Fehrenbach assert that his case is among the most egregious applications of the policy in their experience. The Air Force investigation into his sexuality began with a complaint from a civilian that was eventually dismissed by the Idaho police and the local prosecutor as unfounded, according to court papers. Colonel Fehrenbach has never publicly said that he is gay.
*
His lawyers also assert that his case underscores the ways the ban hurts military readiness, the very thing it is supposed to protect. They say that Colonel Fehrenbach’s performance reviews were consistently glowing, including his most recent one, which says he was a “proven leader” who “raised morale” in his unit, according to papers filed by his lawyers.
*
“The evidence is that he is a benefit to the Air Force and to his unit,” said M. Andrew Woodmansee, a San Diego-based lawyer who is serving as co-counsel for Colonel Fehrenbach, along with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group representing gays in the military.
*
Colonel Fehrenbach’s case rests heavily on a 2008 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which the court ruled that an Air Force major had been improperly discharged. The ruling in the case, Witt vs. Department of the Air Force, said that discharging service members for their sexuality was unconstitutional unless the government showed the discharge was necessary to significantly further an important government interest. The Witt ruling applies only to cases in the Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho.
*
This entire situation of unrelenting witch hunts for gays makes me furious and frankly I am beginning to believe that electing Hillary Clinton would have been the better course of action. She once stated that Obama wasn't strong enough to be president, and time has proved her accurate. Obama is no leader and he seems be doing his best to utterly demoralize the Democratic Party base on a daily basis. I'd like to see Hillary challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012. We need a leader, not a follower.

A Birthday and Wonderful Friends

Today is my birthday - frankly, I am at the point where I prefer to try to pretend that they are not happening - and last night we had a wonderful prelude to today. Back in the Spring when the boyfriend and I hosted Dining Out for Life to benefit ACCESS AIDS Care at Brent's in downtown Hampton, the restaurant donated "chef's table" dinner for four as a silent auction item. The boyfriend and a friend ended up placing the high bids. Last night we along with two dear friends used the prize and it was amazing. A copy of the menu is set out above (click the image to enlarge it). For local readers or anyone who will be visiting the area, I highly recommend Brent's for an elegant yet reasonable priced dining experience.

*

Today will be hectic as we get ready to go out of town tomorrow to head to the boyfriend's family reunions in the Somerset, Pennsylvania area. It's not too a bad drive and the prospect of cooler weather is welcoming - it was around 100 again yesterday and is already 81 at 6:30 am this morning. A young friend will be staying at the house to baby sit the dog, keep the boyfriend's many potted plants watered since we've had little rain to go with the extreme heat, and otherwise tend the yard.

Wednesday Male Beauty

White House Bashes Liberals in Defending Its Many Broken Promises

Silly me. I thought Barack Obama was not the typical politician who will say whatever is necessary to get elected and then turn his back on those who put him in office. Stupidly, I actually fell for the lines he repeated during the campaign about delivering full equality to LGBT Americans. Two years later, we all know that Obama's campaign promises are about as good as a three dollar bill. And now our self-described "fierce advocate" is peevish because I and others like me are none too happy realizing that we were lied to. I did reluctantly attend the local Democrat Committee last night and one thing I seem to keep discovering is that the dissatisfaction of the LGBT community with Obama seems to run all across the various elements of the Democratic Party base. Faced with discontent and lack of enthusiasm across the party, what has Obama decided to do? Attack the party base through his hapless press secretary, Robert Gibbs. The Hill reports as follows concerning Gibbs' remarks:
*
The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.
*
During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.
*
The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”
*
The White House, constantly under fire from expected enemies on the right, has been frustrated by nightly attacks on cable news shows catering to the left, where Obama and top lieutenants like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have been excoriated for abandoning the public option in healthcare reform; for not moving faster to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay; and for failing, so far, to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
*
Just last week, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow described Obama political adviser David Axelrod as a “human pretzel” for his explanation of the administration’s position on gay marriage. Axelrod had explained that Obama opposes same-sex marriage but favors equal benefits for partners in gay relationships.
*

The sin of those who have criticized Obama? Believing that words have meaning and that promises are just that, promises and not something to be discarded when they become inconvenient. In what I view as a misguided column in the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus sides with Gibbs and the White House. To me, however, what is more telling is what some of Obama's critics are saying whom Marcus quotes. Here are some highlights:
*
Apparently not. Responding to Gibbs, Jane Hamsher, of the blog Firedoglake, derided Obama's record of "corporatist capitulation" and noted, "Spiro Agnew -- sorry, Robert Gibbs -- says ‘the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.' Well, the Obama in the White House is not representative of the Obama who organized, campaigned, raised money and ran for office, so I guess it's a wash."
*
Marcus does get one thing right, however, when she says this:
*
In the old days of press-bashing, it was sound advice not to argue with people who buy ink by the barrel. The Gibbs backlash shows how foolhardy it is to argue with people who don't even have to buy ink.
*
The Democrats up for election need the base energized. Attacking their spokesperson is not exactly a means to accomplish that. In deed, it is doing the exact opposite.

More DADT Casualties - A Top West Point Cadet and a Navy Sailor

The blatantly religious based (and I would argue, unconstitutional) discrimination policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell apparently has racked up two new casualties. This time it's a top rated cadet at West Point and a Navy sailor who foolishly had a photo of his boyfriend on his cell phone. And who benefits? Of course, no one except self-congratulatory Christianist who give Christianity a bad name and whose ultimate goal is to undermine the U.S. Constitution. I'm sure Elaine Donnelly had an orgasm over the news. And what about our "fierce advocate in the White House? He's apparently sitting around with his thumb stuck somewhere I won't mention. These incidents of legalized religious discrimination disgust me and based on the e-mails I have received from readers have truly outraged a number of folks. First, here are some highlights from Pam Spaulding on the decision of Cadet Katherine Miller (ranked 9th in her class) to out herself and resigned from West Point:
*
Ranked # 9 in her class overall, she routinely "super-maxes" her physical fitness tests. One of her blogs was featured in the Sunday print edition of the Washington Post as part of "The Gray Zone: West Point on Leadership." In her resignation letter, she cites the kinds of experiences she is unwilling to continue to endure: I have created a heterosexual dating history to recite to fellow cadets when they inquire. I have endured unwanted approaches by male cadets for fear of being accused as a lesbian by rejecting or reporting these events. I have been coerced into ignoring derogatory comments towards homosexuals for fear of being alienated for my viewpoint. In short, I have lied to my classmates and compromised my integrity and my identity by adhering to existing military policy.
*
Miller will be transferring to Yale University this fall on a Point Foundation Scholarship. She has indicated her desire to become an Army Officer should the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy be removed, and gay and lesbian people allowed to serve freely. "This is a loss to the Academy and to the Army," said Becky Kanis, West Point '91. Kanis is Chair of Knights Out, and a former Captain and company commander. "We keep losing talented people needlessly while we wait for the Pentagon's 'review.' " Miller has been blogging anonymously about lesbian culture at West Point at velvetparkmedia.com as "Private Second Class Citizen."
*
Five star General Douglas MacArthur is buried here in Norfolk and when one visits the MacArthur Memorial - which is an interesting tourist stop, by the way - one hears much about "duty, honor, country." It's hard to uphold honor when service members are forced to live a lie so that religious bigots can feel better about themselves.
*
The second DADT casualty is Jarod McIntosh who had been serving his country aboard a Navy submarine. His offense? He was discovered to be gay via a photo of his boyfriend on his cell phone. Queerity has these details:
*
He's being discharged from the Navy because he accidentally brought his camera-equipped cell phone into a submarine, which is a restricted area. Yes, that was a dumb move. But even dumber is what happened afterward.
*
His superiors confiscated his phone to ensure it didn't contain any classified material. It didn't. But there were what sounds like intimate photos of Jared and his boyfriend Doug. Jared is being discharged not for breaking the rules about bringing audio-video equipment into a restricted area, but for being gay. He's appealing the separation.
*
A video clip of McIntosh discussing the situation can be found here.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Afghanistan: Your U.S. Tax Dollars at Work (Warning: Graphic Photo)

As any reader who has read this blog for any period of time, it's no secret that I believe that the USA's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq have always been nothing more than a delusional fool's errand sold to the American public via the deliberate lies of Chimperator George W. Bush - the nation's village idiot - and Emperor Palpatine Cheney whose moral standards seem to mirror those of Darth Vader at his worse. If the U.S. was going to do anything, we needed to do limited, surgical strikes to take out and cripple elements of Al Qaeda. That would have struck back against those who launched a terror attack on the USA. Sadly, Barack Obama is continuing the Chimperator's fool's errand and - I believe in the long run - sowing seeds of long term anti-USA hatred. I will be the first to admit that our enemies in Al Qaeda and the Taliban are committing horrific atrocities. But without the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, would their be so many atrocities, or has the USA's presence increased and intensified them? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, the USA is committing its own atrocities that will only engender hatred towards us for many years. The following photo is of civilian victims of a U.S. air strike gone bad. It is graphic and disturbing, but every American needs to know what is being done in their name.
* Andrew Sullivan notes as follows concerning this photo :
*
Asan Bibi, 9, (R) and her sister Salima,13, (L) stand in the hallway of Mirwais hospital October 13, 2009 Kandahar, Afghanistan. Both were burned when a helicopter fired into their tent in the middle of the night on October 3rd, according to their father. Three members of the family were killed in the incident. The family belongs to the Kuchi ethnic tribe, nomads living in tents out in the open desert whom are very vulnerable to a war they have little understanding of.
*
Each and every American bears some responsibility for this horror. With two daughters of my own, words do not begin to describe the unrelenting hatred I would bear towards anyone or any nation that did this to one or more of my children. And Obama thinks we are winning? Would he be making the same disingenuous statements if one of his daughters was the deformed girl in the photo? I suspect not. And again, I can only ponder WTF is wrong with him? It's far past time that he stops listening to the bullshit emanating from the Pentagon. Here are more of Andrew Sullivan's thoughts on the Afghanistan nightmare:
*
As we fight an unwinnable war in an ungovernable country, the enemy simply ratchets up the evil by targeting more and more innocent civilians, especially women and children. . . . then you see an image like that above (having scanned many of them I feel numb from the images of agony and despair) which was the result of a Coalition air-strike gone awry and you see the awful, horrible, gut-wrenching moral dilemma we are in.
*
I still favor withdrawal as soon as possible. I do not in any way discount the moral price. If I thought there was any way to win, my calculus might change. But I don't. And we're broke. And evil like this occurs tragically every day all over the world. The art of politics and warfare is the art of the possible within certain limits. We've reached them - and then some. It gives me no pleasure to say this, and my heart is torn. But politics is not the art of the heart in the end. It's the art of the mind.

American Bar Association Urges All States to Allow Gay Marriage

While the boyfriend cynically said that the motivation is that the divorce bar wants to get in on the action in same sex splits (currently such splits are governed by simple contract and property law law), the American Bar Association ("ABA"),at its annual meeting in San Francisco, adopted a resolution today calling upon all states in the USA to allow same sex couples to marry. Whatever the motivation, I applaud the ABA's action and hope that the resolution may perhaps make a few people reconsider their opposition to gay marriage. Obviously, the action will have no impact on the far right Christianists who view homophobia as a cash cow and a means to make themselves feel morally superior to others. The Los Angeles Times has coverage on the ABA action. Here are some highlights:
*
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The country's largest lawyers' group has backed a resolution calling on all state legislatures to let same-sex couples get married.
*
The American Bar Association voted at its annual meeting Tuesday in San Francisco to support the measure sponsored by the New York State Bar Association. New York State Bar Association President Stephen P. Younger says the resolution passed overwhelmingly, with only one speaker voicing opposition during debate.
*
As The American Foundation for Equal Rights (which backed the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger) noted in relevant part as follows to the San Francisco Sentinel,
*
By approving a resolution in support of marriage equality, the ABA has confirmed what the federal courts, the state’s chief executive and the state’s chief law enforcement officer have determined in Perry v. Schwarzenegger—that excluding gay men and lesbians from marriage violates their constitutional right to due process and equal protection and causes significant harm to them and their families.

All Mexican States Must Recognize Gay Marriages

Mexico just rocketed ahead of the USA. Its Supreme Court ruled today that ALL states in Mexico must recognized same sex marriage that are performed in Mexico City (the Court upheld that law last week) even if those other states do not authorize gay marriages themselves. This is obviously what should be the case in the USA and what would be the case but for the federal DOMA and - in my view - unconstitutional state DOMA laws and anti-gay state constitutional amendments like Virginia's. Many in the USA like to look down on Mexico, but as of today, Mexico makes a mockery of the false freedom of religion that this country claims to have for all. Unless, of course you are gay and don't live your life in accordance with the religious views of Christo-fascists. It is but one more example why I keep asking this question of Barack Obama: WTF is wrong with you? Here are highlights from the Washington Post on today's ruling in Mexico:
*
MEXICO CITY -- Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples in their territory. In a 9-2 decision, the tribunal cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere.
*
Mexico City's same-sex marriage law, enacted in March, extends to wedded gay couples the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses' insurance policies. Some of those [e.g., adoption] may end up applying only in the capital.
*
One more country moves ahead of the USA. One can only wonder how many more will make the USA look backward and homophobic before full legal equality under the civil laws is available to all Americans.

Tuesday Male Beauty

Hoover's Granddaughter - Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage

Margaret Hoover - whose grandfather, Herbert Hoover was clearly on the wrong side of history economically as the USA fell into the Great Depression - has an op-ed piece at Fox News that chides Republicans and so-called conservatives to think twice before they launch into further opposition of gay marriage. In the long term her piece makes perfect sense: the younger generations of voters support same sex marriage, so long term the issue is a loser. The question thus becomes one of whether or not the GOP/conservatives will put short turn opportunism and demagoguery ahead of long term common sense. So far, the GOP seems to care nothing about the long term view and would rather look to short term opportunities to gay bait and court a generation of voters that is literally dying off. Here are highlights from Hoover's column:
*
As a conservative Republican representing the next generation of attitudes towards gays and lesbians, I encouraged the readers of FoxNews.com last January to take a careful look at the arguments and evidence in the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
*
The case was presented by a constitutional conservative, Ted Olson, who helped found the Federalist Society, successfully argued Bush v. Gore to the Supreme Court (among fifty-five other cases), and was George W. Bush’s Solicitor General. Working with his Democratic legal partner David Boies, Olson sought to prove that marriage equality is a constitutional question, not a partisan issue.
*
Among the seventeen witnesses Olson and Boies called to the stand were experts in areas of psychology, political science, economics, socio medical sciences and history. Economists testified to the economic harm caused to same-sex couples and their children; political scientists to their political vulnerability; sociologists and psychologists to the societal stigma associated with homosexuality; historians to the history of marriage shedding its discriminatory restrictions over time.
*
Other testimony included Ryan Kendal, a young gay man who failed a “conversion therapy” attempt to alter his sexuality from gay to straight and the Republican Mayor of San Diego, a former police chief, who testified that “if government tolerates discrimination against anyone for any reason, it becomes an excuse for the public to do exactly the same thing.”
*
Surprisingly, the defense’s two lone witnesses also offered compelling reasons to favor of marriage equality. They testified that allowing homosexuals to marry would increase family stability and improve the lives of their children; that sexual orientation is unchangeable; that gays and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination, including Prop 8.
*
The irony of this case is that Judge Walker is not a liberal activist judge but one whose career has proven him to be a tempered judge, true to the Reagan-Bush conservative jurisprudence that he was nominated to represent on the bench.
*
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right. When an unpopular minority is denied the right to marry, it is indeed the role of the courts to protect the rights of that minority, especially when a majority would deny them. This is why Judge Walker’s opinion reads, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
*
[C]onservatives have a flawed history with civil rights, a trend that began when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional. . . . The potential consequence that conservatives land on the wrong side of civil rights history again is the alienation of an entire generation of voters. With polling definitively indicating that Americans under age 30 overwhelmingly favor gay rights, with a majority supporting gay marriage according to the Pew Millennial Attitudes report published in February this year, there are multiple reasons for conservatives to think carefully before digging in their heels against gay marriage.

*

It's a shame that Hoover seems light years ahead of Barack Obama on this issue.