Saturday, April 09, 2011
Not Surprisingly Tim Kaine Will Not Commit on Gay AdoptionCouples Adopting
While I will concede that Tim Kaine is preferable as a U.S. Senator over say George Allen or some Tea Party lunatic, he is not the strongest of LGBT advocates. He certainly was not as Governor of Virginia when he did nothing but lip service in terms of enforcing his own Executive Order that allegedly protected state employees from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Thus, I am anything but surprised that Kaine will not commit on the issue of gay couples adopting - a fire storm that has the Christofascists at The Family Foundation in hyperventilation and their mouth pieces like Del. Bob Marshall all but calling for the Christianist version of Sharia law. True, Kaine will be running for a federal rather than state office. But, if Kaine had any guts, he'd unequivocally state that there is nowhere under the U.S. Constitution for those acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia or receiving a single dollar of state, federal or local funding to discriminate against gays because of the organization's religious based bigotry. Either stop discriminating or cease acting in place of the state and/or accepting a dollar of taxpayer derived funding. The Washington Post looks at Kaine's game of silence (SIDE NOTE: actually Virginia law is silent on the issue of gay couples adopting and/or second gay parents adopting and there are no reported court decision on the issue. Most of my clients adopt in gay friendly states and then return to Virginia):*
U.S. Senate candidate Tim Kaine dodged a question this week on whether he believes gay couples should be able to adopt children in Virginia despite being consistently opposed to unmarried couples — heterosexual or homosexual — adopting in the past.
*
“No couples in Virginia can adopt other than a married couple -- that’s the right policy,’’ Kaine said in 2005 when running for governor. “Gay individuals should be able to adopt.”
*
But asked twice about the issue at a news conference this week, Kaine declined to answer whether he supports gay couples adopting children.
*
Kaine, who resigned Tuesday as chairman of the Democratic National Committee to begin his Senate campaign, said he supports a proposed regulation initiated when he was governor that would prohibit private and faith-based groups, such as Catholic Charities and Jewish Family Services, from discriminating against gay parents. But, Kaine said, it would not allow unmarried couple to adopt, because that is barred by Virginia law.
*
“It was started during my time as governor without my active involvement although I definitely support it,’’ Kaine told reporters at his first news conference as a candidate this week. “I will state unequivocally I do not believe that agencies that work in adoption should discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation or any other grounds other than the best interest of the child. That should the be the criteria.”
*
The proposed regulation, according to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s office, would require that unmarried couples — heterosexual or homosexual — be able to adopt because no agencies, including faith-based groups would be able to turn them away. But Kaine says he disagrees with that interpretation.
*
Fifty-seven Republican members of the House of Delegates, including Speaker Bill Howell (Stafford) and Majority Leader Kirk Cox (Colonial Heights) sent McDonnell a letter asking him “to do everything in his authority” to kill the regulations.
*
The Human Rights Campaign, along with the North American Council on Adoptable Children and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, also sent letters to McDonnell and social services board members asking for the regulations to be enacted.
*
“This is about children, not about politics,” HRC President Joe Solmonese said. “Thousands of children could finally find their forever families and have the opportunity for a happy, healthy life if these regulations are enacted. We ask the governor to think about the children and we hope the State Board of Social Services is ultimately guided by the best practices established by the child welfare profession, and not by discriminatory motivations that create barriers to permanent families for Virginia’s children.”
*
It is important to recognize that the real issues for the Christianists/Republicans is not about the best interests of children, religious freedom or any of the things they claim. Rather, it is all about keeping gay couples inferior under the laws of Virginia. Currently, our relationships receive less recognition than my ownership of my pet Chihuahua.
GOP Budget Plan: Ridiculous and Cruel
As many long time readers will recall, there once was a time I was an active member of the GOP. That was in the days before (1) the GOP became a sectarian party controlled by far right Christianist extremists and (2) when fiscal conservatism meant more than smoke and mirrors and targeting the most needy in society for heartless financial brutalization. It was also back before the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves was a matter of sacred creed within the GOP. Paul Krugman has a column in the New York Times that calls out the GOP plan that will likely continue to be pressed after a week's reprieve of a government shutdown for what it really is. Of course the other aspect of the push for fiscal austerity is the fact that if the GOP gets the massive spending cuts it wants, it could kill the fragile and mediocre economic recovery - something that seems to be occurring in the UK. Here are highlights from Krugman's column:*
[T]he G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, it’s simultaneously ridiculous and heartless. How ridiculous is it? Let me count the ways — or rather a few of the ways, because there are more howlers in the plan than I can cover in one column.
*
First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics — the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.
*
A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.
*
It turns out that Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are assuming drastic cuts in nonhealth spending without explaining how that is supposed to happen. How drastic? . . . . less than we currently spend on defense alone; it’s not much bigger than federal spending when Calvin Coolidge was president, and the United States, among other things, had only a tiny military establishment. How could such a drastic shrinking of government take place without crippling essential public functions? The plan doesn’t say.
*
And then there’s the much-ballyhooed proposal to abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers that can be used to buy private health insurance. The point here is that privatizing Medicare does nothing, in itself, to limit health-care costs. In fact, it almost surely raises them by adding a layer of middlemen. Yet the House plan assumes that we can cut health-care spending as a percentage of G.D.P. despite an aging population and rising health care costs. . . . the plan would deprive many and probably most seniors of adequate health care.
*
And that neither should nor will happen. Mr. Ryan and his colleagues can write down whatever numbers they like, but seniors vote. And when they find that their health-care vouchers are grossly inadequate, they’ll demand and get bigger vouchers — wiping out the plan’s supposed savings.
*
In short, this plan isn’t remotely serious; on the contrary, it’s ludicrous. And it’s also cruel.
*
In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes over the next decade, two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans. And by repealing last year’s health reform, without any replacement, the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million nonelderly Americans of health insurance.
*
The G.O.P. budget plan isn’t a good-faith effort to put America’s fiscal house in order; it’s voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness.
*
As always the party of supposed family values and which claims to honor Christian values utterly disregards the Gospel message of caring for the poor and the unfortunate. Instead, it's a case of lavishing tax cuts on the wealthy and allowing the poor to go hungry and without health care. What would Jesus think of this? Nothing positive I suspect. GOP = hypocrisy.
Mike Huckabee Grilled on His Support of A Christianist Dictatorship
As noted before, I find Mike Huckabee to be a frightening prospect as a viable GOP candidate for president. In my view, Huckabee is clearly what can be described as a member of the Christian Taliban who would, if given the opportunity - rescind the United States Constitution and in the place of the nation's constitutional government install a theocratic leadership not too unlike that which currently rules in Iran. If you think that assessment extreme, then you need to educate yourself further on the views of Christian Dominionist David Barton who Huckabee lauds. Indeed, as I previously noted, Huckabee is on record as stating that he wished every American would be forced - at gunpoint - to listen to Barton's teachings. Here's a sampling of Barton's agenda to overthrow the U.S. government as designed by the U.S. Constitution via Right Wing Watch:*
As we have been noting for nearly a year now, a theology known as "Seven Mountains" has been slowly creeping its way into "mainstream" Religious Right activism. Beginning with Janet Porter's "May Day for America" prayer rally on the National Mall last year, this Dominionist theology has become increasingly common place in Religious Right events, ranging from the National Day of Prayer events to Jim Garlow's "Pray and Act" 2010 election effort. * As we have explained before, Seven Mountains dominionism seeks to place Christians in control over the seven forces that shape and control our culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion. The reason for this, as Lance Wallnau, the leading advocate for Seven Mountains theology, explained is that Jesus "doesn't come back until He's accomplished the dominion of nations." And the way "dominion of nations" is accomplished is by having Christians gain control of these "seven mountains" in order to install a "virtual theocracy" overseen by "true apostles" who will fight Satan and his Antichrist agenda.
*
Right Wing Watch correctly asked: Is Barton's call to have right-wing Christians take complete control over every aspect of society the message that Huckabee had in mind? Well, the other night Huckabee went on The Daily Show and was grilled by Jon Stewart on this very issue. Would that the mainstream media would have the balls to confront Huckabee on his extremism. The following are clips of the confrontation:
*
Part 1
Part 2
*Part 3
As we have been noting for nearly a year now, a theology known as "Seven Mountains" has been slowly creeping its way into "mainstream" Religious Right activism. Beginning with Janet Porter's "May Day for America" prayer rally on the National Mall last year, this Dominionist theology has become increasingly common place in Religious Right events, ranging from the National Day of Prayer events to Jim Garlow's "Pray and Act" 2010 election effort. * As we have explained before, Seven Mountains dominionism seeks to place Christians in control over the seven forces that shape and control our culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion. The reason for this, as Lance Wallnau, the leading advocate for Seven Mountains theology, explained is that Jesus "doesn't come back until He's accomplished the dominion of nations." And the way "dominion of nations" is accomplished is by having Christians gain control of these "seven mountains" in order to install a "virtual theocracy" overseen by "true apostles" who will fight Satan and his Antichrist agenda.
*
Right Wing Watch correctly asked: Is Barton's call to have right-wing Christians take complete control over every aspect of society the message that Huckabee had in mind? Well, the other night Huckabee went on The Daily Show and was grilled by Jon Stewart on this very issue. Would that the mainstream media would have the balls to confront Huckabee on his extremism. The following are clips of the confrontation:
*
Part 1
Part 2
*Part 3
Why LGBT Americans Need to Continue to be Vigilant and Maintain Pressure on the White House
Now that Barack Obama has formally announced his re-election bid, there will be those within the the White House administration, the DNC and other circles who will be advocating for LGBT citizens to be quiet, cease the demands for equality and simply do the bidding of those who "know better." We tend to see the phenomenon every election cycle, but given Obama's overall refusal to be a leader on any issue and repeated attempts to have Congressional Democrats perform the leadership role he abdicates I suspect we will be getting a double dose in the lead up to the 2012 elections. I for one don't buy the "we know better" story line and I remain convinced that the 2009 debacle in Virginia's statewide races was a direct result of the failure of Democrats up to that point to deliver any of the "change" that had been promised. Yes, the GOP will undoubtedly engage in extreme gay bashing, but the voter pool that eats up such bigotry is literally dying off. It will be important to demand that Democrats demonstrate that they have a backbone - not always their strongest suit. Kerry Eleveld has a piece at Equality Matters that looks at some of the upcoming dynamics and why LGBT voters need to be vigilant so that our issues are not thrown under the bus by our faux fierce advocate in the White House. Here are some highlights:*
President Barack Obama has just announced his 2012 bid for re-election and the inevitable push for LGBT support - donor, voter, and activist - has begun. To be sure, many LGBT Americans would much rather see Barack Obama still gracing the Oval Office come January of 2013 than a Republican. And so, many of us are faced with a familiar dilemma: should we sublimate our intrinsic desire to continue advocating for full equality to the urgency of reelecting a man who has presided over some of the greatest advances in the history of the LGBT movement? My answer: No.
*
This is not an either-or proposition in my opinion, nor should we feel compelled to surrender our basic humanity to the whims of the election cycle. That type of thinking is a relic of days past when politicians held firmly to the notion that addressing LGBT concerns would undoubtedly be a drag on their electability. What we have witnessed over the past couple years is just the opposite. The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" scored huge points with President Obama's target voters -- independent, moderate, and progressive alike - and his declaration that the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional reestablished his ability to show bold leadership. Here's our new reality: The right thing to do is also the popular thing to do.
*
But there is much more work to be done and it would be an absolute mistake for LGBT advocates to sit back and relax after the momentum generated by the DADT win and the push toward DOMA's dissolution. The country is at a tipping point as evidenced by multiple polls indicating voters are evenly divided if not leaning toward support for same-sex marriage - a decent barometer for our overall acceptance since marriage equality has also been one of our most contentious issues.
*
Rather than assembling a patchwork of progress agency by agency, President Obama should issue executive orders or amend existing ones that set a government-wide precedent for equality in the following ways:
*
1) Directing the federal government to include LGBT Americans in all federal level data collection efforts.
*
2) Mandating that all federal contractors must have policies providing nondiscrimination protections for their employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
*
3) Prohibiting federal funds from being used to discriminate against LGBT Americans.
*
4) Prohibiting discrimination against military service members on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
*
5) Adding gender identity protections to President Clinton's executive order 13087, which protected civilian federal workers from bias based on their sexual orientation.
*
[P]rohibiting the government from using federal funds to discriminate against LGBT tax payers might seem unnecessary at first blush, but the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships -- created during the Bush administration and continued by President Obama -- has funding tentacles that stretch across America, sometimes touching rabidly homophobic organizations through grants that often go undetected.
*
While some reporting has already uncovered discriminatory abuses of federal funding, this is an area still ripe for inquiry. But for starters, Andy Kopsa of the Washington Independent documented the Iowa Family Policy Center, which publicly opposes same-sex marriage in the Hawkeye state, receiving more than $3 million in federal funding for its Marriage Matters program from 2004 through 2009 - a portion of which will continue to be dispersed through 2011.
*
With an executive order, President Obama could put a definitive end to this questionable conflation of church and state by following through on his campaign promise to end discriminatory practices in federal funding, especially where faith-based organizations are concerned.
*
We did not achieve "don't ask, don't tell" repeal by being satisfied with White House Easter Egg roll invitations and passing mentions in a handful of speeches. Now is the time for the president to employ his considerable executive powers to effect a government-wide culture change that will trickle down to every corner of America. Let's not squander this opportunity to squeeze as much goodness out of this administration as possible, which in turn will help President Obama secure four more years in office.
The Amazing "Conversion" of NOM's Louis J. Marinelli
Jeremy Hooper at Good As You first broke the story of how Louis J. Marinelli (shown in the photo above) who coordinated the National Organization for Marriage's national bus tour last year and who had maintained NOM's Facebook page has left that organization and issued a statement that he now fully supports civil marriage for same sex couples. If you read his statement on his blog which can be found here, two things stand out.*
The first is that by meeting same sex couples (who typically far out numbered NOM supporters at tour stops) on the bus tour Marinelli, was forced to face the reality of our lives and the fact that we are real people with real lives and not some faceless propaganda construct with an alleged agenda of destroying society. To me, this statement underscores just how critically important it is for LGBT individuals and couples to not hide who they are. Yes, it can be unnerving - even down right scary - at times to be true to who you are, but it is critical to put real faces on what it means to be LGBT. Time and time again, I have found that when confronted with living, breathing fellow humans, many people simply find it impossible to continue to cling to the stereotypes and negative depictions disseminated by the professional Christian hate groups. One of my clients, for example, is a case in point and he will admit that knowing me and other gay professionals forced him to totally rethink old prejudices. Here's what Marinelli said about meeting LGBT couples on the tour:
*
Having spent the last five years putting all of my political will, interest and energy into fighting against the spread of same-sex marriage as if it were a contagious disease, I must admit that it is hard for me to put the following text into words let alone utter them with my own voice. . . . the one thing that is for sure is that I have come to this point after several months of an internal conflict with myself. That conflict gradually tore away at me until recently when I was able to for the first time simply admit to myself that I do in fact support civil marriage equality. If there is an issue of shame, it is a result of acknowledging the number of people I have targeted, hurt and oppressed.
*
Even though I had been confronted by the counter-protesters throughout the marriage tour, the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing.
*
I really came to understand that gays and lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No, they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly particulate in it.
*
The second thing that is striking about Marinelli's conversion is his recognition of the hate basis of NOM's anti-gay propaganda and the dehumanization of other citizens that is its core. I've noted before the parallels between the Nazi dehumanization of Jews and the Christianists' efforts to dehumanize gays. Here's what Marinelli says about the hatefulness of NOM's propaganda:
*
In December I came out in support of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I also removed the admins I had delegated my moderating duties to for my Facebook page.
*
Having done that, I had to pick up where they left off. I was largely taken aback by the fact that the page I created had become such a hateful place. My comments and rhetoric paled in comparison to what that place had turned into. I began to understand why the gay community was out there claiming opposition to same-sex civil marriage was all about hate.
*
I soon realized that there I was surrounded by hateful people; propping up a cause I created five years ago, a cause which I had begun to question.
*
Marinelli also goes on to embrace a point about which I and others have long argued: the fact that civil marriage and religious marriage and that the former in no way threatens the latter:
*
Lastly, I came to understand the difference between civil marriage and holy marriage as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church. Let me rephrase. I understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t see it. Regardless, I see it now and the significance of that is as follows:
*
Once you understand the great difference between civil marriage and holy marriage, there is not one valid reason to forbid the former from same-sex couples, and all that is left to protect is the latter. . . . My name is Louis J. Marinelli, a conservative-Republican and I now support full civil marriage equality. The constitution calls for nothing less.
*
I applaud Marinelli's candid self-reprimand for his past deeds. Not surprisingly, the hate merchants at NOM are doing a great deal of fast singing and dancing trying to distance the organization from Marinelli. Jeremy Hooper has details on this disingenuous charade here and here. As always, when Maggie Gallagher's and Brian Brown's lips are moving, it's a safe bet that they are lying.
Friday, April 08, 2011
How Do We Describe Hypocrites? It's Called GOP
The headline of the screen shoot above via America Blog pretty much says all that needs to be said. The hypocrites of the GOP claim to "support our troops" but the truth is its all about them and their wealthy buddies. To Hell with everyone else.
The Military's Secret Shame - Heterosexual Rape of Other Men
Given the fact that the military chiefs have found so far that there are no problems to date with DADT repeal, it's timely that Newsweek has a major article that looks at the real source of sexual impropriety in the military ranks: "male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination." Yes, that's right - its the straight service members who are abusing others. And typically, it is more senior service members preying on and abusing subordinates. Male rape is about control and an act of violence, not gays with same sex attraction. I wonder what Ms. Donnelly and her fellow gay-haters have to say about reality? As the Newsweek article notes (the photo is from the article) it is long past time that the military face up to the magnitude of the problem (female soldiers are even more likely to suffer sexual abuse by these straight males. In some ways, given the military's lowering of standards and waiver of violent crimes in order to achieve recruiting goals, it should be little surprise that there are many "bad eggs" within the ranks. Here are some article highlights:*
Greg Jeloudov was 35 and new to America when he decided to join the Army. Like most soldiers, he was driven by both patriotism for his adopted homeland and the pragmatic notion that the military could be a first step in a career that would enable him to provide for his new family. . . . Less than two weeks after arriving on base, he was gang-raped in the barracks by men who said they were showing him who was in charge of the United States. When he reported the attack to unit commanders, he says they told him, “It must have been your fault. You must have provoked them.”
*
What happened to Jeloudov is a part of life in the armed forces that hardly anyone talks about: male-on-male sexual assault. In the staunchly traditional military culture, it’s an ugly secret, kept hidden by layers of personal shame and official denial. Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from just over 30,000 in 2003. For the victims, the experience is a special kind of hell. . .
*
While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted gay soldiers, military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual. Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Assault victims, both male and female, are typically young and low-ranking; they are targeted for their vulnerability. Often, in male-on-male cases, assailants go after those they assume are gay, even if they are not. “One of the reasons people commit sexual assault is to put people in their place, to drive them out,” says Mic Hunter, author of Honor Betrayed: Sexual Abuse in America’s Military. “Sexual assault isn’t about sex, it’s about violence.”
*
According to Hunter and others, the repeal of the military’s policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” might actually help the institution address the issue. Under that rule, being gay meant being fundamentally unfit to serve; it meant you didn’t belong. It also meant that victims were even more reluctant to report their attacks. “I wouldn’t say that the repeal is going to make it safe,” says Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military. “But male victims will be a little bit less reluctant to report their assaults.”
*
“The military doesn't want to talk about it because, as embarrassing as male-female rape is [from their perspective], this is even worse. The very fact that there's male-on-male rape in the military means that there are warriors who aren't strong enough to fight back.”
*
Blake Stephens, now 29, joined the Army in January 2001, just seven months after graduating from high school. The verbal and physical attacks started quickly, he says, and came from virtually every level of the chain of command. In one of the worst incidents, a group of men tackled him, shoved a soda bottle into his rectum, and threw him backward off an elevated platform onto the hood of a car. When he reported the incident, Stephens says, his platoon sergeant told him, “You’re the problem. You’re the reason this is happening,” and refused to take action. . . . His assailants told him that once deployed to Iraq, they would shoot him in the head. “They told me they were going to have sex with me all the time when we were there,” he says. Stephens twice attempted suicide. His marriage fell apart.
*
Because reports of such crimes happen outside the reach of police and are handled by a unit’s commanding officer, according to the Pentagon’s own figures, last year just 15 percent of reported cases were actually prosecuted.
*
What’s clear is that the Pentagon has only just begun to figure out how to treat men who have been sexually traumatized. Until 2006, sexual assault was classified as a women’s health issue, and even today, Pentagon awareness campaigns target women almost exclusively. Kathleen Chard, the Cincinnati VA psychologist who runs PTSD programs, says that more than 11 percent of the men she works with eventually admit that they were sexually victimized.
*
In March, Rep. Chellie Pingree, a Maine Democrat, introduced a bill that would make it easier for victims like Blake Stephens to get benefits and medical coverage. “It’s the hardest thing we hear: people who have suffered a sexual trauma and then have to prove it,” she says. “We can’t leave them out there hanging. It’s unconscionable.” Even if the bill passes, it will likely be too late to help Jeloudov, the soldier who was raped in basic training. Shortly after his attack, with his assailants threatening to send him “back to Russia in half,” his commanding officer told him to sign a document stating that he was a practicing homosexual. He was subsequently discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Less than two years later, his wife has left him, he is unemployed, and he is racked by emotional problems. His VA doctors have prescribed him half a dozen psychotropic drugs that target, variously, his PTSD, insomnia, flashbacks, and depression. He receives a fraction of full VA benefits, which helps explain his determination to prove that he was raped. Embroiled in the bureaucracy of the VA system, he easily descends into despair. But he’s insistent on telling his story. “America to me is justice, truth, and fairness,” he says. “Everything that happened there, none of it had to do with any of that."
*
This situation is beyond disgusting. And it is the macho straight service members who are the ones committing the crimes, not the gays.
Military Chiefs Report No Problems With DADT Repeal Implementation
Remember all the shrieks and wailing of the Christianists who predicted dire consequences if DADT was repealed and gays were allowed to serve openly in the nation's military forces? Well, it's not happening and the chiefs of the military branches report that there have been no problems. Frankly, I'm not surprised because the problems relating to DADT have never originated with LGBT service members but instead with homophobes and Christian religious extremists within the ranks of the military. Nonetheless, the far right pandering Congressional Republicans seemed shocked that the false claims of the Christianists were not being realized. Shame on them for refusing to accept the reality that the most dishonest people in this debate are the self-congratulatory "godly Christians." Think Progress looks at the phenomenon. Here are some highlights:*
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) seemed taken aback this afternoon when the four chiefs of the armed forces testified that they had not run into any major problems in implementing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The question came at a full committee hearing examining the “Repeal of Law and Policies Governing Service of Openly Gay and Lesbian Service Members Files”:
*
- GEN. PETER CHIARELLI – VICE CHIEF OF ARMY: “I had a session with commanders last Friday, they have indicated no issues so far in Tier I and Tier II training as they get ready to kick off our Tier III training.”
*
- GEN. JAMES AMOS – CHIEF OF THE MARINE CORPS: “And I’m looking for specifically for issues coming out of the Tier II and Tier III training and to be honest with you, Chairman, we’ve not seen it…there hasn’t been the recalcitrant push back, there hasn’t been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field.”
*
- GEN. NORTON SCHWARTZ – CHIEF OF AIR FORCE: “We are mitigating the risk in the way we are approaching this and so I’m more comfortable than I was on the 22 of December, but we still have a ways to go and it requires the constant attention of all of us to bring this home.”
*
- ADM. GARY ROUGHEAD – CHIEF OF NAVY: “I’m very comfortable. I was very comfortable in making the recommendation last December and it’s consistent with what I continue to see in the Navy today.
*
McKeon — who has long opposed repeal — and has previously suggested that he would support legislation to slow it down, responded by softening his position and claiming that he only objected to the “process” not the substance of the repeal legislation. “I think one of the problems I had…was kind of the way it was presented to us and given to us,” he said. “And so my concern was more the procedure of how it was all laid out. But that’s past and now we’re moving forward."
*
Folks like McKeon who listened to bullshit from the likes of Elaine Donnelly are now looking like fools - which of course is what they are.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
NOM is Now Officially an Anti-Gay Hate Group
I have long believed that the National Organization for Marriage is little more than a thinly disguised anti-gay hate group akin to Family Research Council, the American Family Association and similar falsely labeled "Christian" organizations which pretend to worry about "family values" or in the case of NOM, allegedly "protecting marriage." Meanwhile, the beginning and end of their agendas is to fan hatred and contempt for LGBT Americans while pocketing lots of money in the process. Now, NOM has shown its true colors as it has waded into the ongoing debate over gay adoption in Virginia. The regulations at the heart of the furor in Virginia have NOTHING to do with same sex marriage (which is already banned under the infamous Marshall-Newman Amendment to the Virginia Constitution enacted in 2006). Thus, there is NO legitimate reason for a group like NOM - supposedly concerned solely about the "sanctity of marriage" - to wade into the adoption issue in Virginia. 
Unless, of course, denigrating, stigmatizing and punishing LGBT citizens has always been NOM's real agenda. Jeremy Hooper at Good As You shares my views of NOM's true hate based agenda. Here's a sampling of what Jeremy has to say about self-enriching whore (my words not Jeremy's) Maggie Gallagher and her lying extremists at NOM:*
While couched under a desire to protect religious-based adoption agencies from going against their beliefs, NOM's latest action is an undeniably anti-LGBT effort. They have voiced no real concern for the surplus of children in need of homes. No concern for the balance between civil and religious interests. Obviously they've shown no concern for the same-sex couples who deserve respect, ideally, and equality, constitutionally. NOM's sole focus has been on providing cover for those who'd rather discriminate than accommodate, with that set's supposed burden being the "protect marriage" group's only actionable interest. NOM's only answer to this situation: To put the faith-based desire to exclude some above a governmental desire to consider/accommodate all.
*
The increasingly fringe NOM has every right to admit that their gay-excluding focus goes well beyond civil marriage equality itself. But now that they're more fully revealing this hand, Brian Brown and Co. need to own their overreaching faith-based goals rather than pretending to be civil marriage equality proponents' equal counterpart. They need to stop the "protect marriage" canards and start getting real. But since NOM most surely won't bear out their own deep mission, the rest of us must.
*
Yes, I am hard on Ms. Gallagher. But anyone making well over a quarter of a million dollars per year marketing hate and seeking to keep other citizens unequal and despised by a majority of citizens is in my view worse than a whore. In fact, far worse.
While couched under a desire to protect religious-based adoption agencies from going against their beliefs, NOM's latest action is an undeniably anti-LGBT effort. They have voiced no real concern for the surplus of children in need of homes. No concern for the balance between civil and religious interests. Obviously they've shown no concern for the same-sex couples who deserve respect, ideally, and equality, constitutionally. NOM's sole focus has been on providing cover for those who'd rather discriminate than accommodate, with that set's supposed burden being the "protect marriage" group's only actionable interest. NOM's only answer to this situation: To put the faith-based desire to exclude some above a governmental desire to consider/accommodate all.
*
The increasingly fringe NOM has every right to admit that their gay-excluding focus goes well beyond civil marriage equality itself. But now that they're more fully revealing this hand, Brian Brown and Co. need to own their overreaching faith-based goals rather than pretending to be civil marriage equality proponents' equal counterpart. They need to stop the "protect marriage" canards and start getting real. But since NOM most surely won't bear out their own deep mission, the rest of us must.
*
Yes, I am hard on Ms. Gallagher. But anyone making well over a quarter of a million dollars per year marketing hate and seeking to keep other citizens unequal and despised by a majority of citizens is in my view worse than a whore. In fact, far worse.
Arkansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Adoption Ban - What's Wrong with Virginia?
It is pretty sad when - and no disrespect to Arkansas - Virginia's Republican leaders appear to be poised to allow Arkansas to show a stronger reverence for equality and religious freedom than occurs in the home state of many of the brightest lights of the nation's Founding Fathers. Yet that appears to be what might well happen if Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and the Virginia GOP continue to be nothing more than tawdry whores to the likes of Victoria Cobb and similar religious extremists at The Family Foundation, Liberty Counsel and, of course, Taliban Bob's theocratic alma mater, Regent University. As The Advocate and many other news outlets are reporting, the Arkansas Supreme (the justices are pictured above) has struck down a 2008 state law that banned same sex and unmarried couples from adopting or foster parenting children. The ban had been approved by a state referendum. The ruling is a serious defeat for the Christofascists and underscores that merely because a bigoted majority wants to penalize a disliked minority, it does not make it right or constitutional. Meanwhile, here in Virginia we see the Christian Taliban faction endeavoring to block regulations that would make Virginia on a par with what is now legal in Arkansas. Here are highlights from The Advocate story:*
The Arkansas supreme court ruled Thursday that a 2008 ballot initiative that barred gay and lesbian couples from adopting children was unconstitutional. The court ruled that such a policy, while never enforced, would violate an adult's right to privacy in their bedroom,. .
*
"Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of 'opposite-sex and same-sex individuals' who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing their eligibility to foster or adopt children," Associate Justice Robert L. Brown wrote. The court also wrote that imposing a categorical ban on anyone who was not in a heterosexual marriage from adopting or fostering children, would keep many children away from suitable, responsible homes.
*
The ruling leaves Mississippi and Utah as the only two states that enforce adoption bans on unmarried couples, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The Virginia State Board of Social Services is also expected to decide whether to approve former governor Tim Kaine's proposed policy to prevent discrimination based on family status by child welfare agencies in the adoption process. Gov. Bob McDonnell has until April 16 to present his own suggestions to the board, but he has indicated that he opposes such regulations.
*
Of course, in truth, the Christianists care nothing about children in need of stable and loving adoptive or foster homes. No, it's truly all about punishing gays (and in this case unmarried couples) who do not tow the line and live their lives per Christianist dictates. It's religious based discrimination pure and simple when all of the smoke screens are stripped away. Should Taliban Bob torpedo gay adoption rights in Virginia, it will be indicative that he's unfit to hold the office of Governor much less any higher office since he is acting contrary to the Virginia and United States Constitutions each of which grant ALL - yes, that means gay and straight - citizens the right to freedom of religion and protection from religious based discrimination some would attempt to write into the civil laws.
New Study Focuses on Number of LGBT Americans
The Williams Institute at UCLA has released a new report on the number of LGBT citizens in the USA. The figures are a result of cross-referencing four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys and, in my view, are probably low because of the number of closeted individuals across the country - especially in the Bible Belt and states where LGBT citizens have few if any non-discrimination protections (e.g., social and intellectual backwaters like most of Virginia)- are in the category of the 25 million who admit same sex attraction. In addition, the figures do not include those under 18 years of age. Here are highlights of the report which can be found here:*
Key findings from the research brief are as follows:
*
An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender.
*
This implies that there are approximately 9 million LGBT Americans, a figure roughly equivalent to the population of New Jersey.
*
Among adults who identify as LGB, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay).
*
Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual. Bisexuals comprise more than half of the lesbian and bisexual population among women in eight of the nine surveys considered in the brief. Conversely, gay men comprise substantially more than half of gay and bisexual men in seven of the nine surveys.
*
Estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as LGB.
*
An estimated 19 million Americans (8.2%) report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans (11%) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.
*
The report itself recognizes that the figures may be low, but at least they provide some basis for addressing need policy changes and, of course, the provision of needed support. Here's a part of what the report says on under reporting:
*
Another factor that can create variation among estimates of the LGBT community is survey methodology. Survey methods can affect the willingness of respondents to report stigmatizing identities and behaviors. Feelings of confidentiality and anonymity increase the likelihood that respondents will be more accurate in reporting sensitive information. Survey methods that include face-to-face interviews may underestimate the size of the LGBT community while those that include methods that allow respondents to complete questions on a computer or via the internet may increase the likelihood of LGBT respondents identifying themselves.
*
The over all messages is that LGBT citizens are more numerous that the Christianists like to claim and that pretending otherwise leads to wrong headed policies and laws.
Key findings from the research brief are as follows:
*
An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender.
*
This implies that there are approximately 9 million LGBT Americans, a figure roughly equivalent to the population of New Jersey.
*
Among adults who identify as LGB, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay).
*
Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual. Bisexuals comprise more than half of the lesbian and bisexual population among women in eight of the nine surveys considered in the brief. Conversely, gay men comprise substantially more than half of gay and bisexual men in seven of the nine surveys.
*
Estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as LGB.
*
An estimated 19 million Americans (8.2%) report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans (11%) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.
*
The report itself recognizes that the figures may be low, but at least they provide some basis for addressing need policy changes and, of course, the provision of needed support. Here's a part of what the report says on under reporting:
*
Another factor that can create variation among estimates of the LGBT community is survey methodology. Survey methods can affect the willingness of respondents to report stigmatizing identities and behaviors. Feelings of confidentiality and anonymity increase the likelihood that respondents will be more accurate in reporting sensitive information. Survey methods that include face-to-face interviews may underestimate the size of the LGBT community while those that include methods that allow respondents to complete questions on a computer or via the internet may increase the likelihood of LGBT respondents identifying themselves.
*
The over all messages is that LGBT citizens are more numerous that the Christianists like to claim and that pretending otherwise leads to wrong headed policies and laws.
More Inconvenient Truths About "Traditional Marriage"
Even though Christianists will refuse to acknowledge historic truths because they so often threaten the Christianists' fear and hate based house of cards faith constructs, it is important that rational citizens and news outlets be pushed to know the real truth when it comes to the history of civil marriage. And the truth is not - what a shocker - what the Christianists shrieking against same sex marriage would have the public believe. It is crucial that the larger public come to face the reality that when Christianists rant, it is almost always a lie. Not only was "biblical marriage" typical polygamous, but the role of the secular government in regulating marriage long trumped the Church's control over marriage. If anything, the default mode of allowing churches to drive secular marriage that has been seen in the USA is more of an exception than the historic rule. A piece in Huffington Post looks at the real history of the interaction between church and state over the centuries and reveals (as always seems to be the case with the anti-gay religious extremists) that Maggie Gallagher, and company are once again lying. Here are some article highlights:*
*
It is widely claimed by the Religious Right that marriage is a "religious institution," not a civil matter. The facts, unfortunately, are not so simple. State control of marriage is much older than people think and Christianity never spoke with one voice regarding marriage.
*
The fourth century Christian emperor Theodosius, as part of what historian John Boswell called a campaign of "greater and greater totalitarian control over personal aspects of Romans' lives," decreed that only Christianity would be allowed to exist. He also banned gay marriage.
*
The increasingly theocratic despotism of the later Empire often led to intervention in matters such as personal religious convictions or private sexual expression which would have been considered entirely individual under the earlier emperors."
*
The Church got involved only after this intervention on its behalf. Christian law professor Daniel Crane wrote that, "as the power of the church grew, it gradually sought to establish control over marriage directly." But it was only in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church declared that a marriage was only valid if performed by a priest, with two witnesses. Even this was more a slap at the Reformationists and a means of "wedding" believers to the Roman Church. The idea that marriage was a "sacrament" had more to do with the politics of the day than it did with theology.
*
The Protestants denied marriage as a sacrament entirely. Crane wrote that Reformationists saw the state, not the church, as the prime custodian "of matrimony as a civil institution." The authoritarian John Calvin passed the "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva" requiring a state permit to marry.
*
Catholics saw marriage as a church sacrament. Protestants said it was a relationship between a couple and the wider community, and thus more a political concern than a religious one. Witte wrote, "Enlightenment exponents emphasize[d] the contractual (or private) perspective."
*
Exponents of the Enlightenment advocated the abolition of much that was considered sound and sacred in the Western legal tradition of marriage. They urged the abolition of the requirements of parental consent, church consecration, and formal witnesses for marriage. They questioned the exalted status of heterosexual monogamy, suggesting that such matters be left to private negotiation. They called for the absolute equality of husband and wife to receive, hold, and alienate property, to enter into contracts and commerce, to participate on equal terms in the workplace and public square. They castigated the state for leaving annulment practice to the church, and urged that the laws of annulment and divorce be both merged and expanded under exclusive state jurisdiction.
*
The rise of classical liberalism, with its companion, capitalism, meant that income was no longer a function of the family as whole. Sociologist Barry Adams, in Christopher Street, observed: "Capitalism laid the groundwork for voluntary relationships based on personal preference, the precondition for 'romantic love.' Capitalism did not cause romantic love, it allowed it to flourish."
*
[M]odern conservatives see themselves as the heirs of the classical liberal/capitalist tradition. Yet that tradition is responsible for the evolution of marriage over the last few centuries. What modern conservatives are witnessing in the gay marriage revolution is just another logical step toward implementing the values of classical liberalism, with its emphasis on private contract and individual rights. Like it or not, it is the premises that they claim they share with classical liberals that have brought us to where we are today. I for one think that a good thing, even if conservatives don't.
*
It is widely claimed by the Religious Right that marriage is a "religious institution," not a civil matter. The facts, unfortunately, are not so simple. State control of marriage is much older than people think and Christianity never spoke with one voice regarding marriage.
*
The fourth century Christian emperor Theodosius, as part of what historian John Boswell called a campaign of "greater and greater totalitarian control over personal aspects of Romans' lives," decreed that only Christianity would be allowed to exist. He also banned gay marriage.
*
The increasingly theocratic despotism of the later Empire often led to intervention in matters such as personal religious convictions or private sexual expression which would have been considered entirely individual under the earlier emperors."
*
The Church got involved only after this intervention on its behalf. Christian law professor Daniel Crane wrote that, "as the power of the church grew, it gradually sought to establish control over marriage directly." But it was only in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church declared that a marriage was only valid if performed by a priest, with two witnesses. Even this was more a slap at the Reformationists and a means of "wedding" believers to the Roman Church. The idea that marriage was a "sacrament" had more to do with the politics of the day than it did with theology.
*
The Protestants denied marriage as a sacrament entirely. Crane wrote that Reformationists saw the state, not the church, as the prime custodian "of matrimony as a civil institution." The authoritarian John Calvin passed the "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva" requiring a state permit to marry.
*
Catholics saw marriage as a church sacrament. Protestants said it was a relationship between a couple and the wider community, and thus more a political concern than a religious one. Witte wrote, "Enlightenment exponents emphasize[d] the contractual (or private) perspective."
*
Exponents of the Enlightenment advocated the abolition of much that was considered sound and sacred in the Western legal tradition of marriage. They urged the abolition of the requirements of parental consent, church consecration, and formal witnesses for marriage. They questioned the exalted status of heterosexual monogamy, suggesting that such matters be left to private negotiation. They called for the absolute equality of husband and wife to receive, hold, and alienate property, to enter into contracts and commerce, to participate on equal terms in the workplace and public square. They castigated the state for leaving annulment practice to the church, and urged that the laws of annulment and divorce be both merged and expanded under exclusive state jurisdiction.
*
The rise of classical liberalism, with its companion, capitalism, meant that income was no longer a function of the family as whole. Sociologist Barry Adams, in Christopher Street, observed: "Capitalism laid the groundwork for voluntary relationships based on personal preference, the precondition for 'romantic love.' Capitalism did not cause romantic love, it allowed it to flourish."
*
[M]odern conservatives see themselves as the heirs of the classical liberal/capitalist tradition. Yet that tradition is responsible for the evolution of marriage over the last few centuries. What modern conservatives are witnessing in the gay marriage revolution is just another logical step toward implementing the values of classical liberalism, with its emphasis on private contract and individual rights. Like it or not, it is the premises that they claim they share with classical liberals that have brought us to where we are today. I for one think that a good thing, even if conservatives don't.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Bob Marshall: The Face of Theocracy and Hate in Virginia
Last night I attended a City of Hampton committee working on diversity issues and ways to attract the so-called creative class to both Hampton and Virginia as a whole. Meanwhile, Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and Delegate Bob Marshall - the face of the Christian Taliban in Virginia - are making sure the state has plenty of negative news coverage that ought to send a strong message to LGBT citizens and progressive businesses that Virginia is NOT a place to live, work or relocate one's business. MyFoxDC has coverage of Marshall demonstrating to the world that religious based discrimination continues to thrive in Virginia. As for those in the media who foolishly claim that they like Marshall in person on a one on one basis, I'd remind them that Hitler could reportedly be charming in similar situations. They need to open their eyes to Marshall's true agenda which is very, very ugly. Here are highlights from Fox and a short video clip:*
Should gay couples have the right to adopt children in Virginia? Currently, only married couples or single men and women - regardless of sexual orientation - can adopt.
*
But a proposal by former Virginia governor Tim Kaine would change that. It would prevent child welfare agencies from considering sexual orientation or religion during the adoption process.
*
But, not everyone's on board with the plan. Republican Delegate Bob Marshall and Ellen Kahn, Family Project Director with the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nation's largest gay rights organization debated this topic on FOX 5 News.
*
Should gay couples have the right to adopt children in Virginia? Currently, only married couples or single men and women - regardless of sexual orientation - can adopt.
*
But a proposal by former Virginia governor Tim Kaine would change that. It would prevent child welfare agencies from considering sexual orientation or religion during the adoption process.
*
But, not everyone's on board with the plan. Republican Delegate Bob Marshall and Ellen Kahn, Family Project Director with the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nation's largest gay rights organization debated this topic on FOX 5 News.
*
Should Gay Couples Have The Right To Adopt Children in Virginia?: MyFoxDC.com
A True LGBT Ally Has Been Picked to Head DNC
I've never been a fan of Tim Kaine's when it comes to his fair weather support on LGBT issues. He will give a certain amount of lip service but time and time again he fails to act and get things done. The new adoption regulations currently causing a firestorm in Virginia - and again highlighting that Virginia is generally down right hostile towards its LGBT citizens - is a case in point. Kaine waited until only two months before his term ended to start the process. revising adoption regulations. Why wasn't is started far earlier in his terms? Now, with Kaine running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Jim Webb (I will likely vote for Kaine merely because the GOP candidate will assuredly be an anti-gay Neanderthal), Debbie Wasserman of Florida has been tapped to head up the DNC. Her appointment may not bring all that many in the LGBT community might want, but at least we will now have someone at the top of the Democratic party who does seem to actually give a damn about LGBT citizens and their lives. Here are highlights from the New York Times:*
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was named Tuesday as the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, with President Obama selecting her to lead the party’s fund-raising and organizational efforts heading into the 2012 election cycle.
*
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 44, accepted the position during an afternoon call with the president. She succeeds Tim Kaine, who served as the party’s national chairman for the last two years but announced earlier Tuesday that he is running for a Senate seat in Virginia.
*
Ms. Wasserman Schultz is known inside the party for her strong fund-raising abilities, and she represents South Florida, which will be a critical battleground in the 2012 presidential race. She also would become one of the few high-profile women to speak on television on behalf of the president and the party.
*
“She’s part of the next generation of Democrats,” said Jenny Backus, a longtime party strategist and former official at the Democratic National Committee.
*
[H]eading into the 2012 presidential election year, when women voters will be among the key constituencies, the president was encouraged by advisers to select Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
*
Four years ago, Ms. Wasserman Schultz supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary fight, but she quickly switched her loyalties to Mr. Obama when he became the presumptive nominee. She campaigned aggressively on his behalf for the rest of the 2008 campaign.
Military Chaplain Group Files Brief Opposing DADT
Frankly, it is long overdue for "good" Christians, if you will to get off their butts, and started speaking out against the constant narrative of hate and intolerance which is the principal message one hears coming from the lips of alleged Christians. They need to prove that professional hate merchants such as Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, et al, are not today's face of Christianity. I've made this argument before, yet too many "good" Christians refuse to counter the haters. That's why I belief it's a great thing that the Forum on the Military Chaplaincy, which is led by retired military chaplains, has filed an amicus brief in the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States case. We truly need a high court ruling striking down DADT as unconstitutional once and for all. The brief also makes the point that DADT tramples on the religious freedoms of non-gay hating Christians and tolerant denominations. In short, it's time to end the enshrinement of one toxic form of religious belief in the laws. Here are some highlights from The Advocate on the group's court filing:*
A group of military chaplains banded together Monday, informing federal courts that the law barring gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from serving openly is "offensive to many religious organizations."
*
The Forum on the Military Chaplaincy, which is led by retired military chaplains, sent an amicus brief to the ninth circuit court of appeals Monday in support of the Log Cabin Republicans' lawsuit against the federal government challenging "don't ask, don't tell." This behind-the-scenes organization is now going public to counter the arguments from others in the religious community who are against repeal.
*
According to a statement from the group issued Tuesday, maintaining "don't ask, don't tell" would prevent "military chaplains from ministering to the needs of service members whose faith communities are welcoming and affirming to gays and lesbians."
*
“The right of anti-gay chaplains to preach their beliefs within their denominations is not being abridged,” chaplain Paul Dodd, the forum's cochair, said in a statement Monday. “But more importantly, military chaplains are trained to be pluralistic. They must respect the rights of others to hold and practice religious and moral values different from their own.”
*
The last paragraph quoted gets to the issue of the threat posed by Christianists - they want their views and only their views respected and given in effect special rights. In the view of Christianists, everyone else can go f*ck themselves. This mind set is directly opposed to the freedom of religion afforded to ALL under the U.S. Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)