Commentators Too Cowardly to Reveal Their Identity

It seems I need to re-post this message regularly in response cowardly commentators who lack the courage of their convictions and reveal their identities  when leaving comments.  This is what I had to say on this issue roughly a year ago which I restate again:

Unfortunately, over the life of this blog I have had to make it clear that those who wish to leave comments on blog posts who lack the spine to reveal their identities and put their name and who they are behind their opinions will not be given a platform.  Since the birth of this blog I have not hidden my identity and who I am, where I live, etc.  Yes, it has brought me death threats - typically from "godly Christian" types - but based on my upbringing and decades of involvement in politics, if you want to voice an opinion, have the balls to stand behind it and do not hide behind an "anonymous" identity.  As I have said before, if you are too gutless and cowardly to reveal your true identity, then do NOT expect me to provide a platform for your noxious commentary.  You will not be provided with a platform.  If you want your comment published, have a profile that reveals your identity. Otherwise, your comment will be deleted and not published. 

FYI - the comment - which was deleted - which prompted this post was from a Christofascist upset with my honest assessment of Mike Pence who ranted (inaccurately) about abortion.  I suspect the individual is a devoted Fox News viewer.

My Policy on Publishing Comments

In authoring this blog, I do not hide my identity.  I expect nothing less from those who leave comments if they expect them to be published.  I do not give a platform for cowards who seek to attack me personally or preach to me about why I am going to Hell - there have been MANY such anonymous comments over the years, some even threatening physical violence and/or death - or who try to dispute my views without having the courage to identify themselves.  For a time I only allowed comments from those registered through Google, Open ID or other sites such sites so that I could track potentially dangerous/threatening comments.   A while back I reopened comments to unregistered individuals, but retained the ability to approve or disapprove whether the comments were published.

Recently I wrote about  Robert Cunningham, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Syracuse, New York, the diocese I grew up in until going away to college, who testified under oath that the victims of predator priest shared in culpability with the predatory priests who sexually molested them.  I noted that his mindset is akin to that of those who are only too ready to blame female rape victims of "having asked for it." 

This was too much for some sheep like individual seemingly from the Syracuse area who left a harangue that Bishop Cunningham was "blameless"  and that the story had been tainted and twisted by both the local media outlets and S.N.A.P. , an organization notorious for anti-Catholic actions and Catholic Church hatred."  There was much more, but given the cowardice of the commentor, it will never be published.  If this individual wants to have his/her comment published, then grow a spine and be willing to identify yourself. 

I would encourage readers who want their comments published - whether you agree with me or not - to have the guts to identify yourself. 

Supreme Court Rejects Christofascist Effort to Hides of Anti-Gay Donors

For a second time the United States Supreme Court has rejected efforts on the part of Christofascists to keep the names of anti-gay donors hidden from the public.  State law requires that the names of financial donors of $100  during or after a campaign be listed, along with the donor's address, occupation and employer.  The Supreme Court upheld the state law requirement and ProtectMarriage.com, the National Organization for Marriage and other supporters of Proposition 8 will need to be disclosed.  Here are highlights from Talking Points Memo:

The Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from same-sex marriage opponents in California who want to keep the identities of their campaign donors secret.

The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling against ProtectMarriage.com, the National Organization for Marriage and other supporters of a 2008 ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriages in California until the ban was overturned five years later.

The groups sought to conceal their past and future campaign finance records because they feared harassment of donors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in part because the names have been publicly available for five years.

State law requires political committees to identify those who contribute more than $100 during or after a campaign, along with the donor's address, occupation and employer.

While the Christofascist groups claim their donors will face possible harassment, the real issues are twofold: (i) their donors don't want their friends and neighbors to know what bigoted assholes/hypocrites they are and (ii) the organizations don't want the public to know that they are largely bankrolled by a small handful of extremist donors.  In a previous ruling, even Justice Scalia supported public disclosure of donors.

I for one have no use for those who are too cowardly to attach their names to their actions - hence why I do not publish anonymous comments, most of which seem to come from spittle flecked "godly Christian" types.  In my view, if you are going to take political and social positions, you'd damn well better be willing to stand up and be identified by name.  The husband and I never cower from having our names attached to issues we support.  

Kool-Aid Drinking Republicans Go Nuts Over McDonnell Gay Priest Story

I guess it was bound to happen given the lunacy that now is the norm within the Republican Party as a whole and the Republican Party of Virginia in particular.  What am I talking about?  The reactions from the reality free folks at Bearing Drift, a conservative Virginia GOP blog , and the all too typical anonymous commentators who attack me yet lack the guts to reveal their own identities.  Insanity and cowardice seem to be the norm for these folks.  

At Bearing Drift there is a tirade under the headline "Virginia Democrat Bloggers Spew Homophobic Hatred" that accusing Democrats and "liberal bloggers" - which seemingly includes me - of being anti-gay because notice has been taken of Bob McDonnell's hypocrisy when it comes to (i) the "sanctity of marriage" and (ii) the acceptability of gay sex.  In 2003, McDonnell led a lynch mob of Virginia Republicans against then circuit court judge Verbena Askew over unsubstantiated claims that she had sexually harassed another woman.  McDonnell's crusade cause Askew her seat on the bench and first earned McDonnell the nickname "Taliban Bob."  It was during that lynch mob circus that McDonnell was asked if he had ever violated Virginia's sodomy statute to which he responded "not that I recall."    Here some of the drivel:

It’s sad when Democrats who pretend to care about their supporters show their true colors. That’s what Lowly at Blue Virginia did today, launching a hate-filled post targeting a priest who visited a “bawdy place” in the 1990s with a 41-year old man because he had the gall to allow Bob McDonnell to stay in his rectory during Obama’s political trial against him.

But it does show you an insight into the liberal extremist mind. Democrat bloggers, especially Lowly, must not really like gay people. They need their votes, and the fact that they don’t like religion makes gay people social “brothers in arms” with hatemongers like Lowly, but in reality they only use gay people to shore up their own power. 

Note how McDonnell's criminal indictment is described as "Obama's political trial against him."  These folks are insane.   

A cowardly comment on this blog - which will not be given the honor of being published attacks me in part as follows:

Dredging up an incident from a dozen years ago and making the priest the bad guy just seems so petty. He was not even convicted; the charges were dismissed.

Moreover, the writer turns the situation into one of merely being in a park after hours.  The cretin misses the point that the issue is not the priest (although he did plead guilty in a plea deal which is not what one does if there isn't a good chance of conviction) but rather McDonnell's hypocrisy.  Taliban Bob only wants to know gays when they can help him throw his wife under the bus.  He certainly had other option as to where he could stay if he found the marital home to chilly. . 

9th Circuit Dishes Protect Marriage Washington

The Christofascist who backed the Referendum 71 effort in Washington State - an initiative that would have repealed recognition of same sex relationships in the State of Washington - continue to whine and engage in desperate attempts to keep the names of the bigots who signed the petitions to put Referendum 71 on the ballot secret. Frankly, I have ZERO respect for those who want to take away civil legal rights of others yet lack the balls and courage to stand up and acknowledge their hatred of others and religious based bigotry. Thankfully, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit basically kicked the whiners to the curb and refused to allow the petitions to be kept secret. Pam's House Blend has details on the latest bitch slap delivered to the Referendum 71 proponents (their spokesman, Larry Stickney, is pictured at left). Here are some highlights:

Moot is the word that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used to describe Protect Marriage Washington‘s too-late effort to prevent the Washington Secretary of State from releasing more copies of the Referendum 71 petitions to the public.

In October, Federal District Court Judge Benjamin Settle, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in their case Doe v. Reed that PMW was not entitled to an exemption from the Public Records Act and that therefore the Referendum 71 petitions they submitted to the state must be made available to the public by the Secretary of State. He also revealed the identities of the Doe plaintiffs and witnesses which until then had been secret.

PMW found itself in a pickle because they had failed to pre-file a request for a stay before Judge Settle ruled. As a group concerned with keeping the names of R-71 signatories and Doe plaintiffs secret, pre-filing a motion for a stay would have been a logical precaution for PMW to take in the event Judge Settle ruled against them.

But they didn’t. Instead they filed emergency motions for injunction after the fact. Between the time of Judge Settle’s ruling and PMW’s after-the-fact emergency motions, numerous copies of the R-71 petitions and Judge Settle’s ruling itself had entered the public domain. In addition, some Doe witnesses have outed themselves.

PMW is affiliated with the anti-gay hate group National Organization for Marriage. Doe v. Reed is just one in a string of NOM-linked cases seeking — unsuccessfully — to use ballot measures and legislative campaigns about domestic partnerships or marriage equality as vehicles for attacking campaign finance disclosure laws or other open government laws. Recent articles describing related NOM-linked cases can be found here and here.

In November, 2009 over 53% of the electorate voted to approve Referendum 71, making Washington the first state in the nation to vote affirmatively in support of comprehensive relationship recognition for LGBT families. PMW was the organization trying to use the R-71 vote to overturn the law.

The Hypocrisy of Self-Righteous Homophobes

Have you noticed how so many anti-gay bigots and homophobes want to denigrate LGBT citizens and deprive us of civil legal rights yet at the same time want to remain safely anonymous? These folks range from those who sign anti-gay initiative petitions to place anti-gay legislation on the ballot and then shriek and howl when their names might be made public. Or there are NOM's anonymous donors who want to viciously the rights of gay citizens while hiding from public view themselves. Or their are people like the parents of students who seek to ruin the lives/careers of LGBT teachers but don't want their own names made known. A case in point is what happened to student teacher Seth Stambaugh (more on his case in a moment). All of these individuals want a license to denigrate and demonize LGBT Americans but lack the courage to have their hate and bigotry exposed to the light of day. The fact that these jerks are embarrassed to have their actions made public ought to tell them they were wrong in the first place and need to rethink their bigotry.
*
Now back to Seth Stambaugh's situation. Aaron Krikava is the parent who set things in motion to have Stambaugh fired because he took offense at Stambaugh's comment about gay marriage in answering a student's question about his relationship status. Of course, Krikava doesn't bear sole responsibility for Stambaugh's firing. The school district all too typically showed no backbone and fired Stambaugh rather than buck parental bigotry. Ultimately, however, Stambaugh had a public letter of support from 27 Sexton Mountain teachers, 22 Sexton Mountain parents, and nearly 5,000 people who signed an online petition to reinstate him. District officials — worn down by community outrage, legal threats, and embarrassing national headlines — reinstated Stambaugh. They even promised to reform their approach toward LGBT issues. As for Kirkava, he "felt threatened" and has taken his child out of Stambaugh's class, thereby disproving to me at least that he's "not a homophobe." Here are highlights from the Portland Mercury:
*
[T]he parent who originally complained about the gay marriage comment Stambaugh made in class sent out a mass email saying he was pulling his son out of Stambaugh's class at Sexton Mountain Elementary.
*
"We have been called every name under the sun. We are not bigots, homophobes, or religious fanatics," wrote the parent, Aaron Krikava, in the email that was forwarded to me by one of the numerous parents who received it. "What began as a simple event of a responsible parent expressing a valid concern quickly turned into an opportunity to push a political agenda." Krikava goes on to say that the family felt "threatened" . . . Krikava writes that Perriguey [Stambaugh's attorney] told the mother that if the family did not ask the district to reinstate Stambaugh, "he may not be able to continue to keep our names, and our phone numbers, including our sons, out of the press."
*
Krikava describes the classroom as a "compromised situation" and concludes that it would be "irresponsible" to leave his son there. We're printing Krikava's name now because he has given up the expectation of privacy granted any private citizen in this situation by sending out a mass email about the case signed with his full name.

*

The message to Krikava and those like him is this: we are NOT going away and we are NOT going to slink away quietly. If you want to be a bigot and hate merchant, then expect your name to be public.

Supreme Court Hears Washington State Referendum 71 Case

One of the ironies of the activities of the Uber-Christians is that in addition to wearing their religion on their sleeves much like the ostentatious Pharisees condemned in the Bible, they also pat themselves on the back and claim to be "real Americans" and pretend to be the defenders of democracy. That is except for when democracy and political disclosure laws are inconvenient and might demonstrate to the world that they are actually nasty bigots who prefer to harm the civil rights of other citizens anonymously. The case that was just argued before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Christianist effort to block the release of the names of those who signed petitions to place a potential repeal of same sex domestic partnership rights on the ballot shines a bright light on the hypocrisy of these self-congratulatory "Christians." Few things pose a bigger threat to democracy than ballot measures put in place by anonymous parties - conspirators if you will - with no transparency as to who and what money interests are behind the anti-liberty initiatives. The Advocate looks at this story and surprisingly, Antonin Scalia may not help out his fellow religious extremists. Here are some highlights:
*
Gay rights opponents arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court to keep secret the names of petitioners who opposed a Washington state domestic partnership law said on Wednesday that such disclosure would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
*
During oral arguments in Doe v. Reed — a lawsuit arising from Washington’s Referendum 71, in which voters ultimately approved an “everything but marriage” law for gay couples — Protect Marriage Washington attorney James Bopp. Jr. argued that “no person should suffer harassment” as a result of participating in the political process by signing a petition.
*
Several justices appeared skeptical of Bopp’s arguments, however. Justice Antonin Scalia, who has historically voted against protecting anonymous speech, was particularly aggressive in questioning Bopp, saying that, “Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage.”
*
“The First Amendment does not protect you from criticism, or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate,” Scalia said. Scalia told Bopp that he is asking the Court “to enter into a whole new field” by asking the justices to overturn Washington’s open records law.
*
"The people of Washington evidently think that this is not too much of an imposition upon people's courage, to stand up and sign something and be willing to stand behind it," Scalia said. Scalia further ridiculed Protect Marriage Washington's attempt to block disclosure of the signatures, calling the arguments "touchy-feely."
*
Washington attorney general Rob McKenna argued that public disclosure of petition signatures, is, like campaign contributions and voter rolls, vital to the state’s interest in protecting against fraud.
*
A majority of Washington voters approved the expanded domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples in November. Following the referendum, Protect Marriage Washington sued to block the release of the signatures it had collected, fearing that those in favor of stripping gays and lesbians of expanded domestic partnership rights would face harassment and retribution.
*
I can think of few things more un-American or more cowardly than wanting to attack the civil rights of other citizens and then hide behind anonymity rather than stand up publicly for their convictions. Indeed, the Protect Marriage Washington crowd come across as some what akin to Nazi informants who anonymously turned in Jews.

Gutless Personal Attacks

I guess it goes with being a LGBT blogger, but it is interesting how homophobes and Christianists who visit this blog - for the male beauty photos perhaps? - always (1) post their personal attacks anonymously, and (2) somehow attribute my posts that are 100% accurate in reporting anti-gay issues as some form of self-loathing on my part. For the record, the only loathing that I have is for Christianists and bigots who knowingly lie and denigrate others who disagree with their religious views all the while patting themselves on the back in a falsely pious and self-congratulatory manner. Here's a sampling of today's poison:

*

It is obvious you are filled with self-loathing. You project your hate onto others...just like Wayne Besen, the queen of hatemongering. . . . But, of course, this is not about truth...it's about raging against yourself for abandoning your family. You should really get some help.

*

Candidly, it sounds to me that it's the author of the comment rather than me who needs some help. Maybe the author of the comment is Michael Johnston, since he has such an axe to grind with Wayne Besen. Or maybe it's one of the folks at Exodus International or some other ex-gay "ministry" who feels threatened by growing revelations that gays cannot change their sexual orientation, thus causing the author more self loathing because in his heart of hearts he knows that he's really gay.

*

I'd also note that I never abandoned my family - my youngest daughter will be in my office most of the day today - as she is most days. As for my other children, I suspect that someday they will realize that they were never abandoned.

Gutless Annonymous Comments

UPDATED: One individual apparently hasn't gotten the message and continues to make extremely nasty personal attacks. Hence I am contacting Google and will have his/her IP address identified and then file an appropriate complaint for harrassment. While one can post anonymous comments, there are ways to find out one's copmuter address.

*

Internet address and t seems that ever few months I have to readdress this issue: nasty comments posted by those who seek to be "anonymous." Apparently some people still have not gotten the message. Nasty comments attacking me, my opinions, gays in general, how I write this blog and/or other individuals that are submitted by whiny, simpering, self-righteous, gutless wonders who lack the balls and courage to to publicly identify themselves will NOT be posted - so please, once again, do not waste your time or mine.
*
The bottom line is that if these malcontents who comment under the name "Anonymous" do not like my "holier than thou attitude," my views on Ted Haggard, my thoughts on gay rights activism, or if the truth as I see it hurts, or if they want to alienate would be allies, then they can set up their own blog and vent. I have no intention of providing a platform for their vitriol and bitchiness.

Cowards and Anonymous Comments

I know that I have done posts on this issue before, but apparently some people have not gotten the message. Nasty comments attacking me, my opinions, and/or others that are submitted by whiny, simpering gutless wonders who lack the balls and courage to to publicly identify themselves will NOT be posted - so please, do not waste your time or mine.

*

Bottom line, if these malcontents who comment under the name "anonymous" do not like my "holier than thou attitude" or if the truth as I see it hurts, or if they want to alienate would be allies, then they can set up their own blog and vent. I have no intention of providing a platform for their vitriol.

Updated Policy On Comments

In the past I have complained about those who I perceive as spineless wimps who want to leave comments on various posts but only do so anonymously. Typically, the anonymous poster takes pot shots at my opinions and/or comments of others - who have the guts and fortitude to identify themselves - while being so lacking in their own convictions as to be afraid to allow themselves to be identified. Due to past experience with anonymous and/or Christianist nutcase comments, I moderate all comments on this blog. Nonetheless, the problem of such anonymous comments has persisted and, therefore, henceforth ALL anonymous posts will be rejected unless I see some merit in the comment which causes me to overlook the otherwise spinelessness of the commenter.

*

If your comments are not worthy enough for a poster to identify themselves, then they are not worth of being approved for the general readership.