Where Are the "Good Trump Supporters" in Denouncing Bigotry?

Some apologists for Donald Trump voters - including some "friends" of mine who betrayed their LGBT friends and neighbors - have argued that many, if not a majority of Trump supporters do not believe in racism, homophobia and all the other forms of bigotry that candidate Trump elevated.  Likewise, some argue that the decent Trump supporters will block some of the most foul initiatives that candidate Trump claimed to champion. Unfortunately, as Trump is unveiling his racist and homophobic billionaires cabinet, little or nothing is being heard from these supposed "good" Trump supporters in opposition to all the misogyny and hatred on display.  Sadly, few in the media appear to be focusing on this deafening silence as many fall over themselves trying to pretend that we are seeing normal times or a normal administration transition.  A piece in The Daily Beast calls out this "good Trump supporters."  Here are excerpts:

Dear Good White Donald Trump Supporters:

I get it. Finally you are: “Free at last! Free at Last! Thank God almighty [you] are free at last!” Apparently it’s been a rough eight years for you being oppressed by that black president. But the days of keeping the “white man” down are over—at least that’s the vibe the rest of us seem to be getting from you.
 Not only did 58 percent of whites vote for Trump, but a record breaking 67 percent of whites without a college degree cast their ballot for the man in the red “Make America Great again” hat.

That is why I’m writing this letter to you—the white Trump supporter. Actually, I’m really trying to reach the white Trump supporter who truly isn’t bigoted or racist. 

But while not all Trump supporters are bigots, all bigots are Trump supporters. (or at least all who voted) It’s not like a person said: “I really hate those damn Muslims and Latinos, but I’m more concerned about green energy so I’m voting for Jill Stein.” Nah, the white supremacists were all in for Trump this year.

And therein lies the problem for the Trump supporter who is a good person, whom I’ll call the moderate Trumper. You are being defined by the extremists in your community. I’m talking about the followers of radical Trumpism or Trumpists, if you will.

These extremists have reportedly committed hundreds and hundreds of hate incidents since Election Day in Trump’s name. As the Southern Poverty Law Center noted in a report released on Tuesday, there were 867 hate incidents in the 10 days after the election directed at blacks, immigrants, Jews, Muslims, and women. (You know, the very groups Trump demonized this campaign.)
 [A]s the SPLC noted, out of the 867 documented hate incidents, only 23 were anti-Trump. You might think it’s higher because Trump surrogates appearing on cable news have claimed that it’s just as bad for Trump supporters. But that statement—like much of what Trump said during the campaign—is a lie.

Failing to denounce those hate crimes committed by the extremists in your community will cause you to be defined by them. Believe me, I know that firsthand, being Muslim. Imagine if Muslim Americans had committed more than 800 hate incidents in 10 days? Muslim Americans, including myself, would be in the media vocally denouncing them just as we try to do after any terror attack carried out by a Muslim.

Bottom line is if we don’t start seeing moderate Trump supporters denounce the extremists—fair or not—the followers of radical Trumpism will soon define all of you.

It’s your call. I’m simply just trying to help the millions of Trumpers who are good Americans and despise hate as much as the rest of us.

Expect the silence of these folks to remain deafening.  They are little better than the "Good Germans" who silently allowed Hitler and the Nazis to thrive and the "good Christians" who refuse to confront their hate-filled coreligionists who are killing the Christian brand.  Being a truly decent and moral person requires a spine and a willingness to openly confront and condemn hate and bigotry.  Sadly, most "good Trump supporters" lack both. They will continue to be enablers to the bigots and hate merchants. 

House of Delegates Kills Gay Marriage Ban Repeal Without Hearing

Some things never change: the Virginia GOP's anti-gay extremism and cowardice.  Delegate Mark Cole, chairman of the House of Delegates Privileges and Elections Committee announced that there would be no hearings or action on any constitutional amendments this legislative session.  By doing so, the Virginia GOP prostituted itself to The Family Foundation and GOP members of the House of Delegates avoided having to vote on a measure to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment which would have underscored how increasingly out of step they are with the views of a majority of Virginians and the 21st century for that matter.  Blue Virginia has details.  Here are excerpts:

The more things change, the more they stay the same...at least when it comes to Virginia Republicans and homophobia (or pandering to the homophobes in their grassroots ranks).

On Wednesday, January 9, 2014, Chairman Delegate Mark Cole announced that the Privileges and Elections Committee would not be hearing any constitutional amendments this session – instead waiting until next session. 

“Virginia Republican’s refusal to even consider same-sex marriage is backwards and proving increasingly archaic,” said Delegate Surovell.  “Marriage is about loving, committed couples who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for each other, in good times and bad.

 “Virginians are ready to repeal the Marshall-Newman amendment,” said Senator Ebbin. “This unfair and discriminatory law denies loving couples the chance to build a life together, throwing up burdens that straight couples never have to face. People deserve to be judged by their actions, and laws that deny people fundamental rights because of their sexual orientation should have no place in Virginia. We have lost and will continue to lose hard-working citizens to other states.”

In 2013, the Washington Post reported that 58% of Americans supported same-sex marriage while 36% opposed it. In 2012, PPP found that 65% of Virginians supported some type of recognition of same-sex couples.

As I have said before, the Virginia GOP is now the party of homophobes, racists and Neanderthals.

Liberals Need to To Recover 'Hijacked' Christianity

Dan Savage is saying something that I have long advocated: progressive, non-hate filled Christians need to stop yielding the field to the Christofascist who have turned Christianity into something abhorrent that seems focused on the dissemination of hate and fear rather than the Gospel message of Christ.  These "good Christians" need to forcefully speak out and boldly confront the lies and despicable propaganda campaigns of the Christofascists.  From time to time it happens - e.g., some of the ELCA and Episcopal bishops who spoke out against anti-gay initiatives in Minnesota and Washington State - but sadly such is the rare exception and not the norm.  Why does this happen?  Because, in my view, too many pastors and bishops are more afraid of offending hate filled bigots than doing what is morally right.  Because of this cowardice, the Christian brand , if you will, is being destroyed and younger generations are simply walking away from religion.  Candidly, nowadays when I heard someone loudly pronounce that they are a Christian, my initial reaction is negative - I assume that they are a horrible bigot and hypocrite until it is proven otherwise. I suspect that I am not alone in this reaction.  Here are highlights from The Advocate on this issue:

Dan Savage wants liberal Christians to speak up in their churches and speak out about supporting their LGBT friends, family members, and fellow parishioners, the columnist and LGBT activist said in a video released today.

In the latest episode of Savage's new web series, American Savage, the founder of the It Gets Better Project says he's used to fielding complaints as a columnist from Christians who take offense at his across-the-board condemnation of Christians as antigay. 

"We're not all like that," Savage says he hears on a regular basis from people of faith responding to his syndicated sex advice column, Savage Love. He's heard the refrain so often that he's conjured a clever acronym to refer to liberal Christians who support LGBT equality: NALT Christians, or "Not All Like That."

"But the reason so many of us have the idea that you are, indeed, all like that, and the reason that Christian has become synonymous with antigay is because of these loud voices on the Christian right," says Savage in a featured clip of the gay activist speaking at Arizona State University. "And they've hijacked Christianity, with your complicit silence enabling their hijacking of it."

Roll Call Vote on Tracy Thorne-Begland Judgeship

UPDATED 5-16-12:  My Google search agent shows that this story is going viral around the USA and overseas.  I hope Bob Marshall and his fellow theocrats are happy that they've made Virginia a worldwide laughingstock. 

I noted earlier today how the Virginia House of Delegate rejected Tracy Thorne-Begland's nomination for a General District Court judgeship based solely on his sexual orientation and refusal to be a self-loathing closet case.  The Richmond Times Dispatch has a role call vote on trashing Thorne-Begland.   Several things are noteworthy: (1) of the "yes" votes, all were by Democrats except for seven Republicans; (2) all of the "No" votes were Republican, (3) all of abstentions were by Republicans - who apparently sought to avoid - documenting their bigotry; (4) seven of the 26 "not-voting" were cowardly Democrats, while the rest were Republicans embarrassed by their party's blatant anti-gay bigotry who were afraid to anger the Christofascists at The Family Foundation.   Obviously, had the cowards of both parties, Thorne-Begland would have been confirmed.   Here's the results from the Times-Dispatch:

Here is the roll call vote in the House of Delegates early Tuesday on Tracy Thorne-Begland, Richmond's chief deputy commonwealth's attorney, who was rejected for a judgeship in general district court. Thorne-Begland received 33 yea votes and 31 delegates voted against him. He needed a majority of the chamber -- 51 votes, to be elected.

Yeas (33)
 
David B. Albo, R-Fairfax
Kenneth C. Alexander, D-Norfolk
Mamye E. BaCote, D-Newport News
David L. Bulova, D-Fairfax
Betsy B. Carr, D-Richmond
Barbara J. Comstock, R-Fairfax
Rosalyn R. Dance, D-Petersburg
Peter F. Farrell, R-Henrico
Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax
Charniele L. Herring, D-Alexandria
Patrick A. Hope, D-Arlington
Algie T. Howell, D-Norfolk
Matthew James, D-Portsmouth
Mark L. Keam, D-Fairfax
Terry G. Kilgore, R-Scott
L. Kaye Kory, D-Fairfax
James M. LeMunyon, R-Fairfax
Lynwood W. Lewis Jr., D-Accomack
Alfonso H. Lopez, D-Arlington
G. Manoli Loupassi, R-Richmond
Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond
Delores L. McQuinn, D-Richmond
Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico
Thomas Davis Rust, R-Fairfax
James M. Scott, D-Fairfax
Mark D. Sickles, D-Fairfax
Lionell Spruill Sr., D-Chesapeake
Scott A. Surovell, D-Fairfax
Luke Torian, D-Prince William
David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville
Jeion A. Ward, D-Hampton
Vivian E. Watts, D-Fairfax
Joseph A. Yost, R-Montgomery

Nays (31)

Richard L. Anderson, R-Prince William
Richard P. "Dickie" Bell, R-Staunton
Robert B. Bell, R-Albemarle
Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell
Benjamin L. Cline, R-Rockbridge
Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania
John A. Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake
John A. Cox, R-Hanover
L. Mark Dudenhefer, R-Stafford
James E. Edmunds II, R-Halifax
C. Matthew Fariss, R-Campbell
T. Scott Garrett, R-Lynchburg
Thomas A. "Tag" Greason, R-Loudoun
Gordon C. Helsel Jr., R-Poquoson
M. Keith Hodges, R-Middlesex
Timothy D. Hugo, R-Fairfax
Salvatore R. Iaquinto, R-Virginia Beach
Barry D. Knight, R-Virginia Beach
L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William
Daniel W. Marshall III, R-Danville
Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William
Jimmie Massie, R-Henrico
Donald W. Merricks, R-Pittsylvania
James W. "Will" Morefield, R-Tazewell
Brenda L. Pogge, R-James City
Charles D. Poindexter, R-Franklin County
David I. Ramadan, R-Loudoun
Roxann L. Robinson, R-Chesterfield
Ron Villanueva, R-Virginia Beach
Michael B. Watson, R-Williamsburg
Tony O. Wilt, R-Rockingham

Abstensions (10)

M. Kirkland Cox, R-Colonial Heights
Anne B. Crockett-Stark, R-Wythe
Riley E. Ingram, R-Hopewell
R. Steven Landes, R-Augusta
Israel D. O'Quinn, R-Bristol
Lacey E. Putney, I-Bedford
Larry N. Rush, R-Montgomery
Edward T. Scott, R-Madison
Beverly J. Sherwood, R-Frederick
Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach

Not voting (26)

Robert H. Brink, D-Arlington
David L. Englin, D-Alexandria
C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah
Gregory D. Habeeb, R-Salem
Christopher T. Head, R-Roanoke
William J. Howell, R-Stafford
Johnny S. Joannou, D-Portsmouth
Joseph P. Johnson Jr., D-Washington County
S. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk
Joe T. May, R-Loudoun
Jackson H. Miller, R-Manassas
J. Randall "Randy" Minchew, R-Leesburg
Richard L. Morris, R-Isle of Wight
John M. O'Bannon III, R-Henrico
Robert D. Orrock Sr., R-Caroline
Christopher K. Peace, R-Hanover
Kenneth R. Plum, D-Fairfax
Harry R. Purkey, R-Virginia Beach
Margaret B. Ransone, R-Westmoreland
Robert Tata, R-Virginia Beach
Roslyn C. Tyler, D-Sussex
Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke
R. Lee Ware Jr., R-Powhatan
Michael J. Webert, R-Fauquier
Thomas C. Wright Jr., R-Lunenberg
David E. Yancey, R-Newport News

Here is the statement released by Senator Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) on the Virginia General Assembly's failure to appoint Tracy Thorne-Begland to the Richmond District Court:

"Tracy Thorne-Begland is a highly qualified and exceptionally competent prosecutor, who also served our country with honor as a Navy pilot. The blatant prejudice that Republicans displayed last night should have no place in our government. The GOP took Virginia back to the bigotry and mean-spirited prejudice of the 1960s. I thought we had made more progress toward a just society than this.

"The only criteria legislators should apply when selecting judges are that person's ability to fairly and impartially weigh the law. Mr. Thorne-Begland's qualifications for appointment to the bench were unimpeachable, but Republicans cynically voted against his appointment just because he was gay," said Senator McEachin.

Once again, I find myself embarrassed to be a resident of Virginia.  I suspect this latest case of religious based hate and bigotry is being watched around the world and the Virginia GOP just cased Virginia to be stricken from the list of possible relocation sites by many corporations and businesses

Dan Savage's Remarks on the Bible: The Bullies Can Dish It Out, But Can't Take It

Watching the tempest over Dan Savage's recent remarks on the Bible and simple minded Christians underscores the Christianists' belief that they can say any kind of horrible and demeaning thing about gays - e.g., we are disease ridden, AIDS is God's punishment, we threaten civilization, we're all would be pedophiles, etc., etc. - and that's just fine.  The nasty comment I received and highlighted in a post the other day is but one example of the bile the Christianists put out literally daily.  But God forbid that they get some of their own tactics and types of language thrown back at them.  Then suddenly they're wailing and gnashing their teeth about being bullied.  Last time I looked, we haven't seen any Christian teens committing suicide on a weekly or almost daily basis because of anti-Christian bullying.  The hypocrisy and disingenuousness of the right is indeed breath taking.  And that was the point of Savage's comments: the unrelenting hypocrisy of the Christianists who have made Christianity into something hideous.  A column in the Washington Post looks at the crocodile tears of the "godly Christian" set:

In general, it is a bad idea to insult people’s appearance, religious texts, or children.

I only mention this because Dan Savage, during an April 12conference on journalism, managed to refer to parts of the Bible in no uncertain terms. “We’ll just talk about the Bible for a second,” Savage said. “People often point out that they can’t help it — they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong... We can learn to ignore the bull[excrement] in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the [redacted] in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore [redacted] in the Bible about all sorts of things.”

It’s causing a minor firestorm. Conservative commentators are accusing Savage of bullying. Several students walked out, and he called their response “pansy-[patooted].” He has since apologized for that — but not for the first few Biblical turdblossoms.  

The indignation machine these days is remarkably well-oiled. As John Shore noted: “I, for one, have no idea what the world has come to, when a person who has made his career out of speaking, in the most unadorned language possible, directly to great numbers of young people about some of the most important issues in their lives, dares to speak in unadorned language directly to a great number of young people about one of the most important issues in American life today.”

If people earnestly believe that they are justified in treating you badly, if they object to your very existence on what seem to them to be moral grounds, you are justified in calling them out on it. Sometimes, you can go so far as to rename them. If someone tells you that you will burn in Hell for all eternity, you can turn around and say unprintable things about his religious text. 

 Savage’s circle has been expanding for a reason. In a perverse way, if he’s in a position to make other people feel bullied, that’s a sign of progress. If only we'd come far enough he didn’t have to use that position to do so.

It is long past time that the Christianists cease getting special deference.   They do simply do not deserve the special rights they continually demand - even as they bully and abuse others.

Obama's Disinterested Approach to Gay Rights

One can feel as if they are going to experience whiplash at times from Barack Obama's approach to LGBT rights and ending legalized anti-gay discrimination.  Sadly, it often seems that only when the LGBT community becomes truly pissed off and inclined to stop writing checks for Obama and/or other Democrats that Obama will have a brief epiphany and take a step to advance equality.  But more often, he seems most inclined to either throw gays under the bus - as with his refusal to sign an ENDA like executive order despite polling that shows the vast majority of Americans support employment protections  - or to close his eyes and pretend he's unaware of issues that have monumental impact on gays.   While I applaud his belated efforts for the repeal of DAD and his refusal to defend DOMA, there's so much more to be done, especially in states like Virginia where LGBT citizens barely rate as 4th class citizens.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at Obama's continued ability to frustrate LGBT Americans while assuming that we have no viable option but to vote for him in November.  Here are highlights:

Two weeks from now, North Carolina will hold a public referendum on what could become one of the toughest anti-gay measures in the country: a far-reaching proposal to amend the state constitution to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. But President Obama is not expected to touch the subject when he appears in Chapel Hill on Tuesday — even though it is roiling the electorate there.

Instead, Obama will talk about college loans, his aides said, kicking off a two-day, three-state tour designed to energize the youth vote. His delicate sidestep of Amendment One, a ballot initiative to be decided May 8 that would recognize marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal domestic partnership in North Carolina, is seen by some as another sign that he is not fully committed to gay rights — an interpretation that could dampen the enthusiasm of the young voters he is trying to court.

“It’s a little bit of a missed opportunity,” said Josh Orol, 20, a sophomore at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a leader of a campus movement to defeat Amendment One. “I didn’t expect him to talk at length about it. I know he has come out publicly against it. But I sort of hoped he would at least name-drop a little bit. It’s disappointing.”

 The issue is particularly complicated in historically conservative North Carolina. .   .   .   North Carolina is widely seen as a bigger challenge this year for Obama than it was in 2008, when he won with a margin of roughly 14,000 votes. Not only does the state’s unemployment rate continue to hover near 10 percent, but its Democratic Party is in disarray and is expected to be of little help to president  .  .  

It will also be up to Obama to navigate the political crosscurrents of a complicated state in which he must court multiple constituencies that do not all agree on all the same issues.  The fate of Amendment One, for instance, is uncertain, with one public poll predicting that it will pass easily and another projecting a loss. Quietly opposing Amendment One, but keeping his distance from on-the-ground efforts to defeat it, could be an essential strategy for Obama to pull back together the diverse coalition that elected him last time.

Nonetheless, that approach is frustrating younger activists, many of whom have come to view marriage equality as the defining civil rights cause of their generation. They are impatient with Obama’s self-described “evolving” position on gay marriage — he supports civil unions but stops short of endorsing legal protections for marriage — and they are looking for signs that he is ready to embrace their cause more fully.

Campaign officials also drew a stark contrast between Obama’s positions on marriage issues and those of the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, whose opposition to legal protections for gay couples drew an endorsement last week from the National Organization for Marriage.

Particularly frustrating to DeLuca and others is the prospect of Amendment One passing despite growing opposition. Corporate leaders, advocates for victims of domestic violence and even moderate Republicans, faith leaders and the NAACP have joined forces in an attempt to defeat it 

Whatever Obama does or does not say about Amendment One in the coming two weeks, he could benefit, at least somewhat, from the push to defeat it. Across the state, particularly on college campuses, diverse coalitions of students, gay rights activists, libertarians and others have been collecting e-mail addresses and registering voters in advance of the May 8 referendum.  

I often am left with the feeling that the issue of gay rights is just a matter of political gamesmanship with Obama.  He constantly forgets that there are real lives involved and real LGBT headed families that face discrimination.  It is soul killing to always find oneself hoping and waiting for the day when one will be a full, equal citizen.  I often feel I will not live to see that day arrive.  At least not if we rely on Obama to set the timetable.

The Closed Mindedness of Chris Christie

As Think Progress is reporting, Washington State Governor Christine Gregorie wrote a letter to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (the letter is pictured below) sharing her views on how she evolved on the issue of same sex marriage offering to discuss the issue. Christie, apparently afraid to buck the marching orders he has received from the Christianist elements if the GOP, has to date not even acknowledged receipt of the letter. Think Progress has this highlights:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) hopes to put the politically delicate question of same-sex marriage behind him and is prepared to swiftly veto a bill extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians, even if it means ignoring the arguments of proponents.

Rather than considering equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, however, Christie has largely dismissed his critics and called for a state referendum on the issue. During a press conference yesterday, the New Jersey governor referred to the senate’s passage of same-sex marriage bill as “a good bunch of theater” and told lawmakers, “it’s not going to happen.”

Christie is a fool if he believe the issue of inequality can be so easily avoided. I hope it comes back to bite him in his fat ass.

Chris Christie Proves He's Spineless and Calls for a Public Vote on LGBT Civil Rights

Earlier today I had hoped that Chris Christie might show some spine - and leadership qualities - in the context of the pending gay marriage legislation in New Jersey. To do that, of course, he would need to stand up for equality under the civil laws and "flip the bird" to Christianists, far right religious extremists and ignorance embracing "traditional Catholics" who want to trample on the religious freedoms of other citizens. That hope apparently was misplaced. Rather than exhibit leadership and desire to be on the right side of history when it comes to equality for all citizens, Mr. Christie has run in cowardice. How so? Rather than support religious freedom and equality for all citizens, Christies is trying to punt on the issue and today stated that the marriage rights of gays should be put to a public vote - something anathema to the Constitution's protections afforded to minorities. If Christie wants a vote on gay rights, then let's put all kinds of rights up to public vote. To start wit, how about a vote on the rights of the morbidly obese such as Mr. Christie himself. Or perhaps those of Jewish descent. Or maybe Mormons or evangelical Christians? The Star-Ledger has coverage on Christie's disgusting spinelessness. Here are some highlights:

Gov. Chris Christie called today for the Legislature to put on the fall ballot a voter referendum on whether to legalize gay marriage, which Democratic lawmakers have made a top priority.

If successful, the referendum would amend the state Constitution and trump the current civil unions law. He urged all Republicans in the Legislature to put the matter to voters, but promised to veto the measure if it came to him in the form of a bill.

In reaction to Christie's bombshell, State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a sponsor of the bill, said same-sex marriage is "a right that's guaranteed by the Constitution. It's up to us to implement it as legislators."

I sincerely hope that the New Jersey legislature drums up the vote to override Christie's likely gutless and spineless veto of the marriage legislation. Christie makes me want to vomit.

New York Times Slams Lowe's for its Cowardliness

I did not comment much at the time about the surrender of Lowe's to the rhetoric of hate promoted by a shell organization that parades under the name "Florida Family Association." In my view, it has come to the point that if a group uses "family" in it's name, nine times out of ten, the organization is actually little more than a hate group deceptively masquerading as something less ominous. The only differentiation between one such "family" association and the next is the identity of who they hate. It may be gays, it may be Muslims, or it may be blacks - or all of the foregoing. Yet too many businesses are either to lazy or too stupid to check out the real nature of their critics before surrendering to hate. The New York Times did a great job ripping both the Florida Family Association and Lowe's a new one in an editorial on Friday. Lowe's spinelessness makes me want to drive the extra mile or two to go to Home Depot instead. Here are some editorial highlights:

It is incredibly sad that one person with his own one-man hate group can tap into anti-Muslim sentiment and lead reputable companies to make foolish judgment calls.

At least two advertisers — Lowe’s, the home-improvement retailer, and Kayak.com, the online travel firm — have pulled commercials from “All-American Muslim,” a new reality series on the TLC cable channel, since the show was condemned by David Caton, an anti-Muslim and anti-gay activist, and the shell organization he founded and runs, the Florida Family Association.

Businesses have a perfect right to decide how to spend their advertising dollars. But, in pulling out as they did, Lowe’s and Kayak sent a distasteful message to their customers, their employees, and to the larger public.

Mr. Caton has called on companies to end their sponsorships, arguing that the show is dangerous and misleading “propaganda” because it portrays Muslims as “ordinary folks” just like other law-abiding Americans, not as extremists and terrorists.

Both Lowes and Kayak deny that they were moved to act by Mr. Caton’s campaign, citing instead the show’s controversial nature and, in Kayak’s case, reservations about its quality. “All-American Muslim” may not be the best TV show, but the controversy was manufactured by one man. By appearing to bow to bigotry, the companies earned a self-inflicted black eye.

Anti-Gay Cowards Lose Again at U. S. Supreme Court

Protect Marriage Washington- an ally of the liars, self-enriching whores and Christofscists at the National Organization for Marriage - took it on the chin yet again in the legal realm as the U.S. Supreme Court more or less kicked Protect marriage Washington to the curb and found its fairy tale of threats and intimidation against anti-gay bigots to be unconvincing. Indeed, only one Justice (Alito) - sided with Protect Marriage Washington and would have blocked the release of the names of anti-gay petition signers. Even Justices Thomas and Scalia were against the Protect Marriage Washington petition. This ought to be a huge wake up call to NOM should it be stupid enough to try to take its losses in campaign finance disclosure law challenges in seven states to the U.S. Supreme Court. Pam's House Blend looks at this major set back for the Christofascists. Here are highlights:

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request by Protect Marriage Washington that the state be blocked from releasing further copies of Referendum 71 petitions while PMW appeals an earlier Federal District Court decision that ordered their release.

The request had been made to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who apparently referred it to the entire Court. Justice Alito alone would have granted an injunction and Justice Kagan “took no part in the consideration or decision”, making this a 7-1 decision.

“This means that we can once again release these public records,” said Katie Blinn, the state elections co-director.

In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Protect Marriage Washington in an earlier phase of the same case, Doe v. Reed. At that time, PMW was trying to strike down all public records laws across the country that give the public access to initiative or referendum petitions once those petitions are submitted to the state. In the current phase of the case, PMW is asking for a special exception to keep only R-71 petitions secret.

In the Supreme Court’s 2010 opinion on the first phase of the case, Justice Antonin Scalia made this now-famous statement: There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is the price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.

Undoubtedly with the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in mind, Federal District Court Judge Benjamin Settle rejected in his October 17th ruling PMW’s claims that R-71 signatories needed a special exemption from the state’s Public Records Act (PRA). Rejecting PMW’s claims that R-71 signatories would be threatened or harassed if their names became public, he said: Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case. … Doe asked the Court to grant an exemption to the PRA based on a few experiences of what Doe believes constitutes harassment or threats, the majority of which are only connected to R-71 by speculation. If Doe’s position were correct, then . . . anyone could prevail under such a standard in the context of referenda, which are often heated, regardless of the subject matter.

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 and other open government laws. Recent articles describing related NOM-linked cases can be found here and here.

Republicans Versus Democrats from an LGBT Perspective

With the Democrats led by the spineless Barack Obama having basically flipped the bird to the LGBT community (after happily and cynically accepting our votes and money), some Republicans argue that LGBT voters need to stop voting lock step for Democrats. It's an argument that to some might sound attractive if one merely focused on LGBT issues. However, once other issues are factored in, it becomes more difficult to fall for the GOP's come hither song and dance. Dan Savage looks at the GOP versus Democrat comparison and, quite frankly, it seems that LGBT Americans are largely screwed regardless of the party in power. It's a sobering analysis and points out the difficulty in energizing LGBT voters - at least on LGBT issues alone. The argument that "we're not as bad as the other guys" really is shown to be hollow. Here are some highlights from Savage's piece in The Stranger:
*
I can't see myself voting Republican. Because I'm not—despite what you may have read in Slog's comments threads—a single-issue voter. I care about my rights, of course, but I also give a shit about reproductive rights, climate change, the rights of immigrants, the free exercise of religion (look what this "Ground Zero mosque" bullshit forced me to type!), and I much prefer reality-based solutions to the reality-based problems our nation faces.
*
But honestly... I am a lot less enthused about voting for, and giving money to, Democrats these days. Still going to vote for 'em, just not enthused. Feeling pretty tepid. And I suspect that I'm not alone. Backing way the hell up for a moment...
*
Here's what happens to the gays and our issues when Republicans win the White House or control Congress: not a whole hell of a lot. There's no progress on our issues under Republicans—all forward momentum ceases—but things don't get appreciably worse. We have to endure small outrages and insults, put up with slights, and be vigilant about legislative malice, but we don't see a big rollback of previously secured rights.
*
When we open our wallets for Democrats—and vote for them—the hope is that electing a Democratic president and Congress will result in significant progress on our issues. That's not just our delusional hope; that was an explicit promise made to us by Democrats. Once the Democrats were in power, everyone from Obama on down promised us, we would see real and significant progress on our issues: an end to DADT and DOMA, action on ENDA, a president willing to use the bully pulpit to aggressively defend our rights. But if, as we've seen, working to elect a Democratic president and give Democrats control of Congress results in no progress on our issues—no action on DADT, ENDA, or DOMA—then why the fuck should we bother?
*
If we get no progress under Democrats (just empty promises meant to excite their base), but no regress under Republicans (just empty threats meant to excite their base), why should we waste our time—and our money—worrying about who's in charge. . . . But the uselessness of the Dems has resulted in gay checkbooks snapping shut and it's definitely contributing to the "enthusiasm gap" that threatens to hand control of Congress to Republicans.
*
So here's where we're at: everyone who cares about gay issues is mad at the Democrats. The homophobes are angry because the Democrats suggested that they might do something about gay rights; gays and lesbians are furious with the Democrats for failing to do something—failing to do anything—about gay rights. Since doing nothing pisses off the gay haters just as much as doing something, perhaps the Dems should've have done something and won the enthusiastic support of someone. Heckuvajob, gang.

Obama’s Increasingly Absurd Gay Marriage Position

Some people are leaders and others are followers. Barack Obama campaigned claiming to be a leader yet has shown himself to be anything but a progressive leader. Rather than lead on issues and use the pulpit of the presidency, Obama is missing in action. And not just on the issue of gay marriage. The list is long: immigration reform, true health care reform, repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, employment non-discrimination protections - the list goes on and on. History, understandably treats leaders with respect and timid, disingenuous followers not so flatteringly. Obama seems determined to have history view his presidency in the latter category. The New Republic has a new piece that politely rips Obama a new one on the issue of gay marriage and compares Obama's weak kneed approach to same sex marriage with Woodrow Wilson's timid approach to women's suffrage nearly a century ago. Great presidents lead while timid followers end up in the not so great column. Barring some dramatic change in course, Obama's presidency will likely be viewed as one huge lost opportunity - and all because Obama refuses to move ahead of the curve and truly lead on anything. Here are column highlights:
*
In the fall of 1912, as his campaign for president entered its final stage, Woodrow Wilson was speaking in Brooklyn when he was asked for his opinion on women’s suffrage. The issue was very much in the political ether, but Wilson had declined to take a stand on it. According to John Milton Cooper’s excellent biography of the twenty-eighth president, he responded by insisting that it was “not a question that is dealt with by the national government at all.” The woman who had asked the question was apparently displeased by this blatant dodge. “I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Wilson,” she retorted. I am speaking to you as an American: It was a wonderful rebuke, . . .
*
An evasive stance on a controversial civil rights issue from a liberal president; an insistence that the issue is primarily local, rather than national, in character; a complete failure of sincerity, nerve, and will: If these things sound familiar in 2010, it is because Barack Obama is taking exactly the same approach on gay marriage.
*
Obama has also said he favors civil unions rather than gay marriage because the question of where and how to apply the label “marriage” is a religious one. This argument makes even less sense than his stance on state constitutions, since marriage, for better or for worse, is very much a government matter.
*
Obama and those around him seem unaware that all of this is a problem; a look at some of the lessons from Wilson’s experience might help to clarify why they ought to reconsider. The first lesson is that history does not look kindly on this type of presidential conduct. Wilson is today remembered as a near-great president, but his indifference on questions of gender and race is more than a bit unflattering in retrospect. Second, like Wilson, Obama is running out of time to stay ahead of history. . . . Third, there is the problem of the example Obama is setting for the rest of the world.
*
Obama has said that he wants to restore American moral leadership in the world. But how can he claim the mantle of moral leadership when we are being outpaced by so many countries and so many foreign leaders on one of the central civil rights issues of our time?
*
The final lesson from Wilson is that what a president says and does matters. . . . .while he may not realize it, Obama is already leading on gay marriage; he is just leading in the wrong direction. . . . Obama’s stance seems to be a way of conveying to the country that he knows a lot of people still aren’t completely comfortable admitting gays and lesbians as full participants in American life, and that this is OK because he isn’t either. It is about the most cynical gesture you can imagine from an allegedly liberal leader—and we deserve better. I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Obama.
*
It's no secret that I am beyond disgusted with Obama. Likewise, it is increasingly no secret that I hope he ends up facing a primary challenge in the lead up to the 2012 elections. The nation deserves better.

Progressives Assail Jim Webb on DADT Betrayal

With a new poll disclosing that 78% of Americans support the end of DADT, I keep wondering what Barack "I'm a Liar" Obama and Jim "Chicken Shit" Webb are so afraid of. They act as if the Pentagon has some - compromising pictures of them or something useful for blackmail. I truly do not get it. Neither do others in Virginia including straight progressive bloggers who are beginning to call Webb out on his decision to vote "No" on DADT repeal. 78% of voters support repeal of DADT and yet our faux "fierce advocate" and Webb shake in their shoes afraid to offend the likes of Elaine Donnelly and other professional homophobes. Something simply doesn't add up. Here are highlights from Blue Virginia's take on Webb's cowardice with the headline"Sen. Webb: No More Study, Its Time to End DADT:"
*
Now, here's my response to Sen. Webb.
*
First, this policy has been an abject failure almost any way you want to look at it. In a military that's overstretched as it is, the concept that we would discharge highly-trained (at high cost to taxpayers), highly-qualified people, such as experts in the Arabic language, makes absolutely no sense.
*
Second, most other countries in the western world already allow gays to serve openly in the military, and they seem to be doing just fine. That includes the Israeli armed forces, not exactly known as a pushover as a military force.
*
Third, we don't need any more "study" about whether to end DADT; we already know it makes no sense and serves no useful purpose. The only question is exactly how to end it, which the military should figure out in the next few months. Other than that, there's zero reason to keep DADT on the books for another minute.
*
Fourth, not that we should base public policy on opinion polls, but according to a new CNN poll, the American people overwhelmingly (nearly 8 in 10) support ending DADT.
*
Finally, DADT should be repealed because it is deeply unjust and fundamentally unfair. Just as you opened more operational billets to women than any other Navy Secretary, today it's time for you to support opening the military to gays and lesbians who want to serve their country.
*
If straight Democrats are unhappy with Webb, he'd better think what could happen come November's mid-terms to those in the Party who will have to face unhappy progressive and gay voters.

Why I Moderate Comments

As happens from time to time, I have been asked by an anonymous poster - they are always the ones asking the question - as to why do I moderate comments on this blog? The asnwer is pretty simple. I do it for a couple of reasons.

*

The first is that because this is a gay theme oriented blog, from time to time I receive extremely hateful, vicious and nasty comments from anti-gay religious kooks. I have no desire to (a) provide a platform for the rantings of these folks, or (b) expose my regular readers to such vile trash. Let these religious nutcases set up their own blog. Bloger is free, afterall.

*

The second reason is that often I do not publish comments from anonymous commenters. My view is that if someone lacks the courage to identify themselves either via an e-mail address or a link to their blog that can be seen by me and/or other readers, then I have the option of rejecting their comment. If you want to debate me or challenge my views, then have the guts to identify yourself. If you don't have the courage and integrity to do so, then I may reject your comments if I so decide. It's that simple. This is MY blog.