Target Selling Same Sex Union Cards Nationwide

The list of boycott targets for American Family Association and the One Million Bitches crowd just got longer.  I can just imagine the spittle that will be flying when these gay haters realize that Target has added cards for same sex unions to their greeting card inventories nationwide.  Maggie Gallagher and Linda Harvey will have a cow and Robert Knight may well blow a gasket.  With a huge national retailer like Target making this move, it's yet another sign that over the longer term the hate "family values" groups and professional Christian set are losing the marriage equality battle.  Here are highlights from LGBT Nation:

MINNEAPOLIS — Placed on greeting card racks under the headings of “For two special men” and “For two special women,” Minneapolis-based Target Corp. is now stocking greeting cards to celebrate same-sex unions.

The gay-themed greeting cards hit Target stores nationwide last month, just weeks after the retailer began selling gay pride-themed t-shirts online, reported the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

The cards are addressed to: “Two very special women, one very special love” and “Mr. & Mr.” and included greetings which include “…a love story whose time has come! Congratulations.”

Company spokeswoman Molly Snyder said that “Target is focused on diversity and inclusivity,” and now offers a range of greeting cards that appeal to a variety of audiences, including the LGBT community.

The cards are made by Carlton Cards, a unit of American Greetings, whose spokeswoman Patrice Sadd said the company and Target jointly decided to offer “wedding cards relevant for everyone.”
The move is the latest step by Target to appeal to gay and lesbian consumers.

In November, Minnesotans will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Target has not yet taken a position on the amendment, and said it’s going to remain neutral, having been burned by its political involvement in the past.

2012: The Rich Versus the Rest.

Mitt Romney's defenders are unhappy that the media - with the help of the Obama campaign, of course - is focusing on Romneys almost obscene wealth and his cynical and ruthless investment stratagems that cared nothing for the consequences other than how fast to make a buck.  Or more accurately, lots of bucks.  It's impossible to ever truly get inside of someone else's head, but Romney's career at Bain Capital is telling and it paints an ugly picture that ranges from betting against American businesses to throwing people out on the street without jobs.  A column in the New York Times notes why it IS appropriate to focus on these issues no matter how much Romney and his sycophants protest.  Here are excerpts:

A lot of people inside the Beltway are tut-tutting about the recent campaign focus on Mitt Romney’s personal history — his record of profiting even as workers suffered, his mysterious was-he-or-wasn’t-he role at Bain Capital after 1999, his equally mysterious refusal to release any tax returns from before 2010.

[T]his election really is — in substantive, policy terms — about the rich versus the rest. 

The story so far: Former President George W. Bush pushed through big tax cuts heavily tilted toward the highest incomes. As a result, taxes on the very rich are currently the lowest they’ve been in 80 years. President Obama proposes letting those high-end Bush tax cuts expire; Mr. Romney, on the other hand, proposes big further tax cuts for the wealthy. 

The impact at the top would be large. According to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Romney plan would reduce the annual taxes paid by the average member of the top 1 percent by $237,000 compared with the Obama plan; for the top 0.1 percent that number rises to $1.2 million. No wonder Mr. Romney’s fund-raisers in the Hamptons attracted so many eager donors that there were luxury-car traffic jams. 

What about everyone else? Again according to the policy center, Mr. Romney’s tax cuts would increase the annual deficit by almost $500 billion.  .   .  .   Realistically, those big tax cuts for the rich would be offset, sooner or later, with higher taxes and/or lower benefits for the middle class and the poor. 

So as I said, this election is, in substantive terms, about the rich versus the rest, and it would be doing voters a disservice to pretend otherwise.

How are voters supposed to know who’s telling the truth? In fact, earlier this year focus groups given an accurate description of Mr. Romney’s policy proposals refused to believe that any politician would take such a position.  .   .   .    Trust me: you will see very few news analyses saying that Mr. Romney proposes huge tax cuts for the rich, with no plausible offset other than big benefit cuts for everyone else — even though this is the simple truth.

So how can the Obama campaign cut through this political and media fog? By talking about Mr. Romney’s personal history, and the way that history resonates with the realities of his pro-rich, anti-middle-class policy proposals.  Thus the entirely true charge that Mr. Romney wants to slash historically low tax rates on the rich even further dovetails perfectly with his own record of extraordinary tax avoidance — so extraordinary that he’s evidently afraid to let voters see his tax returns from before 2010.

[T]alking about Mr. Romney’s personal history isn’t a diversion from substantive policy discussion. On the contrary, in a political and media environment strongly biased against substance, talking about Bain and offshore accounts is the only way to bring the real policy issues into focus. And we should applaud, not condemn, the Obama campaign for standing up to the tut-tutters. 

More Sunday Male Beauty

Hate Groups Attack Alan Chambers for Speaking the Truth that Gays Can't "Change"

I've noted in prior posts on how Alan Cambers and the "ex-gays for pay" at Exodus International have taken a major step and admitted that reparative doesn't work and that there is no such things as a "ex-gay."  Sadly, Chambers and company continue to cling to the discredited Bible passages that have been used to stigmatize gays and label us as "sinners."  That said, the admission that reparative therapy is nothing but a huge fraud knowing perpetrated on the gullible and religiously brainwashed is huge.  And not surprisingly, the Bible thumpers and certified hate group leaders are veritably foaming at the mouth over Chambers/Exodus' belated honesty.  A case in point is hate group leader Linda Harvey (at left) who has ZERO, that's right ZERO credentials that make her a credible commentator on sexual orientation and/or medical and mental health issues (we traded e-mails some years back and she conceded her academic business background have ZERO to do with the things she now pretends to have expertise about).  Right Wing Watch looks at Harvey's attacks on Chambers and those who are willing to admit that the whole "ex-gay" storyline is a lie (Note: she claims thousands of gays have "changed" but offers up ZERO evidence):

Recently, the "ex-gay" organization Exodus International shocked the Religious Right when it announced that it would no longer promote so called "reparative therapy" which claims to help gays change their sexual orientation.

The announcement has, not surprisingly, angered professional anti-gay activists and today Linda Harvey lashed out at Exodus president Alan Chambers, saying that his admission that he still struggles with same-sex attraction demonstrates "very poor judgment" and blasting the idea that gays can be Christians because the Christian Church would never welcome a "compassionate pedophile":

For one, Chambers has said he doesn't believe a person can change his or her so-called sexual orientation. Now, there's not anything like this invented term called "sexual orientation" in Scripture in the first place, but then he also says that he still struggles himself with sexual feelings for other males. This shows very poor judgment as the leader of this ministry to, first of all, be experiencing this and secondly, to announce it to the whole world.

Of course a person can leave homosexuality; there are thousands of people who have done it and God's word clearly states that he can deliver us from sin. And the proud, open sinner who is publicly proclaiming it as good in defiance of God's word? It is highly questionable that such a person is saved.
...
We would not be making this exception for well-adjusted adulterers would we? How about a compassionate pedophile? What about incest like two brothers involved in homosexuality? Why not just defy God's word on this?

This is plain old rebellion and worship of self and our own impulses, not the worship of our Creator and Savior. Please join me in praying for Alan Chambers and Exodus, but also in praying for Alan's influence to diminish unless he recants this untruthful misrepresentation of the Gospel.

1.  Chambers needs to come fully clean and jettison the whole antiquated religious brainwashing that seeks to condemn many millions of individuals around the world based on the misinterpreted writings of ignorant, uneducated Bronze Age nomads and herders.  I'm sorry, but to pretend that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God" insults the intelligence of pre-teenager much less that of a supposedly mature adult. f

Quote of the Day: Andrew Sullivan on Romney's Bain Fiasco

As I've acknowledged before, I have zero sympathy of Mitt Romney who I view as a cynical calculating liar.  He will literally say anything that he deems expedient. And as his Bain "problem" intensifies, I can only savor every moment that Romney twists on the rope of his own making.  He's knowingly lied, he's contradicted himself, and he's had his minions lie for him.  Now, it's deservedly biting him in the ass big time.  Andrew Sullivan sums up the situation, particularly the double standard that Mitt "Pinocchio" Romney would inflict on Barack Obama:

So either Ed Gillespie and Romney are lying now, or Romney and his lawyer were lying then. Which is it? They were and are obviously trying to have it every which way to suit whatever purpose at the moment. But legally, CEOs are responsible for their companies, whether they are managing them full time, part time or even retroactively retiring while managing them. Period. The buck stops with the CEO, just as much as it stops with a president. As a Bain partner at the time said today:

“Mitt’s names were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company,” Ed Conard, who served as a partner at Bain Capital from 1993 to 2007, said in an exclusive interview with Up w/ Chris Hayes. Asked again if Romney was chief executive officer of Bain Capital from 1999 to 2002, Conard said, “Legally, on documents, I suppose, yes.”

Romney, in other words, doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has been running a campaign against the "Obama economy" insisting that the president own every single month he has been in office in order to condemn his economic management all the more - despite at least a first year in which Obama cannot really be held responsible for the fallout of an economic collapse he inherited. So Romney insists on maximal responsibility for Obama and the economy.

But responsibility for Bain? Think about it. No one disputes that Romney co-founded Bain, hired most of its staff, and honed its methods and strategies from 1984 to 2002. No one can dispute that he was paid at least $100,000 from 1999 to 2002 for being CEO. There is no massive difference between the kind of strategies Bain pursued from 1984 to 1999 when Romney was managing full-time and from 1999 to 2002, when he was managing part-time and by his own lawyer's assertion that his Bain activities "continued unabated just as they had." Is Romney saying that nothing that happened at Bain after 1999 is his responsibility but that everything that happened after January 2009 is all Barack Obama's fault?

Yep, that's what he's saying. It's a pathetic double standard argument from a suddenly pathetic and panicking campaign. The only way he can dig out of this hole - yes, Bill Kristol is right - is to release 12 years of tax returns just as his father did. Until he does, the Obama campaign has every right to double and triple their insistent criticism of Romney's Bain record. And there will be more and more blood in the water.

Will Romney release his tax returns?   I for one am not holding my breath.  One simply does not act as if he's hiding something - in this case whatever picture will be shown by Romney's tax returns - unless they have something to hide.  I fully believe that Romney will not release his tax returns either (i) because they will confirm his continued Bain involvement or (ii) because they would show a level of income that would shock the conscience of most Americans.  Either way Romney loses big time.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

Why Obama May Be Safe in Virginia

Living in currently Republican controlled Virginia one gets to experience the worse aspects of the GOP agenda which is focused on moving the state (and nation) backwards in time.  It goes without saying that under this agenda gays, minorities and women are subordinate citizens.  And special rights for Christianists and their religious beliefs are the norm for Republican elected officials who seem to take their marching orders from the hate merchants and theocrats at The Family Foundation - an affiliate of Focus on the Family and registered hate group, Family Research Council.  Thus, it would be ever so sweet to see Barack Obama carry Virginia again in November.   A piece in The Atlantic makes the case that this might indeed happen.  Here are excerpts:

HAMPTON, Virginia -- At first glance, this former Confederate stronghold might seem like one of the harder swing states for the president to hang onto in 2012.  .   .   .   .   But Obama has remained surprisingly resilient in Virginia. The last poll, conducted earlier this month by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, had him up 8 points on Mitt Romney here, 50 percent to 42 percent, and Real Clear Politics' aggregate of polls since May has the president up 3 points. That's better than Obama is averaging in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and even Michigan -- a state John McCain gave up on months before the 2008 election, but which a series of recent polls show to be in play for Romney.

While Virginia is still likely to be competitive down to the wire, Obama may have reason to feel more confident here than other swing states, particularly in the Midwest. There are two major reasons: economics and demographics.

* Economics: The unemployment rate in Virginia is 5.6 percent, tied for the ninth lowest in the country. Republicans, starting with McDonnell, would like to take credit for the state's rosy jobs picture, but the truth is that the state is mostly insulated from economic vicissitudes by the large number of its citizens who work for the federal government and the military. In recent days, the Romney camp has rolled out a new line of attack that seeks to blame Obama for the looming defense cuts set to automatically take place at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. But there are a couple of problems with this line: First, it's pretty easy for Obama to put the blame back on Congress, which approved the so-called sequester on a bipartisan basis to begin with, and which, you may have heard, is not popular. Second, it's essentially criticizing the president for wanting to cut government spending and reduce public-sector employment -- a criticism that conflicts with some major GOP talking points.

* Demographics: While the Rust Belt states keep getting older and whiter, and losing population overall, Virginia's population is growing, getting younger and more diverse. One plugged-in Republican I spoke to, who thinks Virginia is rapidly slipping from Romney's grasp, said that's the crucial difference between the Republican sweeps of 2009-10 and this year's election: Minorities, particularly black voters, will turn out for Obama. "An off-year election is just not representative of anything," this Republican said. "Obama got 20 percent African-American turnout in 2008, and most of the polling that has shown Romney close here assumes it will be closer to the 16 percent in 2009, which is of course ridiculous. I've had conversations with the Romney people here and they really only think they need to shift 10,000-12,000 votes to win the state, when I think it's about double that." In addition to the sizable black vote, Virginia also has growing shares of Hispanics and Asians.

At Obama's stops in the Tidewater cities of Virginia Beach and Hampton on Friday, the resilience and enthusiasm of his African-American base were evident. 

Later, in Roanoke, Obama told the crowd, "If I win Virginia, I'm going to get four more years. That I can say with some confidence." The good news for the president is that Virginia may be within his grasp.

Hopefully, the GOP's vagina and uterus obsession with a desire to control women's sexuality during the last session of the General Assembly will tip more women against Romney and the GOP in general.  LGBT Virginians certainly have no reason to support Republicans for any reason given the anti-gay bigotry exhibited both during the General Assembly session and since then.   Ditto for other minorities.

Florida's GOP Lieutenant Governor Denies Lesbian Affair

Usually it's the less than attractive GOP men who are seeking some hot same sex action on the side.  Now, in a new twist of the Republicans yearning for what they condemn on the campaign trial, Florida GOP Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll, is fighting the fallout from a lawsuit in which Carroll is accused of firing a staffer who caught her in "a compromising position" with another woman in her capitol office. News reports naturally cite that Carroll is married with children - as if that proves a damn thing.  Given straight men and their apparent fascination with lesbian sex - just look at Playboy magazines - perhaps male Republicans will overlook the sordid tale.  It is  telling, however, that like closeted male Republicans Carroll has campaigned on an anti-gay agenda.  Here are highlights from The Advocate:

Jennifer Carroll, Florida's lieutenant governor, is accused of firing a staffer who caught her in "a compromising position" with another woman in her capitol office. But Carroll is denying it ever happened in emails sent to her supporters, according to Florida media.

Reuters first reported Thursday that former staffer Carletha Cole is engaged in a lawsuit and that in a court filing earlier this month revealed she had walked in on her boss with her travel aide, Beatriz Ramos, in "a compromising position" — a phrase used by Cole's lawyer in the filing.

Carroll, who is married with children, said in an email to a supporter released by the governor's office that she "will be fighting back." In another, she blames the media for reporting the accusation.

Carroll, a Republican, is a former state legislator and became the first female elected as lieutenant governor when joining Gov. Rick Scott on his ticket in 2010. She is also the first black politician elected to any statewide office. 

She was famously critical of the media in a fiery sermon of a speech before the Faith and Freedom Coalition in September, when she called for a "righteous government."   Carroll did not talk about LGBT rights but did say, "these are very sad times when we allow the minority to poison the minds of the majority. This is exactly what dictators and socialist rulers did. When it comes to our Christianity, there is no gray area. It is either you believe or you don’t believe. And if you believe, you believe with all of your heart, all of your soul and all of your might."

Carroll, a Navy veteran, also told the conservative website Newsmax in September that she didn't agree with President Obama's decision to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. She said the military should have been left alone to decide how to proceed, without noting that the major military leaders actually supported DADT repeal.

Gary Bauer: Gays Cause Murder; Michele Bachmann Hunts Muslims

Speaking of conservative Christians driving the younger generations away from religion, two examples of the hate dripping animus that passes as religious motivated behavior, Gary Bauer - who looks like a self-loathing closet case to me (see the photo at right) - and Michele Bachmann are both on lunatic rampages that underscore the ugliness of Christianity at the hands of the far right.  First we have Bauer claiming that gays and gay marriage cause crime, especially murder in Chicago.  Right Wing Watch reports on Bauer's deranged mindset and effort to stir up violence against gay Americans.  Here are excerpts:

On Wednesday, Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families attempted to tie the Obama administration’s support for gay rights…to violent crime. Bauer said that the escalating crime rate in the city of Chicago is due to children growing up in fatherless homes, which he maintained is a result of Democratic policies that have “made it comfortable for many women to not have husbands in the home” and even same-sex marriage. “Obama and the Democrats have embraced the radical idea of men marrying other men,” Bauer sneered, “How is that going to help the black family?”  

For the past fifty years, Rahm Emanuel's party, the Democratic Party, has made it comfortable for many women to not have husbands in the home. Now Obama and the Democrats have embraced the radical idea of men marrying other men! How is that going to help the black family?

When Emanuel worked in the Clinton White House, the response to gang violence, do you remember this, was midnight basketball programs. It didn't work, midnight basketball programs don't replace fathers. And, of course, it was around that time when Democrats and their media allies did their best to convince us that values really didn't matter. Even the disgusting values demonstrated in the Oval Office with a White House intern.

As if Bauer and his white supremacist leaning fellow Republicans give a rat's ass about black families!  

Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann sees a Muslim conspiracy under every bush and has embarked on more lunacy trying to ferret out Muslims infiltrating the government.   Salon has a piece that looks at Bachmann's Muslim witch hunt.  Here are highlights:

Muslim conspiracy theories have largely vanished from the political debate. But with another election looming, the tide may be rising again, and Rep. Michele Bachmann is predictably already ahead of the crowd.

The Minnesota Republican, joined by Republican Reps. Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland, sent letters to the inspectors general of five government agencies responsible for national security to demand they investigate infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood into the highest reaches of the federal government. In particular, Bachmann singled out Huma Abedin, the wife of former congressman Anthony Weiner and a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Another letter targets the Department of Defense, which Bachmann et al. accuse of failing to “characterize accurately the jihadist motivations” of Maj. Nidal Hassan, the Army psychiatrist accused in the Fort Hood shooting.

A third letter went to the Department of Homeland Security, alleging the department is covering up the Muslim Brotherhood threat by developing an official lexicon that obfuscates its danger.

Yet another letter went to the Department of Justice inspector general warning that officials there had been meeting with Muslim groups that she accused of being “fronts” for the Brotherhood.

The final letter went to the Office of Director of National Intelligence, stating, “we request that your office conduct a formal investigation or evaluation into the extent to which Muslim-Brotherhood tied individuals and entities were involved 

In an interview with the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios late last month, Bachmann explained, “It appears that there has been deep penetration in the halls of our United States government by the Muslim Brotherhood.  

So what is Bachmann’s source? Every one of her letters prominently cites Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan defense official who has become one of the country’s most prominent anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. Gaffney heads the Center for Security Policy and has for years been preaching to anyone who will listen that the Muslim Brotherhood is secretly infiltrating every aspect of American life in a grand scheme to impose Shariah law when we least expect it.

For Gaffney, everyone is an agent of the Brotherhood, including CPAC, the big annual gathering of conservatives in Washington, D.C., and Grover Norquist, the prominent anti-tax activist who is married to a Muslim woman.

Gaffney has since been ostracized from several other key conservative groups, yet Bachmann apparently feels justified demanding official investigations based on his theories.  

It would seem that the only "deep penetration" that has occurred is the level of Bachmann's insanity.  In my opinion, the woman belongs in a mental hospital.

Is Christianity Dying?

An op-ed in the New York Times looks at the decline of liberal Protestant denominations and is critical of these churches that are trying to change with the times and society.  But the malaise isn't limited to liberal denominations - e.g., Episcopal Church, ELCA, etc. - and the Catholic Church in the USA would have recoded significant declines but for the influx of Hispanic immigrants.  With that wave of immigration slowing, the real story may begin to make itself evident.  On the conservative end of the spectrum, the Southern Baptist Convention is struggling as younger members leave once they go off to college.  Yes, some of the mega churches are growing, but having gone to some of them in the past, they seem most focused on the prosperity gospel and provide services that are more akin to a stage production than any traditional connotation of a church service.  

Personally, I believe the real problem for Christianity is that it is based on a book that is increasingly shown to be untrue -the scientific evidence of the non-existence of Adam and Eve is perhaps the most damaging example of late.  With out the fall of man as focused on Adam and Eve, the entire redemption story line leading to Christ falls apart.   Church then ultimately becomes a social outlet that people go to in order to feel better about themselves or on occasion do good works.  With more and more competing social outlets, the attraction simply is falling away.  That leaves denominations left with fear and/or instilled guilt - specialties of the Roman Catholic Church - as the only real stick to keep people coming through the door.  And with the decline of liberal denominations, the intolerant, generally hate-filled message of far right churches increasingly becomes the face of Christianity.  The result? Almost a third of the milennial generation has walked away for organized religion because of its ugly image and ugly conduct towards so many in society.  Here are some op-ed highlights:

IN 1998, John Shelby Spong, then the reliably controversial Episcopal bishop of Newark, published a book entitled “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” Spong was a uniquely radical figure — during his career, he dismissed almost every element of traditional Christian faith as so much superstition — but most recent leaders of the Episcopal Church have shared his premise. Thus their church has spent the last several decades changing and then changing some more, from a sedate pillar of the WASP establishment into one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States.

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse.

This decline is the latest chapter in a story dating to the 1960s. The trends unleashed in that era — not only the sexual revolution, but also consumerism and materialism, multiculturalism and relativism — threw all of American Christianity into crisis, and ushered in decades of debate over how to keep the nation’s churches relevant and vital.

Traditional believers, both Protestant and Catholic, have not necessarily thrived in this environment. The most successful Christian bodies have often been politically conservative but theologically shallow, preaching a gospel of health and wealth rather than the full New Testament message. 

But if conservative Christianity has often been compromised, liberal Christianity has simply collapsed. Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance.

But if liberals need to come to terms with these failures, religious conservatives should not be smug about them. The defining idea of liberal Christianity — that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion — has been an immensely positive force in our national life. No one should wish for its extinction, or for a world where Christianity becomes the exclusive property of the political right. 

What should be wished for, instead, is that liberal Christianity recovers a religious reason for its own existence. As the liberal Protestant scholar Gary Dorrien has pointed out, the Christianity that animated causes such as the Social Gospel and the civil rights movement was much more dogmatic than present-day liberal faith.

Frankly, I believe the decline is irreversible and will likely accelerate as the backward and reactionary conservative denominations drive even more members of the younger generations away from organized religion entirely.