House of Delegates Committe Kills "License to Distriminate Bill

Gay hater Bob Marshall

As noted previously, Del. Bob Marshall - possibly the most virulently anti-gay individual in Virginia - introduced a bill that would have allowed anyone holding a state issued license to discriminate against same sex couples or LGBT individuals in general.   The bill was beyond extreme as demonstrated by the fact that a committee in the GOP controlled House of Delegates killed the bill.  Meanwhile, of course, Del. Marshall had gain nationwide, if not worldwide, negative publicity for Virginia.   The Washington Blade has details on the killing of this "license to discriminate" bill.  Here are highlights:

A Virginia House of Delegates subcommittee on Thursday killed a so-called “conscience clause” bill that would have allowed state licensed or accredited business owners to deny service to someone based on their religious beliefs. 

House Bill 1414, which state Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William County) introduced last month, specifically cited “same-sex ‘marriage’ or homosexual behavior.”

“Equality Virginia applauds the subcommittee for voting against this discriminatory and destructive bill,” said James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBT advocacy group. 

“This bill would have hurt too many people, damaged our business climate, and highlighted Virginia as a hostile and unwelcoming place to live and work. The majority of Virginians agree that discrimination against LGBT people is wrong, and thankfully today’s vote reflects that opinion.”

Lawmakers tabled HB 1414 on the same day that Equality Virginia, Equality North Carolina and South Carolina Equality officially launched a campaign designed to highlight LGBT-friendly businesses.

 I can only imagine the wrath that those Republicans who voted to table the bill will face from the foul, hate-filled theocrats at The Family Foundation.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

Famed Biologist: Religion "Is Dragging Us Down" and Must be Eliminated

If one follows the news - at via outlets other than Fox News, a/k/a Faux News -  a huge percentage of the world's problems tract to religion, being the hate and bigotry fomented by Christofascists in America, the shocking embrace of ignorance in Africa, to the blood baths in the Middle East where different elements of Islam are slaughtering each other and seeking to unleash terror on the West.  And that doesn't even address (i) the fact that religious belief is generally anti-knowledge, (ii) the squandering of resources as religious denominations in America continue to build costly "worship centers" rather than give their money to the poor as the Gospel commanded, or (iii) the reality that religious leaders are most interested in making money, often by seeking tithing from those least able to afford it.  Famed Biologist E. O. Wilson has concluded that the elimination of religion would be in mankind's best interest.  Here are highlights from The Raw Story:

Biologist E. O. Wilson, who is known as the “the father of sociobiology,” said recently that the Earth was suffering “the death of a thousand cuts” because of religion. 

In the most recent issue of New Scientist, Wilson explained that his next book would look at the future of humans and the Earth.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning biologist warned that people had not yet realized that the “tribal structure” had been destroying the planet by “a thousand cuts,” according a partial transcript obtained by the International Business Times.

“All the ideologies and religions have their own answers for the big questions, but these are usually bound as a dogma to some kind of tribe,” he said. “Religions in particular feature supernatural elements that other tribes – other faiths – cannot accept … And every tribe, no matter how generous, benign, loving and charitable, nonetheless looks down on all other tribes. What’s dragging us down is religious faith.”

“So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths. But certainly not eliminating the natural yearnings of our species or the asking of these great questions.”

Wilson, who was raised as a Baptist in Alabama, has said that he “drifted” away from Christianity, but he doesn’t refer to himself as an atheist.  “I’m a scientist,” he told the magazine.

Will Congressional GOP Overreach and Obstruction Help Hillary?

So far the Republican promise to prove that a GOP controlled Congress can govern responsibly has  fallen flat with Congressional Republicans continuing to push the agenda of the lunatic elements of the GOP base while ignoring the issues that a majority of Americans want fixed.  While it is frustrating to see nothing being accomplished, some believe all of the batshitery and obstruction plays to Hillary Clinton's advantage in 2016, especially of the GOP do nothing serious and necessary approach continues.  The GOP's biggest issue is that the party base doesn't live in a world of objective reality and, therefore, catering to the base's wants only leads to insanity. A column in The Hill looks at why the GOP may be helping Hillary.  Here are excerpts:

While Republicans bask in the glory of their victories in 2014 and continue their hyperpartisan onslaught in the new Congress, some early numbers should keep GOP strategists awake at night.

According to a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Hillary Clinton would defeat Jeb Bush in 2016 by 13 percentage points. She would defeat Chris Christie by 13 points, Rand Paul by 13 and Mitt Romney by 15.

According to the summary of polling from Real Clear Politics, approval of the Republican Congress is barely 15 percent. Disapproval remains near 72 percent. Control of Congress means ownership of the vast unpopularity of Congress.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s popularity has risen significantly since November. The stage is set for Clinton to begin a 2016 campaign with a significant lead over GOP opponents and run against a highly unpopular Republican Congress.

Voters see Republicans overreaching and underachieving. They see the GOP repeating ritual attacks against Obama and Clinton as though the 2014 campaign never ended. They see Republicans moving to pass political bills they know will never be enacted, such as old attacks against ObamaCare, and opposing important bills voters do want enacted, such as immigration reform. They see the GOP stage phony hearings on Benghazi that are nothing more than taxpayer-financed attacks against Hillary Clinton.

There is a GOP distemper in Washington, an overreaching of aggressive tactics against Democrats and an underachievement of success in governing. The result? Obama rises in favorability, Clinton rises against Republicans.

The most egregious GOP overreach was the decision by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a bitterly divisive figure in Israel and the U.S., to address a joint session of Congress . . . Breaking with precedent, tradition and protocol, Boehner did not consult with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), with Democratic or Republican leaders in the Senate or with the White House before inviting a foreign leader to use the platform of Congress itself to campaign for his reelection and condemn American policy on vital matters of security.

These repeated GOP overreaches — the Netanyahu invitation, partisan Benghazi hearings, phony votes on ObamaCare, obstructing immigration reform and more — are damaging GOP prospects in 2016.

These GOP overreaches create a golden opportunity for Clinton to be elected president and for Democrats to regain control of Congress.

The smart move for Clinton might be to wait until June to formally launch her candidacy. She could spend spring quietly building her campaign structure and creating a legal entity to begin major fundraising, giving thoughtful and uplifting speeches in dignified settings offering her vision for the future, while the crowd of candidates in an overreaching and underachieving GOP begin clawing at one another’s eyeballs.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Republican Alabama Anti-Gay Chief Justice

When I lived in Alabama and had an opportunity to meet then Governor George Wallace, Wallace had had the decency to admit the error of his past, segregationist ways.  Indeed, compared to today's Republicans in Alabama, Wallace would be a moderate and were he alive and running for office, he'd have to run again as a Democrat.  If you don't believe me. look no farther than batshit crazy Republican Chief Justice Roy Moore who was previously removed from office only to be later reelected by the Christofascist/Tea Party factions.  Now, Moore has stated that he will not submit to the federal court ruling striking down  Alabama's same sex marriage ban.  The result?  The Southern Poverty Law Center has filed an ethics complaint seeking Moore's removal from the Alabama Supreme Court.  The New Civil Rights Movement has details.  Here are highlights:

After two federal rulings supporting the freedom to marry for Alabama same-sex couples, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore warned he would not succumb to "tyranny!" from the federal government. In a three-page fire-and-brimstone letter sent to sent Republican Governor Robert Bentley, Moore warned "the destruction of that institution is upon us by federal courts using specious pretexts based on the Equal Protection, Due Process and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Constitution."

Now, the Southern Poverty Law Center is getting involved. The decades-old civil rights group best known for reducing the size and power of the KKK and more recently for expanding the scope of its hate group definition to include anti-gay groups, among others, the SPLC has filed an ethics complaint today against Moore with the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama – the same Commission that once before removed Moore from his job.

“Moore is once again wrapping himself in the Bible and thumbing his nose at the federal courts and federal law,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said in a statement. “As a private citizen, Moore is entitled to his views. But as the chief justice of Alabama, he has a responsibility to recognize the supremacy of federal law and to conform his conduct to the canons of judicial ethics.”

The SPLC says its complaint "describes how Moore has committed numerous ethics violations, noting that he is encouraging lawlessness by attempting to assemble a virtual army of state officials and judges to oppose the federal judiciary and its 'tyranny' – the opposite of what is expected from the state’s chief judge."

The SPLC notes additional "violations by Moore, including publicly commenting on a pending case – the federal case that overturned the ban – as well as impending cases: the same-sex marriage cases likely to come before state judges, including Moore, if same-sex marriage is legalized in Alabama."

Moore was removed a decade ago from his job as Chief Justice after refusing to remove a stone monument of the Ten Commandments from the state courthouse.

Last year, Moore told an audience in Washington state that the intent of same-sex marriage is to destroy America. Moore also made headlines last year when he traveled to Mississippi, attacked same-sex marriage, and claimed the First Amendment applies only to Christians.

Moore needs to be removed from the Court and preferably sent to a mental institution! 

The Far Right Targets Pope Francis as a "Leftist" and "Marxist"

As noted before, Pope Francis has hit a raw nerve with the American far right as a result of his statements condemning vulture capitalism and now his upcoming encyclical on climate change.  The result?  Among others, a hatchet piece in The Federalist that describes Francis as a "leftist" and a "Marxist."  Tellingly, among the slurs are claims that Francis is not a scientist even as the author ignores the reality that 95% of scientists believe that climate change is occurring and that mankind is a contributing cause.  The following are highlights from the slurs being thrown at Francis:

She [Rachel Lu] cites criticism of Francis as evidence of a “war.” A Republican war at that. Doing so, she strays into the same reductive trap set by the mainstream media that she wants conservatives to avoid.

Under the tutelage of a pope who ascribes to himself an omnicompetency in geopolitical and scientific matters, the Catholic Church is at risk of a death walk of its own. Its descent into a left-leaning political entity is underway while we circle the wagons and measure our tones. It is a serious matter when a pope confuses political and ideological symbols for religious ones.

Civil society has an immense stake in that confusion. And the stakes are raised when papal preferences, masked in a Christian idiom, align themselves with ideological agendas (e.g. radical environmentalism) that impinge on democratic freedoms and the sanctity of the individual.
Francis, raised in Argentina during the apogee of Peronism, gives every evidence of tilting toward the state.

[L]et us go back to that for a moment. “Francis and Political Illusion” included a photo of the pope standing between two environmental activists and holding an anti-fracking T-shirt. . . . . And these were not just any activists. The older of the two men in the photo is Fernando Solanas, an Argentine film director, avowed propagandist, and politician. A key player in Buenos Aires, he ran for president of Argentina on the Socialist ticket in 2007 and stood for the senate last year. In the 1960s, he co-founded the influential, radical film collective Grupo Cine Liberación (The Liberation Film Group) with Octavio Gettino, Both were Marxists and supporters of Juan Perón at the time.

Francis is no naïf. He signals his priorities to anyone paying attention. You do not have to be a Republican or a conservative to get the message. In support of his green theology, he plans a speech at the United Nations and a congress of world religious leaders at the Vatican. He is preparing to lend this agenda the magisterial weight of an encyclical. Yet, when innocents are slaughtered in Paris by the same forces that are shedding Christian blood in the Middle East, the most he can muster is a hashtag, #PrayersforParis.

Let us be honest. Conservatives are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. While deferential observers are measuring their tones, Francis drives ahead with a demagogic program which makes the state the guardian and enforcer all values.

This past October, Francis took aim at “ideological Catholics,” calling them “a serious illness” within the Church. What is Francis, if not an ideologue?

The real fear of the far right and Republican Party?  That Francis might just open the eyes of Catholics to the true ugliness of the GOP's reverse Robin Hood policies and the rape and pollution of the Earth that are pillars to the GOP agenda.  The fact that this agenda is the antithesis of the Gospel message matters not at all to today's "conservatives."  

Andrew Sullivan to Leave Blogging After 15 Years

The husband and me with Andrew Sullivan at a fundraiser

Out gay blogger Andrew Sullivan - who I have had the privilege of meeting - has announced that he will be leaving blogging in due course.  Some days Andrew outrages me, especially with his refusal to face the reality that the Roman Catholic Church is systemically flawed and his opposition to hate crimes laws, but other times he amazingly sums up a situation in prose that I can only wish I could author.  In a post today, he summarizes the reasons behind his decision.  Here are excerpts:

Why? Two reasons. The first is one I hope anyone can understand: although it has been the most rewarding experience in my writing career, I’ve now been blogging daily for fifteen years straight (well kinda straight). That’s long enough to do any single job. In some ways, it’s as simple as that. There comes a time when you have to move on to new things, shake your world up, or recognize before you crash that burn-out does happen.

The second is that I am saturated in digital life and I want to return to the actual world again. I’m a human being before I am a writer; and a writer before I am a blogger, and although it’s been a joy and a privilege to have helped pioneer a genuinely new form of writing, I yearn for other, older forms. I want to read again, slowly, carefully. . . . . I want to write a book. 

I want to spend some real time with my parents, while I still have them, with my husband, who is too often a ‘blog-widow’, my sister and brother, my niece and nephews, and rekindle the friendships that I have simply had to let wither because I’m always tied to the blog. And I want to stay healthy. I’ve had increasing health challenges these past few years. They’re not HIV-related; my doctor tells me they’re simply a result of fifteen years of daily, hourly, always-on-deadline stress. These past few weeks were particularly rough – and finally forced me to get real.

I can completely understand the burn out aspect Andrew describes.  Likewise, my husband can understand the "blog-widow" statement since, even though I blog at nowhere the level of Andrew, each day, more or less 365 days per year, I spend numerous hours scanning the news and stories and then writing posts.  Oh, and the hunt for daily "male beauties" likewise can be time consuming since I strive to never disappoint. 

Will I follow Andrew's example and end the blog?  I really don't know.  It is hard to describe, but over the last almost seven years of daily blogging, I have made amazing connections with people literally from all over the world including Europe, Australia, across the USA and most recently a reader in Ghana.  The other aspect of blogging is that it can be a great way to vent as some of my truly long time readers can recall from the dark days of my coming out, suicide attempts and an unpleasant divorce.  If and when I decide to stop blogging, I will let readers know.  The other option is to take on some co-contributors, as

summing anyone would be interested.

When The Dish ends, it will join another former favorite, Pam's House Blend, which ended when blogger friend Pam Spaulding finally burned out. I wish Andrew the best and I hope he can finally come to terms with his inability to walk away from the Catholic Church.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

How the Kock Brothers Want to Buy the GOP Presidential Nomination

There seem to be few limits to the greed and hunger for power of the Koch brothers whose companies are among the worse polluters in America and who do much to further the effort to return America to a new Gilded Age with themselves, of course, enjoying the lifestyle of the robber barons of old.  Now, some see the Koch brothers planning a campaign if you will to buy the GOP presidential nomination for whoever will be most craven to the Koch brother's foul, anti-democratic agenda.  A piece in Slate looks at the Kochs machinations.  Here are highlights:

The rise of the super PAC in the 2012 presidential election seemed like the pinnacle of Big Money politics—an unprecedented expansion of fundraising and donor influence.

But that was then. For 2016, the pioneers of that kind of politics—conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch—have found a new summit. According to the New York Times, the siblings plan to spend close to $900 million on next year’s campaign, with incursions into the Republican presidential primary. At more than double the roughly $400 million the Koch brothers spent in 2012, this money would go to polling, analytics, advertising, grassroots campaigns, single-issue advocacy groups, and more.

[I]t involves roughly 300 other donors and “includes groups like Freedom Partners, a trade organization overseen by Koch advisers that plans the retreat and helps corral contributions; Americans for Prosperity, a national grassroots group; and Concerned Veterans for America, which organizes conservative veterans.” Another way to put this is that the organization is something of a joint effort on behalf of the kinds of people who already participate in Republican politics.

Specifically, they make themselves a powerful force in the fight to pick a presidential nominee. . . .  Cross the Koch brothers—on climate change or economic regulations or any of their other pet issues—and you risk losing an important source for help and money.

[T]he huge presence of David and Charles Koch changes that calculation. They give Walker better ground to stand on. He can run an insurgent campaign, and unlike Mike Huckabee in the 2008 race, he won’t run out of cash. Suddenly, there’s a real alternative to the original consensus candidate, and the two are forced into serious competition, which can reveal hidden strength or highlight unnoticed weakness. And if Walker loses the nomination, then at least the Kochs have made themselves an even stronger force in Republican politics—a fourth leg to the GOP coalition.

[T]his is still a fascinating development in American politics, if not an entirely unprecedented one. In the industrializing America of the late 19^th century, business leaders spent huge sums to keep politicians from regulating industry and taming their activities. If this marriage of extreme wealth and mass politics was the norm for the first Gilded Age, then there’s no reason it should be different for the second one.