Westboro Raps?

Just when I thought the nuts over at Westboro Baptist couldn't get any nuttier, they come out with this delightful little gem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZujlW3xQiQ

Sorry for the link, but my continuing battle with Youtube's 'post to blog' option is still giving me trouble. I would comment on the video a little further, but I think it speaks for itself...hatred knows no bounds.

Hillary on Ellen...Dances Around Gay Marriage Question

For my readers who are fans of Hillary, I apologize for what I'm about to say. It's no secret that I'm not a Hillary fan, but this just proves my point about her constant waffling...even to the extent of contradicting what has been one of her political mainstays...federalizing various issues so as to take them out of the hands of individual states.

First, watch the Youtube video of Ellen's interview with Hillary...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8

Now, I could rightfully rant about Hillary's idea of what amounts to a 'separate but equal' system of civil unions for gay couples, but the comment that stands out the most to me is that she believes this is an issue that should be left for the states to decide. Not only did she dodge the root of Ellen's question, but she contradicted some of her well known political ideals...again.

Remember her healthcare solution from 1994? The core of her proposal, and current healthcare proposals as well, is that we should federalize the entire healthcare system. Whether you agree with that or not, it's a prime example of how Hillary constantly sends homosexuals to the back of the bus...so to speak. Apparently, it's perfectly acceptable to provide healthcare for all Americans, but it's not acceptable to do the equivalent regarding gay marriage.

The bottom line is that the idea of civil unions is 'safe' and using the word 'marriage' in conjunction with the word gay would produce an impenetrable barrier to the White House. By making the statement that this is an issue for the states to decide, Hillary has adopted a blatant 'hands-off' stance...something that is in direct contradiction to her other campaign promises and political ideals. She's always held the idea that social issues were best handled at the federal level, so why not this one? The answer...cowardice, plain and simple.

Taking Another Break

Labor Day Weekend is upon us, and I've got a full calendar starting tomorrow. I'll have more sarcastic posts starting Tuesday. Until then, have a great holiday!

Ft.Lauderdale Mayor Off Tourism Board

Jim Naugle, the embattled mayor of Ft. Lauderdale, FL who has not only suggested installing "robo-toilets" throughout the city, but has also made several public statements which are incredibly discriminatory toward the LGBT community, has lost his seat on the tourism board. According to the local Sun-Sentinal, Broward County commissioners were concerned that Naugle's actions would harm the tourism industry...a multibillion-dollar asset to the county...and that he'd ignored warnings from commissioners about his actions. The Sentinal reported...

"Since Naugle made his initial allegations about rampant gay sex in public
restrooms nearly two months ago, the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention &
Visitors Bureau has been deluged with hundreds of angry e-mails from tourists.
Some said they had canceled vacations, while others threatened to go
elsewhere.

A gay-oriented convention that was to draw 200 attendees this fall is on
hold. A group that plans black family reunions has voiced concern about whether
the mayor was sending a message of intolerance. Bookings of college and
high-school sporting events is also down compared to last year."

And how did Naugle respond to the fact that groups other than LGBT affiliated organizations were voicing their displeasure over his comments and actions? Take a look...

"Naugle was unbowed by the county's rebuke and said commissioners removed
him because they "feared a very vocal minority." He questioned why no
commissioner had talked to him beforehand to hear why he has done what he's
done.

Sometimes the easiest thing to do when you don't want to hear something is
to shoot the messenger, but that doesn't mean that there is not a problem out
there that needs to be addressed," Naugle said.

So now he's a victim? Give me a break. This guy is so obsessed with his homophobic ideals that he refuses to see how his actions have affected the economy of the community he is supposed to serve. County Commissioner Stacey Ritter put it best...

"I had hoped that this would die on its own, but Mayor Naugle continues to
push his own agenda and that is having an increasing impact on our community,"
said County Commissioner Stacy Ritter, who proposed removing him. "He has
continued to escalate his rhetoric, and we cannot be silent."

I half expect Naugle to shoot back by reiterating that homosexuals are the only ones with an "agenda," but he's put the nails in his own coffin with this little crusade of his. I sincerely hope the Ft. Lauderdale voters will take steps to either censure or remove Naugle entirely and replace him with someone who truly reflects the gay-friendly atmosphere that the community has worked so hard to establish. I think the closing comment another Commissioner says it all...

"Hate is something that is simply unacceptable and now has become costly to
the county as well," Commissioner Diana Wasserman-Rubin said.

I doubt Naugle will ever agree, but this is one step in a positive direction for both the Ft. Lauderdale community and the LGBT community as a whole.

Babs Not Welcome At Holiday Inn

Peter LaBarbera's organization (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality) had booked a fundraising convention at a Chicago area Holiday Inn, but has since been told they are no longer welcome. Why? The hotel manager feared protests by what Babs calls pro-gay groups.

In an audio interview with Babs, Matt Barber of Concerned Women For America blew the entire situation out of proportion by making claims that the hotel was being anti-Christian by not allowing the group to convene at their establishment.

First of all, the hotel and its corporate officials do have the right to refuse service to anyone. Had this hotel refused service to HRC, PFLAG or any other group Babs despises, he'd be celebrating it on his site...and he knows it.

Second, Pete is known for being abrasive...if not abusive...toward anyone who disagrees with him. Any opponent is instantly denigrated in what I would deem a vicious manner. No wonder the hotel was worried about protests and the effect they might have on their other guests and future business.

Finally, perhaps Babs will come away from this situation with some understanding of what gay and lesbian couples go through. I highly doubt it, because his arrogance is so profound that I doubt anything...even experiencing what discrimination others endure on a regular basis...will be able to penetrate his thick skull.

Listen to the interview at your own risk, lol...it made me sick to my stomach.

Larry Craig This And That

I started out with one post to follow up on yesterday's post, but I found so many examples of ridiculousness that I decided to put together some brief comments here.

** This is nothing more than despicable and cowardly behavior on the part of the folks over at WingNutDaily. Without giving any real comment, the site posted a headline today and linked to an article from the Idaho Statesman in what appears to be an effort to discredit the columnist who wrote the articles documenting the events surrounding Senator Larry Craig...

Columnist who exposed Craig backs 'gay' marriage 'Chance
to make a once-and-for-all statement that we are broad-minded folk' --Idaho
Statesman

I suppose that if you support gay marriage it doesn't matter how many police reports and other credible sources you can produce. In the eyes of the fundies, support of gay marriage instantly damages your journalistic integrity and credibility. Pathetic.

** The Idaho Values Alliance has called for Craig's resignation...no real surprise there, but I had to laugh at this part of their statement...

"The Judeo-Christian tradition says that the standard for identifying the
truth is that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact is confirmed.”
The senator’s guilty plea, when added to the officer’s testimony, satisfies the
biblical standard for confirming the essential truth of what happened, and
unless the senator can provide a compelling and convincing explanation for his
plea, we will need to regretfully accept that the fact of his behavior has been
established. It seems unlikely that he can “unring the bell” his guilty plea has
sounded."

At least this bunch of wingnuts is using their biblical "standards" on one of their own since they are so fond of bashing the rest of us over the head with them, but it baffles me that they think they needed some biblical yardstick to confirm this one.

** Mitt Romney very quickly distanced himself from Craig, and it seems the White House is doing the same. The strange thing is that while statements from Romney, McCain, Huckabee and others are strongly worded, the White House spokesperson made this statement...

"We're disappointed in what's going on. It's a matter for the senator and
the Senate Republican leadership to address," deputy White House press secretary
Scott Stanzel said.

We hope that it will be resolved quickly, as that would be in the best
interests of the Senate and the people of Idaho," Stanzel said.

Is it just me, or does it sound like the Chimperor doesn't want to touch this story with a ten foot pole? This is a matter for the legislative branch of the government to handle (not that that's ever stopped Bush from sticking his nose where it doesn't belong), but the statement from the White House made it look like Bush was much more upset about potentially losing yet another Republican vote in the senate.

Another Ignorant Rant From Matt Barber

Another day, another bleating rant from the resident concerned "woman" Matt Barber. This time, Matt has gone after an Illinois school district over a summer reading list for 8th graders and even goes so far as to list examples of what he deems to be objectionable content from one of the books. Before giving that list, though, he opened by saying...

"Prairie Junior High School’s required reading list for rising 8th graders
gave children six books to choose from over the summer. Parents have complained
that three of the six books contain adult content which is highly
age-inappropriate. Those complaints, however, have fallen on deaf ears. At a
recent school board meeting, school board members said they intend to continue
assigning the books. The following are excerpts from just a handful of the many
salacious passages found in one of the books, Fat Kid Rules the World, by K. L.
Going:"

So, from the outset, Matt has acknowledged that the students were given a list of books from which to choose...argument hole number one. Unless someone was holding a gun to the heads of these students and their parents, it seems that other choices were made available.

Notice also that the objectionable passages Matt printed were from ONE of the SIX books on the list of choices for the students...argument hole number two. It appears that this book wasn't forced on anyone, regardless of what Matt said next...

"To add insult to injury, the school didn’t even have the courtesy to warn
these kids — or their parents — about the adult content within the assigned
reading. And parents are understandably furious. If one of my daughters came to
me at twelve having been assigned this smut, I’d be ticked-off too."

Okay, parents do have the responsibility to be involved in the education of their children, and these parents should have made it a priority to investigate these book choices and guide their children accordingly. Argument hole number three...as Matt pointed out, the students had a choice and none of the six books were specifically "assigned" no matter how much he'd like it to appear that way.

Now, with three holes in his ridiculous argument, let's look at the cute turn Matt makes with this delightful little story. He starts with the following...

"I telephoned Robert Berger, superintendent of schools for District 126,
fully expecting him to assure me that this foolishness would be remedied. But
instead, his response was defiant, defensive and arrogant."

It's a distinct possibility, given Matt's usual tone and attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him, that the conversation with Mr. Berger began with a similarly defiant, defensive and arrogant, and I wouldn't fault Mr. Berger for responding the way he did. I do find it interesting that while Matt provided explicit details about the one offensive book, he didn't do the same regarding his conversation with this superintendent. Only a couple of comments were mentioned in what was, presumably, a much more involved discussion..argument hole number four.

The real axis, if you will, of Matt's argument becomes very clear with these statements...

"Unfortunately the actions of District 126 are symptomatic of a
metastasizing moral malady within our larger system of public education. Kids in
public schools across the country are constantly inundated with material which
promotes profanity, homosexuality, promiscuity and abortion.

The Agenda is pushed and the curriculum set by leftist groups like the
National Education Association (NEA), the ACLU and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN). Even the American Library Association (ALA) gave Fat
Kids its “Michael L. Printz Award for Excellence in Young Adult Literature.” The
book also received a rave review from America’s largest homosexual activist
literary organization, Lambda Literary Foundation.
By constantly lowering
the bar on decency, educators are intentionally playing a game of ideological
limbo with our children’s moral well-being as they seek to create little moral
relativists in their own iconoclastic self-image. And they’re robbing kids of
great reading like Oliver Twist, Treasure Island and many others in the
process."

And there you have it, folks...it's the homosexuals who are forcing these poor, impressionable children to read the book Matt keeps blathering about. I will give Matt points for his clever use of alliteration with his, "metastasizing moral malady," comment, but the rest of his bleating is simply that...bleating. For the record, the Printz Award is one of the biggest and most prestigious children's literature prizes and is given, as Matt said, by the American Library Association. Unfortunately, Fat Kid Rules the World didn't win the award, but was one of the honored books for the year 2004...argument hole number five.

As usual, Matt has tried to spin this situation and has succeeded in insulting the parental intelligence of the students in the district in question, assumed that the traditional classic reading choices are being held hostage somewhere, gave false information regarding the one book that seemed to bother him the most and blamed everything on that ever elusive homosexual agenda.

With five glaring holes in your argument Matt...you'd do good to do a little more homework before posting your purposely inflammatory garbage.

Another Case of Convenient Dementia?

The more I've seen on the news and read online, the more I'm convinced that these elected officials who've been caught in these types of acts are suffering from what I'm dubbing convenient dementia. This time it's Republican Senator Larry Craig who's been stricken with this horrible disease. According to a report from The IdahoStatesman, a news source from his home state, Craig was arrested on June 11th in a Minnesota airport men's room for allegedly soliciting sex from an undercover officer. The details of that arrest can be found here.

Since an arrest was made, Craig was required to appear in court...an event that occurred earlier this month. Here's what the Statesman reported...

"News about the June 11 arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport was reported on Roll Call's Web site Monday. According to police and
court records obtained by Roll Call, Craig pleaded guilty Aug. 8 to
misdemeanor disorderly conduct in Hennepin County District Court. He paid $575
in fines and fees. A 10-day jail sentence was suspended and Craig received one
year's unsupervised probation.

Craig on Monday denied any misconduct. "At the time of this incident,
I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my
actions," he said in a written statement. "I was not involved in any
inappropriate conduct. I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this
matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this
matter myself quickly and expeditiously."

Craig, through his staff, declined to answer questions."

Of course he declined to answer questions, because the first one would be why in the world would a longstanding Senator go into court and plead guilty without either having a lawyer with him or, at the very least, consulting one before heading into court? The answer is very simple...he was guilty and he was hoping not to handle the "matter" as he described, but hoping it would just go away.

Since the story broke yesterday, Craig has decided to take the dementia route by trying to make it look like he wasn't thinking clearly enough to do what anyone would do if arrested...hire an attorney. Here's the interesting twist I know you're waiting for...

"Craig, 62, was elected to Congress in 1980. Should he win re-election in
2008 and complete his term, he would be the longest-serving Idahoan ever in
Congress. His record includes a series of votes against gay rights and his
support of a 2006 amendment to the Idaho Constitution that bars gay marriage and
civil unions."

He has to claim that everything was misconstrued and that he shouldn't have gone to court without an attorney because his entire political life has an anti-gay record. The Statesman article has links and references to other instances where Craig's behavior has come into question, but this is just another example of convenient dementia...something more and more politicians seem to be catching. Maybe someone should check the water in Washington or, better yet, maybe these guys should just start telling the truth.

Would You Like A Little Cheese With That Whine, Boys?

You know, I sat down this morning and, inevitably, landed on Peter LaBarbera's site (Americans for Truth) only to read what is probably one of the most insidious headlines I've seen in a while.
Referring to last week's article by talk radio host Kevin McCullough, Babs implored his fellow hatemongers...I mean, loyal readers...to support the idea that bloggers who happen to be gay are not only angry but lie all the time. He didn't even have the sense to change McCullough's original headline or, perhaps, he's just that unimaginative...who knows...but while the words, "Why Do Angry Gay Bloggers Always Lie," were there, the proof of those "lies" were nonexistent. Babs starts out...as usual...with the focus on himself...

"As one who has been on the receiving end of too many online “gay” lies to
count, I can sympathize with Kevin McCullough – one of the few radio
conservatives nationwide who doesn’t downplay the homosexual issue. (And there
are some pretty big names in conservative radio who do by going ‘PC’ on
this issue with their silence … so support
Kevin.)"

Awwww, poor little hate-filled fundies! For all the anti-gay comments, campaigns and other efforts Pete has made and been involved in, I find it absolutely incredible...if not a bit nauseating...that he would have the audacity to complain about any legitimate rebuttal to his lame arguments, relegating them to the level of "online 'gay' lies." And, yes, I'm still wondering what's with the damn quotes around the word gay.

The only thing I could find in both articles (which are posted on AFT's site and can be read using the first link I gave in this post) that refers to a "lie" is the same, tired argument that fundies have been making all along...their belief that a person's sexual orientation is a choice and not a biological predetermination. I suppose the idea here is that if you don't agree with the fundies, you're a liar...plain and simple.

In his article, McCullough laments the name-calling he's endured...

"NGBlog
[WARNING: NGBlog has a hard time making his point without cussing–Ed.] and OutsideTheTent
have had me in their sights for sometime.

And when the towering intellects that they both are come up short
against an actual point of substance the best they can do is call me stupid, or
poopy pants, or whatever brilliant turn of phrase pops into their skull.

They are so desperate to make me appear stupid they slow down the video of me discussing the
Mary Cheney pregnancy on CNN to the one frame where in the middle of
speaking I appear half-inebriated. [See an AFTAH post on the Mary Cheney
baby story HERE.]

Classy…

They also lie a lot… the lying liars they
are."

The lying liars they are? Honestly, you'd think that a popular conservative talk radio host could do better than that! I won't stoop to any silly name-calling, but I will say that we do have an actual point of substance...one that will not vanish regardless of any vilification thrown our way. I and the other members of the LGBT community stand by our biological sexual orientation regardless of the obviously phobic and/or hateful misrepresentations of our identities. Since that seems to be the only point of contention for these two, I simply have to suggest they stop whining and accept the fact that we will continue to disagree...fundies will continue to try and paint us as the root of all evil, and gay bloggers will continue to poke holes in their arguments. As for this particular argument...seems you boys are the ones guilty of lying. So, take your cheese and curl up in a corner to whine some more...I know I'm not going to lose any sleep over it!

Monday's This And That

After a much needed vacation and computer changeover (I HATE Windows Vista!!!), I'm back to reading my news feeds. So, here are a few things to get your week started...



** In case you haven't heard, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned after several months of turmoil and controversy. I suppose it's better late than never, but this should have happened long ago. The question now is who will the Chimperor try to push for confirmation? Speculation suggests that Michael Chertoff (head of Homeland Insecurity who not only contributed to the botched Katrina "relief" efforts, but recently announced he had a "gut feeling" about an impending terror attack here in the states) will be up for the job, which would not only further diminish what little integrity the Attorney General's office has left but would also pave the way for yet another Bush appointee in the Homeland Security Department and, no doubt, a very heated confirmation process in Congress. How long until the next election?

** Michael Vick held a press conference where he seemed to apologize for his participation in a dog-fighting ring. I use the word "seemed" because let's face it...he is taking a plea agreement which doesn't fully cover everything in which he was involved, and he's far more upset with the fact he got caught than anything else, I would imagine. As for the bonuses he received from the Atlanta Falcons...it appears the franchise will attempt to go after about half of what they gave Vick. Forgive me for not feeling sorry for him...if and when he serves any time, he'll still be a multi-millionaire.

** Westboro Baptist Church has added Mexico to their ever growing list of countries that God apparently hates. Fred Phelps (aka The Rotting Cryptkeeper) either has a direct line to God or thinks he is God...I'm leaning toward the latter, lol. As usual, I refuse to give them a link, but if you find yourself wanting to develop a bad case of nausea, their site can be found on Google.

Summer Hiatus

Due to illness and a much needed need for a vacation, I will not be posting until around August 22. Until then, be well and take some time to browse the archive.

Janet Folger Looks Stupid...Again

You would think that someone who posts a weekly article would make sure and check all available sources before allowing said article to be posted and distributed. Unfortunately, the incredibly unhinged Janet Folger had her head so far up her...well, you get the picture...that she didn't check her facts.

In her weekly article posted on WingNutDaily today, Folger urges her fellow wingnuts to watch the "Values Voters Debate" (the Republican version, lol...the Democrats will get their shot later) on September 17, rather than watching the CNN/YouTube Republican debate scheduled for the same night. Always ready with an attack on anything she deems remotely liberal, Janet blasted off with this...

"While CNN's YouTube debate for the Democratic candidates took place a week
ago Monday, I found it interesting they didn't plan a comparable debate for the
Republicans last week. Or this week. They didn't schedule the Republican YouTube
debate for next month. They scheduled it for ... Sept. 17 – the same day of the
Values Voters Presidential Debate. Coincidence? One thing that's not a
coincidence: why they can't seem to get anyone to come – the majority who care
about family values have already agreed to attend the values voters
debate."

First of all, CNN has already announced that the Republican debate is being postponed because so many of the candidates had scheduling conflicts or were going to be attending so many debates in the month of September that the CNN event was just going to be one too many. While spinning her wheels looking for some vast left-wing conspiracy, Ms. Folger didn't bother to check her facts. Second, no information on where the debate was being broadcasted was mentioned. I find that funny, because the purpose of her article (other than demonizing the evil that is all Democrats) was to mobilize the fundie base and get them to watch the debate. I suppose fundies have some sort of mental telepathy that isn't granted the rest of us, but I have no idea how they are supposed to know where to even tune in to see this great debate.

In her final statements, Janet again shows her stupidity and arrogance by saying...

"This isn't about partisanship. It's about values. We are less concerned
about the letter behind your name than we are about the values in your heart and
the policies of your administration. What matters to you? Well, where you are on
Sept. 17 will say it all. Will the candidates address the largest voting block
in America? Or will they be more concerned about raising money or catering to the flaky
agenda of a left-leaning Frosty the Snowman? We will see."

The hell it isn't about partisanship! That's a blatant lie, and she knows it, but what's worse is she's implying that candidates who decide to attend the CNN debate aren't interested in tough questions. The only question of the 39 posed to the Democrats that she mentions is the admittedly ridiculous Frosty the Snowman question. In truth, though, the questions chosen were rather well balanced in my opinion. I suppose that Ms. Folger isn't really interested in balance, though...she's obviously gone the way of FOX News in throwing out the concept of fair and balanced reporting. I realize I'm being repetitive, but the CNN debate won't be on the 17th as she restates in that final paragraph, so her condescending remarks are somewhat laughable.

If anyone knows where to see this values-based debate, though, please let me know. I want to see it so I can see the "right-leaning Frosty the Snowman," LOL!

Tuesday's This And That

Just something to get your week off and running, folks.

** Those lovable little nutcases over at WingNutDaily are all excited because another publication gave them credit for an article discussing Paris Hilton's high school hockey stint. In an article published June 14th, WND wrote about Hilton's hockey "career," and the Connecticut publication picked up on it. I suppose it was a slow news day, or WND once again contradicted its "hard news" stance...who knows. If you want a laugh at the expense of Paris, though, give it a read.

** Here's an interesting perspective on the civil union mess in New Jersey and a short quote from the article...

"So civil unions aren't just legally unequal to marriage; they're not just
emotionally unequal; they're not even just morally unequal. They're unequal in
the most literal, practical sense of the word. Even in the state where the civil
union is the law, people in civil unions are not being treated the same by their
employers as people who are married."

Give it a read, because the blatant differences between marriages and civil unions are discussed in great detail. Separate but equal just doesn't cut it...period!



** Okay, this article from New Zealand has me both slightly disgusted and shaking my head...I don't know how else to describe it, LOL. Apparently, it's not kosher for vegan individuals to have sex with 'carnivores.' Now there's a new category, vegansexuals, to denote those who not only don't eat meat, but won't have sex with anyone who does. Here's the quote that just had me grossed out, though, lol...

"One vegan respondent from Christchurch said: "I believe we are what we consume,
so I really struggle with bodily fluids, especially sexually."

I so didn't need to read that at 8 am, LOL!



** It seems that Paris Hilton's billionaire grandfather has had enough of her ridiculousness and has taken away her inheritance. Okay, so she won't get any money when this 79 year old man dies, but let's be serious...how much money does she have already? I doubt this declaration is really a big deal, and I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it!

Shapiro Calls Pushing For Same-Sex Marriage A 'Progressives' Political Trick'

Do you remember the YouTube debate question posed by a black, Southern pastor, asking why religion should be used to prevent same-sex marriage? I posted about it a few days ago, and it was one of the questions chosen for the debate. Benjamin Shapiro of WingNutDaily, though, sees the whole concept as some sort of political trick, and you won't believe why.

In summing up Edwards' response to the question of imposing religion on the issue of gay marriage, Shapiro says the following...

"Sen. Edwards first stated that based on his religious principles, he was
personally opposed to same-sex marriage. Then, he retreated from his principles:
"I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to
have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I
will not do that when I'm president of the United States."

Ben is right (and you have no idea how much it pains me to say that, lol), Edwards' response was one of the most uncommitted, spineless, safe, pointless...well, I could keep on going, but I think you get the point. It's Ben's next few statements that make my blood boil...

"Edwards was clearly mistaken in his appraisal of the role of religious
values in politics. Religion shapes morals; morals shape politics. The
Constitution forbids Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of
religion. It does not bar politicians or voters from consulting their moral
compasses in charting America's course on the big issues of our day."

Politicians can consult their moral compasses all they want, but they are NOT permitted to impose their religious values or mores on any of us...period. He continues talking about how "progressives" are forcing fundies to bear the burden of proof on issues pertaining to gay rights. He preaches about the ridiculousness of forcing "tradition" to change (funny how these self-righteous fundies almost always align themselves with tradition), but then says...

"This is not to say that tradition should always prevail. Sometimes change
will meet its burden of proof: anti-slavery advocates, anti-segregation
advocates and anti-sexism advocates made their cases strongly and forcefully,
overcoming the weak arguments for tradition."

Notice how he left out gay rights, lol, but before you get too excited...read what he says next...

"But constant social experimentation – perpetual change justified only by
empty assumptions about the infallibility of the New – discards experience in
favor of untested theory.

An immature society asks, "Why shouldn't we?" assuming the past is
antiquated. A mature society sees the proven value of the old and the possible
value of the new, asking, "Why should we?" Sometimes change should be
undertaken; sometimes not. This is only right: Some change is progress, while
some change is decay. We can only tell progress from decay by asking change to
make its case – to meet its burden of proof."

So, it would seem that Mr. Shapiro is trying to say that progressives (aka advocates of gay rights) are attempting to make our society accept the idea of gay marriage by tricking people into some sort of hypnotized state. Funny, isn't that what he and his fundie pals have been trying to do all along? What he calls "proven value" is relative...a fact he will probably go to his grave denying. Sorry Ben, but it sounds like you're describing yourself...not the so-called progressives.

Thursday's This And That

I've got a few short stories for you...consider this an open thread and comment away!



** It looks like McCain's (aka, 'The Tool') campaign may be quickly falling apart. Following the departures of key campaign members last week, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that his entire media team has resigned. I'll refrain from doing my "happy dance" because I don't want to scare anyone, lol, but it's hard for me to hide my delight with this news.



** I apologize in advance for this post because I swore I wouldn't blog about this...BUT, lol, you've no doubt heard about Lindsay Lohan's latest arrest involving a car chase while under the influence and in the possession of cocaine. It seems she decided to send an email to Access Hollywood (according to Newsday.com), in which she states...

"I am innocent. I did not do drugs, they're not mine ... I appreciate everyone
giving me my privacy."Lohan also wrote that she "was almost hit by my assistant
Tarin's mom." She apparently refers to a car chase involving Lohan and her
personal assistant's mother, which ended just prior to the arrest in the parking
lot of Santa Monica's Civic Auditorium."

Anyone buying that? I know I'm not, but what really upsets me about this story is her father who went about booking approximately 7 different talk show appearances following his daughter's most recent arrest. What's despicable about his actions is that he appears to be capitalizing on his daughter's downward spiral to destruction by getting his face on as many television shows as possible. It's possible I'm overreacting, but he and Lindsay's mother are ultimately responsible for all this turmoil by allowing her to enter the Hollywood stage at such a young age. It reminds me of the very young Drew Barrymore and the struggles she endured...and overcame. Unfortunately, Lindsay may not have the same success due to the selfish ambitions of her greedy and self-consumed parents.

** Peter LaBarbera has yet another rant up today about the HRC/LOGO Democratic debate. I won't go into great detail about what he has to say out of courtesy to those who might be trying to eat while they read this, lol, but there is one statement that stood out to me...

"Who represents the tens of millions of Americans who morally object to
homosexuality, and who stand to lose their religilous (sic) and First
Amendment freedoms if HRC’s agenda is enacted? (I hereby volunteer my services
as a conservative questioner if the organizers care to make a pretense of
journalistic objectivity.)"

The free speech fallacy aside, what makes Pete think he is some beacon of journalistic objectivity? Other than his unadulterated hatred for the homosexual community and the various articles he's written to that effect, where are his journalistic credentials that would bring this so-called objectivity? Obviously, HRC president Joe Solmonese and musician Melissa Etheridge probably don't have any credentials themselves, but that's not really the point. If Pete can blather away on his site, why can't the homosexual community hold a debate without its integrity coming into question? Just my opinion on the matter.

WND Attempts To Demonize Organization For The Alleged Actions Of One Person

If the charges mentioned in today's story prove to be true, then I will be among the first to proclaim the utter despicability of this man's actions...BUT...WingNutDaily pounced on the opportunity to demonize a legitimate organization. The article begins...

"The outreach coordinator of Milwaukee's homosexual "PrideFest"
is now facing a felony charge after police say he sought to meet a 14-year-old
boy via the Internet for a sexual rendezvous.
According to authorities,
David W. Bodoh, 42, of Wauwatosa, Wis., apparently made contact with a boy from
Oconomowoc, and eventually set up a meeting with an undercover state agent who
posed online as the child."

Okay, like I said...if these charges prove to be true, then Mr. Bodoh needs to be put away. Here's where WND crosses the line, though...

"Though Bodoh's name has been removed from the PrideFest website, an archived
version indicates he was part of the production team for the 2007 event, listed
as "Community Outreach."

According to its website, "The mission of PrideFest is to advocate,
celebrate and educate the general community and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender (LGBT) community with regard to all aspects of LGBT culture. To
accomplish this, PrideFest produces an annual Pride celebration. Educational
events include, but are not limited to, exhibits, lectures, art and community
outreach which fully display the diversity of LGBT culture."

I'll give WND some credit, this was very subtly done, but their point was still made. And, once again...the actions of one individual automatically demonize and condemn the rest of us as being some sort of predators who are just waiting to assault an innocent child. I realize that the fundies see the homosexual community as pedophiles by nature...which infuriates me...but this was a very lame attempt on their part to try and link us all to the actions of one individual. The, "where we go one, we go all," nonsense has to stop.

Out Of Left Field?

Just about every day, the folks over at WingNutDaily have what they call an 'Out of Left Field,' feature where they highlight an article or blog that they deem to be ultra liberal. While I usually find this feature rather humorous, today's offering left me shaking my head. In a blog article published by Truthdig, the subject of children's health insurance was addressed. Presently, the subject of the S-CHIPS program is being discussed, heatedly, in Congress and, as the article reports...

"Congress is considering bipartisan legislation that will cover poor
children in the U.S.

The major obstacle? President Bush is vowing to veto the bill, even
though Republican and Democratic senators reached bipartisan agreement on it.
The bill adds $35 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over
the next five years by increasing federal taxes on cigarettes.

The conservative Heritage Foundation is against the tobacco tax to fund
SCHIP, saying that it “disproportionately burdens low-income smokers” as well as
“young adults.” No mention is made of any adverse impact on Heritage-funder
Altria Group, the cigarette giant formerly known as Philip Morris."

Disproportionately burdens low-income smokers? Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous! That aside, how, exactly is this issue something "out of left field?" The Chimperor is waving his banana sword in the air and is trying to appear strong on this issue, but the heartbreaking stories (which are only the tip of the iceberg) should rouse even the hardest of hearts...Bush's included. The fact is that health insurance for poor children is an obvious necessity and Bush is pulling his usual stubbornness...just because he can. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, and shame on you WND for labeling this issue as something that is out of left field!

Monday's This And That

Just a few items to start off your week...some funny ones and some, well, you'll see, LOL!



** The next season of Fox's hit show (and one of my personal favorites) '24' will feature a female president played by openly lesbian actress Cherry Jones, according to the Baltimore Sun. It's unclear as to whether her character will be lesbian as well, but I suppose we can hope!

** This is a story I just have to shake my head and wonder, "What were they thinking." Macy's ran into a little bit of trouble over one of their marketing ploys attempting to lure in more Hispanic shoppers. They introduced a t-shirt bearing the phrase, "Brown is the new white." Needless to say, Macy's has since pulled the shirt from its stores and has started the apology campaign.

** The American Family Association as issued one of its 'Action Alerts' regarding the hate crimes legislation, again suggesting that homosexuals don't deserve the sort of protections outlined in the bill. I wonder if Ted Kennedy and the other sponsors of the bill added Evangelicals (aka, Fundies) to the bill, if they'd still be making such a ridiculous uproar about it. Who knows, lol...they may just feel to 'dirty' to even comment!

** Matt Barber and all the other fundies with inoperable television remote controls should be breathing a little easier today, as the bill that would curb foul language during prime time managed to get the approval of a Senate panel. When a bill that suggests censoring religious programming is presented, I hope these fundies embrace it as much as they have this bill. After all, you just can't have it both ways.

** Those nutcases over at Westboro Baptist have proclaimed that God hates Ireland now too. This is just another of many proclamations (including the more well known, God hates America pronouncement), and will probably not be the last. If you want to see their latest press release, you can Google them...I refuse to give them a link. (h/t to Jeremy at Good As You)

Tony Perkins Still Doesn't Know What Country He Lives In

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has an article posted, blasting both the hate crimes legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He begins...

"Earlier in the week I wrote about thought crimes legislation and the
plight of a Canadian pastor who's on trial for allegedly running a foul of a
similar law."

Okay, so we're no longer calling it hate crimes legislation or even mentioning the bill's new name, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and we're back to noting the legal hoopla that is occurring in another country. For all the discussion about that ever elusive agenda of ours and how underhanded it supposedly is, changing the name of the bill in your own column is pretty damn underhanded! Tony continues...

"On Capitol Hill we are facing a similar battle. The Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would give homosexuals conduct the same
protections we currently give black Americans and women. To be black or female
is, as Gen. Colin Powell pointed out, an immutable condition. But people choose
whether or not to act on their homosexual disposition."

First, I don't understand why homosexuals...like every other human being in this country regardless of their gender or ethnicity...shouldn't be granted the same protection from employment discrimination. More importantly, though, Tony skewed what Colin Powell actually had to say on the subject. As Jeremy over at Good As You pointed out, the quote Tony gave was taken out of context. That link will take you to Jeremy's post on this article and will give you more details on finding the actual text of Powell's comments. Powell's actual quote was...

“Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation
is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of
the two is a convenient, but invalid argument” (quote courtesy of Good As You)

Jeremy analyzes this very well in his post, so I won't be redundant. Instead, let me point out that, once again, a member of the fundie community has tried to use a quote incorrectly in order to make their position seem more viable...the very thing the homosexual community is constantly, yet falsely, accused of doing. Tony continues by turning his attention to ENDA...

"Advocates of ENDA argue that there is a religious exemption for churches.
The weakness of such exemptions was illustrated this week in England. An open
homosexual named John Reaney applied for a job as a youth director for the
Anglican diocese of Hereford. The archbishop of this diocese refused him
employment. Mr. Reaney successfully sued the diocese for discrimination under
the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations of 2007. The religious
exemption in the law applied only to ministers. The exemption became ambiguous
when it came to employment for other duties within the church. This is another
example where legislators provide what appears to be an exemption to appease
churches when the legislation is passed but leave them vague enough so that the
courts get the final say and religious freedom is lost."

Did you catch this example's country of origin? If Tony and the other fundies are going to insist on this line of logic (and I use that term very loosely), then let's take a moment and look at a couple of other things going on another country in recent days. Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, has warned foreigners that they will be expelled should they decide to criticize him or his government. This is on the heels of a Venezuelan television network being forced to go to cable because of it's opposition to the Chavez government.

Should Americans now fear having our most basic freedoms of speech curtailed because of the actions of a foreign leader in his own country? Even with the expanded executive powers that Bush has granted himself, none of them involve precluding anyone from speaking out against him as a leader or as a person, for that matter. Where, then, is the threat that in this country...especially when the curtailing of certain free speech rights could be infringed upon when it comes to criticizing the President...that this hate crimes bill will somehow muzzle religious leaders?

These cases (which have been repeated by various fundie leaders ad nauseum) have no bearing upon the laws of this country, and only represent an extremely lame attempt on the part of the fundies to use the fear-mongering tactic in trying to rouse their base. Ultimately, the fundie base can whine and rant all they want...the truth is that they have no legal leg to stand on.

UPDATE: OneNewsNow Reveals The Ignorance Of Its Readers By Posting Poll

Apparently, the average OneNewsNow reader doesn't have a clue where the Democratic candidates stand on the issue of gay rights either...

"OneNewsNow.com asked you: What conclusion can one draw about a
presidential candidate who is willing to participate in a homosexual-led debate?
You said:"

While I find myself shaking my head at the utter stupidity on display here, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I wonder, though, if the debate were to be monitored by the Southern Baptist Convention and aired on CBN, how would Pete feel about it being called a "pro-Christian" debate? But, therein lies the usual double standard, right?

Well, Babs...We Sincerely Hope The Same Doesn't Happen To You

While in the midst of ranting and raving against all things evil (aka homosexuals), Peter LaBarbera has made an outrageous comment about equal rights. The funny thing is, he probably doesn't realize that the same thing could happen to him and other fundies. Citing an article by an openly gay columnist for the Detroit News, Babs points to the author's justifiable concern over recent Supreme Court decisions and the impact they may have in the future...

"The Roberts court — whose votes in nongay cases strongly signaled that Chief Justice
John Roberts and Samuel Alito can be expected to join Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
in opposing almost any imaginable gay-rights plea — is moving frighteningly
close to having the five votes it would need to weaken the groundbreaking
rulings of 1996 and 2003 acknowledging that gay Americans are protected by the
Constitution….

“This term confirmed a lot of our fears,” says Jon Davidson, legal
director at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

What alarmed gay rights litigators? A string of 5-4 decisions against
the powerless or minorities: Rulings blocking workers from suing over sex
discrimination if it’s not discovered immediately; ignoring public school
students’ free-speech rights, and hampering efforts to create racially diverse
schools."

The author, Deb Price, makes a very good point...there seems to be a pattern emerging where cases of social, sexual or racial discrimination are concerned. Here's where Babs completely misses the point of how this very same pattern could turn around and bite him...

"We hope that openly lesbian Detroit News Columnist Deb Price is
correct and that her homosexual activist comrades have much to fear in
the direction of the Supreme Court. However, it is frightening to think that so
much is riding on decisions of swing Justice Anthony Kennedy — who in his
opinions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas) has often seemed more interested in
pleasing the editorial writers at the New York Times than being faithful to
the Constitution.– Peter LaBarbera"

Has it ever occurred to you, Pete, that one day the court may rule to infringe on your right to blather away with your hate-filled speech? Or, did it occur to you that Christians in general (whom the homosexual community has not tried to stifle or persecute) might be the victims of unjust Supreme Court decisions? You see us as the enemy...the root of all evil...and we get it. But be careful what you wish for, Babs...you may be next.

Wednesday's This And That

**Fred Phelps, founder and leader of the nefarious Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, has once again asked to have a monument added to a local historical plaza. As the Casper Star Tribune reported yesterday, the monument Phelps wants would bear a picture of Matthew Shepard and would read...

"MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21, in Defiance of
God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is
abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

His deranged request will most likely be denied...again...as the Mayor has deemed the request as "full of hate and not in the spirit of the monument plaza." Thanks to Jeremy over at Good As You for reporting on this story.



**In my daily visits to World Net Daily I've made a couple of interesting observations. In between the actual articles and various news stories are ads for various WND books and products, over-the-counter sleep aids, stock tips, survival tips and more. What I found most interesting was an ad that runs fairly frequently for a book that advocates getting out of paying taxes and another that discusses how to get out of just about anything IRS related. Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't a bunch of Bible-beating fundies be more concerned with upholding the admonition found in the book of Matthew. Jesus was talking with a bunch of Pharisees who asked him...

"Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
Matthew 22:17

His answer comes in verse 21...

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

So, it would seem that WND is being hypocritical on almost a daily basis with their ads. Come on, WingNuts...don't throw scripture at us unless you're willing to apply it yourselves!



**According to the LA Times, binational same-sex couples are facing a problem that is not often thought of. While heterosexual Americans can bring their spouses into the country with just a little paperwork, same-sex couples are being denied that right. Of course, the fundies are celebrating this as a "defense of marriage" victory, but it's just another example of why marriage equality is the enormous issue that it is.



**I got this video link from someone special, and it's so funny that I had to share it. It's a clip from MSNBC's show "Morning Joe" and I think it represents what many of us think about the ridiculous amount of media coverage that Paris Hilton received. Enjoy, and thank you for sending it to me, C.



http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/story/_a/mika-brzezinski-paris-hilton/20070708135909990001



**For a group who has openly denounced Harry Potter as the root of all evil and something that will lead to the eventual conversion of every fan to witchcraft, those little nuts at WND can't seem to quit posting something about it. Today's post is a prime example because it doesn't take on the usual demonizing tone but, rather, discusses how there are so many posts all over the internet giving spoilers that may or may not be true. Hmmmm...so, do we hate Harry or not, WND?

**In another of Jeremy's posts today is a video from YouTube that might just be one chosen for the CNN/YouTube debates. This Southern pastor is speaking about religion and gay marriage, and it's not what you'd expect. Take a look at it and see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6iYliBayh4

LaBabs Laments HRC/LOGO Debates

I sometimes wonder where Peter LaBarbera's head is, because paying attention to the individual positions of candidates is apparently not top on his list. According to an article on OneNewsNow...

"A pro-family activist says the frontrunners for the Democratic
presidential nomination are "pandering to the gay lobby" by agreeing to take
part in a televised debate moderated by homosexual activists.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack
Obama, and John Edwards -- plan to take part in a one-hour debate August 9
devoted solely to "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender" (GLBT) issues. The
debate will be televised live from Los Angeles on the Viacom-owned homosexual
television network "LOGO."

Before I go any further, let's review where these candidates stand on gay rights. First, there's Hilary "flip-flop" Clinton, whose position on gay marriage changes depending on her audience. According to a July 8th report by The San Fransisco Chronicle...

"But even standing alongside San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Assemblyman
Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and state Treasurer Phil Angelides, the Democratic
candidate for governor, on the morning after New York's highest court upheld a
state ban on same-sex marriage, Clinton steadfastly ignored questions about the
issue.

It was a marked contrast from a visit to San Francisco on a 1996 book tour,
when the then-first lady expressed her views without reservation.
"Children
are better off if they have a mother and a father,'' Clinton said in the San
Francisco interview with the then-Hearst-owned San Francisco Examiner. "My
preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriage ... and
that people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another.''

Then there's Barack Obama, who has been very outspoken in his disdain for the idea of gay marriage. On the floor of the Senate, Obama stated...

"Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I
should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman."

So, he knows marriage equality is an important issue...but he doesn't want to touch the issue without wearing double gloves. Obviously, he's not the most avid supporter of our efforts toward marriage equality. Then there's Edwards, who has really disappointed me lately...especially following an unfortunate open mic incident wherein an alliance between his campaign and Hillary's was suggested. That aside, Elizabeth Edwards seems to be more supportive of gay marriage than her candidate husband, and I wonder if her recent appearances and soundbites aren't an attempt to make him look supportive without his actually stating his support. Here's an example of Edwards' stance on this issue...

"When John Edwards was asked about gay marriage during a debate earlier
this month, he emphasized his support for civil unions and partnership benefits
but said, "I don't think the federal government has a role in telling either
states or religious institutions, churches, what marriages they can bless and
can't bless."

With all of that in mind, how in the world can Babs think or suggest that the candidates are "pandering to the gay lobby?" Yes, the debate is being moderated by an organization that is continuing to fight for marriage equality and, yes, it's being aired on a gay-friendly network. but so far, Pete doesn't have much of a leg to stand on with his opening statements. He continues to show his ignorance on the issue...

"The whole thing is structured to be pro-homosexual -- and one wonders what
candidates are doing to be sensitive to the pro-family people who still believe
homosexuality is wrong," exclaims LaBarbera."

Well, Pete...they're doing quite a bit...as their quoted positions on the issues in question very clearly show. Again, I suppose Babs has been too busy foaming at the mouth over the sexual activities of everyone else to spend much time researching the positions of the various campaigns. I will give him credit for one statement, though...

"LaBarbera calls the debate "one of the most extraordinary developments in our
country's history." He laments the societal mindset from which such an event
would even occur."

While he let his true feelings show yet again, Pete is right when he says that this particular debate is an extraordinary development. Hopefully, it will be the start of many more.

Matt Barber Links All Homosexuals Through The Actions Of Two

I suppose that the only way Matt Barber and his fundie friends can substantiate their claims that homosexuals have an evil agenda is to point to ridiculous actions and isolated incidents and say, "See...we told you so!" In this recent rant (available through audio only, unfortunately), Barber cites the case of a New Jersey lesbian couple who sued a church for not allowing them to conduct their union ceremony on their property.

"In New Jersey, a Lesbian couple is suing a Methodist-run church retreat
because it would not allow the couple to rent the property’s pavilion for their
civil union ceremony. Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues, says
this points to the true aims of homosexual activists and what Bible-believing
Christians have in store for them if those aims come to pass."

I tried to find some other source for this story, but the only one I found was here at CNS News...

"(CNSNews.com) - A lesbian couple in New Jersey has filed a complaint
against a Methodist-owned campground, claiming illegal discrimination because
their request for a civil union ceremony on the property was denied.Harriet
Bernstein and Luisa Paster in March applied for use of the Ocean Grove Camp
Meeting Association's Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned
for September. The Methodist organization rejected their application and later
told Bernstein in an email that it did not allow civil unions to be held on the
pavilion."

Okay, for the record, private property is just that...private. The Methodist Church is under no obligation, in my opinion, to oblige this couple, and the entire concept of the suit is utterly absurd. Surely other venues were available, and it seems to me that the couple may have tried to insist on this particular one for reasons other than its scenic beauty. I would venture to guess that the two were trying to make a point...a lame one at that...and, consequently, provided an opportunity for the fundies to pounce and make all homosexuals look as ridiculous and vindictive as these two were made to look.

Anyone who's been paying attention to the fundie press knows that this idea that all homosexuals are exactly alike and behave in the same manner has been used to demonize the entire gay rights movement. While Barber and his friends are incorrect in that assumption, members of the homosexual community should know better than to take such actions which jeopardize the true and legitimate causes we are really about.

Romney and Same-Sex Marriage

It seems to be a slow Monday morning at WingNutDaily, because they have this feature article which invokes the wisdom of "experts," 0n the subject of Mitt Romney...crediting him with "homosexual marriage." As I read over the article...which is incredibly long-winded and rambling...I noticed that all the so-called experts who were asked to contribute were all on the extremely conservative end of the political spectrum. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, considering the source, but I was surprised that his current stance concerning same-sex marriage wasn't directly addressed. Here are a couple of examples of Romney facts presented in the article...

"Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members
reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to
direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering
same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did
no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the
nation."

Okay, so Romney acted because the courts gave him no choice? I still don't buy that, but I think that WND is giving Romney way too much credit for creating homosexual marriage in this country. Here's a campaign quote that makes my point...

"It was Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, who told WND
that Romney, "by virtue of being at ground zero in the culture wars … has been
the most outspoken defender of traditional marriage in the country."
He said
Romney "took every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional
marriage. He held rallies, he went to court, he lobbied legislators and he used
the bully pulpit of his office to make effective public arguments in favor of
marriage as the union of a man and a woman."
Romney also enforced a 1913 law
prohibiting couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married if they were
barred from marrying in their home state, he said.
"The enforcement of this
law stopped gay marriage from being visited on virtually every other state in
the nation," he said."

So now, Romney is an "outspoken defender of traditional marriage," and a candidate who will most likely fight against gay rights issues should he be elected. What became even more clear in reading this article was that the goal seemed to be geared less toward demonizing Romney and more toward demonizing gay rights as a whole. For example...

"In a previously issued statement he made in support of the Federal Marriage
Amendment, FitzGibbon warned of the immediate and dramatic social impact of such
a decision, including a mandate by public schools in Massachusetts to teach
homosexuality to children.
He noted one school dictum that said,
"Administrators, teachers, parents and students are reminded that no action or
speech will be tolerated that results in harassment, discrimination, bias or
intimidation toward any member of our community for any reasons, including
his/her sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation."

"The effect of the Goodridge decision has been to encourage the indoctrination
of public school students in the merits of legalization of [same-sex marriage],"
he said."

And there it is...directing school officials against permitting any harassment of students based on their sexual orientation is now tantamount to teaching homosexuality to children. Following that logic, disallowing any derogatory speech aimed at differing ethnic groups is the same as indoctrinating and recruiting children for the Neo-Nazi movement.

The WingNuts are trying to credit Romney with the inception of same-sex marriage, including the benefits and responsibilities that should follow, but have seemingly succeeded in taking another opportunity to denounce the idea of gay rights. In truth, Romney is being given way too much credit, and his flip-flop soundbites on the various gay rights issues are proof that it depends who his audience is as to what he'll say or do.

Matt Barber Slaps Homosexuals In The Face

First of all, Matt needs to look up the word hyperbole before he tries to use it again. It's obvious in his article that he doesn't know the meaning of the word...

"Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as
“marriage equality” and “gay rights,” the left has dishonestly but effectively
framed the debate over homosexual behaviors."

Call me petty if you like, but the term, "hyperbolic," refers to things which are exaggerated, oh, and my Greek readers will love the fact that the origin of the word in question is Greek. How, exactly, are the ideals of marriage equality and gay rights (again, I love how these phrases have to be put in quotes, lol) hyperbolic? Matt goes on...

"By co-opting and misapplying the language of the genuine civil rights
movement, homosexual activists — along with kindred leftists in the media,
government and elsewhere — are making considerable strides toward reshaping our
culture. They’ve enjoyed much success in attaining official government
recognition of a disordered and empty, though demonstrably
mutable, sexual lifestyle."

Let's just break down that little paragraph, shall we? First, gay rights and civil rights are similar in many ways. The civil rights movement demanded equality for all people regardless of their skin color. The gay rights activists are asking for nothing different. Second, was the civil rights movement responsible for reshaping our culture? Absolutely not...it taught us to respect the differences of others. Lastly, the, "demonstrably mutable," lifestyle (and it's not a lifestyle at all...it's a biological definitive) has been backed up and affirmed by the American Psychological Association. That, in itself, begs the question of how the concept of gay rights could be mutable at all. Perhaps that's another word Mr. Barber needs to look up.

Here's where Matt is really going with this flawed argument...

"While recently addressing the rapidly downward spiral in homosexual
“marriages” in Massachusetts and elsewhere, Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State
Director of Concerned Women for America, observed, “The thrill of their
‘victory’ is gone. It’s not about their ‘right’ to marry and it never has been.
It's about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional
marriage.”

"And Mrs. Mosher is absolutely right. As the numbers on this whacky “gay
marriage” social experiment continue to plummet, it’s becoming obvious that
homosexual activists don’t care one iota about “marriage.” Their true agenda is
not really “marriage equality” and the right to enter into monogamous
“marriages,” but rather, their intention is to water down traditional marriage
so that the institution — which is so very important to healthy child rearing
and a healthy society — no longer has a unique and respected place in society.
Everything that marriage stands for (i.e., monogamy, fidelity, the nuclear
family and those “oppressive” gender stereotypes associated with the need for a
“mom” and a “dad”) must be done away with in order to foster acceptance of sin.

But it goes far beyond simply undermining marriage. In order to
legitimize disordered sexual behaviors, which have traditionally been considered
immoral and are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive, it’s
necessary to dissolve the notion that traditional marriage and the nuclear
family are normative and represent the gold standard. According to some, that’s
a sexually repressive Judeo-Christian concept, you see. And in order for secular
humanism to properly take root, we need a society which embraces the idea that
all forms of sexual behavior — no matter how perverse or destructive — are
equally valid."

So, the statistics from one state are completely indicative of the rest of the country, and "secular humanism" means anything that doesn't fit into the fundamentalist view of what our society should resemble. Bottom line...homosexuals simply want the privilege to marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage just as heterosexual couples do. The fundies can blather away all they want, but the truth will not be buried beneath a bunch of Biblical talk.

Tuesday's This And That

So much stupidity...so little time, LOL!



**Damn!! I can't have sex in a public toilet in Fort Lauderdale...or have any privacy either, apparently. That just ruins all my vacation plans, LOL! In response to the city's apparent problem with homosexual activity, Fort Lauderdale's mayor is planning to install "robotic toilets." WingNutDaily has an article up on their site, describing how these new toilets will automatically open after a certain period of time. I wonder what impact having the toilet door open while I was in the middle of...ummm...feminine hygeine would have on the city's "family-friendly environment?"




**In another WND article, an alert of sorts was issued about Christians being arrested for praying. Of course, once you read the article, you find out that the ones arrested were lying on the sidewalks and disrupting pedestrian traffic during a gay pride event. You know what? It's entirely possible for a person to pray without making a spectacle of themselves or obstructing a public event.


**In yet another WingNut article, there's a report of Christians being prevented from distributing materials at a Fourth of July event. First, there is the issue of the separation of church and state...but beyond that, why couldn't this pastor hand out his tracts as people left the event rather than insisting on circulating them while people were enjoying the festivities? You can't break the rules then cry about being the victim of censorship...especially when other options were available.




**"Claymates" beware...don't annoy the American Idol star! According to a Yahoo/AP News report, Clay Aiken was involved in an altercation aboard a Continental Airlines flight. He allegedly rested his foot near a female passenger who then shoved him. The FBI was involved and it seems Aiken may be put on a watch list because of the altercation. Poor guy...he'd just joked about being beaten up by a girl during a show before the flight.



**My favorite of all, though, is this little story from the New York Post. You're probably following the link and wondering why I find the story so amusing. So, the FDA has approved a
transdermal dementia treatment...wonderful idea, but could we send a case to the White House? Then we should send another case to the Cheney residence...especially if he's planning any hunting trips this fall.

Sheehan Calls For Bush's Impeachment

In a report from various sources (CNN, FOX, AP, etc.), Cindy Sheehan has issued a challenge to current speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi...

"CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - Six weeks after announcing her departure from the peace movement, Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run
against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks."

As you probably guessed, I have a thing or two to say about this. First, I think articles of impeachment should be brought against the Chimperor...something that should have been done a long time ago. It's clear, I think, to just about everyone that Bush's motives in invading Iraq were questionable at best and his continued stubbornness is causing the senseless deaths of thousands of our American youth...along with innocent Iraq citizens caught in the quagmire of what is essentially a civil war.

Second, Cindy Sheehan...while initially intending to protest the war through grieving the death of her own son...succumbed to the media hoopla and made her efforts in Crawford much more about her than anything else. In short, she diminished her own credibility as a war protester by making herself the center of attention.

Finally, the idea of Sheehan defeating Pelosi in the upcoming election is somewhat laughable. I truly hope that Sheehan's motives are to try and force the Democrats to take some action in demanding troop pull-outs, but I wonder if this is just another attempt for her to get some new press. Honestly, I don't think Sheehan would be able to defeat Pelosi...the first ever female speaker of the House...but perhaps the threat will be enough to bring the bloodshed in Iraq to an end, and make the Bush administration take responsibility for its mistakes. Only time will tell.

Taking a Vacation

I know this is late...I should have posted this Tuesday, lol...but The Terminator will be on vacation until Monday. In the meantime, check out this video on YouTube and browse my other posts. A reader tipped me off about it, and for some reason Blogger won't let me upload the video...so, here's the link...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S-mP0Vd6jZo

Since the Chimperor feels it's necessary for the US to clean up everyone's mess, why not that one, LOL.

Enjoy your weekend!

Feminsim Responsible For Lesbianism?

Leave it to the WingNuts to take the story of one woman and use it to try and erase the line between homosexuality and biology. That's exactly what this story is trying to do...

"A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner
for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married "happy
heterosexual" who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political
activity and involvement in feminist causes "changed" her into a lesbian.

Sue
Wilkinson, professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough
University, told the London Times that her 17-year marriage to her husband
had been a good one.
But that changed in the mid-1980s when the young
professor became involved with the British
Psychological Society."

First of all, it's clear that her marriage to her husband wasn't a good one, and that her true sexual identity was revealed to her at a later stage of life. Sure, there are those who look for differing experiences, but it's clear that isn't the case for this woman. She continues by pointing her finger at feminists...

"I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy
heterosexual and had no doubts," said Wilkinson.
"Then I changed, through
political activity and feminism, spending time with women's organizations. It
opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity."

While I find myself bristling at the idea of choosing a sexual identity, I wonder who she's trying to convince with this argument. My eyebrow was raised even more by the other facts presented in the article...

"Wilkinson divorced her husband and has lived with her partner, Prof.
Celia Kitzinger of York
University, for the past 17 years.

"I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men,"
she said. "My husband took it very badly."
In 2003, the two women married in
Vancouver, Canada, where same-sex unions are legal. A change in UK law in 2005
recognized their Canadian ceremony as a civil union, but not marriage.
Wilkinson and Kitzinger sued, arguing that foreign heterosexual unions would
automatically be recognized as valid marriages, and the law, as constituted, was
"a breach of our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights."

How, exactly, does a person take on such an uphill legal battle...all the while reiterating that her marriage to her husband was a good one, mind you...if the underlying motivation was anything other than a naturally felt love for her wife? The answer, in my opinion, is that it would be next to impossible. Not only did this woman enter a 17 year relationship/marriage with her partner, but she fought to have that marriage recognized in her home country.

Ms. Wilkinson can blame whomever she wishes, but it's clear that her heart and true identity is that of a lesbian. Biology doesn't change just because a person chooses to deny his or her sexual orientation and blame political or social pressures for their actions. Nice try, WingNuts, but I'm not buying this one in the slightest.

Fed Up With Ann Coulter

I'll be blatantly honest from the outset here...I've never liked Ann Coulter (a fact I'm sure she'll lose quite a bit of sleep over, lol). Aside from her general abrasiveness and crass remarks, I'm even more offended by her occasional attempt at whining...not unlike her article posted today on WingNutDaily. While she was on the MSNBC show Hardball, Elizabeth Edwards called in to basically ask Ann to stop her attacks on her husband and presidential candidate, John. Here was some of what Ann had to say in her WND article today...

"For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt
a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat me
for being mean to her husband.
Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al
Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone
they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife
of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits?"

Is anyone feeling sorry for Ann in the slightest? I'll admit that the call from Elizabeth was a bit lame and I'm disappointed that the whole ordeal was then used as a fundraising push, but Ms. Coulter has absolutely no room to whine, as she has a long history of 'being mean' herself. Her comments made on Good Morning America are what precipitated the phone call, so let's take a look at what Ann really said...

"Coulter told "Good Morning America's" Chris Cuomo: "But about the same time,
Bill Maher was not joking in saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a
terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson, if I’m gonna saying anything about
John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist
assassination plot."

So, because someone else made a remark...it's perfectly okay for her to make the same remark about another person? Way to accept personal responsibility, Ann! Now, back to the Hardball incident...

"EE: I'm calling you … in the south when we -- when someone does something
that displeases us, we wanna ask them politely to stop doing it. Uh - I'd like
to ask Ann Coulter -- if she wants to debate on issues, on positions -- we
certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today -- um but
uh it's quite another matter for these personal attacks that the things she has
said over the years not just about John but about other candidates -- it lowers
our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want
to use the opportunity … to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.

Ann Coulter: OK, so I made a joke -- let's see six months ago -- and as
you point out they've been raising money off of it for six months since
then.

CM: This is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

AC: I didn't say anything about him actually either time.

EE: Ann, you know that's not true. And once more its been going on for
sometime."

Now, based on the quote from the GMA interview on Monday, Ann did say something about John Edwards, and it was a profoundly offensive remark. But here's what Ann had to say today about it...

"I think I may have tuned out at some point, so I can only speak to the
first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards' harangue, but it mostly consisted of
utterly dishonest renditions of things I had said on my "Good Morning America"
interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can't rush
Edwards' "rapid response team"!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks
on the Edwards' dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband.

These are bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media know they are lies.
Yet they were repeated ad nauseam yesterday by the Associated Press, the AOL
pop-up window, CNN, NBC and – stunningly – the host of the lowest-rated cable
show himself, who personally told me he knew the truth.

So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books:
Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."

Ummm...who's lying here? It seems Ann did make the terrorist-related comment about John Edwards, and it's on the record with ABC and the rest of the internet-connected world now. There's no getting out of it. And while she tried to point out that the Edwards campaign was using the event as a fundraising tactic, she still felt it necessary to pimp her 'five best-selling books?' I find that absolutely unbelivable.

Ann continues in her WND article, pointing out problems with John Edwards and even asserting that John Kerry was less than enthused with Edwards as a person. If she can back it all up, that's fine...I have no problem with someone expressing an opinion about someone else if it's based upon actual facts. The terrorist comment, though, was over the line in my opinion. It's the very last paragraph of her article that bothers me even more, though...

"I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings
off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement
schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only
serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich."

I have only two words for you, Ann...poor baby.

**Here are a few of Ann's other quips that make me wonder why she has the audacity to whine about being picked on...

"I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I
think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a
televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle
East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." - December
21, 2005

"Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are
calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to
boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether." - Anncoulter.com,
November 22, 2006

"(Liberals) are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's
do it. Let's repress them. ... Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First
Amendment," Coulter said during an Oct. 21, 2005, speech
at the University of Florida.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to
Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler
and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians.
That's war. And this is war," Coulter wrote in a column
published by the National Review Online on Sept. 13, 2001.

"We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter
said in a Jan. 27 appearance at Philander
Smith College in Little
Rock, Ark., regarding Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. She later
explained she was joking about the justice, whose votes have upheld Roe v. Wade,
the landmark decision legalizing abortion.

**And my favorite of all...

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard," she
said in The Washington Post on October 16, 1998.

She should have taken her own advice.

Dems Pushing 'Fairness Doctrine' And Making a Huge Mistake

John Kerry, among other democrats, is attempting to revive a law that was suspended (but left on the books, unfortunately) in 1987 which would require equal time for opposing viewpoints on radio and television. In a report by WND, Kerry is quoted as saying...

"These are the people that wiped out … one of the most profound changes in the
balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time
requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and
squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important
transition in the imbalance of our public eye,"

What Kerry isn't telling you is that the FCC provision was suspended with the support of a Democrat-controlled Congress. He's also omitting the fact that the reason the provision was enacted in the first place was because there were, at the time, only three media networks from which a person could get information. Obviously, times have changed, and the average person has numerous sources available both in the television and radio arenas.

Here's the problem with what Kerry and other Dems are doing, though. They are attempting to get the federal government to take control of what information a person can gather from the much more modern media sources that exist now. Not only should the FCC NOT have that sort of power, but these same legislators would be screaming had the suggestion been made by a conservative legislator or organization.

Just as I suggested to Matt Barber in another post, if you don't like what you're seeing or hearing...change the channel or station. We're perfectly capable of seeking out as many differing viewpoints as we'd like, and the Dems are making a huge mistake by assuming that we can't.