Tuesday, July 31, 2007

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

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!

Monday, July 30, 2007

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!

Thursday, July 26, 2007

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.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

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, July 23, 2007

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.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

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

“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

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.


**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...


Tuesday, July 17, 2007

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

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.
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

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.

Monday, July 16, 2007

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

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

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.

Monday, July 09, 2007

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
, 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

"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.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

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...


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

Enjoy your weekend!

Monday, July 02, 2007

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.

, professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough
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
, 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.