I’m still reeling by the Log Cabin Republicans’ hearty approval of lightweight fundie Sarah Palin.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin can help Sen. McCain win this election by appealing to independent and young voters. She’s a mainstream Republican who will unite the Party and serve John McCain well as Vice President. Gov. Palin is an inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters.
Isn’t this supposed to be a group that believes government should get out of the lives of taxpayers? So far, the only folks jumping for joy are not fiscal conservatives, but the wingnut fringe who want to peep into your womb and bedroom. Here are some more, from Bob Unruh at WND in the incredibly titled, ”Does chick mate spell checkmate for McCain?” --
“The excitement was palpable among conservative leaders when they heard that Gov. Palin was Sen. McCain’s choice for vice president. There is a high level of optimism among conservative leaders that the McCain-Palin combination is a ticket that will connect with values voters...Gov. Palin is pro-life and pro-marriage.”
-- Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, the Liberty Alliance Action.
“The country now has a clear choice between an avowed pro-abortion ticket that would continue to push for unrestricted abortion on demand, and a strongly pro-life ticket that will bring us closer to a society that embraces the value and dignity of human life.”
-- Darla St. Martin, co-executive director of the National Right to Life committee
“It is particularly significant that a conservative woman was nominated for the nation’s second highest office. For years the feminist movement has acknowledged for leadership only those women who embrace a radical agenda. How refreshing that now we have a woman who reflects the values of mainstream American women. Take that feminists – here is a woman of accomplishment who brings a fresh face to traditional values and models the type of woman most girls want to become.”
--Janice Shaw Crouse, director of the CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.
My question here, since it’s safe to say most LCRs are men, is what does this say about support by gay conservative men for the individual rights of women? Sarah Palin does not believe in reproductive freedom, and doesn’t believe in equal pay for equal work (like their man McCain). This is troubling. Does limited government only extend to those without vaginas?
Just asking, because IMHO, this ticket in no way represents limited government, save a strong pro-second amendment stance and a pledge to reduce taxes while the country’s economy goes down the toilet as we maintain $upport for this endless war. What are the LCR’s true conservative principles? I only see a ticket that promises to nominate SCOTUS justices ready to roll back freedoms the LCRs currently take for granted.
Not that I’m suggesting any sort of ratfuckery, but if you’d like to send a message of support to Hallmark instead, they’ve already got the form and e-mail ready and everything…
This actually brought to mind the phenomenon of period parties - celebrations of a girl’s first steps into adulthood, welcoming the responsibility and possibilities that are now open to her. I remember them because of a local news item I saw once (unfortunately, I can’t remember anything else about it except that it was in a suburban subdivision), wherein such a party was being thrown and other households called the cops on them for public vulgarity. Because if there’s anything to get squicky about, it’s something that the majority of human beings have to deal with for thirty-plus years at a time on a monthly basis. Obviously, the best way to deal with the inevitable biological development of your daughter’s body is to utterly deny it until she wakes up bleeding and thinks she’s dying. Far more psychologically beneficial.
What I enjoy about this the most is the form letter you’re prompted to send:
I am surprised that Hallmark is promoting an unhealthy lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states. There was a time Hallmark told us to send the very best. Sorry to see you have taken a giant step down. No more. American Greeting Cards, your competitor, will be getting my business.
A public health and legal argument...nice. It reminds me of when Hallmark briefly sold those Needle Party cards in the late-80s. “There’s no point if you don’t share a point!” Man, those were the days.
Does anyone doubt that if Hallmark makes money from these cards, AGC will be printing more rainbows and hearts than the invites for a My Little Pony convention?
After comparing gays and lesbians with obese alcoholics, tenured professor Mike Adams then unleashes this wisdom:
Imagine for a moment that we were to forbid a counselor from expressing her objection to overeating, despite proven health risks, simply because the obese individual likes to eat and claims some genetic predisposition to obesity.
Or imagine for a moment that we were to forbid a counselor from expressing her objection to over-drinking, despite proven health risks, simply because the drunken individual likes to drink and claims some genetic predisposition to alcoholism. (Or, worse, imagine she likes crack!).
But you don’t have to imagine forbidding a counselor from expressing her objection to homosexuality, despite proven health risks, simply because the gay individual likes homosexuality and claims some genetic predisposition to gayness.
You see, a counselor refused to counsel a woman on her lesbian relationship because she believed that homosexuality was immoral. Ergo, alcoholics would be protected from the discrimination of being told that their drinking is bad for them because of The Gay. Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi singlehandedly destroyed Alcoholics De Anonymous, don’tcha know?
What would happen if a gay therapist refused to treat a conservative Christian, or if Rod Parsley somehow found himself waiting in an ER while they tried to find a doctor who didn’t mind treating a massive jackass? Wait a second - it’s hard to hear your answer over the caterwauling.
I realize that I’m treading on incredibly shaky ground by addressing a legal argument two weeks before I start law school, and risk ruining the entirety of my career by falling flat on my face complaining about a National Review columnist. But hey, I gotta call stupid where I see it.
Andrew McCarthy’s druthers are up about the recent California Supreme Court decision (North Coast Women’s Care v. Benitez) that disallowed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as it relates to health care. The problem, you see, is that the obvious intent of anti-discrimination laws is to stop people who want to discriminate from discriminating. McCarthy discusses a doctrine called “strict scrutiny” - the simplest explanation of which is that if a law is challenged based on the perception of discrimination, the state must prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest and that it’s the least restrictive alternative for advancing that interest. Ironically enough, its focus is doing no (or the least) amount of harm in order to protect the greater body of rights. McCarthy:
In Monday’s ruling, California’s supreme court purported to follow this test. The state’s so-called “Unruh Civil Rights Act” subjects to civil liability any person who discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Seeing nothing overtly hostile to religion in the text, the judges found the Act to be a neutral law of general application. Thus, they reasoned that physicians could not rely on religious convictions to deny in vitro fertilization to a same-sex couple. Case closed.
Not so fast. The Court got it wrong on at least two counts.
This is huge. Congratulations to Jared Polis, who has won the Dem primary in Colorado’s 2nd district for the U.S. House. Since this is a heavily Democratic district (it includes Boulder), it means Polis is almost a lock to be the first openly gay man elected to Congress as a non-incumbent.
Polis took the stage and said he was about to make history and then introduced his partner. Citing his sexual orientation, he said, “I always worried that that would get in the way (of) giving back and contributing to our society.”
...Polis threw more than $5 million of his own money into the campaign - the most expensive congressional primary in state history - to beat [former state senator Joan] Fitz-Gerald, 60, a rival with a high-profile political history and the backing of unions and many Democratic party loyalists.
”Tonight is just a beginning,” Polis told an screaming crowd. “There are other important races to be won,” he added, referring to Presidential contender Barack Obama and Mark Udall’s Senate race.
What’s significant is that Jared’s sexual orientation was not an issue during the campaign. More below the fold.
In terms of the conservative constituency of the Republican Party, Sen. McCain is an opportunistic infection that threatens to ravage and destroy its defenseless body. Tragically for America, in the larger context of our national political life he still plays the role of the AIDS virus, masquerading as a republican while opening the way for Barack Obama, the opportunistic infection that will ravage the defenseless body of our republic.
-- Bombastic failed presidential candidate Alan Keyes
In a mind-boggling WorldNetDaily op-ed Keyes goes on at length, disgusted at the state of the conservative movement, and Dobson’s betrayal on womb control and the protection of marriage.
Dr. Dobson declared that “in good conscience” he could not vote for John McCain. Respect for his integrity requires us to assume that a man of his professed faith and commitment to Christ spoke with sincere respect for the Christian standard of conscience. Comparing what Christ requires with what John McCain represents, he reached the accurate conclusion that McCain fails to measure up. But now, it seems, he is preoccupied by Barack Obama. Comparing McCain with Obama, he now entertains the possibility of voting for McCain. In this comparison, what has become of the standard, which is Jesus Christ?
From Dr. Dobson’s words, both Obama and McCain depart from that standard, though McCain not as much as Obama. What does this mean? Is the difference a matter of degree, or a matter of principle? Given Christ’s instruction, the difference in principle must be decisive, for God is the first principle, and our relation to the will of God the first priority. Does Dr. Dobson mean to say that support for Obama’s candidacy departs from good conscience in principle, whereas support for McCain’s does not? If so, a change of heart may be justified. If not, it is sadly mistaken.
...McCain’s statements on the issue of homosexual marriage, civil unions and the need to protect traditional marriage by constitutional means show no regard for the profound destruction of moral principle that will result from overthrowing the claims of the natural family. Like Barack Obama, he takes positions exclusively calculated to win votes from the constituencies he needs for political victory, no matter if they risk the soul and moral foundations of the republic. At the very least, he wants to harvest votes from people deeply concerned about the besieged moral foundations of our liberty even though he obviously lacks the understanding needed to defend them.
If you’re looking for a committed, hard-hitting, strong-spined party platform on LGBT rights, you may want to hold off on thumbing through the 2008 Democratic Party platform. In fact, for those of you who want to get an idea of how the Dems are selling themselves on the major issues of the day, I obtained a draft of the DNC platform for your perusal. Feel free to comment on the other issues addressed, as I’m interested in your opinions of the platform on the range of topics covered.
Since the readers at the Blend focus predominantly on LGBT issues, I gave them a little preview and searched in the draft for:
* gay
* lesbian
* bisexual
* transgender
...and came up with nothing. To be fair, if you do a search for discrimination, sexual orientation or gender identity, you get a few hits.
A More Perfect Union
We believe in the essential American ideal that we are not constrained by the circumstances of birth but can make of our lives what we will. Unfortunately, for too many, that ideal is not a reality. When our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, the dissent and activism of ordinary Americans becomes the truest expression of patriotism. We have more work to do. Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in.
What’s the matter with Kansas (aside from the Phelps hate machine)? Apparently a candidate for the state house in District 84, Gail Finney, who wanted to prove her homophobic mettle by running an email and robo-call campaign to defeat Inga Taylor, an out lesbian. She succeeded. By the way, Finney is a Democrat. (GayPolitics.com):
A last-minute, anti-gay smear campaign will keep Kansas from electing its first openly gay state legislator and America’s first African-American lesbian state legislator.
Inga Taylor, a Victory-Fund endorsee, had outraised and out-organized her opponent, Gail Finney. But Finney and her supporters launched a late mail, e-mail and phone campaign highlighting Taylor’s sexual orientation and contributions to her campaign from the Victory Fund. Finney is the Vice-chair of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party.
Here’s the pertinent snippet of one of the emails, sent by Finney supporter Dr. Peggy Elliott:
“Inga Taylor considers it an honor that if elected, she will be the 1st openly gay African American Legislator in the United States. If you will go to the http://www.victoryfund.com website, you will see that they are excited about the same and working strategically to ensure that this candidate wins the election on tomorrow evening. Who would she be representing? Those that fund her from the east coast or 84th District? Is this what we want to be known for in Kansas? In Wichita?”
Is there anything wrong with supporting candidates who stand for civil equality, regardless of where they are located? I guess Finney would rather have her state associated with the viewpoint coming out of Topeka from the Rotting Cryptkeeper than to campaign on issues of concern Kansans.
One troubling aspect of this whole matter is that when The Victory Fund’s Chuck Wolfe sent an urgent request to Governor (and Obama VP shortlister) Kathleen Sebielius to denounce Finney’s tactics, she did not respond or intervene before the polls closed yesterday.
Here’s the robo-call (MP3). Since’ it’s FInney herself on the call, she’s careful not to use the words “gay” or “lesbian”—she simply refers to ”outside interest groups” with an ”unknown agenda.” Come, on. Since she also asserts during the call that Taylor received “90% of her funds” from the outside group (she won’t name the VF or she’d have to actually utter “gay” and “lesbian"), her message is clear.
NOTE: While anti-gay tactics can still sway voters in some races around the country, AfterElton takes a look at how things might play out in the presidential race. Check out the features ”Gay-Baiting ‘08” by Christie Keith and ”The Pundits Speak: Keith Olbermann and other traditional journalists on gay issues.” In the latter piece, editor Michael Jensen spoke to Olbermann, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Suzanne Malveaux, and John King. It’s an interesting read, please click over and come back and comment.
Carla Lewis was inside the Tennessee Valley Universalist Unitarian Church when Jim Adkisson opened fire on the members of the congregation, as they attended a children’s production of “Annie.”
Mike Signorilespoke with Ms. Lewis, who is transgender and a local activist, about the horrible event, the political motivations of Adkisson (hatred of liberals and gays), and tragic hero Greg McKendry who leapt in front of the shooter’s gunfire to save his fellow church members. McKendry was also a foster dad to a trans child.
Great interview, Mike. An update on Adkisson’s case indicates—surprise—an insanity defense is likely to be mounted.
[Knox County Public Defender Mark] Stephens noted that it is not merely Adkisson’s mental state that would be at issue should the public defender opt to mount an insanity defense. His actions, both before and after the shooting, will be judged, Stephens said.
...It is against overwhelming odds that Stephens must mount a defense.
Consider what police have reported with little challenge to the validity of the claims: He bought a 12-gauge shotgun from a pawnshop shortly before the shooting and then sawed it to fit a guitar case he purchased solely for the purpose of concealing that weapon to make his way into the church without undue alarm. He detailed his allegedly murderous and suicidal intent in a four-page letter and allegedly proceeded to carry out the plan in full view of throngs of churchgoers gathered on a Sunday morning…
“You have to show the defendant didn’t appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct,” Stephens said. “How coherent were his thought processes?”
The defense has to show that Adkisson “didn’t appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.”
I forgot to post this hilarity up—the fundies at MASSResistance provided unique coverage of the Massachusetts House repeal of the “1913 law” last week that enables same-sex couples from other states to travel to the Bay State to marry.
Poor head of MassResistance Brian Camenker —he was probably frothing at the mouth while he was typing this.
Yesterday afternoon, despite widespread internal dissention and overwhelming negative outpouring from the public, the House leadership kept their promises to the homosexual lobby and forced a vote to repeal the “1913 Law”.
Pandagon readers up there in Massachusetts —was there ”overwhelming negative outpouring” anywhere in sight over this?
The leadership of both houses had publicly promised the homosexual lobby to repeal this before the end of the session, July 31. But after the Senate passed it with a cowardly voice vote on July 15, public outrage erupted. It’s generally agreed that outpouring against the bill came in at a 6-1 ratio. Newspaper reports indicated that lot of reps were very uncomfortable (we promised to remember their vote this November).
In what is clearly seen as a Custer’s Last Stand for the professional homophobe set, someone at the Tupelo, Mississippi-based gay-hating American Family Association managed to pry $500K from the miserly, decrepit “Christian” hands of Don Wildmon to underwrite the pro-Prop 8 activities of ProtectMarriage.com. (CNS News):
In a message to supporters, AFA acknowledged its “obligation to be good stewards of the gifts given to this ministry. We don’t buy anything on credit. We have no debt. We are careful to make sure your gifts are used wisely. We are very frugal with your gifts.”
AFA said it has put aside money over the years so it would have the funds to meet whatever need might arise. The $500,000 for ProtectMarriage.com came from those savings, it said.
“If California defeats Proposition 8, it will open the floodgates for same-sex marriage in all the other states. The battle in California isn’t simply about California. It will affect every state, yours included. The homosexual groups have already raised millions, and are expected to spend nearly $20 million to destroy marriage as it has existed for thousands of years.”
The article notes that there was a pitch for cash in the missive. These fundie tools are just incredible, but even more stunning is the perpetual notion projected that TEH HOMOS, are so powerful. Let’s see, how many state amendments have these fringe whack jobs managed to pass? The problem is that they know the momentum isn’t with them, and with the economy sucking, as Lurleen’s diary pointed out, states are salivating at all that same-sex marriage and tourism cash that will be streaming to pro-equality states. The almighty dollar is going to eventually shut these bible beating bigots up.
Can you just picture the flop sweat on this fundie as he grasps at straws to defend his bigotry --- save the childrenz!
Prop. 8 is the ballot measure that would negate a California Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual “marriage.” And Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families believes children ought to be protected.
..."Because homosexual marriage has been ordered by the California Supreme Court, that means children are being taught to honor and respect homosexual marriages from fifth-grade on in sex education school districts-- and from kindergarten on up when the other state law is applied,” he details.
...Thomasson suggests it is vital for Californians to approve the constitutional amendment in order to protect “[c]hildren’s innocence.” And he argues that adult choices should not be pushed upon small children.
OMG—run for the hills! Children might know about same-sex marriages! And what, exactly, will happen because of that? He doesn’t say. What is this “innocence” that will be lost?
Today’s big victory for marriage equality comes from Massachusetts, as its House passed a bill to repeal the “1913 law” that bars same-sex couples from other states who wish to marry there. Governor Deval Patrick will sign it when it hits his desk. (Bay Windows):
The bill cleared a final hurdle this afternoon, when the House of Representatives passed the bill on a roll call vote after about 45 minutes of debate. The vote was 118-35, with five members not voting.
The 1913 law prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be considered void in their home state, and it has prevented most same-sex couples from out of state from marrying in Massachusetts. LGBT advocates and their allies in the legislature have argued that the law was passed in 1913 in part to prevent interracial couples from skirting anti-miscegenation laws in their home states.
Check out this w-e-a-k defense by a Republican:
Republican Mary Rogeness spoke against the repeal, stating her concern that underage couples who were not allowed to marry in their home state might come here to get married if the law is repealed.
***
In equally satisfying news, it’s time to take out the tiny violin for the supporters of the California marriage amendment. As pointed out in a post at my pad, the wording of Prop 8, as rewritten for the ballot by Attorney General Jerry Brown, clarifies the intent of the measure:
Proposition 8
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.
Although the changes to the proposed amendment are subject to legal challenge, this summary accurately describes what the proposition will do. Prop. 8 would eliminate a constitutional right guaranteed to same-gender couples and would decrease revenues coming in to the state from marriages between same-gender couples.
This completely obliterates the conservative framing of the issue ("protecting marriage”, “preserving the traditional family,” etc.) and shows that supporters of the ballot initiative want to repeal a civil right that is now in place. And the fundies are hopping mad. More below the fold.
This is big news, particularly for people who think that you can’t be fired because your sexual orientation in this country. Even when you think you are protected, you may not be.
Monica Goodling and D. Kyle Sampson, key aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, violated federal law and departmental policy by considering political affiliation and other improper factors in Justice Department hiring decisions, according to another devastating report from DOJ’s Inspector General and the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, issued this morning.
Read the report for yourself here; and the summary (Goodling.doc). The relevant section:
In another matter, we found that Goodling violated Department policy and federal law, and committed misconduct, when she refused to extend the detail of a career AUSA, and later tried to block the AUSA from obtaining other details, at least in part because of rumors regarding the AUSA’s sexual orientation.
The discrimination charge in the document is notable because of the interpretation of the protection in Civil Service Reform Act; there is no specific clause on sexual orientation. Read this passage from the report (below the fold) carefully…
According to the lead officer in the investigation (airing on CNN right now), yesterday’s church shooting was the act of a man lashing out against gays and liberals.
I predict those declaring that Christianity is under assault from evil and violent sectors of our society will find virtually any way to overlook this they can. Looking around at major conservative blogs, I’m just amazed at how utterly silent they are concerning a church being assaulted by a domestic terrorist during a children’s play.
I realize that I’m treading on incredibly shaky ground by addressing a legal argument two weeks before I start law school, and risk ruining the entirety of my career by falling flat on my face complaining about a National Review columnist. But hey, I gotta call stupid where I see it.
What’s the matter with Kansas (aside from the Phelps hate machine)? Apparently a candidate for the state house in District 84, 
A last-minute, anti-gay smear campaign will keep Kansas from electing its first openly gay state legislator and America’s first African-American lesbian state legislator.
I forgot to post this hilarity up—the fundies at 
In what is clearly seen as a Custer’s Last Stand for the professional homophobe set, someone at the Tupelo, Mississippi-based gay-hating American Family Association managed to pry $500K from the miserly, decrepit “Christian” hands of Don Wildmon to underwrite the pro-Prop 8 activities of ProtectMarriage.com. (