Michael-In-Norfolk - - Coming Out In Mid Life

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-14T08:07:00.001-05:00

Virginia House of Delegates Set to Pass "Personhood" and "Ultrasound" Bills

2012-02-14T07:50:00.005-05:00

The extremism on display in the Virginia General Assembly seems to know few limits. The GOP controlled body is focused on making a full court press in the culture wars and seems Hell bent to make Mississippi and Alabama look like progressive states - no small task. Besides advancing a "personhood" bill that would define life as beginning at the moment a fertilized egg exists, the Christianist are seeking to add further restrictions on women seeking an abortion. Apparently just in case the personhood bill fails or gets struck down in court. Not surprisingly, in the midst of this batshitery is gay-hater extraordinaire Bob Marshall. Also not surprisingly, the Christofascists at The Family Foundation are supporting the bills. When are witch trials going to be made legal? The Virginian Pilot looks at the ongoing insanity. Here are highlights:

The Republican-dominated House of Delegates is poised to pass legislation declaring that life begins at conception, despite concerns by some Democrats that the bill's broad language could affect access to certain types of birth control.

The House advanced the legislation (HB1) on a voice vote Monday, setting up a vote today on the bill's passage. Today is the final day for each house of the General Assembly to act on its own legislation. Social issues have been major flashpoints in the first half of the legislative session.

The House on Monday also advanced legislation (HB462) that would require a woman to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion. The Senate already has passed an identical measure and Gov. Bob McDonnell has expressed support for the legislation, which abortion-rights advocates have denounced as an intrusive government mandate on doctors and pregnant women.

The [personhood] bill, sponsored by Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William County, states that unborn children "at every stage of development" have the same rights as other individuals except where the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court interpretations, or state laws say otherwise.

[T]he House voted not to take up an amendment proposed by Del. Vivian Watts, D-Fairfax County, to clarify that the bill would not apply to "lawful contraception." Watts raised concerns that the law could be interpreted as banning contraceptive methods that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and birth-control pills can work in that manner.

Del. Jennifer McClellan said the bill "requires every single code section in Virginia that uses the word 'person' to apply to a fetus." "That opens families and doctors to a wide variety of criminal and civil lawsuits for health care decisions not only in cases of unwanted pregnancies, but every pregnancy and even miscarriage," McClellan said in a statement.

Virginia is indeed becoming a very scary place.

The Loving Story - A Parable for Gay Marriage

2012-02-14T07:06:00.003-05:00

Tonight HBO will be running "The Loving Story" a documentary which is a love story and an examination of the landmark civil rights case handed down by the U. S. Supreme Court. The story focuses on one of Virginia's more shameful episodes in history as well. Not that the Republican Party of Virginia seems to have learned anything from the ruling given its ongoing anti-gay jihad in the Virginia General Assembly. Like it or not, today's opponents of LGBT rights in this state are no better than the segregationists of 40 plus years ago. While they justify their actions on religious believe, stripped away of this false smoke screen it all boils down to hate and bigotry - and, in my view, a very sick psychological need to feel superior to others. The New York Times looks at the upcoming broadcast. Here are some highlights:

“The Loving Story” may be one of the slyest sleights of programming in HBO history: . . . which takes care of Valentine’s Day and Black History Month. There’s more: because the film focuses on the battle to overturn laws against mixed-race marriages, HBO is also marketing it as a parable for the gay marriage movement.

The tone of the film is solemn and pious, which seems almost inevitable when the topic is segregation and racial intolerance. But there are other reasons to watch this film besides feel-good expediency.

The Lovings became civil rights activists by default: victims of the times, the color of their skin and a willful, wrongheaded judge in Virginia. By accident, more than design, they made history.

And it was a remarkable moment in time, one that today seems prehistoric. In 1958, only three years before Barack Obama’s parents married, the newlyweds were awakened in their bed in the middle of the night by flashlights shining in their faces. Mildred explained that she was Richard’s wife. “Not here, you’re not,” the sheriff replied as he put them under arrest.

Not long after, in a plea bargain, Judge Leon M. Bazile essentially banished them — back then, interracial marriage was illegal in more than 20 states, including Virginia.

Richard and Mildred spent the next nine years fighting for the right to go home, and the film helps explains why this reserved, quiet husband and wife were so determined to return to a state that had tossed them out. Both were simple country people who wanted to be near their families and friends . . .

[T]he white and colored went to school different, things like that, you know, they couldn’t go to the same restaurants,” she says softly. “I knew that, but I didn’t realize how bad it was until we got married.”

Mrs. Loving wrote to Robert F. Kennedy, then the United States attorney general, asking for help, which came from the American Civil Liberties Union. At least half the film focuses on the legal battle to strike down Judge Bazile’s decision, a struggle that was finally resolved by the Supreme Court in 1967.

“The Supreme Court held today that marriages of whites and Negroes are legal and no state may stop them,” is how David Brinkley, then an NBC News anchor, described the decision. The ruling was unanimous, and Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion.

The mindset of bigotry and discrimination that the production will show in Virginia is sadly alive and well and predominates the state GOP and the self-congratulatory bigots at The Family Foundation. Substitute sexual orientation for race and Victoria Cobb and her fellow hate merchants are singing the same old song of hate that is still a stain on Virginia to this day.

School Board Ends Policy Blamed for Anti-Gay Bullying

2012-02-14T06:40:00.002-05:00

Apparently, the Christofascist supporters of the infamous Anoka-Hennepin School Board policy that silenced teachers and students from opposing anti-gay bullying have lost their battle to retain the policy. Between law suits, a federal investigation and scathing national news coverage, the school board - except for member Kathy Tingelstad pictured above - belatedly found the spine to stand up to the merchants of hate parading themselves as "godly Christians." I can just imagine the spittle that will be flying on the "Christian" news shows. It's so sad that so many students had to die from suicide before this happened. The Twin Cities Pioneer Press looks at this long over due development. Here are some highlights:

The sexual orientation policy that hung like a cloud over the Anoka-Hennepin school district for the last two years - prompting bitter debates, protests and two lawsuits - is gone.

The Anoka-Hennepin school board voted 5-1 Monday night to repeal the controversial policy and replace it with one that strips away the language that singled out homosexuality-related issues. The new one directs staff about how to handle all contentious topics in the classroom, including sexuality.

"This policy is truly a compromise, and I truly hope it will move this district and this community forward," board member Scott Wenzel said. "This has been a long time coming and I'm very happy we were able to get to this point."

Only board member Kathy Tingelstad voted against the new policy. "We are setting national standards here tonight, and I am disappointed we couldn't do a better job," Tingelstad said, adding that outside influences pushed the district to act too quickly.

Supporters of the so-called neutrality policy - the only one of its kind in Minnesota - said it was necessary to protect students of families who believe that homosexuality is immoral and don't want their children taught otherwise.

Several residents spoke passionately before the school board voted Monday night in Coon Rapids.

Much of the debate focused on whether being gay is a choice. Those who believe it is cautioned the board against changing the policy, saying it would allow gay activists to recruit students into a "dangerous and risky lifestyle." One speaker encouraged parents to check teachers' lesson plans under the new policy.

"There is a fight going on that is bigger than this district," parent Laurie Mueller told the board. "This is not only about our children, it's a fundamental question of natural law...I do not want the school teaching my child that two dads or two moms equal a mom and a dad."

Laurie Thompson, president of the Parents Action League, a parent group that formed in support of the district's sexual orientation police, said she's skeptical. "I am not as confident as the board that this policy will prevent homosexual propaganda from flooding the classrooms," Thompson said, calling the policy vote "a big disappointment."

Alluding to the list of demands that PAL presented to the board a few meetings ago - including that the district provide the same level of support to Christian and "ex-homosexual" students as it does to gay students - Thompson told board members the battle is far from over.

Among other things, the Respectful Learning Environment Curriculum Policy says faculty members must teach the board-adopted curriculum and not attempt to persuade students to adopt a particular viewpoint. It also affirms the dignity of all students, language the policy on sexual orientation lacked.

I cannot help but suspect that Ms. Tingelstad, Ms. Thompson and Ms. Mueller also believe the earth is flat if they believe sexual orientation is a choice. Conservative Christianity is a toxic evil that needs to be driven from the public square and back into Neanderthal caves where it belongs.

More Monday Male Beauty

2012-02-13T22:53:00.002-05:00

Rick Santorum - The Christianist Candidate of Choice

2012-02-13T22:33:00.004-05:00

Both polls and the chattering class on television news shows are noting a huge upsurge in Rick Santorum's ranking against Mitt Romney even as thrice married serial adulterer Newt Gingrich seems to be providentially spiraling downward to a hopefully hard landing. But is the lunatic Republican base simply gravitating toward Santorum simply because they have nowhere else to go - especially if the Christofascists refuse to vote for a Mormon? Frankly, a match up between Santorum and Obama in November could be the Christofascists' Waterloo and a gift to Obama. Absent some transformation that I don't see Santorum being capable of making, the man is too much of a religious extremist to do well in November. He even makes the delusional Chimperator George W. Bush look rational and like a relative moderate. Andrew Sullivan summarizes some of the analysis in these highlights:

Jesse Singal wonders how effective Romney's inevitable attacks on Santorum will be:

[A] lot of the old Santorum stuff about to get churned up, the most infamous of it his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, is unlikely to bother conservative voters all that much. His views on social issues could make him a semi-poisonous general-election candidate, but in a primary — particularly a primary currently starring Romney? Less so.

Pete Spiliakos, who likes Santorum quite a bit, worries about his chances in the general election:

Take the whole women in combat thing. His point about group dynamics isn’t crazy, but he is just off. He just isn’t quick enough or disciplined enough to deflect these kinds of questions or make his point in an unalienating way. I don’t think the women in combat thing hurts him, but it is a warning. If Santorum is somehow the Republican nominee, he is going to get suckered into these kinds of culture war fights every couple of weeks. And this is Santorum being good. He isn’t that bright, he isn’t that articulate, and he can’t be fixed.

He is easily the politician most hostile to individual liberty on the right. He believes states have every right to ban contraception, all abortion, and any legal protections for gay couples. He disavows any secular, Enlightenent view of America's founding. For him, freedom only counts if you adhere to the current fundamentalist rigidity of the Benedict XVI church. I've cited this before, but here he is on freedom:

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. . . . .

[H]e explicitly cites the bedroom as the place where big government can intervene. If you are not reproducing as the Vatican demands, legal penalties are in principle possible. There is no public-private distinction. His mentor, Robbie George, takes the view that in principle, the state also has the right to penalize masturbation with criminal penalties, a position flushed out of him in the Prop 2 trial in Colorado. The only reason the two would not actively prosecute gay couples for having sex or straight couples for using condoms is for prudential reasons: it's not practical. But in theory, they'd have the Catholic church's most reactionary elements dictating your freedoms.

If you believe in individual freedom, this country has no greater opponent than Rick Santorum. And for three years, the GOP has tried to tell us that the Tea Party was about extending freedom and ending debt rather than extending the power of Christianist Big Government. We know better now.

Santorum is a menace plain and simple. And if the GOP were delusional enough to make him the nominee, I suspect Obama could easily expose his extremism and his Christofascist desire to dictate the beliefs and morality that must be imposed on all citizens.

The Republican Quest for a Wedge Issue for 2012

2012-02-13T22:06:00.003-05:00

A column in The Hill looks at the Republican Party's quest to identify a so-called wedge issue to use against the Democrats and Barack Obama in particular. Fortunately, so far the effort seems to be lacking any real success and when an issue is found that excites the GOP base - typically based on hating some identified group - the issue seems to be falling flat with the larger electorate and independent voters. This circumstance and the ongoing circular firing squad amongst the GOP presidential candidate clown car must be driving the Kool-Aid drinkers to absolute distraction. Totally lacking, of course, from the GOP discourse are any positive proposals as to how the nations crumbling infrastructure, lagging economy and broken health cares system might be fixed. Instead all the pontificating is about what's wrong with Obama and/or who is deserving of hate and contempt. Here are some column highlights:

Abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research and school prayer have been reliable “wedge issues” for the Republican Party since 1972, when President Nixon announced his opposition to “unrestricted abortion.”

The events of the last two weeks prove that the culture wars are still with us. And with the economy improving, the search is on for new wedge issues to help the GOP in the 2012 campaign. Here are some contenders:

• A federal appeals court in California overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
• The king of wedge issues — abortion — is back in the news after the Susan G. Komen Foundation cut support for Planned Parenthood based on a House investigation into its abortion services.
• But the big contender for the culture war crown is the Obama administration’s requirement that all employers, even schools and hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church, provide birth control services as part of their healthcare insurance coverage.

The political irony here is that this culture war over insurance coverage for contraception shows little evidence of winning votes for Republicans — even among Catholics. As a wedge issue it is a political pretender.

So, what is this political fight about? At best it fires up the conservative GOP base. But absent a major shift in public opinion, the issue lacks the critical power to win over Catholics, independents and socially conservative Democrats to the Republican side.

One possible target is the Hispanic voter. . . . But out-of-wedlock births and teenagers giving birth are major problems among Hispanics. Again, for all the huffing and puffing, the issue lacks political bite. Republican nominee John McCain lost the votes of women to Obama by 13 percent in 2008. If the GOP candidate this year runs aggressively against universal coverage for birth control, that gulf will increase to a Grand Canyon.

The same is true of the gay marriage issue. Polls show too many Americans, including younger conservatives, are not opposed to the idea. It is lacking as a political wedge.

Similarly, the Komen Foundation’s attack on Planned Parenthood’s work in breast cancer screening — because of the congressional probe into its abortion work — turned into a political disaster for Komen. Planned Parenthood reported a surge in donations.

There are two ends to every wedge. At the moment the GOP is sliding down these wedges. But the search goes on.

Let's hope the quest remains unsuccessful and that the GOP must live or die on actual policy positions and proposals.

Washington State's Governor Makes a Strong Statement for Marriage Equality

2012-02-13T20:56:00.006-05:00

There are days when living in Virginia is beyond depressing. Today is one such day. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled by the passage of marriage equality in Washington State and the amazing comments made by Governor Christine Gregorie before she signed the legislation (see the video clip below). I honestly believe that she is correct when she describes LGBT equality as the defining civil rights issue of today - especially in the eyes of the younger generation - and that history will judge states based on how they treated their LGBT citizens. Right now, Virginia seems set on a course to rival the negative images associated with Mississippi and Alabama.

The Advocate has more details on the momentous events in Olympia - my oldest daughter's new home town - and what actions the Christofascists may endeavor to take to block the legislation's effective date.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to not to contrast the surge toward the future and equality in Washington State with the situation here in Virginia where the Republican controlled General Assembly has the state hurtling backwards in time as it passes laws legalizing anti-LGBT discrimination, disenfranchising minorities, passing anti-women bills, granting special rights to religious extremists, and pushing forward a "personhood" bill that would in effect outlaw all abortion and many current forms of contraception. WTF happened to this state that in the founding days of the nation was a fountain of enlightenment? I can't help but wonder how much linger before I feel compelled to leave. Being treated as less than human by one's home state is soul killing and I fear for what many young LGBT Virginians must be feeling. I can only hope that they will have hope for the future - a future that most likely, if they are lucky, included leaving Virginia as soon as practicable.

Watch the video of Governor Gregorie and then contrast her leadership with that of Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell. And ask yourself who is the real Christian and who is the modern day Pharisee. Congratulations to Washington State. Virginia desperately needs to be saved from the haters and modern day Pharisees like Mr. McDonnell and Victoria Cobb, the princess of hate at The Family Foundation.

Virginia: The Higher the Government Support Payments, the Higher the GOP Support

2012-02-13T07:38:00.004-05:00

Here in Virginia the Republican Party of Virginia and its Christianist allies love to depict the poor as dead beats and by coded language typically as racial minorities. The Party would have all of their Kool-Aid drinking followers believe that it's only black welfare queens who are sucking at the tit of the government for support. A piece in the New York Times over the weekend looked at this myth across the large GOP. At Blue Virginia another piece applies the findings across Virginia. The findings? Reactionary "red" regions of the state have the highest government transfer payments (e.g., "entitlements" like Medicare, Medicaid and Security, which account for the vast majority of the U.S. budget) while progressive "blue" regions have far lowers levels of payment. The map above shows the correlation. It's yet another example of the schizophrenic nature of today's GOP. Here are some highlights:

The data and anecdotal evidence paint a fascinating, utterly schizophrenic, and I'd argue deeply dysfunctional, picture of American politics: 1) on the one hand, a population that is heavily and increasingly dependent on government transfer payments of various kinds (e.g., "entitlements" like Medicare, Medicaid and Security, which account for the vast majority of the U.S. budget); and 2) a tendency towards being "redder" politically where dependence is high, "bluer" politically where dependence is low.

The bluest parts of the country, in contrast, tend to have the lowest dependency on government "welfare." They also tend to be the states that are the net "donors" (e.g., give out more money than they take in), while the red states overwhelmingly are net "recipients" of federal largesse.

You can see it clearly in Virginia's map:

The disparity between the reddest parts of Virginia (mostly net recipient areas) and the bluest parts (mostly net donors) is striking. Thus, in Fairfax County, government transfer payments account for just 4.98% of county income. In Arlington, it's just 4.51%. In Loudoun County, it's 4.89%; in Prince William County, it's 7.39%. Note that all of those counties tend strongly "blue" in presidential (all went strongly for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin in 2008) and federal elections (all went for Jim Webb over George Allen in 2006).

In contrast, look at solid "red" Wise County, with 32.08% of county income accounted for by government transfer payments, or Patrick County, at 33.79%. In 2008, those two counties went by huge margins for McCain-Palin over Obama-Biden (63%-35% and 64%-34%, respectively). In 2006, both those counties went for George Allen over Jim Webb. The pattern here is glaringly obvious.

Republicans have relentlessly demonized government, even as they grab as much government money as possible, whether in the forms of subsidies to corn growers, extremely cheap mining and grazing rights on public lands, individual transfer payments, etc., etc.

You see it clearly here in Virginia, where Bob McDonnell constantly bashes and belittles government, even as Virginia is among the states most dependent on federal largesse for its prosperity. Take away the federal government, including both civilian, military, and "private" contractor, plus all the spinoff business that comes along with all those people living in Virginia, and the Commonwealth begins to look a lot more like poverty-stricken Alabama or Mississippi or West Virginia than what the relative prosperity many of us are used to in Virginia nowadays.

Yet, according to Bob McDonnell, who either is wildly ignorant, totally delusional, ruthlessly ambitious, or simply lying through his teeth (my bet is on a combination of the four), the "Virginia story" is all about private companies wanting to set up shop here because of our "friendly business climate." Well, sure, except for the overwhelming federal role in Virginia's economy, plus the fact that corporate relocations to Virginia often involve heavy doses of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare payments to those companies to get them to come here. If that's free market conservatism, then I'm Grover Norquist. Heh.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-13T07:21:00.002-05:00

Made in Brazil

Severe Conservative Syndrome

2012-02-13T06:40:00.003-05:00

As I often note, things within the Republican Party have become increasingly irrational and the embracing of ignorance and outright prejudice in many forms the norm. The CPAC gathering in Washington, D.C., certainly showcased the open hate and prejudice against gays, liberals, the poor, blacks, Hispanics and minorities of every stripe. It's as if these people want to erect a sign that says that only white, conservative Christians are welcome at the table of full citizenship. I continue to believe that this mind set is but a symptom of deeper psychological problems that encourage the persecution complex on ready display. In reality, its the conservative white Christians who are doing the persecuting of others, but you'd never take away that truth from their rantings. Paul Krugman has a column in the New York Times that looks at the increasing toxicity within the GOP. Here are some highlights:

Mitt Romney has a gift for words — self-destructive words. On Friday he did it again, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference that he was a “severely conservative governor.” As Molly Ball of The Atlantic pointed out, Mr. Romney “described conservatism as if it were a disease.”

That’s clearly not what Mr. Romney meant to convey. Yet if you look at the race for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, you have to wonder whether it was a Freudian slip. For something has clearly gone very wrong with modern American conservatism.

Start with Rick Santorum . . . . Anyone with an Internet connection is aware that Mr. Santorum is best known for 2003 remarks about homosexuality, incest and bestiality. But his strangeness runs deeper than that.

For example, last year Mr. Santorum made a point of defending the medieval Crusades against the “American left who hates Christendom.” Historical issues aside (hey, what are a few massacres of infidels and Jews among friends?), what was this doing in a 21st-century campaign?

Nor is this only about sex and religion: he has also declared that climate change is a hoax, part of a “beautifully concocted scheme” on the part of “the left” to provide “an excuse for more government control of your life.” You may say that such conspiracy-theorizing is hardly unique to Mr. Santorum, but that’s the point: tinfoil hats have become a common, if not mandatory, G.O.P. fashion accessory.

Then there’s Ron Paul, who came in a strong second in Maine’s caucuses despite widespread publicity over such matters as the racist (and conspiracy-minded) newsletters published under his name in the 1990s and his declarations that both the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act were mistakes.

Finally, there’s Mr. Romney, who will probably get the nomination despite his evident failure to make an emotional connection with, well, anyone. The truth, of course, is that he was not a “severely conservative” governor. . . . . But Mr. Romney is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and whatever his personal beliefs may really be — if, indeed, he believes anything other than that he should be president — he needs to win over primary voters who really are severely conservative in both his intended and unintended senses. . . . . his stump speeches rely almost entirely on fantasies and fabrications designed to appeal to the delusions of the conservative base.

How did American conservatism end up so detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus. . . . My short answer is that the long-running con game of economic conservatives and the wealthy supporters they serve finally went bad. For decades the G.O.P. has won elections by appealing to social and racial divisions, only to turn after each victory to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy . . . . Over time, however, this strategy created a base that really believed in all the hokum — and now the party elite has lost control.

The point is that today’s dismal G.O.P. field — is there anyone who doesn’t consider it dismal? — is no accident. Economic conservatives played a cynical game, and now they’re facing the blowback, a party that suffers from “severe” conservatism in the worst way. And the malady may take many years to cure.

The only piece that Krugman fails to fully emphasize is the correlation between the growing power of the Christian Right and the growing overall insanity and hatred that now so dominate the GOP.

Rick Santoum's Spiritual Hubris and Selfishness

2012-02-13T04:32:00.003-05:00

One of the hallmarks of the Christianists is their arrogance and insistence that only their religious beliefs are correct and that everyone else must be forced to subscribed to them. In the minds of Christianists, only they get to enjoy religious freedom. No one else's rights matter. Sometimes this arrogance and insistence on their own infallibility masks the fragile house of cards belief system to which these hubris filled individuals cling for dear life. And for those who refuse to conform and challenge the veracity of the Christianists' myths, the Christianists seek to mete out punishment. Ultimately, it's all about allowing the Christianist to feel good about themselves and superior to others. Hence the Christianists' anti-gay jihad. In this quest for self-congratulation they truly do not care who they harm in the process. And sometimes their victims include those they purport to love. A piece in Religion Dispatches looks this spiritual arrogance and hubris as personified by Rick Santorum. Here are some excerpts:

The recent news photos of Rick Santorum tenderly cradling his stricken daughter, Isabella, touched my heart. But as a fellow Catholic, the fate of such children shook me into some serious questioning about the relation among Rick Santorum’s religion, his public policies, and his personal family tragedies. And I wonder especially how Santorum’s version of Catholicism aligns with these policies.

Yes, it is one thing, once a child is born with Trisomy 18, to accept, and then care for her. . . . . But, why would one risk putting oneself in the position where a Trisomy 18 pregnancy would be statistically probable? Why would one choose, in effect, to take the risk of bringing a doomed child into the world?

[T]he political and religious positions to which he has chosen to commit himself bear responsibility, in this case, for the unnecessary suffering of an uncomprehending young person. As sure as Santorum’s commitment to care for his daughter, once born, arises out of his Catholic value system, so also is his version of Catholicism responsible for the many sufferings imposed upon young Isabella in the first place.

My quarrel, such as it is, is with the lack of responsibility shown by the Santorums and their Catholicism in contributing to the conditions which made the anguishing plight of young Isabella inevitable in the first place.

[T]he larger question for me — and the one where religion and public policy come to the fore — is why one would take the risk of such an outcome? Perhaps the Santorums never imagined that Karen, in her late 40s, like the biblical Sarah, could conceive at all?

I find all this attention to the suffering and sacrifice of Rick Santorum more than a little self-centered — a kind of spiritual egoism. I feel that this should not be about him; it should be about Isabella. . . . what have Catholic theologians to say about how Isabella’s life story might read? Is her “character” being built up by the pain she suffers? Does she see “blessings” in the diseases that wrack her body? Is she “uplifted” by some commitment to “life” one can scarcely imagine her capable of making?

So, I must ask why potential parents would put themselves in the position where they would contribute to bringing a child into the world with Trisomy 18? Why, instead of “God’s gift,” was not the conception of a child with a genetic disorder come labeled “God’s warning”? Why doesn’t this conception chastise the parents for their irresponsibility of engaging in unprotected sex, when they full well know the high odds for conceiving such a child? Was the still-birth of Gabriel in 1996 perhaps a warning that should have been heeded? Why didn’t this cause Santorum to reconsider his attempts to thwart contraception access and education? What has to happen in the real life of still-born or Trisomy 18 infants before one takes a second look at one’s principles—religious or not?

This confluence of politics and religion brings me right to Santorum’s public policy opposition to contraception. In his public (and apparently private) life, Santorum has, in effect, hewed to the Vatican line that so-called “artificial” contraception constitutes an “unnatural” frustration of the natural end of the sex act. But, like most good politicos Santorum hides his Catholic animus to contraceptive rights. Notably, he takes cover in legalisms. He opposed Griswold v. Connecticut — the judgment guaranteeing contraceptive right to married couples — because he disagreed with the Court that right of privacy exists in the Constitution. Beyond its cramped legalism, I find this maneuver devious. Santorum dare not say what truly moves him in this debate —namely his unswerving loyalty to the Vatican’s proscription of “artificial” methods of birth control and family planning as against nature.

So, while we cannot, and should not, stop our hearts from going out to the Santorums and their daughter, I think we need to remember the politics in the story. In particular, Rick Santorum’s Catholic sexual politics cannot be separated from the sorrows of his private life, and from his stricken child. Sadly, the private tragedy of Isabella’s illness cannot be separated from the kinds of misguided public policies for which Rick Santorum has always stood.

Will the Virginia GOP's Anti-Gay Adoption Bill Come Back to Bite Them

2012-02-13T04:07:00.000-05:00

The hate merchants at The Family Foundation - Virginia's affiliate to Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, a registered hate group - and its prostitute like puppets in the Republican Party of Virginia have been gleefully celebrating the anti-gay adoption bill that was rammed through the Virginia General Assembly last week. Some suggest that this example of GOP arrogance and overreaching may come back to bite the Christofascists as early as November when sane and moderate Virginians may retaliate by voting against GOP candidates. But, as Timothy Kincaid suggests at Box Turtle Bulletin, the provisions in the bill that allow religious based discrimination could ultimately be used against Christianists seeking to adopt. Polls show that among the larger public, few groups are viewed as negatively as the Christian Right. It would be all to sweet to have some uber-Christians denied adoption and/or foster care placements due to their extremism. Here are highlights of Kincaid's analysis:

Anti-gay activists in Virginia are dancing with delight. They stood up to Teh HomoSEXshull Agenduh and showed them librulls that they don’t cotton to Teh Ghey so much in the Old Dominion State. The Virginia Senate Republicans, who have a strong majority in that red red state, just passed a bill allowing adoption agencies to deny access to gay couples or individuals on religious grounds.

Except, of course, they couldn’t just say “No gays! We hate ‘em” so they couched their bill in language of “religious freedom”. And in their arrogance, they never stopped to consider how else this bill could be used. Look at the wording:

No private child-placing agency shall be required to consider or consent to any placement of a child for foster care or adoption when the proposed placement would conflict with the religious tenets of any sponsor of the agency or other organization or institution with which the child-placing agency is affiliated or associated. The Commissioner shall not deny an application for an initial license or renewal of a license or revoke the license of a private child-placing agency solely on the grounds that the agency has refused to consider or consent to any placement of a child for foster care or adoption in such cases. Refusal of a private child-placing agency to consider or consent to any placement of a child pursuant to this section shall not form the basis of any claim for damages. [emphasis added]

Now I’m sure that all those good ol’ Southern Baptist boys thought that this gave them the power to discriminate. It did. . . . . But it also empowered others to find that certain cultural views are repressive and dangerous to children and that their faith prohibits the exposure of children to that element. For example, Quakers may find that military families are unfit based on their religious beliefs. . . . And we know that Mormons will be automatically disqualified from most taxpayer-funded but church-administered adoption or fostering programs.

If your entire faith system consists of nothing more than “I hate those people over there”, I promise you that you can find others who agree and who will happily join together, form a church, and say that God told them so. Only a pack of fools would look at that reality and decide that the widely ranging, vastly differing, and often irrational beliefs and rules about a subject which is, by its very nature, unknowable is the basis on which adoption and fostering policy would be based.

And let’s be real. Who works in the child advocacy field, anyway? Sure, there are a few good family-first quote Leviticus fire-brands, but it’s mostly a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. And you know, you just know, that the real losers in this deal are going to be the idiots who just voted for the thing.

Let's hope that anti-Christianist bias grows and this law ends up being used against them. Or at least until it gets struck down as unconstitutional.

New Jersey Senate President Vows Same Sex Marriage Will Pass Despite Christie Veto Threat

2012-02-13T03:14:00.000-05:00

I've written before on how New Jersey Governor Chris Christie lacks the spine and leadership to get on the right side of history and sign the same sex marriage bill that the New Jersey legislature is likely to land on his desk. He's cowered before the religious extremists in the Republican Party and suggested that the issue be put to vote via a referendum (can we put a ban on fat people being governor on the ballot too?) and also said he'd veto the bill should the legislature pass it. The president of the New Jersey Senate is not intimidated and has vowed to find the votes to override a veto by Christie. What's unique is the period of time that the legislature has to override a veto - it works out to almost two years. With the rapid up-trending of support for marriage equality it's totally possible that an override could occur. Here are highlights from Raw Story on the confrontation:

New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D) said Friday that the state legislature would pass a bill to legalize same sex marriage despite a veto threat from Republican Gov. Chris Christie.

“It is absolutely going to pass on Monday, and I expect it to pass the Assembly on Thursday, and it’s going to go to the governor’s desk,” he said during an appearance on the Brian Lehrer Show. Christie has pledged to veto the bill, and called for the New Jersey legislature to draft a constitutional amendment and put the issue to a statewide vote.

“You don’t put civil rights on the ballot,” Sweeney told Lehrer. “When you put it on the ballot, the majority will always deny the minority.”

“If the governor vetoes the bill, we’re gonna fight to override the governor,” he added. “I have two years to do it almost, so that gives us plenty of time to work on people.” Overriding the governor’s veto would require two-thirds majority vote in both the Assembly and the Senate.

Polls show the majority of New Jerseyans support the right of same sex couples to wed, according to the Associated Press.

I continue to hope that the GOP's anti-gay jihad will turn out longer term to be a slow form of political suicide.

The Catholic Tea Party vs. Women's Rights

2012-02-12T23:22:00.004-05:00

(via David Mixner's blog)

More Sunday Male Beauty

2012-02-12T18:52:00.001-05:00

From Made in Brazil.

Why Gay Marriage is Inevitable

2012-02-12T16:52:00.005-05:00

Michael J. Klarman, who is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of "Same-Sex Marriage Litigation and Political Backlash," to be published this fall, has an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times with the title used in this post. As set out below, he believes that gay marriage is inevitable. It is note worthy that he sees LGBT individuals coming out and living their lives openly as perhaps the most powerful force behind such inevitability. The reasoning is simple: other than religious extremists, most people do not support discrimination against those they know and like. Thus, if one does nothing else in terms of activism, coming out and being openly who you are is very powerful.

Obviously, if Klarman is right, the ultimate ending of the anti-gay marriage war will be a huge loss for the Christianists. Especially, because they will have lost one of their most lucrative tools to separate the ignorant and gullible from their money. With anti-abortion agitating not raising the amounts it once did, "fighting the gay agenda" and "protecting marriage" have made up much of the fundraising gap. The financial loss to the Christianists will be huge. Indeed, one has to wonder what the Christianists will endeavor to formulate as the next big threat once they ultimately lose the marriage battle. But I digress. Here are highlights from the op-ed column:

The year 2012 is shaping up as a big one for same-sex marriage. Last week, the Washington state Legislature passed a bill allowing gay marriage, and legislatures in Maryland and New Jersey may follow suit shortly (though New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has promised a veto). North Carolina and Minnesota are conducting referendums this year on constitutional amendments to bar gay marriage, and Maine is likely to conduct a referendum on legalizing it.

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Court of Appeals reminded us that courts too have something to say on the subject. In a case challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, that court ruled in favor of gay marriage. Because its ruling was so narrow that it may not be applicable outside California, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide not to review this decision. Eventually, though, the Supreme Court will take a gay marriage case. How might the justices decide it when they do?

As recently as seven or eight years ago, there might not have been a single justice prepared to declare a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. . . . . The situation has since changed dramatically. Opinion polls now consistently show that a slender majority of Americans support gay marriage. State supreme courts in California, Connecticut and Iowa have ruled in its favor, and legislatures in five states have enacted gay-marriage statutes. If liberal judges on state supreme courts now regularly support gay marriage, liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are likely to do so as well.

A number of constitutional issues today . . . divide the Supreme Court 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy providing the critical swing vote. How might Kennedy approach the gay-marriage issue?

Kennedy seems especially attuned to his historical legacy, and if gay marriage is inevitable, then a court ruling in its favor will probably be seen one day as the Brown vs. Board of Education of the gay rights movement.

Why is gay marriage inevitable? First, the basic insight of the gay rights movement over the last four decades has proved powerfully correct: As more gays and lesbians have come out of the closet, the social environment has become more gay friendly. In turn, as the social environment has become more hospitable, more gays and lesbians have felt free to come out of the closet. This social dynamic is powerfully reinforcing and unlikely to be reversed.

One factor that most strongly predicts support for gay equality is knowing someone who is gay. As more gays and lesbians come out of the closet, more parents, children, siblings, friends, neighbors and co-workers know or love someone who is gay. Because few people favor discrimination against those they know and love, every gay person coming out of the closet creates more supporters of gay equality.

The number of Americans reporting that they know somebody who is openly gay tripled between 1985 and 2000, reaching 75%. One study in 2004 found that among those who reported knowing someone who is gay, 65% favored either gay marriage or civil unions, while only 35% of those who reported not knowing any gay people supported them.

A second reason that gay marriage seems inevitable is that young people so strongly support it. One study by political scientists found a gap of 44 percentage points between the oldest and youngest survey respondents in their attitudes toward gay marriage. A 2011 poll found that 70% of those age 18 to 34 supported gay marriage. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which young people's support for gay marriage dissipates as they grow older.

The trend in favor of gay marriage has accelerated dramatically in the last three years. Before 2009, the annual rate of increase in support for gay marriage was about 1.5 percentage points, but since then it has been closer to 4 percentage points. Statistical models predict that in another dozen years, every state will have a majority in favor of gay marriage.

Although the ultimate outcome of the contest over gay marriage no longer seems in doubt, plenty of fighting remains until that battle is over.

P.S. The photo is dedicated to Virginia state senator Jeffrey McWaters, author of the anti-gay adoption statute which hopefully will be quickly challenged in federal court. One can only hope that in time McWaters will be viewed as little better that a KKK mob leader.

Who Is Really Destoying Marriage

2012-02-12T15:59:00.002-05:00

The illustration above needs little explanation. It speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the opponents of marriage equality - especially white evangelicals in the South who have the highest divorce rate of any group.

Why Rick Santorum Won't Wear Well With Sane Voters

2012-02-12T15:22:00.004-05:00

While Mitt Romney won the Maine caucuses - did anyone else notice that the total number of votes for all candidates was tiny? - much of the political chatter is nonetheless about Rick Santorum's upward movement in the national polls among Republicans. In addition to Mitt Romney's flip flopping like a fish in the bottom of a boat, I suspect one reason Santorum has been doing well is that until now he hasn't received the full spotlight treatment. Once that happens - as with Cain, Perry and Gingrich - Santorum to many will smell like a dead fish. Recall that after a term in the U.S. Senate, Santorum lost his Senate seat by 18%. Stated another way, once Pennsylvanians really got to know him, they did not like what they saw. That increased familiarity could be the kiss of political death again. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at why Santorum's "positives" could quickly turn into "negatives." Here are some highlights:

[T]hose qualities of Santorum’s that seem so positive and compelling now will be seen for what they really are: dead weight. Let’s take them one by one:

POSITIVE: Santorum’s Christian piety is a refreshing alternative to Gingrich’s personal corruption and Romney’s seemingly infinite malleability. The guy really believes what he says!

NEGATIVE REALITY: The guy really believes what he says! The breathtakingly low turnout in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado meant that the angriest and most alienated sector of the Republican party went to the polls: the white evangelicals and Tea Partiers. . . . . for the precious swing voters who will decide the election and who sat out Tuesday’s empty political exercises, Santorum’s narrowness and fanaticism are not inclusive enough of their own interests. When it’s mostly fundamentalist Protestants who care about the Catholic issue of birth control, you know you don’t have an issue with permanent appeal.

POSITIVE: By harping on the culture wars, Santorum has found an answer to one of this political season’s sharper ironies. While people care most about jobs and the economy, rhetoric about jobs and the economy tends to be dull and uninspiring, especially from the Republican side.

NEGATIVE REALITY: The culture wars are not what they used to be. Particularly among the lower-class whites that make up the evangelicals and other disaffected voters momentarily rallying around Santorum, the family structure is crumbling. Teen sex and teen pregnancy are rampant. Drug use is skyrocketing. Divorce is proliferating. . . . . A few months or even weeks down the road, all but the most diehard Santorum supporters will realize, on the visceral level, that his rhetoric has not caught up to their reality.

POSITIVE: In an age of confusion and uncertainy, when everything solid is either melting into air or being compressed into the latest, about-to-be-obsolete gadget, Santorum sounds bracingly like Savonarola.

NEGATIVE REALITY: Santorum may sound like Savonarola, but he comes across as Little Nell. Whereas the touchstone of conservative masculinity and leadership was Ronald Reagan, with his indefatigable, unruffled smiling composure, Santorum is a whiner. . . . . He just doesn’t seem presidential. He gives the impression of an ineffectual man trapped in a dream of power, for which he is completely unprepared.

POSITIVE: Santorum does indeed seem to be an authentic, believing Christian.

NEGATIVE REALITY: In his callousness toward the poor, his intolerance of gays, his compassion for the high profits of drug companies, his love of war, he represents the ruthless, remorseless, unworldly side of Christianity. . . . . . But even worse than his hardness toward society’s unfortunate and unconventional, Santorum has committed the worst sins of contemporary political life. A passion for big government. A lust for earmarks. Payback to campaign contributors. And Senate votes that seem to have a pricetag on them. Santorum the professional politician will have to say a lot of Hail Marys for his corruption-rife years in the Senate. The problem is that the Protestants who are voting for him now don’t believe in the redemptive powers of penance.

Let's hope Santorum gets the full spotlight treatment soon so that he can then be banished back to the political wilderness.

Did Obama Set a Contraception Trap for the Far Right?

2012-02-12T14:24:00.005-05:00

Listening to some of the talking heads blather on the morning news shows about Barack Obama's confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church I was more than a bit annoyed that none of these so-called journalist said a single word about the admitted 8,000 instances of sexual abuse reported in Milwaukee. Which is precisely what the Church is seeking to have happen. I wish someone would ask the morally bankrupt "princes of the Church" some hard pointed questions about the magnitude of abuse this one archdiocese suggests. And then those questions should be followed by a simple questions as to why anyone should trust the bishops on any issue of morality. Will it happen? Of course not. The mainstream media is spineless not to mention lazy.

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan is taking a different read on the Church's and far right's deliberately manufactured confrontation and - unlike too many of the talking heads who shamelessly and simple mindedly repeat the sound bites of the Church and hate group leaders like Tony Perkins - believes that it is the Church and its reactionary allies who will ultimately lose the battle. If one has followed the far right for any time, they should know that banning ALL contraception and reversing Griswold v. Connecticut has been a long term goal. Especially because Griswold first formulated a right to privacy that laid the basis for the Court's later rulings in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. Here are highlights from Andrew's piece in Newsweek:

Perhaps some helpful soul could inform the Catholic bishop of Pittsburgh, who last week calmly explained that “the Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To hell with you!’” A quiet word in the ear of the dogged opponent of gay marriage Maggie Gallagher might have helped too. Just after Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, was struck down by a court on narrow grounds, she titled a blog post: “Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots.”

Not to be outdone, newly insurgent presidential candidate Rick Santorum described a secular society not based on religious principles as a renewal of the French Revolution and “the guillotine.”

Who knew the sexual and religious politics of the 1990s were suddenly back, under the president who promised he’d try to end them? And who knew the president himself—who has made an elegant art form out of avoiding exactly these kinds of controversies in his first three years — would have made the final call on the one that suddenly united the entire Republican right in roiling rage? That decision was the now-infamous one to propose a new rule to mandate coverage of contraception, sterilization, and morning-after pills in all health-insurance plans, exempting purely religious institutions, but including Catholic-run hospitals, colleges, and charities who serve the general public and employ many non-Catholics.

Suddenly no-drama Obama was neck deep in the kind of religious warfare he vowed to avoid. Many pundits—led by older white Catholic men, such as Joe Scarborough and my friend Chris Matthews and even the fair-minded liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne—declared his decision on contraception as not only morally wrong but a politically disastrous violation of religious freedom.

Within the administration, almost all the white Catholic men opposed the decision—from Bill Daley to Leon Panetta. But critically, the support for the decision came from women, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and key adviser Valerie Jarrett chief among them. So Obama didn’t ignite just a culture war but a religious and gender war as well. Welcome to the election focused almost entirely on jobs.

But the conflict-driven headlines and predictions of disaster for Obama are, in my view, deeply misleading. Right now, they are driven both by cable news’s love of a good fight and high ratings and by the Republican primary campaign, in which the candidates, especially Newt Gingrich and Santorum, are desperately battling to unify the evangelical base, which is convinced its faith is somehow under attack. In the longer run, however, I suspect this sudden confluence of kerfuffles will be seen as one of the last gasps of the culture war, not its reignition. That’s especially possible since Obama’s swift walk-back last Friday . . . shifting the coverage requirement to insurance companies.

Instead of being lose-lose for the president, it became win-win. Most Catholics will be fine with this compromise, as are the Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood. But the bishops? They’ve gone out on a very long limb. This could be the moment when the culture-war tide finally turns and the social wedge issues long deployed so effectively by the Republican right begin to come back and bite them.

The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.

Take a look at the polling. Ask Americans if they believe that contraception should be included for free in all health-care plans and you get a 55 percent majority in favor, with 40 percent against. Ask American Catholics, and that majority actually rises above the national average, to 58 percent. . . . . . And on the issue of contraception itself, studies have shown that a staggering 98 percent of Catholic women not only believe in birth control but have used it. How is it possible to describe this issue as a violation of individual conscience, when no one is forced to use contraception against their will, and most Catholics have already consulted their conscience, are fine with the pill, and want it covered?

And the truth is, there is no real debate among most actual living, breathing American Catholics on the issue, who tend to be more liberal than most Americans. They long ago dismissed the Vatican’s position on this. And after the sex-abuse scandal, they are even less likely to take the bishops’ moral authority on sexual matters seriously.

In other words, this is a potential political winner for President Obama, not just among liberals, many women, younger voters, and moderates—but among American Catholics! And even more so in light of the pragmatic compromise announced last week, which puts the administration precisely where it should be, and in a much better place than it was before the announcement, and reinforces Obama’s reputation as a man willing to compromise, one of his core strengths among independent voters.

But some Republicans and conservative Catholics have already rejected the compromise. They have declared it to be just as inimical to religious freedom as church organizations being forced to pay for their employees’ contraception. . . . . Catholic doctrine should, according to the bishops’ spokesman, also apply to non-Catholics—even if they are merely selling burritos.

This kind of rhetoric is not about protecting religious freedom. It is about imposing a particular religious doctrine on those who don’t share it as a condition for general employment utterly unrelated to religion at all. And if that is the hill the Catholic hierarchy and evangelical right want to fight and die on, they will lose—and lose badly.

Contraception is popular. Even in conservative Mississippi, a recent ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban the morning-after pill failed badly at the polls. If this issue won’t work for the GOP in Mississippi, they’ll have a hard time winning a general election over it. And if the bishops think opposing Obama’s compromise will rally Catholics to their cause, they are even more out of touch than they realize.

To make the Republican rhetoric even more absurd, the precompromise version of the Obama insurance rule is already the law in two of the biggest states, New York and California, as Linda Greenhouse has noted in The New York Times. . . . . . All of which makes one wonder exactly how genuine the current outrage is—or whether it is part and parcel of a political campaign against Obama rather than a defense of religious freedom.

If the Catholic bishops and the religious right reject the proposed Obama compromise, they will be digging themselves even deeper into positions that are fast losing traction. Time after time, they have rejected compromises on social issues because of fundamentalist rigidity, not Christian engagement with a changing world. . . . . Their radical fundamentalism—so alien to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council and to so many lay Catholics — has discredited the core priorities of Christianity . . . . And the obsession among Catholic and evangelical leaders with an issue like contraception stands in stark contrast to their indifference to, for example, the torture in which the last administration engaged, the growing social inequality fostered by unfettered capitalism, the Christian moral imperative of universal health care, and the unjust use of the death penalty.

[T]he Republican fusion with the Vatican is also, it seems to me, a terrible mistake for the party. Obama’s greatest skill is in getting his opponents to overreach and self-destruct. And this issue could not be more tailor-made to benefit the candidate with real potential pull with far-right-wing Catholics and evangelicals: Santorum. . . . . In fact, it could be the issue that wins him the nomination. And do you really think that would hurt Obama in the fall?

To me, Andrew's analysis makes sense and I hope he's correct. Nothing would be sweeter than to see the bishops and fundamentalist evangelicals set the GOP up with a candidate who will scare the daylights out of independents and moderates in the general election. And if the GOP then suffered a horrific defeat, then perhaps the Christian Right would finally experience the political death rattles it so well deserves.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-12T11:10:00.003-05:00

Bad News for Taliban Bob - Good News for America

2012-02-12T10:37:00.003-05:00

As I've noted before, Virginia Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell has ambitions to be the GOP vice presidential nominee. Apparently, McDonnell has been drinking lots of Kool-Aid because he polled pitifully in a weekend CPAC poll and in national polling. The chart above tells the tale. The positive side of the polling news is that the extreme reactionary agenda that McDonnell and the Republican Party of Virginia are inflicting on the Commonwealth - it will soon be easier to by a gun than to go to the polls and vote - may not be allowed to try to go nationwide. Personally, I hope the anti-gay bigotry, religious based discrimination and voter suppression legislation McDonnell is overseeing comes back to bite him in the ass big time.

Today's GOP: Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

2012-02-12T10:11:00.005-05:00

The hate and extremism fest known as CPAC has continued to provide great sound bites to use against individual GOP candidates and the Party in general. Interestingly, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked the crowd of loons to take a good look in the mirror. It's doubtful that the advice will be heeded, but long term I suspect that the only way to save the GOP is to allow it to largely self-destruct as it remains a puppet of an aging and soon to be extinct segment of the population. Given that the GOP has become a de facto religious party, the Party like the Christianists who control it is known more and more by what its against and who it hates. In both cases, the only ones not hated or opposed are those in the shrinking tent. A column in the Washington Post looks at the phenomenon. Here are highlights (Dana Milbank coined the nattering nabobs of negativism phrase):

“How many of you,” Scott Rasmussen asked the crowd at this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, “have ever mocked or made fun of the president’s call for hope and change? Raise your hands.” Most people in the Marriott Wardman Park hotel ballroom raised their hands. There were cheers and whoops. “With all due respect,” the conservative pollster and commentator told them, “I’d like to say that’s really stupid.”

This time, there was uncomfortable laughter. “Voters are looking for hope and change as much today as they were in 2008,” Rasmussen explained, and “you ought to be encouraging Republican candidates, people you support, to offer that positive step forward.”

Rasmussen had put his finger on a major problem for Republicans in 2012, and conservatives in particular: At a time when the national mood has begun to improve, they remain nattering nabobs of negativism. At CPAC, any hint of a “positive step” was buried in vitriol.

[W]ith optimism and confidence finally on the rise, Republicans are left with an anger management problem. They risk leaving the impression that they are rooting against an economic recovery. Take, for example, the speech to CPAC by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader. . . . . “The president seems to have forgotten . . . that he was elected to be president of the United States, not the Occupy Wall Street fan club,” McConnell lectured, spitting out the words.

The unrelenting anger in the ballroom was an extension of what’s been happening on the campaign trail. In the week preceding the Florida Republican primary, 92 percent of the political ads were negative, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. There was only one positive ad for Mitt Romney — and it was in Spanish.

The dour message has contributed to low voter turnout and an enthusiasm gap among GOP voters — a worrisome development that the Washington Times’ Ralph Hallow tried to warn the CPAC participants about. “None of these things I see are particularly good,” he said during one of the conference panels. “Intensity and enthusiasm about voting is now with the Democrats.”
. . . . . But at the moment, the message remains backward-looking and negative.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) even dismissed the significance of the death of Osama bin Laden, the fall of Moammar Gaddafi and the birth of the Arab Spring. They are “tactical successes” that pale against the “mess that Barack Obama has created,” she said.

Such nattering is exactly what Obama needs.

New York Times Message to Chris Christie

2012-02-12T09:54:00.004-05:00

This past week was momentous as the Washington State legislature passed a same sex marriage bill and the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Sadly, the message of equality under the law remains lost on many in the Republican Party. The knuckle dragging religious extremists in the Republican Party of Virginia are one example. Another is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Personally, I would not want to be know by history as having acted in a discriminatory manner analogous to that of pro-slavery and pro-segregationist white supremacists who likewise used the Bible to justify their hate and intolerance. But Christie and others in the GOP seem to know no shame and to care nothing about their place in history. The New York Times summed it up in an editorial last week. Would that Mr. Christie would take heed:

In the meantime, the advances for the freedom to marry in both Washington and California provide supporters of marriage equality critical momentum to build upon as the New Jersey State Legislature prepares to vote on the issue next week.

A strong vote in favor of same-sex marriage in the state’s House and Senate would be a legislative achievement, and it would help set the stage to overriding a veto, as promised by Gov. Chris Christie. In light of the week’s good news from California and Washington, Mr. Christie’s vow to block the bill in New Jersey seems not only disgraceful, but against the tide of history.

The question for Christie comes down to whether he wants to be remembered as someone akin to George Wallace in the school house door, or as something better.

Remembering Whitney Houston

2012-02-12T09:45:00.002-05:00

The media is awash with coverage of Whitney Houston's untimely death, so I will not belabor the story. She was such and amazing talent and it saddens me that she - like so many amazing talents in the entertainment world - seems to have never found the happiness in life that she wanted. She gave joy and inspiration to many. May she rest in peace.

Vatican Holds Charade Symposium on Sex Abuse

2012-02-12T09:23:00.003-05:00

As noted recently on this blog, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee admitted in bankruptcy court filing 8,000 instances of sexual abuse of children and youths. 8,000 instances in a single archdiocese. Given the stories that have come out of Ireland, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium - not to mention all over the USA and Australia - the situation in Milwaukee was sadly most likely the norm. Likely millions of victims worldwide and how many bishops and cardinals have been removed from office and thrown out of the Church and stripped of comfort and a pompous life style? Almost none. Thus, I view the "Toward Healing and Renewal" symposium at the Vatican's Gregorian University frankly as a farce. It's window dressing to further dupe the sheep in the pews so that they will continue to hand over money to support the criminal conspirators in the Church hierarchy. If the Vatican wants to be taken seriously, bishops and cardinals need to be sacked and not placed in "retirement" where they live in palaces and are catered to and treated with undue deference. As the National Catholic Reporter notes, provisions already exist that would allow such firings to be done:

[T]here are already provisions in church law to sanction bishops for "negligence and malice in exercising one's duties," suggesting this provision should be more strenuously applied. (He appeared to be referring to canon 128 of the Code of Canon Law, which reads: "Whoever illegitimately inflicts damage upon someone by a juridic act or by any other act placed with malice or negligence is obliged to repair the damage inflicted.")

Scicluna also noted that when canon law specifies penalties that can be imposed on "clergy," that includes bishops as well as priests and deacons -- though, he said, the fact it applies to bishops too is sometimes "ignored."

Merely talking about accountability, of course, doesn't do the trick. It has to be enforced, and it remains to be seen if the canonical sanctions to which Scicluna referred will be wielded in some visible, effective fashion

If the Vatican were serious about atoning for the rape and molestation of countless children and youths, heads would have rolled long before now and individuals like Cardinal Law would not have been whisked out of American and set up living in a palace at the Vatican. Actions speak louder than words and the Vatican's inaction tell us all we really need to know. As for Catholics who continue to blindly support the Church, they need to open their eyes and face the fact that they are aiding and abetting child molesters and criminals.

Episcopal Church To Take Back $40 Million in Property from Anti-Gay Factions

2012-02-12T08:34:00.005-05:00

It's been a long legal battle, but the Episcopal Church in Northern Virginia is about to retake $40 million in property and buildings that had been seized by break away anti-gay elements that aligned themselves in some instances with anti-gay prelate Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. Rather tellingly, Akinola is suspected in some circles of having ordered the massacre of over 600 Muslims, including women and children. That the break away factions would affiliate with such a person speaks volumes to me about their utter perversion of the Gospel message. The break away factions had tried to justify their seizure of the property on the basis of a Civil War era law that had been passed by the Virginia General Assembly so that pro-slavery Baptist churches - many of which became part of the Southern Baptist Convention - could steal the property of the anti-slavery national denomination. While Virginia is racing backward in time under the GOP controlled General Assembly, at least this ruse failed. The Washington Post looks at the long over due return of the stolen property. Here are highlights:

[A]fter a prolonged and bitter legal battle with former members who broke away and took with them more than $40 million worth of church property, the Episcopal Church and the members who stayed with the denomination are on the verge of taking back their buildings, which include some the faith’s largest, most prominent churches in the region.

After a judge’s ruling last month in favor of the Episcopal Church, settlement talks are underway for a massive property swap that would bring to an end the most expensive litigation — and perhaps the most watched — in Episcopal Church history. While the breakaway congregations still can appeal, both sides said they are trying to work out the details of the property turnover. “Everyone is moving on the assumption that they need to be prepared to move,” said Scott Ward, attorney for the Falls Church congregants who broke away.

The two sides are so close to a settlement that the Falls Church members who remained with the Episcopal Church and have been meeting in a Presbyterian church basement across the street are planning Easter services back in their old church, a large, historic property.

It is not overstating the case to say that this is one of the most defining moments in all of our 400-year history,” Bishop Shannon Johnston said.

When the conservative congregations voted to leave the Episcopal Church in late 2006 and early 2007, the case drew worldwide attention. The breakaway members said the denomination had grown too liberal in its theology, and they objected to its ordaining gay clergy and celebrating same-sex relationships, among other things. They chose to become part of the booming, conservative Anglican Church of Nigeria, a separate branch of worldwide Anglicanism.

Last month, Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows sided with the Episcopal Church in a ruling that cited Virginia real estate law. In his 113-page opinion, Bellows said the deeds and other documents show the properties belong to the Episcopal Church. He ordered the seven breakaway congregations to leave every single dollar and item that existed before the split to the denomination.

The breakaway congregations are now accounting for prayer books, robes and artwork and preparing to leave centrally located, sprawling complexes for the likelihood of a rented high school gym. The future is in limbo for four preschools that operated in the buildings.

Score a win for the good guys. I cannot say that I wish the break away factions well since they put hate and bigotry ahead of loving and serving others as the Gospels direct.

More Saturday Male Beauty

2012-02-11T17:38:00.001-05:00

The 11th Biblical Plague: Virginia Beach’s Jeffrey McWaters

2012-02-11T17:05:00.004-05:00

I've noted several times that Virginia - once Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell signs the bill - expressly allow adoption and foster care agencies receiving state funding to openly discriminate against would be adoptive and foster home parents based on "moral beliefs." This travesty is allegedly describe to protect faith based agencies even as it tramples over the civil and religious rights of others. And all of this is done on the state's dime. Tax payer funds are directly used to discriminate against other taxpayers. One can only hope that this abortion of a law gets challenged in court and struck down as unconstitutional. Local online news site AltDaily has an op-ed that looks at, Jeffrey McWaters (pictured at left), the principal architect of this Christianist wet dream of a law. Given McWater's willingness to kiss the asses of the folks at The Family Foundation and his homophobia, one can only wonder how long it will be before he's caught using Mega Phone like former Congressman Ed Schrock - will McWaters falsely describe himself as "buff" like Schrock? - or having a "wide stance" malfunction like Larry Craig. Here are some column highlights:

The bill, SB 349, codifies discrimination for the explicit purpose of protecting adoption agencies’ “moral beliefs.” Not only that, agencies will be able to knowingly place gay children with anti-gay foster parents, even those who would send the kids to “reparative” therapy programs that are well-known for causing teen suicide.

McWaters, who has represented the eastern half of Virginia Beach since 2010, founded Amerigroup in 1994 and built it into a Fortune 500 company. If he hasn’t yet made himself a billionaire off Amerigroup, he’s surely close to it. The company’s website claims its “only business is managing publicly funded health programs for our Nation’s most vulnerable.” In other words, McWaters created a middleman that profits off Medicaid funding and drives up the cost of indigent care.

A few years ago Amerigroup settled for $225 million in a lawsuit over accusations that it categorically blocked eligible pregnant women from coverage. Since there’s relatively little media scrutiny of state-level candidates in Virginia, McWaters won a Senate seat despite the ethical stain of that lawsuit. Now he’s on the Education and Health committee, fighting against attempts to put Virginia in compliance with the Affordable Care Act and crafting legislation that will further enrich Amerigroup.

McWaters attends the ultra-conservative Trinity Church in Virginia Beach. According to the church’s website, every last word in the Bible is “infallible” and divorce “is always contrary to God’s original intention.” Given that McWaters is a church elder, I’m guessing he had a hand in Trinity’s decision in 2007 to split from the Episcopal Church and “launch a new congregation outside the denomination they accuse of heresy.” The heretical act in question: the Episcopal Church’s ordination of Gene Robinson, a gay man, in 2003.

While I’m used to the brand of homophobia mandated by Leviticus, it’s not every day you hear folks in the infallible-Bible set speaking highly of the Plagues of Egypt. But Jeff McWaters isn’t your everyday Bible-thumper. The day before Hurricane Irene hit Virginia — at a time when many of us were scared for our safety — McWaters wrote cheerily on his Senate website that “The good news is that after this weekend, we will have endured five of the ten ancient biblical plagues.”

I’ve always figured that if a legislator uses his public platform to scream loudly and daily that gays are attacking his family and country and morals and marriage, we might as well attack. So I’ve tried to shine lights on the Virginians who fill that bill, but I’ve overlooked McWaters. I regret any role my omission has played in the success of SB 349. From now on I’ll write about him in a manner that achieves parity with his own conduct toward gay people, especially since his ambition of late suggests a desire to maybe run for statewide office. It will be a pleasure, Senator.

Want to let Jeff McWaters know how you feel? Here are some ways to reach out to him: Here’s his Facebook page. Legislative aides: Ross Grogg; ross@jeffmcwaters.com and Cheryl Simmons; cheryl@jeffmcwaters.com. Capital office: 804-698-7508. District office: 757-965-3700. General: info@jeffmcwaters.com. Amerigroup on Facebook.

Unfortunately, McWaters is an example of the type of self-enriching religious extremist that makes up so much of the Republican Party of Virginia. The irony is that one of McWaters' co-conspirators in the Trinity break away from the Episcopal Church was a former law partner of mine who - yes, you guessed it - is divorced and remarried. Funny how the "infallible word of God" only applies to gays while Christianists are free to pick and choose what they want to ignore. Why do I feel the word hypocrites on my lips?

GOP Senator: Employers Have the Right to Fire Workers Because They Are Gay

2012-02-11T16:32:00.003-05:00

Echoing the attitude of Republican members of the Virginia General Assembly - who killed legislation that would have prevented the Commonwealth of Virginia and its agencies from firing LGBT employees based on their sexual orientation - Utah GOP Senator Mike Lee says that employers are well within their constitutional rights to fire gay employees. It's apparently one of the few rights that lee finds constitutional. Among the many things that lee finds unconstitutional are child labor laws, unemployment assistance, food safety protections, etc. Apparently, Lee was behind the door when eBay was advising Utah law makers that it might move 3,000 jobs out of Utah if that state did not enact employment non-discrimination protections for LGBT workers. Lee was spouting his batshitery at CPAC. Here are highlights from Think Progress:

Lee’s version of the Constitution protects employers’ rights to fire workers just because they are gay.

Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), ThinkProgress asked Lee if he supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), legislation that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Lee explained that he didn’t, saying that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause was only intended to protect against racial discrimination:

KEYES: ENDA is something that rumbles every now and then in Congress. What’s your take, do you think it should be legal to fire someone just because they’re gay or transgender, or do you think that’s not in the purview of the Constitution?

LEE: Look, I think employers ought not make their hiring decisions based on categories like that, and I don’t think most of them do.

KEYES: But whether or not it should be a crime.

LEE: Whether it should be a federal crime, specific to federal law? No.

KEYES: Is there any difference between firing someone for being gay rather than firing someone because of their race?

LEE: Yes, yes. The 14th Amendment — in fact the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments — were adopted specifically around th erace issue. So, yeah, there is a difference.

Why does part of me suspect that Lee's not really all that fond of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments either?

GOP Candidates and Elected Officials Appear with White Suprmacists at CPAC

2012-02-11T14:01:00.004-05:00

If one wants to see the face of hate in America, CPAC provides quite a cavalcade of haters ranging from anti-gay extremists to white supremacists. And what's really frightening is that Santorum, Gingrich and Romney are busy pandering to them - as are many others in the Republican Party. Would that average Americans would wake up and pay attention to the vile groups and individuals who now call so many of the shots in the GOP. These individuals wrap themselves in religion and patriotism but spew nothing but contempt for many of their fellow countryman. In my view, these individuals and groups are a clear and present danger to constitutional government and religious freedom in this country. So why isn't the mainstream media telling the public about this? Right Wing Watch has a number of posts that ought to alarm thinking Americans. Here is a sampling:

Rick Santorum Just Had Dinner with White Nationalist Bob Vandervoort.

You’ll recall that Vandervoort, the executive director of Pro-English, was previously the leader of the white nationalist group Chicagoland Friends of the American Renaissance. He is scheduled to appear at a panel tomorrow morning at CPAC along with two Republican members of Congress and the Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach.

Despite all of this, Rick Santorum just had dinner with Vandervoort. We can hope that Santorum did not yet know Vandervoort’s full background. Now that he does, will he denounce white nationalists, including Vandervoort, and say they have no place within the GOP and conservative movement?

CPAC: Anti-Muslim Activist James Lafferty Says He's 'Proud' of Attacks against Mosques

The Conservative Political Action Conference panel “Islamic Law in America: How the Obama Justice Department Is Selling Us Out,” featured numerous anti-Muslim speakers including Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Ilaria Pantano and James Lafferty of the Virginia Anti-Sharia Task Force. Lafferty, whose wife Andrea runs the Traditional Values Coalition, dedicated his speech to his activism against mosques in his community and a Muslim Republican’s candidacy for the state House of Delegates.

Lafferty told the guests that “we are being outgunned by them, literally and figuratively” and claimed, “This is a spiritual war we are fighting.” At one point in his talk, Lafferty described a Justice Department “hate crimes summit” he attended. He expressed pride in the fact that most of the mosques that had been attacked were in the South.

CPAC: Austin Ruse Condemns Efforts to Stop Violence against LGBT Community

During a CPAC panel on supposed U.S. spending “to promote abortion and homosexuality worldwide,” Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative (C-Fam), attacked protections for people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity in United Nations studies on violence and execution. Ruse first lamented that an initially-removed reference to sexual orientation was restored to a resolution condemning summary, extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, and went on to bemoan a decision by the Human Rights Council to study “discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world.” He argued that such a resolution is “just the nose of the camel under the tent” and lashed out at supporters of LGBT rights, maintaining that “their theory of international law is that it’s done by lying, coercion and trickery.”

And naturally, despite all the hatred and intolerance being spewed and disseminated, these folks pat themselves on the back as "godly Christians." No wonder the younger generation is fleeing organized religion.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-11T09:05:00.002-05:00

Bigots at Suffolk, Virginia Schools Draw National Coverage

2012-02-11T08:48:00.006-05:00

Earlier in the week I described the effort at the Suffolk City Public Schools - apparently spearheaded by a lone school board member (pictured at left) - to create a solution to a non-existent problem and in the process trample on the rights of transgender students in particular. Now, the story has been picked up by MSNBC and the Hampton Roads area is again getting coverage that makes all of us look like knuckle dragging Neanderthals. As noted before, while not the most reactionary of the local communities, Suffolk is certainly no pillar of modernity either and is best known for its peanut festival - at least until now. before it's over, I won't be surprised to see the school division getting sued and wasting funds on legal fees when the moneys could have been better used for education. The Bible beaters always claim to care about others but prove by their actions that it's really always about themselves and forcing their beliefs on others. Here are highlights from MSNBC:

A Virginia school district is considering a ban on cross-dressing by students to minimize what administrators say are “safety risks, disruptions and distractions.”

The Suffolk School Board studied the proposal at a meeting Thursday night, but members did not vote on it. The proposal explicitly bans “clothing worn by a student that is not in keeping with a student’s gender and causes a disruption and/or distracts others from the educational process or poses a health or safety concern.”

School district representative Bethanne Bradshaw told msnbc.com that Board Vice Chairwoman Thelma Hinton first raised concerns about students’ cross-dressing.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said that, rather than banning the “nonconforming behavior,” schools should instead address the bullying or harassment. In a letter to the school board, Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia, called the gender-related dress restriction “unlawful and unfair to students.”

The ACLU believes that, while schools may impose a requirement of proper attire, “to mandate dress based on notions that girls must wear one type of clothing and boys another is impermissible.”

In the letter, Glenberg also brings up a recent case in a Mississippi public school that refused to publish in its yearbook the senior portrait of a female student wearing a tuxedo. The ACLU sued the school in August 2010. As part of the settlement, Copiah County School District decided to ditch gender-specific outfits for senior portraits and instead require all students to wear a cap and gown.

Diane Ehrensaft, a Bay Area psychologist who studies gender and child development, told msnbc.com that the proposed ban is “a subtle form of harassment” and the school district should focus instead on monitoring bullying. . . . . “To blame the victim by saying you can’t dress that way anymore is inappropriate,” Ehrensaft said.

[N]o other school district in the southeastern region of South Hampton Roads includes a cross-dressing policy in its student dress code.

It would seem the real problem is Ms. Hinton and other closed minded bigots. I hope the attention she is receiving isn't helpful to her political career.

Conservatives Cruising for Gay Sex at CPAC

2012-02-11T08:19:00.004-05:00

The Catholic bishops and cardinals don't have a lock on hypocrisy it seems based on some investigations done by HyperVocal concerning the coven of haters and extremists in Washington, D.C., for the CPAC gathering. While gays and everything about us are under attack in numerous speeches and no doubt all kinds of hate-filled propaganda leaflets at CPAC, some of the attendees - obviously self-loathing closet cases - are out trolling for gay sex. I frankly cannot understand how anyone LGBT could be involved with CPAC. It's the equivalent of a Jew belonging to the Nazi party or a black seeking membership in the KKK. I just don't understand the twisted mindset. Here are highlights (go to Hypervocal) for all of the craigslist ads:

The Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual Republican Woodstock, kicked off in our nation’s capital on Thursday. The weekend-long event draws about 10,000 center-right to far-right politically motivated activists and elected officials from around the country to set up camp in DC.

For most conference attendees, CPAC offers them the chance to not only attend workshops, vote in the famous straw poll and take in high-profile speeches, but to meet like-minded folks who share similar worldviews. And for some of them, it offers up the chance to meet really like-minded folks who share a particular secretive predilection. Since Grindr wouldn’t be able to tell us who’s in town for CPAC and who’s just on the prowl, we called up Craigslist on our Netscape Navigator browser and looked around for who’s cruising for good times away from the prying eyes of friends and family back home.

These were all posted within the last day or two. We did not plant any of them or alter them in any way.

Milwaukee Archdiocese List 8,000 Instances of Sex Abuse - A Glimpse at the True Magnitude of the Crimes

2012-02-11T07:34:00.005-05:00

Of late the Roman Catholic bishops have continued an aggressive campaign against the civil rights of LGBT citizens and manufactured a "religious freedom" controversy over contraception coverage. Could the real motivation - besides the usual quest for power and control that have been hallmarks of the Church hierarchy for centuries - been to create enough "noise" in the news media that stories like the one coming out of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee are lost to most of the public? The bishops and Rome have tried to down play the magnitude of the sex abuse crimes against children and youths and rarely have willingly given up information from their files to police and prosecutors in the hope of salvaging some vestige of the Church's reputation. Personally, I have long suspected that the true figures stashed away in secret files in bishoprics and the Vatican are staggeringly higher than those acknowledged. Bankruptcy court filings in Milwaukee now seem to confirm that the Church fathers have been lying most likely on a worldwide basis.

In criminal and civil court proceedings, the Church has always had a natural motivation to down play its sins. Bankruptcy proceedings are a far different matter. If one hopes to limit or even avoid claims in bankruptcy, they must be listed in full and the claimants be afforded an opportunity to file what's called a proof of claim. If the the Milwaukee Archdiocese hoped to limit and discharge claims of victims of sexual abuse, it was necessary that it actually tell the truth an list the potential claims. It did, and the numbers are staggering - especially if extrapolated across other dioceses in America and around the world (there are 630 archdioceses and 2,167 dioceses world wide). Instead of tens of thousands of victims, we are talking about not hundreds of thousands of victims, if not well into the millions. Indeed, the Church's cover up effort would rate as one of the largest criminal conspiracies.

One can only conclude that the arrogance, narcissism and criminality of the bishops, cardinals - and yes the Popes - are almost without precedent outside of dictators and despots who engaged in crimes on a massive basis look modest. The other conclusion is that the on-going conference at the Vatican to supposedly address sex abuse is a ruse. It's probably no more legitimate than one of Stalin's show trials. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has details. Here are highlights:

Sealed documents filed in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee bankruptcy identify at least 8,000 instances of child sexual abuse and 100 alleged offenders - 75 of them priests - who have not previously been named by the archdiocese, a victims' attorney said Thursday.

Archdiocese spokeswoman Julie Wolf said she did not have enough information to respond to the assertion, made by attorney Jeffrey Anderson during a pivotal hearing before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Susan V. Kelley. Anderson represents about 350 of the 570 victim-survivors who have filed claims in the case.

But Peter Isely of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests speculated that some are likely members of religious orders, such as Capuchins or Franciscans. . . . . "This is a public safety crisis, a child safety crisis that needs to be investigated," Isely said at a news conference on the federal courthouse steps, surrounded by fellow survivors and reporters. "We need to know who they are and where they are. How can there be 8,000 crimes committed by over 100 offenders and there be no accountability?" he said.

[Judge] Kelley let stand, at least for now, two survivors' claims that the church had sought to bar, arguing they were beyond the statute of limitations. In the split decision, Kelley also granted the church's motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing a third claim in which a victim had signed a prior settlement agreement with the church.

Allowing the two claims to stand doesn't guarantee they will be paid in the bankruptcy, only that the legal debate over when the statute of limitations begins ticking must be decided at trial.

The archdiocese had sought the dismissal of three claims involving two priests and a parish choir director who were accused of molesting boys in the 1970s and '80s. Church lawyers argued that the cases were beyond the statute of limitations and involved a victim who signed a previous settlement agreement and a perpetrator - the choir director - who was not a direct employee.

Adding to this moral cesspool is the fact that Timothy Dolan - now Archbishop of New York and a major opponent of gay rights and proponent of the myth that Catholic religious freedom is under attack by gays and the Obama administration - is suspected of having hidden $130 million of the Milwaukee Archdiocese's assets when he was posted there so as to avoid paying victims of sexual abuse. Oh, and then there's Cardinal Egan's retraction of his apology for the sex abuse scandal. All of this leaves two questions: (1) why does anyone continue to listen to the Catholic Church hierarchy on any issue and (2) why aren't Egan, Dolan and many others - including Benedict XVI - under criminal prosecution? The Mafia, in my opinion, is highly ethical compared to these foul, despicable men.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-10T08:07:00.002-05:00

Rick Santorum Moves From Attacking Gys to Attacking Equality for Women

2012-02-10T07:33:00.003-05:00

I sometimes add a logo to posts that describes the Republican Party as the "Bridge to the 11th Century." The slogan is all too appropriate when one looks at Rick Santorum. Not content with attacking LGBT citizens and supporting a re-criminalization of gays through new sodomy laws, "Frothy Mix" now has moved on to insult women and intimate that they are emotionally unfit for combat and other positions in the U.S. military. For Santorum, gays belong hidden in the closet and women belong barefoot and pregnant in the home. Oh, and did I mention that Santorum would like contraception made unavailable to women? It's lunacy that hopefully will wake people up to just how out of the mainstream the GOP has become and motivate them to get out in November and vote for the Democrats to take back the House of Representatives. What's currently happening in the Virginia General Assembly under GOP control ought to be setting off alarms across the country. Here are highlights from the Washington Post on Frothy Mix's insults to women:

When asked about the Pentagon’s plan to allow women to serve in some combat roles, Santorum told CNN’s John King: “I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country . . . but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat.

“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” Santorum added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

Such remarks may please some social conservatives who were never that keen on women serving in the military, but this may not sit well with women who work, sometimes in male-dominated jobs.

This is not the first time Santorum has ventured into this territory. In 2005 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported:

So not long after his first book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” hit Washington bookstores over the Fourth of July weekend, his opponents were sifting through the 430 pages at warp speed -- culling controversial passages in which the Pennsylvania Republican criticizes public schools, America’s “divorce culture” and argues that more American families should consider whether both parents really need to work. . . .

Many women, he adds, have told him that it is more “socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children.”

That ideology, he says, has been shaped by feminists who demean the work of women who stay at home as primary caregivers.

“Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” said Santorum. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

Santorum might want to rethink that and figure out a way to walk back some of that. With women making up almost half the workforce (and now out-numbering men among workers with at least a bachelor’s degree), Santorum’s remarks sound badly off-key.

It's Santorum who is the radical, not feminists or working women. The man needs to be sent into permanent political retirement.

Last Dinner on the RMS Titanic

2012-02-10T07:04:00.004-05:00

Given the arrogance and contempt for the poor, blacks, Hispanics - basically every one other than white conservative Christians (preferably with lots of money) on display in the Virginia General Assembly, it is perhaps fitting that the Mariners Museum in nearby Newport News will be hosting a major fundraiser event on April 14, 2012, to mark the 100th anniversary of the night the RMS Titanic struck an iceberg and subsequently sank two hours and forty minutes later. At the time, little did the ruling classes realize that within a decade their world would be markedly changed particularly after World War I swept away numerous monarchies and never again would class distinction s and barriers be as powerful. Not, of course, that the Republican Party is not actively trying to bring back that bygone age. The country is experiencing wealth disparities likely last seen a century ago and as Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and others are demonstrating, contempt for the poor and minorities are at a new high amongst the GOP base. One can only hope that the current GOP meets a fate akin to that of the Titanic.

But I digress. The Mariners Museum is a wonderful facility and has artifacts that range from the turret of the ironclad U.S.S. Monitor to items from the super liner U.S.S. United States to a collection of vintage Chris-Craft runabouts. The event is pricey because of its fundraiser objective. Here's a description from the Museum's website:

On the evening of Saturday, April 14, 2012, we will commemorate the 100^th anniversary of the RMS Titanic’s fateful maiden voyage with a black-tie Last Dinner on the Titanic event. Participants will dine in either “first class” or "third class" style as they mingle with “passengers” from the past. We’ll conclude with a special remembrance at the exact time the ship struck the iceberg. Proceeds from this event will support the 2012 programs and exhibitions at The Mariners’ Museum.

First Class Dinner in the Museum Grand Lobby

The experience begins at 6:30 p.m. as you are greeted by Captain Edward J. Smith and welcomed into the Grand Salon of the RMS Titanic. A sumptuous 5-course re-creation of the Last Dinner awaits you as you are serenaded by the sounds of a chamber quartet. Enjoy the company of John Jacob Astor & Benjamin Guggenheim.

$250 per person, $2,500 per table (seats 8), Black tie or period costume.

Third Class “The Real Party” in the Huntington Room

This event begins at 7:30 p.m. when you pass through Immigration inspection and are sent to the Dining Hall. There you will enjoy hearty fare & beverages and enjoy rousing Irish tunes.

$125 per person, Period costume optional.

Yes, the Boyfriend and I will be attending and we will be taking my youngest daughter with us a birthday gift. A neighbor is on the Museum's board and we fully support the Museum's mission. More information on the event can be found here. We have one friend who is going that we think would make a perfect "Unsinkable Molly Brown." We love her to death and she's a great ally to the LGBT community.

Virginia Senate Passes Anti-Gay Adoption Bill

2012-02-10T06:38:00.006-05:00

While most of the country and world moves forward, Virginia is lurching backwards in time under the theocratic rule of the Republican controlled Virginia General Assembly. Bills that are the wet dreams of far right fanatics are advancing and the rights of minorities are under constant threats. Even the Commonwealth itself - at least under state law - can openly fire LGBT employees, voter suppression bills aimed at blacks and Hispanics are moving forward in both legislative houses, and a bill that will allow state financed private adoption agencies to openly discriminate gays, those of unpopular religious faiths, and even those with unfavored political views has passed the Virginia Senate and is guaranteed to be signed into law by Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonald. If McDonnell thinks he can run for the GOP VP slot as a "moderate conservative" he needs to get his head out of his ass. It's depressing and underscores why no LGBT individual and no modern, progressive business should move to Virginia. Instead, they need to turn down job offers and locate else where and tell the religious extremists in Richmond exactly why Virginia is an unwanted destination. Here are highlights from the Washington Post on this travesty:

The Virginia state Senate passed legislation Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to deny placements that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality.

The mostly party-line 22-18 vote virtually ensures the Republican-backed bill will become law. The House of Delegates has an identical version of the bill and Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell says he will sign it. Virginia would become just the second state with such a law, which supporters said was modeled after North Dakota’s.

State Sen. Jeffrey McWaters, a Republican from Virginia Beach, said his “conscience clause” bill protects the religious rights of private child placement agencies, including dozens that contract with the state to provide foster care and adoption services.

Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria and the only openly gay member of the General Assembly, suggested all the talk about religious freedom is a smokescreen for discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. “It has always been about denying LGBT Virginians the right to form families, no matter what we say,” Ebbin said.

He said the bill will endanger gay and bisexual children, who make up a disproportionate share of youths awaiting a home, by allowing agencies to place them with parents opposed to homosexuality.

The Family Foundation of Virginia, which lobbied for the legislation, lauded the Senate’s action. “The passage of conscience protection for private child placement agencies by a bipartisan majority in the Senate is a tremendous victory for religious liberty and for the thousands of children and families around Virginia that are served by these agencies,” Victoria Cobb, the foundation’s president, said in a written statement.

The Child Welfare League of America had sent a letter to senators earlier in the week urging them to reject the bill, saying it would just make it more difficult to place the approximately 1,300 Virginia children waiting for a home.

I'm sure passage of the bill made Victoria Cobb's day. If one wants to see the face of hate and bigotry, a good place to start is with Ms. Cobb. If there is a God, I suspect she has a reserved seat in Hell. She surely is a strong reason NOT to want to be considered a Christian.

Here's Adam Ebbin's statement in opposition to the bill:

More Thursday Male Beauty

2012-02-09T22:49:00.001-05:00

A Coven of Haters and Extremists Arrive for CPAC - Where Were They in the Prop 8 Trial?

2012-02-09T22:18:00.004-05:00

As the Washington Post and many main stream news outlets are reporting, a coven of hate merchants and religious extremists have descended on Washington, D. C., for the annual CPAC gathering where the batshitery and far right extremism is off the charts. Barack Obama, gays, liberals of all types are under attack and hate and down right mean spiritedness seem to be the principal hallmarks. As is so often the case with the far right, one is left wondering whether there is anyone that they don't hate. With this week's ruling in Perry v. Brown, however, one has to ask where were these out spoken defenders of "traditional marriage" and "Judeao-Christian morality" when the defenders of Propostion 8 Needed credible witnesses. I suspect that the answer is very simple: they love to rant and spew lies to equally deranged audiences of Christofascists. When they have to testify under oath and the threat of a perjury conviction, they vanish from the scene. Alvin McEwen at Pam's House Blend looks at these self-styled cultural warriors who were missing in action when it came to testifying in the Proposition 8 trial. Here are some highlights:

In celebration of yesterday’s Appeals Court ruling against Proposition 8, I was going to write something uplifting about the perseverance of the lgbtq community. But I decided not to. For one, I am sure that there are so many others who are going to be dwelling on that subject. For another, based upon the reactions coming from the religious right, I feel that another direction is in order, i.e. a missive directed to Maggie Gallagher, the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and all of those other folks whining about Tueday’s ruling.

Just where were these folks when the original trial was taking place last year? Why didn’t any of these folks testify as to why Prop 8 was needed? Remember, the pro-Prop 8 side could only find two witnesses and both did a poor job defending the law. One witness, David Blankenhorn, inadvertently made the case for the anti-Prop 8 side! Where were Gallagher, Brian Brown, Peter Sprigg, Tony Perkins, or any of these other folks who put so much work in getting the law passed?

All of this outrage after the fact is bogus. It’s a diversion and a pitiful one at that. It’s an attempt to obscure a basic fact. And that basic fact is that Proposition 8 was built with deliberate lies that Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, and the rest of those pushing it were too fearful to defend in court.

None of these people – not one – had the guts to stand up in court, take an oath, and attest to the veracity of the claims they made regarding what allegedly would happen should marriage equality become legal in California, because they knew that the lawyers attacking the law – David Boies and Ted Olson – would call them out and reveal their deception.

So, Maggie dearest and the rest of you folks, please stop whining. You are not fooling anyone. You dug this hole yourself, so you have no reason to cry out when the dirt comes in to bury you.

Nothing would have been more satisfying than seeing Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, Peter Sprigg, Tony Perkins, et al, testify under oath and be utterly demolished by Ted Olsen and David Boies. Other than hate and fear based religious beliefs, they have NOTHING to support their claims. We know that and they know that. Would that the simple minded and ignorant that they shake down time and time again for money would get the message.

The Hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich - He Talks Like a Pastor But Lives Like a Porn Star

2012-02-09T21:51:00.003-05:00

My activist friends at Truth Wins Out are taking on the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich head on. Gingrich, a thrice married serial adulterer would have the simple minded dolts of the evangelical Christian set believe that he's a champion of the "sanctity of marriage." His personal conduct tells a very different story. Therefore, in response to Gingrich's unfathomable hubris and hypocrisy, Truth Wins Out has placed a full page ad - it's pictured above - in Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper. In addition, John Becker, who did a masterful job going under cover at "Marcia" Bachmann's ex-gay myth peddling "Christian counseling center" has an op-ed at The Advocate that takes on Gingrich's batshitery. Here are some op-ed highlights:

Truth Wins Out placed an admittedly provocative full-page ad in today’s edition of Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, headlined “Newt Gingrich: Talks Like a Preacher, Lives Like a Porn Star.” In it, we admonish Gingrich for his stunning hypocrisy on the issue of marriage equality, taking him to task for the way that he, a serial adulterer with multiple marriages, works tirelessly to prevent same-sex couples from marrying because of a professed belief that marriage is “sacred.”

This ad was strategically timed to coincide with the start of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC.

The speaker’s list for this year’s conference reads like the roster of a conservative Dream Team: Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Tony Perkins, Ann Coulter, Herman Cain, John Boehner, and GOP presidential wannabes Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.

It also comes in the midst of a white-hot week for the freedom to marry movement — a week in which the House and Senate in Washington state passed a marriage equality bill, a similar bill was introduced in the Illinois Assembly, and California’s Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional in a federal appellate court. And it’s only Thursday!

TWO launched the ad because we believe that when the LGBT community is attacked, we should fight back. . . . . And Gingrich has certainly attacked. He recently demeaned married same-sex couples in lifelong committed relationships as nothing more than “friends.” He has repeatedly pledged to advance a constitutional amendment excluding same-sex couples from marriage. He funneled $200,000 into the successful effort to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices whose ruling allowed LGBT couples the freedom to marry. And he wasted no time lambasting Tuesday’s historic Proposition 8 ruling as an unconscionable judicial assault on the “Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.”

Conservatives, including Gingrich, proclaim marriage to be a holy sacrament and position themselves as the valiant defenders of this tradition. Even that doesn’t go far enough for the former Speaker, who would have you believe his moral beacon shines so brightly as to render him the “definer of civilization.” But as we all know, Newt’s personal life proves the hollowness of these words. He has behaved reprehensibly in at least two of his three marriages, yet tells anyone who will listen that LGBT Americans should be forbidden from marrying at all. And the social conservatives at the base of his party are eating it up.

Pointing out Newt Gingrich’s serial hypocrisy undermines our opponents’ core argument about marriage being too sacred for same-sex couples. Doing so at CPAC implicates social conservatives for aiding and abetting behavior they purport to oppose when they slavishly support Gingrich.

To describe Gingrich (and his supporters) as a hypocrite is indeed an understatement.

A Product of Gay Parents Speaks Out Eloquently

2012-02-09T21:39:00.004-05:00

As fellow LGBT blogger Jeremy Hooper notes, the far-right loves to talk about kids of gays in the abstract and would have the ignorant and uninformed believe that these children are deprived and somehow maladjusted. I can only conclude that such critics are attributing their own failings to others. Listen to one such child of a same sex couple headed family speak for himself on the meaning of the 9th Circuit's ruling earlier in the week on Proposition 8. He's far more eloquent in my view that the ranting, spittle spraying hate merchants of the Christian Taliban who seem to have no grasp of what love is really all about:

I suspect that my youngest daughter in particular would concur with this young man.

Trevor Project

2012-02-09T08:10:00.004-05:00

As longer term readers know, I am a member of the advisory board for the Old Dominion University Gay Cultural Studies Endowment which has as it goal establishing a self-sustaining endowment for a permanent full time post-doctorate position at the University focused on LGBT studies and cultural contributions. This endowed position will focus on the contributions, concerns, and challenges associated with LGBT culture, promote academic research and provides graduate and undergraduate educational course opportunities. In addition, the holder of the position would engage the local Hampton Roads LGBT community and larger business community through ongoing dialogue and community involvement.

In furtherance of our fundraising goal, last night the ODU Gay Cultural Studies Committee hosted an invitation only salon with ODU alumni David McFarland (1984) as the featured speaker. McFarland - pictured in the center of the photo above that includes myself, two other board members of HRBOR and the Executive Director of Equality Virginia - is Interim Executive Director and CEO of The Trevor Project (the leading national organization for awareness and prevention of suicide among LGBT youth). David did a masterful job in tying the efforts of the Trevor Project to prevent gay suicides with the educational and cultural enhancement efforts of the ODU Gay Cultural Studies Endowment.

It is so very important that LGBT youth - both teens and college students - realize that they do have a future and than LGBT individuals in the USA and elsewhere have made amazing contributions to society and civilization. If one listens to the hate merchants of the far right and the Christian Taliban, one would believe that LGBT people contribute little or nothing to society. The truth, of course, provides a very different and positive story. Fortunately, local benefactors seem to be listening and word has it that last nights effort landed a five figure donation.

Anyone who would like to donate to this worthy - and tax deductible cause - can do so here. Be sure to click on enter "Gay Cultural Studies Endowment" as your desired beneficiary.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-09T08:09:00.002-05:00

Suffolk, Virginia Public Schools Seek to Ban Cros Dressing

2012-02-09T07:26:00.004-05:00

In a move that is being disingenuously described as motivated by" safety concerns" - even though zero problems have been reported - the City of Suffolk School Board appears headed toward imposing dress code regulations that would bar what they describe as "cross dressing." The move seems to be the pet project of one school board member - Thelma Hinton - who I suspect is perhaps motivated less by any real safety concerns and more by her own prejudice and/or religious beliefs. Hampton Roads overall is a backwards region and Suffolk is nowhere near the top of the list of more enlightened local cities and most likely has a higher percentage of Bible beaters amongst its citizenry. Quite frankly, the move seems guaranteed to provoke a well deserved lawsuit since transgender students will be ridden over rough shod. But then, this is Virginia, and if one is watching the actions of the Virginia General Assembly, the clear message from that GOP controlled body is that LGBT Virginians have no rights. Here are some highlights from the Virginian Pilot coverage:

Last summer, when a School Board member shared concerns about teen boys wearing long wigs, dresses and makeup to class, the principals of the three city high schools insisted they hadn't seen it. Superintendent Deran Whitney said he had heard no complaints and had observed only one boy - in jeans and a shirt - dressed in "what is traditionally viewed as female clothing."

Now, Whitney has proposed modifications to the student dress code that include a change that addresses cross-gender clothing. The regulations, to be considered by the board tonight, ban clothing "that is not in keeping with a student's gender and causes a disruption and/or distracts others from the educational process or poses a health or safety concern."

No other South Hampton Roads school division includes that type of reference in its student dress code. Board Vice Chairwoman Thelma Hinton, who initiated the dress code discussion, said Wednesday that she's pleased with the superintendent's proposal.

The gender-related dress restriction Suffolk is considering is "deeply flawed," said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. It's too vague to be understood by students, entirely subjective and based on gender stereotyping, which is a violation of federal law, Willis wrote in an email. "If a boy were to wear a dress to school, he would almost certainly create a buzz that could be interpreted as a distraction," Willis said, "but it would be perfectly legal for him to do it."

In June, when Hinton first raised a concern, she said teachers and parents had contacted her about male students at one school wearing nail polish, lipstick, sundresses, strappy sandals and spandex. Teachers considered it a distraction, Hinton said, but were afraid to speak about it publicly. She would not identify the school.

John Whitehead, an attorney and president of The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties organization, also described the proposal as vague and added that it doesn't use the proper legal language. Students can express themselves as long as they don't cause "a substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school," he said. "Will that really detract from learning today - a boy wearing a dress?" Whitehead said. "That's ridiculous."

At the suggestion of board member Phyllis Byrum, Whitney also is proposing a detailed dress code for employees. Those regulations list denim, spaghetti straps, flip-flops and excessively tight clothing as attire considered inappropriate. Exceptions for some of the rules would be made for special events, including "school celebrations" and "thematic instructional days."

With all the problems in public schools today, one would think that both the Division Superintendent and the School Board would have more important issues to worry themselves about.

Cardinal Edward Egan Rescinds Apology For The Catholic Sex-Abuse Scandal

2012-02-09T07:09:00.003-05:00

The hubris and moral bankruptcy of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is breath taking at times. One has to wonder what planet these nasty douche bags come from. A glaring case in point is Cardinal Edward Egan, former Archbishop of New York, and further back in his clerical career, one of Cardinal Bernard Law's enforcers who intimidated victims and their families in the Boston archdiocese from speaking out about sexual abuse by priest. In short, in my view, Egan is nothing less than an accessory to the sexual abuse of children and youth. Yet the pompous bastard now has had the audacity to withdraw the apology he once made for the sex abuse scandal. I ask again, how can anyone with a shred of moral decency support the Church hierarchy and financially support these foul men? The Business Insider has details on Egan's arrogant action. Here are some highlights:

St. John Chrysostom, once said "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." Here's proof that he was right.

In an interview this week with Connecticut Magazine, Cardinal Edward Egan, withdrew his 2002 apology for the Church's handling of the sex-abuse scandal, which was once read in all New York parishes.

A decade after that letter, the former archbishop of New York, and former bishop of Bridgeport, now describes the handling of the priest-abuse crisis under his watch as “incredibly good.” He said of the letter, "I never should have said that,” and added, “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”

“I never had one of these sex abuse cases.” he said, before adding pompously, “If you have another bishop in the United States who has the record I have, I’d be happy to know who he is.” He also claimed that the Church had no obligation to report abuse to the civil authorities. These are lies, strutting around with pride.

Bishop Egan ran a diocese that was notoriously dangerous for children. Contrary to his claim, during his twelve-year enthronement at Bridgeport, Egan repeatedly failed to investigate priests where there were obvious signs of abuse, according to The Hartford Courant. His diocese had to settle the cases and awarded victims some $12-15 million in damages.

In short: Egan coddled child-abusers, and persecuted decent priests during his ignominious reign as a Prince of the Church. His entire interview reeks of a narcissism and self-regard that is so palpable it makes your eyes water.

Again, speaking as a Catholic, God is merciful with those who repent and do penance.
It is time for Egan to repent before his victims and before God.

And sadly, Egan seems to be the norm within the Church hierarchy: pompous, arrogant, contemptuous of others, and utterly devoid of decency and even minimal morality.

Do Our Enemeies Celebrate Every Time a Gay Teen Commits Suicide?

2012-02-09T06:48:00.003-05:00

From personal experience, I know few people who are more self-congratulatory and at the same time vicious than far right Christians. Despite claiming to be followers of Christ, hate, not love, seems to be the sole basis of their professed religious belief. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to their perverted world view is condemned and in the case of LGBT citizens, depicted as less than human, diseased, a threat to society, etc. It's precisely the propaganda approach that the Nazi regime used to justify the Holocaust. And yet our news media refuses to draw this direct comparison and foul individuals like Tony Perkins are repeatedly given a platform on national news outlets. In an address at the University of North Texas, Dan Savage uttered the words that I believe are true: every time a gay teen ends their life, folks like Perkins celebrate. Another "faggot" is gone from the world and the Christianists have tangible proof that their hate campaign is having the desired deadly effect. It's sickening, but then that's what Christianity has become under this monsters who wrap themselves in the cloak of religion. Here are some highlights from the Dallas Voice on Dan's remarks:

“Every time LGBT bullying kills a kid, Tony Perkins gets up from his desk and dances a jig,” sex-advice-columnist-turned-LGBT youth advocate Dan Savage said of the anti-gay Family Research Council president during Savage’s keynote speech at the 12th Annual University of North Texas Equity and Diversity Conference on Tuesday.

“Every LGBT youth suicide for them is a victory, a rhetorical and moral victory,” Savage added.

When some LGBT teenagers come out to their parents, Savage said, the parents do “what the Christian right tells them to do”— cut them off financially and emotionally, disown them, turn them out into the streets or send them to camps meant to “turn them straight,” often repeating the lies spread by so-called Christian groups like the Family Research Council — which say that LGBT people are child-molesting sexual predators whose mere existence threatens families and the very survival of the planet (a line uttered by the Pope just this last month).

Savage admitted to the crowd made up mostly of students that the It Gets Better project can’t end bullying. “[However, that] does not excuse or preclude us from doing more …” Savage continued, “from confronting bullies, from holding schools and teachers and preachers and parents responsible for what they do or don’t do or fail to do for LGBT kids in pain.”

That’s why Savage’s project has supported Sen. Al Franken’s Student Non-Discrimination Act as well as the efforts of groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Trevor Project and the American Civil Liberties Union.

“[The Trevor Project] is there to talk kids off the ledge,” Savage said, “GLSEN is there to make sure there are fewer kids in our schools climbing out onto that ledge and the ACLU is there sue the crap out of schools that push kids onto that ledge.”

Citing studies from the University of Illinois and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Savage said rates of teenage suicide (LGBT and straight) and sexual violence against girls is much higher in schools where anti-LGBT bullying is tolerated — in short, that anti-LGBT bullying makes schools unsafe for everyone. And yet the religious right continues to oppose campaigns against anti-LGBT bullying as “indoctrination.”

Savage asserts that he isn’t hostile to religion, citing his good relationship with his Catholic father and the fact that his last act of love for his mother as she lay dying in an Arizona hospital bed was to find a priest to initiate her last rites.

But instead of letting kids act out the violence of their adult role-models who bash gays at the pulpit and the ballot box, Savage called on school members to actively oppose anti-LGBT bullying and on liberal and more progressive Christians to stop “the complicit silence … aiding them and abetting [the religious right] in their crimes.”

I agree with Dan - especially his call for other Christians to stop their complicity in the conservative Christian anti-gay agenda. Silence is deadly and if these other Christians refuse to speak out, then they become part of the problem.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

2012-02-08T22:39:00.002-05:00

How Maggie Gallagher's Unwed Pregnacy and Hatred of Men Created an Anti-Gay Marriage Zealot

2012-02-08T21:56:00.004-05:00

I have long believed that the majority of the most outspoken and vitriolic opponents of same sex marriage are in fact seriously psychologically disturbed individuals and that their anti-gay animus stems from their own personal demons and the continuing mental and emotional damage they suffered in their formative years from being raised in religious extremist homes. Some, like Robert Knight and Peter LaBarbera are in my opinion self-loathing closeted gays who hold nothing but unadulterated hatred against gays who have been able to move on in their lives and accept that God - if there is one - gay. And then there are others who seem to have been severely damaged bu their own life experiences who have funneled their rage and anger against LGBT citizens who they believe threaten a fantasy world that exists only in their own minds. Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage and hate merchant and liar extraordinaire is a case in point. Salon has a lengthy article on Gallagher and it is pretty unflattering. Indeed, one can easily conclude that her anti-gay propaganda and hate trace directly back to the fact that she got knocked up in college, was thrown over by her "boyfriend," and has been seeking vengeance ever sense. Rather than attack LGBT equality under the civil laws, in my opinion, Gallagher needs serious mental health care intervention. Here are some highlights from the Salon article:

Today, they have different memories of the relationship — how long they had been dating, how close they were — but on one fact they agree: 30 years ago this spring, months before she was supposed to graduate, Gallagher discovered she was pregnant. Then, as now, Yale students did not get pregnant — or if they did, no baby came of it. But Gallagher knew she would have this baby.

Counterfactual history is a dangerous business, but it seems fair to say that Gallagher’s was the non-marriage that changed the world. If that sophomore cad had married Gallagher, she might never have become a writer. “I don’t know what I would have done,” she tells me. “I became a writer because I had a baby and had to make money.” And what she writes about is same-sex marriage: why it’s bad for children, bad for America, simply bad.

Gallagher’s unplanned pregnancy — so great a rupture in a young conservative woman’s sense of life’s proper path, coming at so young an age — focused her politics, and gave her traditional-family conservatism a messianic tinge. I]in 1989, when Patrick was 7, Gallagher published a book that remains startling for its combination of sadness and anger; it’s hard to believe any author can sound so hopelessly disappointed before the age of 30. In a sense, “Enemies of Eros,” a jeremiad about the sorry state of sexual culture and gender relationships, must have been gestating since her son was born. Its author is sad that lifelong marriage is no longer an accepted norm; that many children do not grow up with fathers; that sex has been decoupled from marriage and parenthood. And she is angry at everyone she finds culpable for these changes, . . . .

Gallagher writes, “Men need a role in the family. What men need, loath though we are to utter the word, is a sex role.” Gallagher approvingly offers the example, drawn from a Wall Street Journal article, of one Millie Stephens, “a 28-year-old manager for Bell of Pennsylvania who earns $46,000 a year.” Her husband, Carl, a state trooper, earns $31,000 a year, and “to disguise her salary, they put all of her earnings in the bank and live off his income.” “Mrs. Stephens” also washes the dishes and irons her husband’s shirts. “I don’t mind treating him like a man,” she says.

Reading Gallagher’s portion of “Debating Same-Sex Marriage” and watching numerous clips of her debates, what surprises me is how little Gallagher talks about gay people, or even gayness. Gallagher’s opposition to gay marriage seems to have very little to do with gay people, indeed with people at all. What really excites her is a depersonalized idea of Marriage: its essence, its purity, its supposedly immutable definition.

The great trauma of Gallagher’s youth, her unplanned pregnancy and subsequent alienation from the father of her child, was rooted in failing to understand that sex and procreation are connected. It is understandable that, having grasped the truth, she is intent on emphasizing its importance. So it follows that gay marriage and, above all, gay parenthood, more than gay people themselves, presents a real challenge to her belief system. Same-sex marriage advocates offend her hard-won wisdom in two ways. First, they imply that sex and love can in fact be separate from procreation, and no less valid for it. Second, and perhaps more troubling for Gallagher, the increasingly visible column of attentive, loving gay parents — gay male parents in particular — mocks her own romantic choices.

For Gallagher, the principal problem with gay couples is not the act of sodomy: It’s that they cannot be a mother and a father. Gallagher believes that what is best for any child is to be raised by its natural mother and father — what happens when Marriage succeeds — and any law that honors an alternative arrangement is thus harmful. Adoptive parents may succeed in raising a child well, single parents may succeed, but they are both inferior to biological mother and father, the paradigm that Marriage has always supported, throughout history.

Gallagher is unwilling to make any predictions of what doom will befall families after the legalization of same-sex marriage. She just has faith that marriage, the central institution of good child-rearing, will be weakened if same-sex couples are allowed its prestige and protections. When I ask her if any kind of evidence could change her mind, she says that in theory such evidence could exist, but it would be awfully hard to come by: “Yes, you could produce the evidence that children are just as well off in same-sex couples, and that the change isn’t bad for the institution of marriage as a whole.

And even if somehow the evidence showed, conclusively, that same-sex marriage were good for children? Gallagher would still be dissatisfied: “Nothing could make me call a same-sex couple a marriage, because that’s not what I believe a marriage is.”

Gallagher’s people are dying off; her enemies are breeding. Meanwhile, the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy proceeded without incident last year: a non-event that surely bodes well for same-sex marriage, one more aspect of gay men’s and lesbians’ full inclusion in civil society. One prominent ally of Gallagher’s told me that the “fight is over.” There will be minor victories to come, but “we’re going to lose,” the ally said.

Those would seem to be the hard facts, the evidence on which pure thought would operate. But for Gallagher these facts are temporal, contingent and ultimately meaningless.

At the risk of sounding crude, Maggie Gallagher - who by the way NEVER uses her Hindu husband's last name when shaking down the weak minded Christianists - committed what her Church describes a sinful act, got herself pregnant in college and made what she obviously sees was a huge mistake. Sadly, she's never gotten over it and now seeks to inflict her bitterness on the the world at large and on gays in particular. Compounding the problem is her brainwashing - and likely self-loathing due to her unwed motherhood - associated with her Catholic upbringing. Having been raised Catholic myself, I know only too well the mental health damage the Church can do. Therefore, in my opinion, Gallagher needs to get serious mental health care to exorcise her personal demons and get out of everyone else's life. She's screwed up her own and now wants to screw up the lives of others.

Washington State House Passes Same Sex Marriage

2012-02-08T21:35:00.004-05:00

The Seattle Post Intelligencer is reporting that the Washington State House has passed the same sex marriage bill previously passed last week by that state's Senate. The next stop will be the desk of Governor Christine Gregoire (she's pictured above center) who has made it clear that she will sign the measure into law. Meanwhile the forces of hate lead by - at least in my view - psychologically disturbed Christofascists (more on this in a coming post) - are threatening to place marriage equality up for vote on a referendum. Given yesterday's ruling by the 9th Circuit in Perry v. Brown, even if this effort were to prevail, the rescission would be unconstitutional. Consequently, it will be interesting to see whether or not the forces of hate and intolerance move to make good on their threat. Here are some story highlights:

The state House of Representatives, after two hours of intense debate, voted 55-43 on Wednesday to make Washington the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage. The legislation passed the State Senate last week, and goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire who has promised to sign it into law. Gregoire, one of several Catholic governors who support marriage equality, watched House debate from the wings.

“This is truly a historic day in Washington state and one where I couldn’t be more proud,” Gregoire said in a statement. “With today’s vote, we tell the nation that Washington state will no longer deny our citizens the opportunity to marry the person they love.”

But opponents have vowed to collect 120,577 valid voter signatures required to force a referendum in this November’s general election. They have until June 6th to do so.

“Separate by name and act is not equal,” said Rep. Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City, one of the few Republicans to vote for marriage equality. Anderson spoke of his brother, who is gay, and argued that the state’s domestic partnership law does not convey the full societal benefits and recognition of legal civil marriage.

Lawmakers spoke intensely of their religious beliefs.

“Mr. Speaker, Washington State has truly separated God from government,” warned Rep. Jim McCune, R-Graham, adding: “God would hold us all accountable for our actions here today.”

But Rep. Drew Hansen, D-Bainbridge, said he was urged by his pastor to vote for marriage equality, quoting C.S. Lewis on the difference between civil and religious marriage, and adding: “We have a lot of gay brothers and sisters in church, you know.” (Hansen’s mother is a minister.)

The fact that Republicans in particular spoke about religious belief underscores the fact that today's Republican Party has nothing but contempt for the U. S. Constitution and its guarantee of equal rights and religious freedom and liberty to ALL citizens. They may wrap themselves in the flag and profess respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, but their actions indicate that they are seeking to subvert the Constitution and, at least arguably, are guilty of breaching their oath of office and committing treason. This country is NOT a Christianist theocracy and religion needs to be purged from the civil laws.

The Evolving State of Gay Marriage

2012-02-08T08:02:00.003-05:00

This map via Joe.My.God gives a quick overview of the status of the fight for marriage equality across the country. Click on the image for a larger view.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-08T07:58:00.001-05:00

"Frothy Mix" Wins Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota

2012-02-08T07:40:00.004-05:00

I guess Colorado needs to be added to the list of states where water quality needs to be investigated - Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum (pictured above with his wife, the former long term mistress of an abortion doctor) won the GOP presidential nomination contest in that state as well. Of course, the other explanation was that voter turn out was low and it was the Kool-Aid drinking set that went to the polls yesterday. As noted last night, the good news for rational, cognitive citizens is that the GOP circular firing squad will continue with Mitt Romney likely trying to track so far to the lunatic right that he may be damaged goods should he eventually win the nomination. Meanwhile, I suspect the so-called Republican establishment is none to pleased with the prospect of Frothy Mix as the party nominee. The Obama camp, in contrast is likely salivating at the prospect of an extremist like Santorum continuing to remain in the GOP fray. The New York Times looks at the reactions to yesterday's GOP circus performance. Here are highlights.

His candidacy all but dismissed just days ago, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and a nonbinding primary in Missouri on Tuesday, an unexpected trifecta that raised fresh questions about Mitt Romney’s ability to corral conservative support.

With his triumphs, Mr. Santorum was also suddenly presenting new competition to Newt Gingrich as the chief alternative to Mr. Romney, the front-runner. Where Mr. Gingrich has won one state, South Carolina, Mr. Santorum has now won four, including Iowa. His performance added another twist to an unruly nominating contest that has seen Republican voters veering among candidates and refusing to coalesce behind anyone.

The results on Tuesday shook the political world, which appeared to once again make the mistake of believing the Republican race for the presidency was finally set on a stable trajectory. But it was an open question whether the defeats were a momentary embarrassment or a prolonged setback for Mr. Romney. His disappointing night notwithstanding, Mr. Romney goes into the next round of primaries and caucuses much better financed than his opponents in what will be much more of a nationwide campaign, capped off by the 11 Super Tuesday competitions on March 6.

[H]is victory in Colorado was a genuine upset in a state that Mr. Romney easily carried in 2008. Combined with the victory in Minnesota, it gave him an important lift that his campaign hoped would translate into an infusion of new donations and support from the conservative Republican voters — evangelicals and Tea Party adherents — who have told pollsters all year that they are searching for someone whom they view as a true conservative.

Mr. Romney’s aides played down the significance of the night, noting that he did not compete very hard, especially in Missouri, and adding that four years ago Senator John McCain had lost many state races before ultimately winning the nomination.

If there was any bright spot for Mr. Romney, it was that Mr. Santorum’s new strength promised to potentially split the anti-Romney vote in two with Mr. Gingrich, reducing its potential threat. Speaking before the results in Ohio, where he was campaigning, Mr. Gingrich said the results should raise doubts about what has been portrayed as Mr. Romney’s inexorable march to the nomination.

Mr. Romney is hoping to do well in the elections in Arizona and Michigan in three weeks, as well as in the Super Tuesday contests next month, when he is expected use his organizational and financial advantages to maximum effect.

Get out the popcorn and get set to watch the continuing circus.