Laying Down With Extremist Dogs

Most of you probably know about Tom Coburn chief of staff Michael Schwartz and his "all porn makes you gay" speech at the Values Voters summit over the weekend. The problem with mainstreaming extremists like this, giving them a platform and a position, is that they end up entangling your entire party once they become recognizable.

OK, so we've conclusively determined that Michael Schwartz is a totally bonkers, extreme, homophobic, hate-filled bigot. But what, you ask, does that have to do with Virginia? Well, believe it or not, there's a Bob McDonnell connection and a pretty strong one at that. Yes, McDonnell's theocratic thesis is about to bite him in the butt (or maybe "impale" him?) once again. First, check out page 91, where McDonnell cites an article ("Keeping Daycare in the Family") by the very same Michael Schwartz who appears in the above video and crazy quotes. Now, go to page 40, where McDonnell quotes "Free Congress Director Michael Schwartz" talking about the "division between those whose conservatism is defined by dollar signs and those whose conservatism is rooted in the family." Of course, Schwartz (and an obviously approving McDonnell) falls on the "family values" side of the conservative spectrum, believing for instance that "the day-care question...[is] a family issue (how to help families care for their children)" as opposed to an economic or workplace issue (e.g., women going to work and putting their children in day care).

Now the gubernatorial candidate in a hotly-contested race has to answer questions about whether he agrees that porn makes you gay (if there's one thing conservative bubbas love, by the way, it's their porn, so that answer has to be delicate) and all sorts of other nutty things that Schwartz has said on the record. Putting Michael Schwartz in a position of responsibility in your party has short-term rewards, but does severe long-term damage.

See also this wingnut blogger consorting with known racists in the Council of Conservative Citizens. Long-term, these dalliances with extremists will destroy the party.

Interpreting The Constitution Depends On Dating Preferences

Making Jeff Sessions sound like the founding member of the Center for Constitutional Rights, John Thune lays down a marker - none of them funny people in the Supreme Court, understand?

Gay-rights groups have voiced hope that Obama will select the first openly gay Supreme Court nominee, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund has offered two suggestions: Kathleen Sullivan, a former Stanford Law School dean, and Pam Karlan, another Stanford professor.

But conservative leaders have warned the nomination of a gay or lesbian justice could complicate Obama’s effort to confirm a replacement for Souter, and another Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.

“I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now,” said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune. “It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he'll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively.”

Of course, we're in a society where discrimination no longer exists and only the white man bears the burden of this politically correct society. Thune's just concerned about what others would think. Like "the children," I assume.

Filibustering a Supreme Court justice because of their sexual orientation would really be a brilliant coda for the Republican Party. And despite some of the quotes in that article, they'd do it. They'd have to do it.

Still Bringing The Hate

The House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act today; here's the roll call. 18 Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill, which would help fund state and local law enforcement in the prevention and prosecution of hate crimes. It expands the definition of hate crimes to include "gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." This is fairly sensible legislation with little controversy. It's the inclusion of gays and lesbians that drives theocrats batty.

So Virginia Foxx (R-NC) went on the House floor today, misinterpreted Glenn Greenwald's words to falsely assert that he supported her position, and then she let loose with this:

If you didn't vote for this bill -- against this bill and against this rule for anything else, you could vote against it because we are spending additional money. i also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Sheppard bill is named afte a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. it wasn't because he was gay. this -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

That's a complete lie, perpetrated by bigots to sow continued hate on the late Matthew Sheppard. It's totally disgusting. Here are the office numbers for Virginia Foxx. Let her know what you think of her smears against a dead gay man. Maybe you can tell her that gay bashing doesn't work anymore.

Phone: (202) 225-2071
Phone: (336) 778-0211
Phone: (828) 265-0240

...The New Hampshire legislature just passed marriage equality, we'll see if the Governor signs it. But another state may join the four who offer full rights to same-sex couples.

Midnight Riders

This is the most unconscionable of Bush's "midnight regulations."

The Bush administration, as expected, announced new protections on Thursday for health care providers who oppose abortion and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds.

“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human Services, said in a statement on his department’s Web site.

The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and health care aides who refuse to take part in procedures because of their convictions, and it bars hospitals, clinics, doctors’ office and pharmacies from forcing their employees to assist in programs and activities financed by the department.

This will have profound consequences for women's health. There is nothing here that doesn't bar doctors from refusing to deliver birth control, for example, or the morning-after pill, or even let someone know where those services or family planning services can be provided. As Hilzoy said, this is a lazy person's dream.

This is a wonderful rule for slackers, since it provides a legally protected way to get paid while doing no work at all. Here's the plan:

(1) Get an MD, and a job as a doctor.
(2) Become a Christian Scientist.
(3) Announce your religious objection to participating in any medical procedure, or to supporting such procedures in any way (e.g., by doing the other doctors' paperwork. This refusal would be protected under the rule.)
(4) When your employer protests, explain that your right to refuse to participate in any medical procedure at all is legally protected under this rule.

Voila: white-collar welfare! See how easy?

I guess that makes it the Bartleby rule?

If you're not totally proud of your country right now, I'll give you another reason:

Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

It's a good thing we have a new President who would never validate anyone with beliefs like we see here with the conscience rule or criminalizing homosexuality. Oh wait...

(I should note, in the interest of fairness, that the Obama transition team is committed to reversing the provider conscience rule.)

A Wedding Guest

I haven't done too much writing about Prop. 8 compared to my friends at my other blogosphere haunts. Over at Calitics we've devoted a substantial amount of time and resources to it, and we've raised over $50,000 at the Calitics ActBlue Page for Equality for All. I've been praiseworthy of the campaign at times, critical at others - I think their ads fail to put a face on who the discrimination would actually harm, and as such come off as vague and allow the theocons to distract and distort the issue ("they'll teach your kids how to be gay!!!") and drive the narrative. I've been happy that much of the progressive movement has come together to defend this attack on civil rights, and that even establishment figures like Maria Shriver and Dianne Feinstein have gone public for the cause (Barack Obama has allowed the campaign to use him in Web advertising, but there's an argument to be made that he could do more).

But instead of an analytical post (the short answer is that every single volunteer is vital because this will be an extremely close vote), I'd like to get a little personal. Today is Write To Marry Day, where hundreds of bloggers are posting about Prop. 8 and their thoughts about gay marriage and civil rights. I'd like to add my own by talking about the wedding I attended a few months ago.

It was unusual only for the fact that it was extremely casual. There was morning coffee and some pastries and other food and drinks set up on picnic benches at a park in the hills behind Berkeley, and a large field where the wedding was held. When the announcement was given for the ceremony to begin, everybody kind of meandered over to the field and stood around in a circle. The "aisle" for the couple to walk down had to be created impromptu. Eventually that got sorted out. Other than that, the event had what you might expect - two people who loved one another making a commitment to spend their lives together. It was entirely unremarkable and indistinguishable from any other wedding where I've been invited. Except for one thing.

The ceremony was conducted by Assemblymember (soon to be State Senator) Mark Leno. He is notable for having authored the marriage equality law that passed through the California legislature - twice - only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. (Just remember that the next time someone tells you he's "practically a liberal." He's opposing Prop. 8, supposedly, but has gone completely silent on the issue.)

In brief remarks, Leno talked about how the issue was not made clear to him until the Massachusetts Supreme Court rendered their decision on the law. He quoted the text of the decision at length, particularly this portion:

The SJC ruling held that the Massachusetts constitution "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The state Attorney General's office, which argued to the court that state law doesn't allow gay couples to marry, "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marraige to same-sex couples," Marshall wrote.

The creation of second-class citizens is really the nub of this, said Leno. By defining marriage in such a way, those who would seek to ban gay marriage tell those who wish to love one another how they can do it. But this is part of the common experience of the human condition - the desire to love another man or woman and profess a commitment to them. What is perverse - indeed, irrational and against human nature - is to defy that love and that commitment. The right to marry is a right to share in the common experience of man. It has served the nation and the world with tangible societal benefits and promotion of the family. It is a profoundly conservative virtue.

And this was a very (small-c) conservative, simple wedding, just two people - two men - and their friends and family, coming together to express their love and joy. This is what those who would pass Prop. 8 would snuff out. Indeed they are the radicals - the kind of people who would express that equality is not an American value. They have to rewrite the Declaration of Independence to fit their worldview:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…

It's really as simple as that. I was thinking while attending this wedding that I would maybe write something about the feelings it engendered, the wonderful picture of basic civil rights being expressed. But it was totally unremarkable, which is why I waited so long. It was banal, even. It was just two people that love one another among the hundreds of millions and even billions on this planet. There was nothing that special about it.

Which is why it should not be singled out and rejected.

If you can, volunteer for No on 8 or donate to their cause. It's the best investment in normalcy that you'll ever make.

Prop. 8: Breaking It Down

The other day I wondered if the No on 8 side was being too cautious in their advertising, instead of putting an actual face on the discrimination and harm that would be suffered if marriage rights were eliminated for a particular class of people. Well, this video isn't exactly that, but it certainly makes the point about discrimination. Via Amanda at Pandagon, this is my favorite video of the cycle. A group redubbed the voices on a video of young people ranting about all the supposed consequences about gay marriage, and changed it so they say "interracial marriage." It's kind of perfect:



See, this comes down to discrimination, pure and simple. The other side wants to talk about ancillary outcomes, but really they want to hurt LGBT people. I mean, we have to be willing to say that. The other side has no problem outlining what they consider to be the stakes, as crazy as they think they are:

“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”

“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

I'm glad that No on 8 is raising a lot of money, and that high-profile Californians like Maria Shriver are on board. But at some point in this final week, someone has to break this down. This is about harming same-sex couples.

Total Sleaze - Not Just For John McCain Anymore!

I've been focused on the ugliness of the McCain campaign and their attack ads, mailers and robocalls. But I don't want to discount the efforts of any of his GOP allies.

Like Rep. Tom Feeney, who claims that his opponent Suzanne Kosmas basically let Mohammed Atta into the country in his latest ad ("She wanted driver's licenses for illegals and terrorists.")

Or Rep. Scott Garrett, who connects his opponent, Dennis Shulman, to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please note: Shulman is a RABBI.

Or Sen. Elizabeth Dole, whose latest mailer claims that her opponent Kay Hagan will force the Boy Scouts to go all gay.

I don't think there isn't a place for contrast advertising. Here's a very tough one - and a good one - from Judy Baker:



The difference is that Baker's ad connects her opponent to the very real consequences of his policies, whereas these other mailers simply use fear to distract and divide - fear of terrorists, fear of Muslims, fear of homosexuals.

I guess that when you're bracing for a blowout, fear is all you've got left.

Voter displeasure with the war and economy, coupled with Sen. Barack Obama's popularity, has the House GOP running for cover. Even though polls have shown that Americans don't like congressional Democrats any more, a new internal GOP tally of House races suggests a Democratic rout that could keep the Republicans in the minority for decades. A document provided to Washington Whispers from a House GOP official shows that they could lose a net 34 seats. That means the Democrats would have a 270-165 advantage in the 111th Congress. In the Senate, Republicans expect to lose also but to keep up to 44 seats, ensuring their ability to stage a filibuster.

Web Of Lies

The Yes On 8 team isn't hiding it anymore. Their entire argument for banning same-sex marriage has nothing to do with taking away the right of gay people to marry - if it was they'd straight-up lose. Instead, they are offering a whole array of residual effects, like claiming that this would force homosexuality to be taught in public schools (not true) and churches will lose their tax exemptions (not true) and your son will be forced at gunpoint to gay marry the neighbot boy (not true, and not what they're claiming, but it might as well be).

The entire point is to make people feel icky, to play to their base instincts, and to make it seem like a vote to ban the protected rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens is actually a vote to protect their own rights. It's Machiavellian and really ugly. The No side is fighting back, but I'm not sure their soft-pedal approach is really going to work.



I understand that they're walking a tightrope, and focusing on equality makes sense. But this is a weird meta-campaign where nobody is talking about the real issue, just their "feelings" and their faulty assumptions of what would never happen. Saying "the Yes on 8 ads are filled with lies" would be a start. This reassurance business might capture undecideds at the margins, but people need to know who the dirty tricksters are. How about a spot showing the 11,000 gay couples who have already married and ripping up their marriage licenses? How about some of these people calling out the lies and calling discrimination what it is?

There's a lot of concern right now. Two recent polls show Prop. 8 winning, though not over 50% yet. Their ads are having an effect and they have lots of money.

If you can, donate to No on 8 and give some of your time. Barack Obama may be important but our local community matters too. Pass around this ad from the Courage Campaign. Spread the word. We have to defeat this bill or else discrimination will be enshrined into our state constitution.

UPDATE: And the second after I write this, No on 8 puts out an ad calling out the lies. Good on them. Instant gratification!

The Faith Of Sarah Palin

The next President and the next Vice President of the United States could be Buddhists, Episcopalians, animists, Zoroastrians, agnostics, or worship a certain shade of green as long as they use sound judgment and the law to define their policy prescriptions. My concern is that Sarah Palin does not do so.

When Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin promised to lead the nation with a "servant's heart," evangelical Christians immediately recognized her as one of their own.

Whether before an audience of ministry students or on a national stage at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, the 44-year-old Palin speaks fluently about her faith, striking chords with phrases that evoke Christian virtue. Palin has called on people to pray for the cooperation necessary to build a natural gas pipeline across Alaska, labeled the U.S. mission in Iraq a "task that is from God" and argued that students should be taught the creation account from Genesis in public schools.

In a race where both presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, have tried to court religious voting blocs, Palin's introduction to the Republican ticket adds another dimension.

Just as McCain's politics are largely shaped by his experience as a prisoner of war and Obama's by his embrace of his racial identity, Palin's approach has been shaped by her relationship with God. Palin sees her government work as paling in comparison to a greater mission.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she said in June to ministry students at her former church. "But really, all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

I'm just never going to be OK with that. If your faith shapes your morality it's one thing. If you try to legislate your personal morality it's quite another. Palin has said that his goal as a public official is to follow God's will. She believes in a literal teaching of the Bible, and her current church seeks to convert gays away from homosexuality. They believe in spiritual warfare against the sinful. Her pastor has said that God is going to strike out His hand against America because of the fallen nature of Americans. This church is extremely radical and its teaching are not in step with a judicious handling of democratic institutions.

Many of Palin's beliefs mirror those of evangelical Christians. But Pentecostals occupy a distinct subset of evangelical Christianity. They believe they can be "baptized in the Holy Spirit" just as Jesus Christ's apostles were in the New Testament's Book of Acts. Gifts of the spirit include speaking in tongues, prophesy and faith healing.

The churches she has attended also embrace dispensation, a theological system that emphasizes man's dominion over the earth and the end times—theology that could potentially shape a believer's environmental and foreign policies.

We have endured eight years of this kind of end-times, Dominionist belief inside the White House. There's a difference between the faithful, the spiritual and what we are seeing out of the Wasilla Assembly of God. In the end, this comes back to McCain, who so needed the religious right to ramp up their phone banks and volunteer efforts that he sold his VP pick to the Christianists.

...and if you don't think this plays a role in public policy, take a look at this:

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt has proposed a new rule that will limit the rights of women to receive medically accurate information and treatment. The alleged goal of the rule is to protect the rights of health care workers, volunteers, and trainees. The result would be limited access to birth control and abortion for women all over the country - regardless of state law.

From CNN:

The rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

The comment period ends on September 25th. We have 19 days until this rule takes effect.

Read the entire thing.

Dowdification

It's high time that Maureen Dowd got slammed for her juvenile approach to politics, and her response was priceless:

“I’ve been twisting gender stereotypes around for 24 years,” Dowd responded. She said nobody had objected to her use of similar images about men over seven presidential campaigns. She often refers to Barack Obama as “Obambi” and has said he has a “feminine” management style. But the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton — in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1 — left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed, even though, as Dowd noted, she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective [...]

“From the time I began writing about politics,” Dowd said, “I have always played with gender stereotypes and mined them and twisted them to force the reader to be conscious of how differently we view the sexes.” Now, she said, “you are asking me to treat Hillary differently than I’ve treated the male candidates all these years, with kid gloves.”

Aulisio, the reader who wanted a review of Times coverage, asked if a man could have gotten away with writing what Dowd wrote. Rosenthal said that if the man had written everything Dowd had written over the years and established himself as a sardonic commentator on the sexes, “I’d say the answer is yes.”

Of course, there is no such man, and I do not think another one could have used Dowd’s language. Even she, I think, by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season.

It's simply not true that "nobody" had objected. Here's conscientious objector number one. And excusing your own ridiculous behavior by saying that "why, I also feminized and degraded Democratic MEN for a long time too!" is barely even worth a response. Dowd, who ought to be writing Harlequin romances and summer paperbacks instead of having any impact on the American political scene, is absolutely toxic to intelligent thought in this country. She's very useful to those who seek to divide every election, who want a relentless focus on psychobabble and stereotypes instead of solutions and answers. To anyone with a brain she is a cancer.

It took putting an actual female in the race to make anyone notice just how offensive her sexist caricatures really were. But they've always been offensive --- and they've always been right in lock step with that stupid "mommy party/daddy party" crapola the wingnuts put to good use whenever they want to make Democrats look weak [...]

Again, the question isn't whether she should have treated Clinton any differently. It's that her entire worldview is toxic, both culturally and politically. She uses explicitly sexist and homophobic imagery that favors traditional authoritarian leadership to explain politics. She gets away with it because she has a rapier wit and is a physically beautiful person, thus insulating herself from the kind of criticism others would receive for writing this crud. But in truth she's a walking anachronism, more like a character in Mad Men than a modern sophisticate.

She is considered by many to be the top political columnist in the country (and her columns are often the most emailed articles in the Times.) Certainly she is Village Royalty. And that is undoubtedly one reason why people like Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson felt that it was perfectly acceptable to say the things they said during this campaign. She's their misogymuse.

I'm not sure that Dowd has the same cachet among the public anymore, but entering the D.C. Village is like going to that small town where you flip on the radio and they're playing "new music from a band called The Who." Their antiquated worldview and anachronistic sense of who's important and vital is crippling democracy at the knees. And of course in many ways that's the goal.

America's Worst Op-Ed Page

Beyond David Broder, beyond George Will, beyond Robert Novak, beyond David Ignatius, beyond Richard Cohen, and beyond the straw that stirs the drink Fred Hiatt (I'm sure I'm missing some of the other illustrious luminaries), the Washington Post also publishes Kathleen Parker, who this week pondered whether Barack Obama had the proper "blood equity" to be President, and then decided John Edwards and Obama were gay for each other. Bradrocket had the definitive takedown of that mess.

It’s tough to list all the things that make this column so mind-crushingly stupid, but let’s give it a shot:

• Parker begins the column by calling Edwards and Obama fags.

• Then, not having the courage to stand by this novel and poignant insight, she claims that it wasn’t her idea to call them fags, but was instead the idea of one of Edwards’ advisers. But hey, they’re still gay homo fruits who like to take it up the homobutt.

• Next, she pulls out the oldest trick in the Wingnut Punditry Bible: she lectures us about what Real Americans think! Never mind that she’s spent her entire working life on the Wingnut Welfare circuit - she’s got her hand on the pulse of The People, baby!

• And what do Real Americans think, you ask? Why, they’re apparently super-duper happy about the state of the country! Even though, like, 85% of them are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. And even though Bush’s approval rating stands at a sterling 28%. And even though the Republicans just lost a goddamn seat in freaking Mississippi.

To sum up: the WaPo just published a fact-free op-ed whose only “substantive” points are that Edwards and Obama are TEH GHEY OMG LOL IT IS TOO FUNNY FOREVER.

This is why I don't read op-ed pages, and yet the WaPo's "Makes Me Want To Commit Self-Murder"ers Row is so astonishingly bad that you can't help but hear about it.

Guiding Light Would Reject This Script

It looked like the Vito Fossella story was pretty standard - a politician has an affair with a woman while in Washington, and has a kid with her. This has been happening since Washington became Washington. But there were a few notable twists in this tale.

First of all, not only did the wife not know about the mistress, but the mistress didn't know about the wife:

Vito Fossella's admission that he fathered a love child exposed another of his lies: He had told his girlfriend he was separated from his wife, the Daily News learned Friday.

Retired Air Force Col. Laura Fay told those around her recently that the Staten Island congressman had split with his wife, Mary Pat, one source said.

"Fay thought - up until the release of the statement - that Fossella was separated," said the source, who is familiar with the relationship.

The source said Fay learned of the lie when a friend who saw a draft of Fossella's statement realized it didn't say he was separated.

So the wife might leave him AND the mistress might leave him. One person that isn't leaving is ... Vito Fossella.

Reports that Rep. Vito Fossella’s (R-N.Y.) resignation is imminent are incorrect, according to the lawmaker’s public relations firm.

A spokesperson at O'Reilly Strategic Communications told The Hill that Fossella has no public appearances planned this weekend and that he spent Friday with his family on Staten Island.

I know I'll go big-time when my own public relations firm talks to the media to deny rumors.

Meanwhile, it turns out that this guy is 31 flavors of hypocrite:

Vito Fossella built a career as a staunch "family values" pol, polishing his image in his predominantly Catholic district with a string of anti-gay votes.

He even shuns his gay sister, Victoria Fossella, refusing to go to family events if she and her partner attend, a source close to the family said [...]

As congressman, Fossella voted to prohibit any funding for joint adoptions by gay couples.

He has voted for the Marriage Protection Amendment, a federal prohibition on gay marriage.

He also demanded housing funds be held back from San Francisco unless it repealed its domestic partnership law.

Victoria Fossella is openly gay and marched in Staten Island's gay pride parade with her partner, according to an article published in Gay City News.

She adopted twins who were delivered by her partner, according to the story.

"She is known in the gay community and she is known in the gay community as an out lesbian," Adrian said.

The guy's so into the family values thing that he shuns his own sister, and yet he goes ahead and lies to everyone in his life and believes so much in the sanctity of marriage that he holds down two families (that makes him TWICE the marriage defender!).

Wow, what an a-hole.

I Wish I Knew How To Force John Gibson To Quit

I'm not easily offended, but I'm trying to find the "joke" in Fox News host John Gibson's remarks about the death of Heath Ledger:

Playing an audio clip of the iconic quote, “I wish I knew how to quit you” from Ledger’s gay romance movie Brokeback Mountain, Gibson disdainfully quipped, “Well, he found out how to quit you.” Laughing, Gibson then played another clip from Brokeback Mountain in which Ledger said, “We’re dead,” followed by his own, mocking “We’re dead” before playing the clip again.

When did John Gibson become a shock jock? And why is anyone still paying him?

Kind of a Side-Bounce Flip-Flop

Yesterday, Mitt Romney's advisor, former Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri, decided to one-up the Republican conventional wisdom that we all must fear the terrorists, by saying that we all must fear the gay terrorists.

He’s always had the same position as to regards to the gay agenda. Look, he wants to know people to know he values gay people as people, okay? But he doesn’t want the militant gays to be able to change the cultural institutions of the country.

But then today, Romney said that he loves the President. Granted, it's probably in a biblically and heterosexually proper way, but...

“We’re a nation united that stands behind our fighting men and women. We honor them and respect them,” Romney said at a conference center here. “We love what they’ve done for us, and we also love a president who has kept us safe these last six years.”

I want to live in a country where a man like Romney can love a President without experiencing official discrimination in the form of anti-gay marriage amendments... like the one Romney supports. That's all I'm saying.

Punk'd

Rudy Giuliani got thrashed yesterday on Meet the Press, and what was significant to me was that Tim Russert needed two or three other full hours to get to all of the subjects worthy of discussion to put Giuliani on the hot seat. This is a year out from the general election, and there's just too much out there on Rudy right now, so much that you might consider it a deliberate strategy to confuse everyone. I mean, Russert couldn't even get into the unbelievable dishonesty of Rudy's ads (of course, that's not what Russert does; he doesn't measure politicians up against the truth, he measures them up against their own statements). But what did get said was enough.

Russert prosecuted the famed prosecutor, enumerating one Giuliani scandal after another. All Rudy could do was giggle. He reminded me of that ancient clip in which Bobby Kennedy grilled some miscreant at a Senate hearing and the bad guy laughed at every question. Bobby finally said: "Are you going to tell us anything or just giggle? I thought only little girls giggled?." Sexist, yes (it was 1959).

But it destroyed the giggly witness.

That was Rudy yesterday. All giggles and deer-in-the-headlights terror.

And with good reason. There are no good (or any) answers to the questions Russert posed about "Driving Miss Judy," Giuliani and Associates' client list, Bernard Kerik, etc etc.

And Russert didn't even ask about the priest-rapist on Rudy's staff.

Like I said, there wasn't enough time.

And another scandal popped up DURING the show, when Rudy decided to alienate a full subset of the population.

Giuliani, who appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," said he did not believe homosexuality was aberrant. What is sinful are "the acts, not the orientation."

I know this is the position of the Catholic church, but let's get real; it's a dodge. It means that you are repulsed by gay people and consider their behavior to be sinful. It's like saying you don't have a problem with murderers, just the murder. Would Rudy admit to that very Christian position? Of course not, such a thing is only OK when hating the gay.

Further, it turns out that Giuliani's firm, which he still draws a salary from, was hired by the utility industry to lobby against the addition of a renewable energy standard in the Congressional federal energy bill. The ethically compromised nature of the campaign continues.

The Gay Card To Teh Rescue!

Ernie Fletcher is going to lose his governor's seat in Kentucky today. He's a hopelessly corrupt Republican, and Steve Beshear is a decent Democrat. The country is changing and they will not stand for a governor who has to pardon most of his top staff to keep them out of jail.

In attempting to save the election, Fletcher is returning to the last refuge of a scoundrel - calling Beshear a queer lover.

Someone in Kentucky has resorted to an almost certainly illegal campaign tactic in today's election for governor. A new robocall has gone out purporting to be from Fairness.org — the Web site of the Fairness Campaign, an actual gay rights organization in Kentucky — speaking with pride about the strong support of "the homosexual lobby" for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Steve Beshear.

"Beshear is receiving major support from out-of-state gay activists and has publicly committed to same-gender relationships," the man on the call says.

The Fairness Campaign has denied any part in the calls, and is urging people who have received the calls to report it to the authorities.

That is all they've got left. Republicans who have proven that they can't govern can only demagogue on hate. It's not going to work today. This is not only illegal, it's craven.

First Rule Of Politics

You pay off your closeted gay sex bills first:

A Republican state legislator from southwest Washington had sex with a man he met at an erotic video store and then told police he had been targeted in an extortion attempt, according to police documents released Tuesday.

State Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, who on Monday declared, "I have not had sex with a guy," told police he was the victim in an extortion attempt by Cody Castagna at the posh Davenport Tower hotel on Oct. 26, search warrant documents said.

Castagna, 26, of nearby Medical Lake, told police that Curtis, 48, agreed to pay him $1,000 for sex, then reneged on the promise. Police reports also said witnesses told them Curtis dressed in women's lingerie at the erotic store, and records showed Curtis purchased two gay pornographic films from the hotel to watch with Castagna.

One thing about these gay Republicans that recurs again and again is just terrible MONEY MANAGEMENT. First there was the guy who offered $20 AND the blow job (dude, it's the other way around), and now this guy pulls the old bait-and-switch, as well as offering to wildly overpay for gay sex, I would imagine. I mean, if blowjobs are in the $20 range, can the price possibly go up 50 fold for the full Monty?

Oh, and in case you're wondering - he's self-loathing.

In 2005 and 2006, Curtis voted against a bill that granted civil rights protections to gays and lesbians.

In 2007, Curtis voted against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

Really, at this point, it would be easier, for counting purposes, to label the anti-gay Republicans who AREN'T gay.

UPDATE: He's resigned now. To spend more time with his lingerie.

The Politics of "I Hope You Didn't Hear That"

The conclusion of the Obama campaign gospel concert with anti-gay activist Donnie McClurkin was ugly.

The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.

He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.

“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support....

Mr. McClurkin’s support for Mr. Obama could signal to some black evangelical voters that race and religion are more important than Mr. Obama’s support for gay rights.

And the gay preacher brought in to represent the other side, I guess, said a short prayer, said nothing about his sexual orientation, and left.

Well, Barack achieved his purpose - signaling that he's "one of you guys" to black evangelicals. I wonder if it was worth it to sell out an entire class of Americans.

Hey Barack, Where's The Leadership?

I haven't been paying too much attention to this Barack Obama/Donnie McClurkin flare-up, but from what I know Obama is just digging his own grave. McClurkin, a black preacher who is viciously anti-gay, is part of a gospel concert organized by the Obama folks in South Carolina (I guess with little vetting). Outrage began on the blogs and then the Human Rights Campaign condemned his campaign. Obama's people were reluctant to drop McClurkin from the event, tried to build grassroots support to shut the HRC up, and finally decided to have an openly gay minister open the gospel sessions. Thing is, the minister is white, which is making many unhappy.

This move is sure to piss off almost everybody, except HRC [the Human Rights Campaign], who apparently brokered the deal. Obama won't win any new black votes by getting a white gay guy to speak at a black event. Especially when there are plenty of black straight people, black gay people, families of black gay people, and friends of black gay people who could have been chosen to speak.

I have been following the reaction in the black gay community, and many but not all of the commenters are outraged by the decision. It was bad enough that McClurkin was invited in the first place, but it only adds insult to injury to ignore the longstanding concerns of the black gay community by not talking to people in the black gay community themselves. And if someone had to be invited, why not invite someone in the black gay community? Or why not invite a black mother of a gay or lesbian child? Or a local black pastor who supports the full inclusion of gays and lesbians?

The worst of it was this letter explaining his position, written by supporters.

Pastor McClurkin believes and has stated things about sexual orientation that are deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially to gay Americans. This cannot and should not be denied.

At the same time, a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs. This also cannot be ignored.

I see, the new purpose of a leader is to acknowledge injustice and allow it to fester instead of fighting it.

This is indicative of the entire Obama campaign. He has a good speechwriter, but he is hardly a leader. Martin Luther King wouldn't have said "Hey, you can't ignore that black people hate gay people, that's just how things are." He would have worked to change it, not through accomodation.

Those of us who don't want to re-run the 90s for various reasons by keeping the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty intact need to find a way to merge Obama's campaign dollars, Edwards' rhetoric, Richardson's view on residual forces and Dodd's courage into some uber-candidate as we head into Iowa. But really, all Obama is good for right now is his cash. This is just deplorable.

Shorter America

When a former pro basketball player says that he hates gay people, it's a major problem. When the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the same thing, no big whoop.