Posts with the tag gay rights

Civil & Equal Rights in the Obama-Biden Administration

Freethinker — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:13:54 EST

As you will see, both equal rights and civil rights are of great importance to the Obama-Biden Administration and to the Democratic Party, as opposed to the George W. Bush eight year long Administration from hell, full of hate, bigotry, holier-than-thouism, discrimination, intolerance, dogma, doctrine, ignorance and "tradition". - Freethinker

Three Facts about Barack Obama and Civil Rights

Barack Obama will combat employment discrimination:
Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails women’s and racial minorities' ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
Strengthen civil rights enforcement:
Obama and Biden will reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. They will put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division.
Expand hate crime statutes:
Obama and Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

In this Section

Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement
Combat Employment Discrimination
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
End Deceptive Voting Practices
End Racial Profiling
Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support
Eliminate Sentencing Disparities
Expand Use of Drug Courts

Justice, Equality for Gays and Lesbians

reispace — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:28:11 EDT

If not now, when?

If not us, who?

Is it not time, Mr. President, to speak forcefully and follow up with meaningful actions? How much longer must we wait? Our patience runs thin!!!

SO OBAMA DEFENDS GAY RIGHTS? Ahh NO he doesn't

John from Durham, NC — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:08:09 EDT

So here I am with an Organizing for America log-in and I've supported EVERY SINGLE (EVERY SINGLE) agenda item the Obama administration has backed. Signed petitions, written congressmen and senators ad nauseum and even placed phone calls to them. I've been called obnoxious and overbearing by friends in my support of President Obama.

So I'm a little confused as a GAY AMERICAN why DOMA has recently been defended in a recent legal brief filed by the Justice Department in language that is so offensive to me and the Gay community that it well could have been written by Jerry Fawell or Pat Roberts. I can't say how upset I am with this and I DEMAND ... DEMAND immediate action to begin the process of elminiating don't ask don't tell in the military and a retraction of all the language used in this recent brief from the supposed good guys in the Obama Justice Department. Whose side are you really on here?

Sorry Mr. President. Until this happened I was willing to be patient. But now I'm not willing to be patient. You brag about being able to walk and chew gum at the same time so it's time to walk faster on this unfulfilled campaign promise.

Don't deceive yourselves here. We in the Gay Community will loose patience and we will cut our noses off despite our faces in other areas of support for your programs if you go back on your word on this fundamental and so far ignored civil liberties issue.

We expected this from George Bush and the reaction was disappointment and anger but hey it was George Bush. But to get this from you and your Justice Department has me outraged and enraged.

When are we going to see action? When?

MAJOR Disappointment

Sandi from Linn Creek, MO — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:56:42 EDT

Having followed this man from the third time I heard him speak. 19 1/2 months on his team. Posters, buttons, bumper stickers, signs! Telling everyone who would listen, and a few who didn't want to. I could not, at this moment be more ashamed of my choice!

Refusing to prosecute those responsible for breaking our constitution, our International treaties, our laws, and our morals. Even when those persons are all over the media BRAGGING about their role in torturing prisoners.

Refusing to close our borders, do something about illegals, and doing NOTHING to stop the ever-increasing flow of drugs & criminal elements across our borders. You'll notice Canada just closed their Southern border, IMHO because the USA won't close ours!

Targeting specific groups of people for higher taxes. Yes, I not only speak of the business owners in this country, but also of smokers (which yes, I am one). While at the same time, refusing to target alcohol sales, which not only cause as many health problems, but I have NEVER known someone to smoke a cigarette, then get behind the wheel of a vehicle & wipe out an entire family on their way home from Grandma's. No, of course not! That might interfere with the weekly cocktail parties at the White House the Obamas have gotten so fond of.

Bailouts of the Auto Industry, with strings attached. While at the same time Wall Street & the banks take BILLIONS with no questions asked.

And now this!!!! Don't ask, Don't tell. Choi & Fehrebach. Both decorated war HEROES, and both dismissed for their choice. Fehrebach after 18 years risking life & limb, only to be thrown under Obama's bus. The Pentagon CROWING about not having any plans to change their reprehensible ideals.

SHAME ON YOU OBAMA! We expect to have campaign promises broken. But Mr. Obama, I must say, I think you've set the World's Land Speed Record in turning into just another stinking politician! And I am |----------| this close to throwing my support to ANYONE running against you in 2012!

The Gay Rights Movement, and Church/State Separation

Arch — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:54:57 EDT

When the California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, many of the more conservative districts decided on a solution. Since the courts were stating that, in order to offer hetero-sexual marriages, they had to offer homo-sexual as well; they decided not to offer any marriages. I agreed with that sentiment; albeit on very different grounds, as I will explain. 

Conservatives, particularly the religious right, like to think this is a simple issue. They like to quote Judeo-Christian values, and Bible scriptures condemning the immorality of homosexuality as a defense against the Gay Rights Movement. Unfortunately, while I agree personally with their assessments from a spiritual standpoint, their arguments do not hold a lot of water in a Constitutional debate. In fact, if they continue down this course of maintaining marriage as a state institution, but mandate a requirement that it is for hetero-sexual couples only, they are a threat to themselves; and they will lose this fight. 

If the government decrees, either through judicial review or legislation, that gay marriage must be protected as an equal right; then since marriage is a state institution, they will have legal justification to require churches to marry homosexuals or be penalized for discrimination. However, if marriage is seen as simply a religious observance; it can be stripped from the state entirely, and the churches will have the right to marry whomever they want. In the case regarding these conservative districts in California, this was the more constitutionally-sound way to go. The only way for the religious right to keep marriage as between a man and a woman is to completely take the state out of the picture. Basically, the government should not have the right to marry anyone, period. 

I realize that, for some, this is an emotially-charged issue. Many hold very conservative religious views regarding homosexuality, and I am one of them in that regard. Unfortunately, the Bible, or any religious text, is not admissable in a US court of law as a valid argument for or against in a political debate. This is a fact. Having said that, I am of the opinion that the Gay Rights Movement is right on constitutional grounds. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, they can not discriminate because certain couples do not live a certain lifestyle condoned by a certain religion. 

In addition, I want to set the record straight in regards to hate-crimes legislation. I understand the intent; and I do feel that the far right is exaggerating this a bit. However, I am wary of the slippery slope we are on. There are some on the far left that believe a pastor or priest who condemns homosexuality from the pulpit is somehow committing a hate crime. I disagree. Because of freedom of speech, as well as religion, they should have the same equal protections under the law as the KKK Grand Master who preaches his hate of the Negro. I am not equating these two. I am simply stating that they should have the same protections under the Constitution; and in regards to religious sermons, even moreso. 

Again, the religious right needs to heed some caution in regards to how they fight these things. Quoting the founding fathers as being pro-Judeo/Christian values being legislated from the government is an innacurate and ignorant depiction of what transpired when this nation was created. The Constitutional Convention was extremely heated in regards to religion's influence in our government; and the belief that our founding fathers were in unity on this is intellectually dishonest. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed religion's influence adamantly, in debate and action; and it was of much controversy even at that time. Our government, at the beginning, supported a very strict separation of church and state which could not be any more demonstrated than in regards to their reactions to the treaty signed between the United States and the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli, in 1796. 

The treaty included in its wording the statement that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." When the treaty was presented to Senate for ratification in May of 1797, it was read in its entirety. There were 23 Senators present at this reading. There was no debate over the treaty, and no documented statements criticizing it. When the votes were counted; the treaty was ratified unanimously. John Adams then signed it into law on June 10, 1797 without a word decrying the use of this sentence. I am not arguing that John Adams or the US Senate at the time of this treaty were not Christians. On the contrary, I am simply stating that the separation of church and state was essentially worn into the fabric of the responsibilities of our government. 

In conclusion, I must hold the position that, in spite of my own religious convictions regarding God's view of the immorality of homosexuality, the most powerful enemy of those who wish to keep marriage between one man and one woman is the United States Constitution itself. The Gay Rights Movement's position on this issue is constitutionally sound. The only solution would be to have no secular observance of marriage at the state level; and simply delegate marriage as a religious sacrament the equivalent of baptism or ordination. Anything less than this will only breed a new battle; as the government will be obligated by law to combat discrimination against any organization, religious or otherwise, who refuses to participate and recognize same-sex unions. 

MF

Stephen Views the News April 9, 2009

Stephen from Elkins Park, PA — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:49:04 EDT

Stephen Views the News April 9, 2009

http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/

* Fashion News ~ enough of politics, economics, war and unemployment – The more important question is, “How was Michelle Obama’s couture received in Europe?” At least three times the FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States) wore the designs of lesser known designer Jason Wu. Can you imagine? Women’s Wear Daily asks where the love has gone for big name designers like Donna Karan, Calvin Klein, and Ralph Lauren.

Iconic fashion designer Oscar de la Renta took off the Gucci kidskin gloves to assess Michele’s choice of wardrobe. "American fashion right now is struggling." Concerning the outfit worn to meet Queen Elizabeth he said, “You don't...go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater.”

Well-known designer Vera Wang offered less edginess in her observations and more pleading: "I love seeing young designers and their vision and how they grow and all of that," she says. "On the other hand, of course, I wish she would consider some of us, because I think we also have contributions to make."

Liberal blogger and author Arianna Huffington, appearing on CBS, offered this observation: "Even if you don't terribly like that particular outfit," she said of Mrs. Obama's fashion sense, "you know it is what she loves and what she looks good in."

Progressive blogger Stephen Weinstein noted, in an interview with himself, that he was not crazy about the black coat Mrs. Obama wore with the purple stuff all over it.

* Hot Toddy replaces Scotch on the Rocks - “Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be gone in 30 years. A change in the amount of ice is important because the white surface reflects sunlight back into space… When ice is replaced by dark ocean water, that sunlight can be absorbed, warming the water and increasing the warming of the planet.” Also disappearing is the common sense of global warming deniers. Just because Fargo got two feet of snow does not mean the planet is not warming. The dynamics are apparently too complicated for the agenda-driven and scientifically challenged. The next thing they will be telling us is that evolution is a sham.

* Keeping abreast of trends – The swelling numbers of enhanced breasts that dominate television, cinema, magazines, fashion and pop culture is perhaps a metaphor for the U.S. in the early years of the 21st Century. Victoria’s Secret is no longer a secret. Phoniness has become de rigueur both in leadership and feminine allure. The inflexibility and grandiosity of the manufactured female breast is representational of much of our society – more pump than circumstance.

* Speaking of breasts – National Cleavage Day was celebrated on April 3rd, thanks to the initiative of the makers of Wonderbra. I look forward to the day when Jockey will produce miracle under ware for men, such as a MrWonderThong. In any case, Wonderbra brand manager Samantha Paterson said, "It gives women a chance to be beautiful and glow in the furtive, yet appreciative, glances their cleavage evokes from men." The last time I looked my furtive glances were not especially appreciated but, in support of this national day of pride, I remained furtive, committed and focused.

* A fading American trait ~ Integrity – This is a societal issue that runs broad and deep. We are experiencing a period where money and power have trumped and overwhelmed the common good and a sense of community. At every level of government investigations and corruption convictions dominate the news. Police corruption and abuse stain the landscape with regularity. In Pennsylvania two judges of Juvenile Court accepted bribes from the operators of juvenile detention centers. The judges encouraged accused youths to forgo legal representation and then found the youths guilty, resulting in incarceration. The FBI is so burdened by a broad range of investigations that they are overwhelmed. We look down upon Mexico and many other countries for the corruption that has rotted their political and legal systems but shrug at what is taking place in our own country. Oh well.

* Equality – The word has always been synonymous with America but for many it has also been an antonym. African Americans and Gays can attest to this reality. The good news is that gains have been made and these gains are marshalling momentum. The election of Barack Obama did not obliterate racial prejudice but certainly can be seen as a milestone. Three very recent events will be of import for gay rights. The Supreme Court of Iowa validated legal rights for gay relationships as did the legislature of Vermont which overrode their Governor’s veto of legislation recognizing gay marriage. The D.C. Council voted to recognize other states’ gay marriages. The religious right has every right to advise its members on sexuality. It has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens who choose a different course. That is the heart of freedom and one of the many reasons why we have separation of church and state. As former Prime Minister of Great Britain Tony Blair said in a recent interview about gay rights, “Equality isn't political correctness, it's just justice.”

* Not a good week for the religious right ~ and that is good news – First their eyeballs were spinning with the news from Iowa and Vermont concerning gay marriage. This was capped by the President of the United States having the “audacity” to say in a speech in Turkey that America is a secular nation. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama must have read the U.S. Constitution.

Today the Obamas are hosting the first Seder ever held at the White House. The Passover holiday dinner remembers the Jewish exodus from slavery under Pharaoh over 3000 years ago. Yes we can in this country recognize each others religious beliefs while not imposing one group’s beliefs upon another. “Diversity” is not a four-letter word, nor is “respect.”

A reader forwarded a YouTube Video “20 Things To Do With Matzah” for those challenged with leftovers.

* Self-Euthanasia – May I take your order please? – MSNBC listed “The 19 worst drive-thru foods in America.” I was especially impressed with Hardee's Monster Thickburger. The sandwich contains 1420 calories, 108 grams of fat of which 43 grams are saturated fat, 2770 mg of salt and 230 mg of cholesterol. Put in perspective it is the caloric equivalent of 6 McDonalds hamburgers, the saturated fat of 43 strips of Oscar Mayer bacon, and the sodium equivalent of 84 saltine crackers. As we say in the fast food business, “Have It Your Way.”

* Warts that won’t go away – Former VP Dick Cheney recently made the media rounds where he had the opportunity to again preach about the justification of torture. He continued to emphasize its value in protecting Americans. We have heard this theme from other former Bush administration players as well as some Republican congressmen and right-wing media miscreants. Having closely followed this circus of situational ethics I have yet to hear of one instance where the use of torture saved one American life. You can bet your ass that if weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq we would know about it. You can make a similar bet that if a terrorist plot against America was thwarted because of information garnered from the use of torture it would have made headlines for days. It may be human nature to believe your own lies but it is neither good foreign policy nor moral.

* Call me proud, Mr. President – It has been quite a while since the leader of our country was welcomed with open arms, applauded and respected in a foreign venue. On his just-ended visit to Europe President Obama, our representative to the world, spoke in complete sentences. He answered unplanted questions openly. He renewed the concept of diplomacy and international cooperation. The last U.S. President’s foreign policy was predicated on megalomania, nation building and myopic militarism. The current challenges are more daunting because of previous policy but the possibility of resolution has substantially increased. The Progress Report reviews the substantive accomplishments of Obama’s European trip. Call me proud and hopeful.

* “You don't...go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater.” Oscar de la Renta

My Story

Shannon from Birmingham, AL — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:04:52 EST

I am a 31 year old student, full-time worker and gay. I cannot seem to make ends meet most months especially when mishaps take place. I am working hard for a degree that will allow me to serve my country to the best of my ability. However, my country does not seem to care about me.

I voted for Obama/ Biden in hopes for change. All I have seen are the same ole Washington cronies being announced to fill cabinet places. I have watched this ticket vote for a stimulus plan that would have worked better if the money would have been invested into the infrastructure of this country to create more jobs. This ticket simply gave a man a fish to eat for a day instead of teaching the man to fish so he could eat for a lifetime.

I truly want change but in order to change, we have to implement it, not pretend we believe in it. I want to believe in this man, and I know he holds the weight of the world on his shoulders, but you cannot change Washington by implementing failed packages and politicians of the past.

I am a homosexual. According to my government I have no more rights than my cat or dog. I want that to change. I want a tax break, I want to claim head of household, because I am! I want to marry, and have legal rights to my partner. After All, someone fought extremely hard for this man of color to even be able to be nominated for president!

OBAMA Administration: Equal Rights for All

LDoza — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:36:00 EST

This is the content of the Whitehouse Civil Rights platform, as posted on January 21, 2009. Currently, on this site, which is a holdover of discussions before the election of November 4, these were not spelled out. They are now, and we will hold this Administration to answer for them.

Support for the LGBT Community

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

Why it is Time to Organize a Demo At the Inauguration!

Keith — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:40:22 EST

I'm already feeling a change and it isn't the one I wanted. I'm hearing and reading from others how they're already beginning to feel disillusioned with Barack Obama because of his decision to elevate hate at the upcoming inauguration. I say no way, no how will this victory be stolen from those of us who are looking to this new President to lead this country back to the course we must be on to fulfill our obligations to each other and the world. But just like Obama told us, we can't rely on just his rhetoric, his appointments, and his decisions. We must also participate in the change and with that in mind, I'm looking for like-minded individuals who want to find an organized way to express our outrage during the inauguration about the decision to include hatemonger Rick Warren.

I am very disappointed with the Rick Warren invitation, but I am not ready to write Obama off -- far from it. Instead I want to essentially follow his repeated calls to get more fully engaged. Had this been a policy decision I would not have been as surprised. After all, Obama ran opposed to gay marriage. Instead, and most perplexing, Obama chose to do this -- offend gay Americans and their friends and family -- over a strictly symbolic matter and sometimes symbols can be exceedingly important. This is one of those times. The man was elected because enough voters were swayed by his argument that the time for divisiveness was over. The very survival of the nation being at stake -- so we had to set aside things like the culture wars and deal with the fundamentals of national security, economics and environment. I totally agree with that premise.

However, elevating a hatemonger to deliver a prayer on the stage at the nation's big day is a symbol of exactly the opposite: that we're not really setting aside those culture wars. Instead we're lending them more credibility. Just as I would not have expected Obama to select Gene Robinson (the openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church Diocese of New Hampshire) to deliver this prayer, so I would have assumed his choice would have been any number of clergy who have a far less public profile of the culture war issues such as gay marriage, abortion rights and stem cell research (all actively opposed by Rick Warren).

While I hope the invitation will somehow be rescinded, having already made my plans to attend the swearing in, I and many other like-minded citizens need to prepare now for an organized action while the whole world is watching. Rarely will gay activists and their supporters have such an incredible stage to show ourselves and discuss our issues. For those of you who believe that doing anything like this on the occasion of the swearing in of our nation's first bi-racial President could be a PR disaster for us, I disagree. We can be forceful and respectful, especially if we plan this in advance. Those who agree that hatemongers should not be elevated in our society in this way need to have a way to express themselves right then, right there during the ceremony.

Having made my own personal case for organizing, I'd like to hear from others and especially get some ideas on what could be done in Washington at the Mall during the ceremony and/or the parade that follows. I'm sure many of you will write about how wrong this is as a strategy, but this blog is about taking a pro-active stand to speak out at the inauguration, not about debating whether we should be silent. As they once shouted in the Reagan years at ACT UP demo's, "Silence equals death." And this queen is silent no more!

Courage Campaign Comments for My (Former) Hero Barack Obama

Joan from Santa Monica, CA — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:41:57 EST

As this is my first posting, I'll introduce myself: I am a retired art museum librarian, a grandmother with three children and five grandsons married to my husband for 42 years. I have three gay people in my family, so I am especially sensitive to the insults of people like Rick Warren, of whose ministry I have been aware for several years. (Yes, I'm aware of his opinions about the environment, the poor, etc. It doesn't ameliorate his abusive and wrong comments about gays.) I was shocked to find out yesterday that Barack Obama, whom I have supported since Fall 2006 because of his healing leadership, has chosen Rick Warren to present the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. Warren is a man who has made very clear his disdain for the gay community and there is no way Mr. Obama can select Warren for this prominent national exposure without sending a clear message of uncaring to gays, their families, and friends.

I've just posted the following comment within a petition to Rick Warren on the Courage Campaign website. I repeat it below in hopes that Barack Obama or a close associate may read it and consider either withdrawing the invitation or asking Warren to decline it. Obama has really disappointed me terribly in asking this very devisive figure to appear and lead a prayer at his inauguration. I supported you, Mr. Obama, primarily because of the sense that you could bring people together. I understand that you want to listen to what Rick Warren has to say--even that you think all of us should listen to what he has to say--in a less significant forum. But Rick Warren, by publicly equating homosexuality with pedophilia, polygamy, and incest, cannot be representative of the kind of leader--religious or not--to whom you would lend such prominence. I was looking forward to watching the inauguration on TV. Having to see and hear Rick Warren take part in it has completely spoiled it for me. I'm not exaggerating. Here's what I wrote to Warren:

To Rick Warren: I respect your opinion about "marriage," though I don't agree with it. But I can't respect someone who equates gay people with practitioners of pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. Look around you, Mr. Warren. Some of your "best friends"--or parishoners--are undoubtedly gay, and even if they aren't your friends, they deserve to have equal rights--including marriage--under the law. Marriage is not just a religious custom; it is a civil custom and can be performed between atheists as well as people of faith. Shame on Barack Obama (whom I supported strongly) for including you in such a significant national ceremony, intended for ALL Americans. Since some of your right-wing supporters are also against your inclusion in the inauguration, I believe the best thing for everyone would be for you to decline Mr. Obama's invitation.

Rick Warren? You Gotta Be Kidding!

Andrew from Bayside, NY — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:03:10 EST

I am going to the Inauguration. I WAS planning to be there to celebrate. Now I am going to protest.

I thought this was about bringing us together. When I heard, "There is no black America, no white America, no gay America, no straight America, there is only The United States of America!", I believed it. I stood up and cheered.

I was ready to change, to move beyond identity politics, ready to be a part of healing the divisions that have plagued this country for so long. I knew that it would not be a smooth ride. I accepted that the new President would not always do what I wanted him to do. It's a big country, with many strong cross-currents.

Even when the voters of California took away my civil rights and told me I was a second-class citizen, even though it hurt and angered me, I was willing to move on.

But when my leader chose, at the moment of his ascension to the highest office, to honor a proponent of division, hate and discrimination, that's when i lost it. The inauguration of a president means something. It is a symbolic moment. The symbol now is tarnished. The moment will be tainted.

I will be there. I was planning to celebrate. Now I will protest.

AN OPEN LETTER TO BARACK ABOUT RICK WARREN

hindy — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:06:40 EST

Dear Barack:

You have so admirably stated on a number of occaisions, that you will admit to mistakes when you make them. Well, you've just made your first huge blunder by selecting a right wing Christian Fundamentalist preacher Rick Warren, (who has no respect for Gays, women's rights to choose or science) to preside religiously over your innauguration. This is also a man who believes that the only way to obtain a ticket to heaven is through a belief in Jesus Christ. In otherwords many Americans that voted for you - according to this religious moron - are destined for Hell.

You have not only offended Gays with this choice. You have offended people like myself who supported you because I was fed up with the hijacking of the US by the religious right, their retrograde chauvinism and narrow xenophobic concept of God. This man may appearn more moderate on other issues such as poverty and climate change, but make no mistake, he is simply a "wolf in sheeps clothing". His views on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and the "one true religion" (which is his brand of Christianity) are as retrograde as all of his ignorant predecessors.

With all due respect Barack, we, who were fed up with the right wing agenda for the past eight years, can't believe your lack of judgement on this one. This is, after all, "the Civil Rights Issue" of our day. If Rick Warren had the same attitudes about African American Rights as he does about Gay Rights, Women's Rights and the rights of sick people to benefit from stem cell research, there would be no way that he'd be allowed to share the podium on your innauguration.

If you want to reach out to that element of America, there will be plenty of opportunities to do so without giving him the prime spot at your inauguration and offending those who voted for you because of your liberalism and open mindedness.

Yes Barack, its time to admit your first enormous mistake and immediately do something to correct it.

Since the US is home to many religions, if you want to correct this blunder without alienating the Christian Right, I suggest that you consider inviting liberal clergy from all denominations of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism and others to do a group invocation at your inauguration. That will send a message of American inclusivity to people all over the world. More importantly it will show all Americans that they have an equal spiritual voice in the United States.

It will also allow you to save face with Rick Warren and to let the American people know that you've both acknowledged and corrected your first enormous blunder.

Rick Warren !!!?? Supporters are Outraged

Tom from Denver, CO — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:18:45 EST

Barack Obama has just rubbed salt in the wounds of millions of gay Americans by choosing Rick Warren to deliver an inaugural invocation. Gay Americans, still hurt and angry after anti-gay initiatives passed in three states on the day of Obama's election, just got pissed on by the candidate we passionately and overwehlmingly supported.

Barack's words in support of human rights need to be backed up by his actions. The selection of Warren, a staunch supporter of California's Prop 8, does much more than just send mixed signals. It ignores the decades long struggle of millions of Americans who have fought to be treated equally. Barack, you would never have chosen a minister who was against equal rights for children, the elderly, or any racial minority. Rick Warren . . . Rick Warren?! Not if he was the last minister left on earth!

Thanks for listening.

International Human Rights Day

Phoenix — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:10:30 EST

Yay for Human Rights! While the day is dedicated to the respect of all human rights, there is one that I tend to focus on more than others. This is gay rights. I'm not gay myself, but I don't think that should matter. I think that as a human being, it is my duty to look out for and aid in the pursuit of equality for my fellow human beings. Regardless of religion, race, political affilitation, or sexual orientation.

Thus, I would like to encourage everyone to participate in A Day Without a Gay. This is a protest that calls for supporters to "call in gay" by not attending work or by shutting down their businesses. The goal is to raise awareness to the gay community and the many ways that their rights are being violated and taken from them.

Thirty states have a ban on gay marriage. Thirty states allow for a person to be fired from work based on their sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by congress denied civil unions over 1000 benifits allowed in marriage including taxation, Social Security, and veterans benefits. Also, there are many states who have already or are in the process of banning gays from adopting or fostering children.

This madness has to stop! One of the goals of A Day Without a Gay is to raise awareness that marriage is a "basic human right" as recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court. Denial of rights to gays is wrong and in violation of the 14th Amendment. I'd like to encourage everyone to show their support for our gay brothers and sisters this December 10th for Human Rights Day.

I hope that everyone enjoys their time, and keep in mind that Change is Coming. Thanks to steps taken by ourselves and our fellow Americans, we can Hope to see a day where all people are treated equally and with respect and love.

Funny Star Studded Musical video on Proposition 8

Marc - "It's a New Day" — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:33:32 EST

Funny Star Studded Musical video on Proposition 8 - Jack Black and many more

Hosted on Funny or Die

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

Stephen Views the News 11/22/08

Stephen from Elkins Park, PA — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:29:31 EST

Stephen Views the News 11/22/08

http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/

* The Stench of Torture ~ will not dissipate with Bush’s exit – Barack Obama has stated emphatically that he will end any use of torture by the USA. Human rights groups, constitutional scholars and citizens have called for the next administration to prosecute those who authorized or used harsh interrogation techniques. “But two Obama advisers said there's little — if any — chance that the incoming president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.” Having closely followed the actions by the Bush administration and the use of torture, actions contrary to national and international law, I would like to see those who authorized and then lied about it come under scrutiny. Many believe that the US should not look back as Obama changes policy. What about after Obama? If Bush could authorize the use of torture so could a future president. It is obvious that safeguards are not in place to prevent the use of torture. It should not be an option for ANY administration. At the least, America should enact laws that unequivocally prevent any president or U.S. agency from utilizing a policy of torture. That being said, regardless of how the Obama administration decides to deal with abuses by George W. Bush or, should Bush grant broad immunity to perpetrators of abuse before he leaves office, the international community still could address the subject.

It remains to be seen whether there will be an effort to bring war crimes charges against Americans responsible for and involved in torture in Iraq, Guantanamo and secret prisons the U.S. government sanctioned around the world. There is a just-released report by the Human Rights Center/Center for Constitutional Rights report titled “Guantanamo and Its Aftermath.” Former DC Appellate Judge Patricia Wald, a judge at the international trial for Serbians accused of committing war crimes against Bosnian Muslims, compared the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody to the treatment Bosnians received at the hands of their Serbian captors. And from the web site ThinkProgress.org: “Last June, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba (ret.), the Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, also accused the Bush administration of committing “war crimes” and called for those responsible to be held to account.”

The report noted above is 136 pages in length. Even if one only reads the Forward and Executive Summary one will find a chilling condemnation of the policies invoked by the Bush administration to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 attacks. It is a vision that no sentient American in my lifetime could have envisioned. I was especially struck with the innocent lives destroyed. I would hope that Americans are struck with a sense of the loss of innocence. The Forward concludes, “We, as a nation, must not only remember our past but strive not to repeat it. This report makes an invaluable start in that direction.”

* In Case of Emergency 1 ~ a simple yet very intelligent idea – A reader sent me notice of an idea conceived by a paramedic that is growing in popularity. Most of us have cell phones. If we were to be injured in an accident or unexpectedly taken ill, emergency personnel would want to alert someone to our situation. To avoid the need to search through a large number of entries in the phone’s address book there is an alternative. Add to the address file “ICE” (In Case of Emergency) and the telephone number of the person you want to be contacted. If there is more than one person or phone number, enter ICE 1, ICE 2, and so on. This is an idea you may want to share with friends and family.

* In Case of Emergency 2 – If you just accidentally swallowed poison and need to regurgitate, watch this video of the members of the U.S. Senate giving a standing ovation to Alaskan Republican Senator Ted Stevens. Stevens is not returning to the Senate because he lost his re-election bid. Even if Stevens had won the election he very probably would have been expelled from the Senate because he recently was convicted in a federal court on 7 felony counts. This is the man who porked huge amounts of federal money for Alaska and he was the legislative architect for the Bridge to Nowhere, while using his legislative power for financial gain for himself, members of his family and friends and associates. And our illustrious Senators gave him a standing ovation, which happens to be against their own Senate rules. Applauding a low-life power abuser and convicted felon is not the message that I want to hear from legislators. It does not bode well for ethics reform or the responsible leadership that the American people crave. Republican losses over the last two election cycles have made this very clear. The Good Ol’ Boy Club has gotten very old. More need to be replaced, including a covey of Democrats.

* Derriere Orifice of the Week ~ say hello to Newt Gingrich – Appearing on FOX News (of course) Gingrich was criticizing those individuals protesting the loss of the right of gay couples in California to marry. Gingrich said, "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion." I find Gingrich’s comments disingenuous, hypocritical and misleading.

Recall that it was Gingrich and his Republican Party that consummated a marriage with religious-right fundamentalists attempting to tell Americans how to conduct their lives. I see no evidence of people with a gay lifestyle either attempting to or, by example, influencing anyone to be gay. The gay community does not proselytize. It is seeking its own civil rights, in opposition to the likes of Mike Huckabee who pronounce that gay rights and civil rights are totally different. What is Fascist are Gingrich and his tight-assed brown shirts spewing untruthful propaganda and misinformation. Has anyone seen evidence of gay violence or harassment? More than half of the American people are aware of Gingrich and company’s dangerous band of blowhards. Once a few million more Americans wake up to the uncivil attacks on and the denial of civil rights to the gay community, people like Gingrich will find limited access to mainstream media and be relegated to the increasingly irrelevant Pat Robertson’s Holier than Thou TV infomercials.

* Knowing your limitations – “Congratulations” to Fred Thompson. Following the failure of his somnambulant presidential bid he has decided to again leave politics and return to acting. I suggest that his best chance to earn an Oscar or Emmy would be playing the role of Rip Van Winkle.

* Goodbye and good riddance – Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott is retiring in February. Under his management the largest retailer in this country honed the business model for low wages and low benefits, resulting in many Wal-Mart employees requiring public assistance. Wal-Mart is one of the models for sourcing goods and services overseas that has contributed to the weakness of our economy. Recall that Wal-Mart opposed more diligent inspection of containers as they enter our borders. A container destined for Wal-Mart enters the U.S. every 45 seconds. U.S. national security does not stand in the way of the Wal Mart bottom line. The bottom line is that under Mr. Scott, Wal Mart was a winner on Wall Street but quite damaging to Main Street.

* Is the Bush administration getting in touch with the needs of Americans? ~ Nah! – In an exceptional move the administration has agreed to support the extension of unemployment benefits as unemployment claims reach a 16-year high and unemployment reaches a 25-year high. Otherwise, it is nasty business as usual. The Bush presidency continues to undermine environmental safety, broaden the destruction of public lands and national parks, and further endanger endangered species as it pimps for business interests that are not in the interest of the American people. President George W. and co-conspirators in his administration are making every effort to reduce regulation and constrictions on oil, gas, mining, fishing, timber and financial industries while promoting the development of shale oil, the dirtiest fuel on the planet. America does not need enemies from afar. Our hands are full with the enemies from within.

The situation was best summed up by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee when he told the Wall Street Journal, “This administration will stop at nothing to jam through as many reckless proposals as they can before the clock runs out.” A glimmer of hope for the health of planet Earth is Barack Obama’s promise to make a decisive break with George Bush on the environment … promising a "new chapter in America's leadership on climate change.” These developments bring to mind a question I have often asked over the last seven years. “Why does George W. Bush hate America? I do not accept the conventional wisdom alibi that he is well-intentioned but ill-advised. The damage he has rendered is too widespread, too deep and well beyond the pale of mere incompetence.

* What have we learned in two millennia? A reader asked this question, accompanied by the following quote:

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero, 55 BC

Proposition 8

Charleen — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:18:05 EST

I am so sick of Prop 8 and it's loud-mouthed supporters.

Here are my views.

There are many different types of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. They all have this one thing in common. They didn't CHOOSE their sexuality, trust me, no one wants the shit that comes with that. No one is choosing these lifestyles. But they are what they are they exist, these people have this to live with.

People FOR Prop 8... have no business doing what they have done.
This is a step back in the evolution of our rights, and our beloved, but crazy constitution. For the first time in history, Democracy has allowed us to take away a humans beings rights. For the first time, The Constitution has damaged peoples lives, and for no significant reason. Pro 8 voters benefit NONE from this.

These Pro 8 voters, the Church and all supporters of Prop 8 are complete control freaks.
All I see are a bunch of straight-laced, homophobic controlling ass holes that ONLY want alll the gays in this world to throw in the towel one day and say, "ok ok You're right, I quit being gay, I will follow your rules, and live your perfect way. Its over, no more gay..."

If that were NOT the case... Prop 8 WOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED, because the supporters would not care about gay people and what they do... They could politely, SILENTLY disagree, for whatever reason, and look the other way, and let love be. DAMMIT.

But for some reason these folks really feel their rights are more important than gays... and want to change something that effects them in NO WAY.

I just can't see how this Proposition could pass in such a large, liberal state as California. Or any other state. Leave gay people alone. They're gay, and you aren't, let's move on... quit hurting innocent people that have most likely survived things straight people could not fathom-and if they had-they would not be voting YES on Prop 8.

I just can't believe the values of this country sometimes. We evolve, make progression, and then fall back again. We are a... no, we CAN be a better country than we are. We can be a better human race. If a lot of ppl would take their heads out of their asses.

Stephen Views the News 11/16/08

Stephen from Elkins Park, PA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:17:31 EST

Stephen Views the News 11/16/08

http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/

* Bumper Sticker of the Week ~ Joe Must Go – Many voices are urging the Democratic Party in the Senate to remove Joe Lieberman from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee. I believe that this would be the correct action. His campaigning for John McCain and his questioning Barack Obama’s patriotism are at the bottom of the list of reasons for Joe to go. His pathetic record of leadership on this important committee is the overriding justification for his removal. Intentional incompetence best describes his tenure in this post. As Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show and Heather writing at Crooks and Liars point out, Lieberman over the last two years, never held hearings on the disastrous US government response to the Katrina hurricane disaster nor did the committee look into no-bid contracts awarded to friends and associates of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Many of those contracts were implemented incompetently while the US government was overcharged billions of dollars. As chairman of this committee Lieberman did not represent the interests of the American people. Instead, Lieberman represented the interests of the Bush administration that operated in secret and often outside of legal parameters, and at great cost to you and me, the citizens recovering from a natural disaster, and the military men and women who were underserved as they served this country while in harms way. Joe Must Go.

* Remember Typhoid Mary? ~ Meet Leukemia Dick and some of the other dicks who “serve” America – Drilling for natural gas, a policy being touted as a means of reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, may contaminate water supplies with unsafe levels of chemicals like benzene, a compound that can cause leukemia, according to an investigation by Pro Publica. The drilling process, pioneered by Dick Cheney's former company Haliburton, uses water pressure and chemicals to break rocks and release the gas. It was exempted by Congress from the Safe Water Act after a 2004 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study declared it safe. It now appears that this EPA study was not as conclusive at it claimed to be.

It is well-documented that the EPA often goes out of its way NOT to protect the environment and the American public. It is well-documented that Cheney has been the most ardent advocate for the interests of energy companies and Haliburton. One wonders what influence was imposed upon the EPA that resulted in this exemption from the Safe Water Act. “More than 1,000 other cases of contamination have been documented by courts and state and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In one case, a house exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane seeped into the residential water supply. In other cases, the contamination occurred not from actual drilling below ground, but on the surface, where accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells.” This is but one example where the interaction of the executive branch, the legislative branch, federal agencies and business failed the American people. The majority of the problems and dangers confronting America today are the result of such failed leadership.

* Fly Me to the Moon ~ it may be safer – Sixteen months ago I commented about the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) being accused of covering up mistakes by air traffic controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth airport. It was discouraging to learn that a federal agency empowered to protect air travelers was actually complicit in reducing safe conditions. At a minimum, one would expect that the release of the report would have resulted in personnel changes and an upgrading of the oversight. Not in the current state of our federal government.

ABC reports a new investigation has found “the misclassifying of safety errors had continued” at Dallas-Fort Worth, that FAA employees continued to hide safety errors. It causes one to wonder if the repeated dereliction of duty by the FAA at Dallas-Fort Worth is it also taking place at other airports. What is happening in Boston, NY, LA, Miami and hundreds of other major airports? I imagine that remedial action will be taken when two or three planes collide, resulting in the death of 639 passengers, 19 crew members, 412 people on the ground and the widespread destruction of a residential neighborhood. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security may even hold hearings. Perhaps Republican Texas Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson will exercise their fiduciary responsibility by pressing for an investigation into this problem that bodes dire consequences. Perhaps a new administration will coerce a sense of responsibility and accountability into the performance of federal agencies. That would be a refreshing development.

* Change we can believe in ~ it is up to us – The above examples of broken government brings to mind the often-used and cynical phrase, “You can’t fight City Hall.” It is only a truism if good people do nothing. I was reminded of this while reading an article by Gary Younge in the British newspaper The Guardian titled, “Obama's army of supporters must maintain their level of activism.” Younge notes that the characterization of American political life - the notion of a lazy, contented people who do not vote, care or really understand what is being done in their name and leaving governance to big business, and lobbyists – may be changing. I recommend the article because it notes many changes that have been occurring within the American electorate.

I would suggest that the change Younge identifies is a result of two influences; the devastatingly damaging tenure of George W. Bush and the electric and populist rise of Barack Obama. The Bush years awakened a previously unengaged citizenry and the Obama campaign provided the vehicle to channel the disappointment, the losses, the regression and resulting anger and frustration into a movement for change. This new activist citizenry demands responsible and responsive leadership. It opposes narrow ideology agendas and expects federal leadership to address the major issues that challenge our society – challenges that have been ignored over the last eight years. The higher expectations have brought us a new president, senators and representatives that embrace progressive ideas. Their mission is to overcome a bureaucratic government burdened by politicization, ideology and special interests as well as accepted and expected incompetence. Success will require a continually engaged citizenry that keeps a bright light on the ills, vociferously communicates to elected representatives the change that is required and rewards responsible and responsive representatives with re-election.

* All things Progressive – If you have interest in Progressive ideas and activities I recommend the web site The Bucks/Mont Progressive Events. The editor Tom Ulrich does a terrific job each month identifying Progressive events in the Philadelphia area and national broadcasts, publications and videos.

* All things regressive ~ prejudice, hate, ignorance – Much of the Sarah Palin rhetoric during the presidential campaign appealed to this three-headed Hydra. Those susceptible to divisive discourse reveled in the speeches of Palin and other Republican orators. The forces of hate are as real and alive today as they were 50 and 100 years ago. These forces certainly are not as widespread but, certainly as real. One example of such despicable human behavior is the Ku Klux Klan. This organization, originally spawned to repress African Americans, has broadened its “vision” to include Latinos and other minorities. It is fortunate that we have people such as Morris Dees and his organization The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) standing up to forces that debase civil rights and humanity.

In Kentucky on Friday the SPLC gained a decisive jury verdict against members of the KKK, accused of severely beating a Latino in 2006 at a rural county fair. As Dees noted, "The people of Meade County, Kentucky, have spoken loudly and clearly. And what they've said is that ethnic violence has no place in our society, that those who promote hate and violence will be held accountable and made to pay a steep price." The verdict against Imperial Klans of America (IKA), Imperial Wizard Ron Edwards and two former KKK members who have already served prison terms for their involvement was $2.5 million. It is likely the judgment will cripple IKA’s 16 chapters that are located throughout eight states.

The weakening of a KKK group is encouraging but the ugliness of hate that infects the land of the free and the home of the brave will not be eradicated in our lifetime. As noted in an article at the Huffington Post the election of Barack Obama has spurred hundreds of race threats and crimes that include, “Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting ‘Assassinate Obama.’ Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.” America has come a long way in civil rights and human relations. Gay rights are improving with much still to be achieved. There is much to be proud of in America but the road ahead will not be free of prejudice, hate and ignorance. It is a flaw in the human condition that may never be overcome.

* “You cannot hate other people without hating your self.”

Oprah Winfrey

California is Crazy!

Chris — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:17:28 EST

it depresses me mostly because California is a direct reflection of the United States as a whole. California is Hollywood, Hollywood is a mirror image of our culture. Californians voting yes to Prop 8 reflects a general feeling of discomfort throughout the entire country. At the heart of this issue, it's about more than gay marriage. It's about more than basic equality. It's about people disassociating the negative connotations that homosexuals bring about. It's about accepting that people are born different, and that we live in a UNITED nation that elected a multi-cultural man into the Presidential office. We are different, but we are unified. Give homosexuals the right to belong, the right to have and to love just as you do. We are citizens of this Country as well, we deserve it.

If you believe all humans are equal

Ed from Fort Lauderdale, FL — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:54:32 EST

Friday November 14 at 6 pm in every city in the US anyone who feels that all humans have the same rights and are equal, should march with us... friends family anyone you know... please turn out at either you city hall or gay community ...this is a grass roots call to anyone who feel discrimination is unfair... Barack said: "there are no first class citizens there are no second class citizens there are only American citizens" If you believe this then help us have the same rights as everyone in America.....
PLEaSE email... blog.... call..... text or whatever this to anyone you can think of.... If you have a conscious even if u do not understand, we are people too

Stephen Views the News 11/9/08

Stephen from Elkins Park, PA — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:38:47 EST

Stephen Views the News 11/9/08

http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/

* Republican Shell Game ~ in the guise of conservatism – Most Republican politicos and pundits are cautioning the Obama administration not to go too far left. America, they tell us, is a center-right country. This is a misleading strategy. The McCain campaign had positioned Obama as the most liberal member of congress since, uh, FOREVER. Obama gained a sweeping victory and Democrats increased their majorities in the House and the Senate. Perhaps the Republicans are observing an alternative Universe – the one their simpatico Creationists claim was created just 6000 years ago. This is not to say that all Republicans and true conservatives are religious-right fundamentalists. On the contrary, there are many intelligent and valued conservative principles and thinkers in America that have much to offer our national discourse. Unfortunately, their ideas were so bastardized during the Bush/Republican reign that conservatism lost its meaning. Perhaps it is time to step back from assigning labels and evaluate ideas and policies in terms of their benefit to the common interest and the common good. What is that interest and good?

An examination of Americans’ positions reveals the following: Based on recent polls and studies the majority of Americans do not want to see more restrictive limits on abortion and women’s reproductive rights and they do not want more restrictive measures imposed on gay relationships; minimum wage increases and union rights are supported; stem cell research has a mandate and universal healthcare coverage receives overwhelming support; science is accepted as a valuable and vital tool to advance human knowledge, address illness, spur our economy and enhance the quality of life; Americans emphatically say that the federal government has an important role in ensuring food and product safety and providing oversight of pharmaceutical efficacy; the American people do not want to see the Supreme Court tack far right; the use of torture is strongly opposed; Americans want their government pro-active on energy conservation and addressing global warming; Americans do not want the USA involved in unjustified preemptive war and they desire that the country return to a position of trusted leadership in the world community.

These are Progressive ideas and values. America being center-right is a Republican/Conservative marketing tool and about as accurate as the recently revealed eye-crosser that Sarah Palin believed that Africa is a country. In the pre-2008 election world, if Republicans said something often enough it became conventional wisdom, regardless of the wisdom. If Republican “wisdom” is to continue to move to their convoluted interpretation of the right I welcome their ensuing electoral losses until the attrition ultimately attracts Republican leaders committed to serving mainstream America. The day of single-issue social conservative values is over. Trickle down economics is in the storage shed if not the trash heap. Republican Party genuflecting at the altar of Reganomics has experienced a crisis of faith by the congregation. For the 10th straight month the American work force has lost jobs and there are currently 10 million unemployed in the U.S. Many of those still employed are working at lower-level or lower paying jobs than was the case 10 years ago. Republican/ Conservative philosophy failed Americans economically, militarily, environmentally and socially. Welcome to the 21st Century, even though it is nine years late.

* The politics of Three Card Monte ~ the dealer lost – Leading up to elections this year Republican operatives were filling the airwaves and filing lawsuits across the country raising the fear of voter fraud and the demise of democracy as we know it. The states primarily targeted with “cry wolf” warnings were Pennsylvania, Nevada, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Minnesota. Election officials in these states report that there was no evidence of voter fraud within their borders this election, nor have there been in previous elections for that matter. Perhaps the derriere-kicking endured by the Republican Party in the last two elections will inspire them to direct their efforts toward more responsible politicking and governance. Hopefully, the Democratic politicos received this message as well. It has taken an avoidable and interminable war and a crushing blow to the economy for the American people to pay more attention to the politic rhetoric but, in 2008 we did pay attention. Voter fraud was never a real issue and a more informed electorate was one of the deciding issues.

* Gay marriage ~ Straight conundrum – On November 4th three states dealt a setback for gay marriage advocates. I believe that many of those who voted for the setbacks are not necessarily anti-gay or anti-gay rights. They are having a tough time with the “marriage” part. This is understandable. Social change does not occur in flashes. It takes society time to alter long-standing custom and belief. I would suggest to gay-rights advocates that their energies be focused on the principle that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual couples which include employer spousal benefits, hospital visitation rights and adoption rights. I believe that today’s society is ready to accept same-sex civil unions, a legal relationship between two people of the same gender. “Marriage” confuses and exasperates the issue. By advocates concentrating on civil union rather than marriage the anti-gay forces will lose a significant portion of their support, thereby fostering an environment for gay Americans to gain the rights they seek and deserve.

* Post facto, post mortem, post Joe – Senator Joe Lieberman is entertaining joining the Republican caucus upon learning that he may lose his chairmanships on Senate committees that include the very important Homeland Security. Did anyone notice Lieberman’s membership in the Republican Party took place quite a while ago. On one of the most important issues to Democrats, Iraq, Lieberman has voted with the Republicans and the Bush administration consistently. He unconscionably reiterated administration misinformation and spin relative to conditions in Iraq, demonstrating his loyalty to neocon philosophy not embraced by most Democrats and most Americans. He then jumped with both feet onto the McCain campaign giving a major speech at the Republican national convention and appearing next to John McCain on the campaign trail almost as often as Cindy McCain. During the campaign he was a conduit for McCain campaign innuendos against Obama and Lieberman sinisterly questioned Obama’s patriotism. Joe Lieberman donated his soul to the Republican Party and in their company may he rest in piece, a piece that Democrats going forward can do without.

Although Democrats seek a 60-vote Senate majority to avoid Republican filibusters blocking their legislation, I do not believe they need Joe Lieberman. I do not see Republicans voting in robotic unison as they did in recent years. They do not hold the White House, and the totalitarian hold Republican leadership held over GOP legislators is experiencing its wake. Incumbent Republican senators will look to recent voting of their constituents and conclude that the appeal of Bush’s version of Republican dogma and the track record of Republican governance has been rejected. I expect that a significant amount of legislation proposed by Obama and his party is legislation needed and wanted by a significant majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation. The Connecticut Democratic Party rejected Lieberman in 2006. The Democratic leadership in the Senate should do likewise in 2008.

* The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Louis D. Brandeis (1856 – 1941) US Supreme Court Justice (1916 – 1939)

Might for right not might IS right.

Tanner Virtue — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 08:14:36 EDT

Might for right not might is right!

The following is a blog posted on Virtueblog.com of which I am sure my reply will not be posted. This blog "Might for right not Might is right," will be a continual blog to post my policial views and how the conservative right has allowed themselves to take the rights from the poeple that they govern.

doing a Google search today for my name, I ran across this conservative sight with many opinions one which made me stop to think. check it out.....

Blogger:

The views expressed on this site may not be the personal views of the general staff of Virtue.
Gay marriage on the way
by Derek W. on February 2nd, 2006

I'm sitting here at my college's library, typing on a computer. I just got out of a Sociology class where, after a lecture on domestic abuse, the professor decided to have a class discussion about gay marriage.

For the record, this is the professor who has, in previous classes, praised Karl Marx for having "a lot of good things to say," condemned the U.S. government for not building houses for the homeless, criticized Bush for his supposed mistreatment of Muslims post 9/11, and so on and so forth.

In short, I am stuck in a class with a professor who is the perfect example of the far-left professors who dominate our nation's (mostly) far-left universities. (Thank goodness for places like Hillsdale College and Patrick Henry College, no?)

Anyway, it appeared that a large majority of the kids in this class saw nothing wrong with gay marriage. Of course, maybe it just appeared that way since maybe all the conservative kids (like me) stayed mostly quiet. But on an estimate, I'd say that probably two/thirds of the class appeared to support gay marriage.

If this is any indication of what's on the way for our nation, gay marriage is coming soon. And there won't be anything we as conservatives will be able to do. Right now a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but how many of those Americas are, say, 40 years and older? In 20 years, our population will have changed, and it seems to me that our population will be growing more liberal. And there is nothing we can really do about it.

Depressing thought, no? I agree. Sitting through a college class like this is the most depressing things a conservative can do. Especially when you listen to some of the things students (and the professor say):

Gay marriage won't affect heterosexuals, so why should they object?

If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry, and it doesn't matter if they're the same sex.

And so on and so forth. My question to our readers is this: what do you think is the most effective way to refute the above arguments? And what do you think about the future of our country?

my reply...

Facts:
• George Bush on November 2, 2004 won his presidency with an astonishing 60 million votes.
• Votes against the gay marriage initiatives alone during same election: 2.6 million in Michigan, 3.2 million in Ohio, 1.1 million in Oklahoma, 2.2 million in Georgia, 1.2 Million votes in Kentucky. Resulting in 10.2 million voters from five out of fifty states.
• George W. Bush won his presidency of our country solely based on "moral values," not Iraq, not the economy, not terrorism.
• During his presidency Bush has directed the majority of the country's attention eliminating peoples lives.
• George W. Bush LIES!

My name is Tanner Virtue; I was born into a wholesome Christian mid-western family as a homosexual. During the last presidential election 60 million people agreed with the President's moral values based on certain, not all, Christian denominations definition of what is morally right. Is this not a country founded by people who were escaping religious persecution, the same country that stated that "All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator?" If this is the foundation of our government we need not loose focus of these fundamentals. Sixty million Americans state "my creator" had created me as immoral, therefore not equal, and that the love that I have for my partner in life, Bradd Church, in turn is not as valid as a heterosexual couples love. That is where I believe we need to look at the direction of our country. The Health insurance companies recognize and allow same sex coverage to life partners. My partner and I currently pay $320 a month to a federal tax that president Bush placed into effect. That is $320 more than a heterosexual couple of the same age. In addition to the reoccurring monthy charge instated by our government, if one of us was in an intensive care unit for the last year of our life we would not be allowed to see one another until the funeral. Only family members are allowed into an ICU hospital room, without any legal documentation stating our commitment to one another, we are not considered family. The question I propose, to you in rebuttal why is your denominations definition of marriage morally better than another denomination of the same religion?

Marriage Equality & this Election

Jake Goad — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:19:56 EDT

I've done a few things relating to LGBT equality, like co-founding an annual drag conest charity event at NCSU, and interning with the Jim Neal (an openly gay Chapel Hill business man) for Senate campaign for about half a year, but I've decided to try and step things up recently in as much as I can while working and going to school.

Change can't come fast enough!

pridevoter — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:30:31 EDT

We wait and watch as our investments, our savings, our lives are being reduced to nothing. The election and transfer of power can not come fast enough! We are ready for a leader that protects the middle class and makes things right. We are hopeful the first thing to come from our new president Barack Obama is the removal of the 140 billion dollars in pork added to the bailout/rescue, followed by an absolute re-assesment of govt spending. There has always been a disproportionate line between rich and middle class that is now being redefined as extremely wealthy and poor. Barack will inherit the worse of our days and somehow needs to make it all better. It will not be a time for baby steps, real change needs to be implemented. Starting with equality and same sex partner rights. we need to be able to protect and share what little we have left, we need the tax breaks and other rights afforded to heterosexual married couples. We are not advocating marriage or the change in definition, we just want recognized national rights, we need them.

Equality

pridevoter — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:43:40 EDT

We appreciate that Sen. Biden made it clear there would be no difference in the rights of same-sex couples or married heterosexual couples. We desperately long for our rights recognized nationally. Its been a long hard struggle for eqaulity for many groups. the question is "when do we learn? what does it take. A look at our youtube video on pridevoter depicts this question.. share the thoughts..

The embeded video doesnt seem to appear in the post so use the link below to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRl7W3yPY3A

Federal Gay Marriage/Rights and the Current Economic Crisis.

Cristina — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:48:02 EDT

While gay marriage and human rights are important to me, it is not the most important thing right now. We need to have a country in order to have rights, let alone fight for them. Those are the little battles right now. While I do plan to dedicate my life to fighting for GLBT rights, I also know that the countries economic condition comes first. This crisis, with out a doubt, will slow down our fight for equality, but it will never stop it.

The thing about gay rights is that it is up to each state, not the federal government. To impose this on all the states, without a vote by the people, but rather congress, goes against what every republican believes in. That is one main reason segregation keep up for so long. If we want to get anything accomplished in the next ten years, we will have to focus on local rights more and focus less on federal.

The federal government is busy with preventing the stock market from crashing. Wall street is a mess, and that effects the whole world. Wall street is like an epcot for business. Every country is involved and invested in some way or another. This is a global concern, not just an American concern. With out a strong economic country there can not be a strong military. Washington is in a virtual tug of war, as our country hangs in a balance.

Republicans appose the bail out because they say, "You made your bed, now lie in it." But they know they have to come to a comprise. If they don't, most are going to be crippled by their own investments. Many rely on 401ks and other investments for retirement money. They are trying to prove they have control by making things difficult.

Democrats hate the idea of how this is going to effect the tax payers. They saw this coming, warned the republicans in office, and yet, the administration did nothing. Now we are playing the, "I told you so." game while nothing is getting done. Republicans want loop wholes in this proposal and Democrats want it honest.

So, what do we do? How did we get out of this the first time? In the depression, Roosevelt did do a form of a bail out that did help the economy, but it took time, and time, to our country, is a misspent notion. We want everything, and we want it now. However, the biggest factor that got us out of the first depression was the war time economy. American jobs were created for American factories, which manufactured American war supplies. You would think that since we are in a war, that would help create jobs, but you would be wrong.

This war has created jobs, but in other countries. American based institutions that manufacture war time products are being out sourced to other countries. They pay less to those workers and sell the products 10 times what they are worth. The government then spends this money on the inflated price tags, while the rich companies hoard their dollars and pay workers small wages in other countries. So, instead of the money that is paid to the employees being recycled back into the American economic system, it is spent in other countries, never to be seen again.

But that is not the worst part. The worst part is that we reward these people who do this by giving them, the rich, tax cuts. Why in the world would we give those people tax cuts you say? Because the republican idea of economics is the trickle down effect. They believe those tax cuts are incentives to keep big company business in America. Make the rich richer, and it will, some how, trickle down to everyone else. The thing about this is, it does not work. It is like giving candy to the already spoiled brat. You don't reward tantrums, you cut them off. Then, when they realize they can scream and holler all they want without it manipulating the parent, they are quite. We are rewarding these spoiled brats and receiving nothing in return.

So, while we spend all this money in Iraq, reward companies who out source jobs (Which then leads to the American dollar not being recycled back into the economy), and keep giving big fat "incentives" to the Donald trumps of the world, the average American citizen is not getting the money and help they deserve. Our education is a joke. Our serious students look for over seas education; we are resorting to private schools (Which does not solve the problem. Once the private schools are flooded with public school kids, we are back to square one.), and our children truly are being left behind. We measure knowledge in manufactured test rather than overall intelligence. People with learning disabilities are treated as if they are stupid, when they just learn differently. The arts are being cut, bussing for magnet students cut, and somehow, we still have the money to bus the football teams to away games. It is broken because our priorities are all over the place. If every single McDonalds was to have there registers crash, I bet you they would not be able to count back the change.

700 billion dollars over a period of several years. Even in installment plans, I have to ask, where was this money when we spoke on the health care crises in this country? Where was this money when our soldiers needed benefits? Where was this money when we were pleading for better armor to protect our troops in Iraq? We must face the facts, we, at home, are at war with ourselves. Divided we fail. The problem lies in politics. If someone knows a bill is for the good of the country, but it goes against the "republican" or "democrat" way, they appose it because doing other wise would be political suicide. If we were to have taxed the top one percent, and closed these loop wholes in legislation, our country would be such a better place.

So, here we are. At a virtual stand off. What matters is keeping this country going. The BIGGIST problem with our economy is that we are a false economy. What do you think money is? It is a promissory note saying that the government will not run out of cash, but we already have! Credit cards and credit are another big undoing for this economy. We have more credit than cash, and when everyone goes bankrupt, we are all caught with our pants down. We were sensationally introduced to this to quickly. No one warned us to take it easy. No one said, "Be responsible when you take out loans or use a credit card." In fact, it was the exact opposite. Constant promotion of doing away with cash and only using credit. The average American dies with over $100, 000 of debt still to be paid.

The inflation in this country has been caused by all this and more, and now the government has to figure out a way to fix it. So, while republican's reasons for fighting gay rights lies in discrimination; democrats know they can not do anything about it, because to allow this whole new group of people to qualify for marriage would create more tax cuts and less money for the economy in a time when we are, literally, penny pinching. While licenses and other government fee's required for marriage would introduce a temporary surge in economic aid, in the long run, if nothing changes, it will worsen the, already, crippling situation.

The key is, "Change." We need drastic change. Until we change our economic policies, no new tax cuts can be added. Once we start taxing the fortune 500 companies, who have only been slightly dented by this mess, we can begin to lift the burden from the people who can't afford it. Relieving the load of the average Joe will restore balance to the country, and once we have balance, we can start to think about the other things. No one in Washington is going to do anything until it can benefit them.

While we should all keep the larger picture in our hearts, we need to focus on the little victories, especially in towns where violence against homosexuals is highest. They need protection the most. That is the only way we are going to get anything done in these next ten years.

Copyright Cristina Marrero 2008. All Rights Reserved.

Newman's Own Politics by John Nichols, The Nation

Constance — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:44:52 EDT

Actors do not usually turn in performances that gain the notice of presidents. But when Paul Newman decided to take the role of anti-war activist in the early days of the Vietnam imbroglio, he performed so ably – as an early and essential campaigner for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and prominent supporter of George McGovern – that he ranked high on then-President Richard Nixon's "enemies list." Newman's name was on the original list of enemies produced by Nixon aide Charles Colson in 1971.

Colson's notes on the memorandum with regard to the actor read: "Paul Newman, California: Radic-lib causes. Heavy McCarthy involvement '68. Used effectively in nationwide T.V. commercials. '72 involvement certain." The official purpose, according to internal memos that circulated in the Nixon White House prior to the 1972 election was to "screw" liberal politicians, labor leaders, business titans, academics, activists and an actor who might be threats to the president's reelection. "This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly--how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies," wrote White House counsel John Dean.

Newman, who died Friday at age 83, survived and thrived. He won acting's top honors and even became one of the nation's most successful entrepreneurs, marketing his own exceptionally successful "Newman's Own" brand of salad dressings and organic food. ("It's all been a bad joke that just ran out of control," Newman said of the food business, which allowed him donate more generously than just about anyone in Hollywood or on Wall Street to charity.)

Newman remained political -- dedicated to civil rights, women's rights and gay rights, committed to ending the nuclear arms race and determined to elect opponents of war and militarism. Newman supported, and even wrote for, The Nation. And he was a steady campaigner for and contributor to progressive causes and candidates – mostly Democrats but also anti-war Republican Pete McCloskey when he challenged Nixon in the Republican primaries of 1972 and to Green Ralph Nader in 2000.

In 2006, the actor helped Connecticut's Ned Lamont mount a successful Democratic primary challenge to U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. (Newman got so into the Lamont campaign that he even volunteered to do calls for the campaign -- and wrote his own script.)

This year, Newman was a maxed-out contributor to the campaign of Barack Obama for president. The actor finished his life with more friends and fewer enemies than just about anyone in his chosen profession. And Newman's extensive philanthropy earned him little but praise in his final years.

Yet, Paul Newman was particularly proud to have been an "enemy." Indeed, he said to the end of his days that the place he held on Nixon's list was "the highest single honor I've ever received."

My Top 10 Reasons for Voting Obama (and not McCain)

Travis Cook — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:26:34 EDT

I have been rabidly obsessed with this election since the very start of the primaries a year and a half ago. Watching news coverage more obsessed with silly rhetoric and stories about flag pins and pregnant teenagers is driving me crazy. To do my best to fight this insanity, I'm sharing my top ten issues-based reasons for voting for Senator Barack Obama and not Senator John McCain:

10) Sarah Palin - Given that there is a one in three chance that John McCain will not survive a maximum presidential term, I do not want a president who favors banning books (seriously).

9) Transparency - John McCain's campaign is staffed by lobbyists (just like most of Bush's administration). Barack Obama moved the Democratic National Committee headquarters out of Washington to Chicago in order to curtail the influence of lobbyists and corruption. John McCain is trying to shut down a non-partisan investigation looking into Sarah Palin's firing of Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner. Obama will open up all Washington business to create a Google-like search where anyone can keep track of federal money. Bush has shrouded our government in so much conspiracy and cronyism, and Obama will bring about something that's been missing for the last eight years: accountability.

8) Torture - Considering the man was tortured for five and a half years, you would think this would be an issue in which McCain would not flip-flop. You would be mistaken. He voted against the Feingold amendment (he originally supported it), which would have prohibited much of the same torture that McCain endured. Life is not an episode of "24." Waterboarding, stress positions, hypothermia, severe sleep and sensory deprivation - this is not "robust interrogation." It is torture that violates the Geneva Conventions. John McCain should know that America is better than that.

7) Look at the Campaigns - It is an obvious thought. If you want to know what kind of president someone will be, look at how they run their campaigns. Barack Obama's campaign is funded mostly by over 2 million contributors who usually give less than 50 bucks. It is an immense grassroots movement. There have been no major staff shake-ups, and the highly disciplined campaign's motto is "No Drama." The bulk of McCain's war chest comes from the Republican Party, which is dominated by big-money donors. His campaign manager is Steve Schmidt, who is a former lobbyist and a member of the exclusive "Breakfast Club," the group of advisers, led by Karl Rove, who ran Bush's 2004 re-election campaign against John Kerry.

6) Gay rights - Future generations will look at our inability to grant basic civil rights to gays and lesbians at the federal level with disbelief. We must repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and give all capable Americans who want to valiantly serve our country the freedom to do so. We must ensure that gays and lesbians have the right to visit their partners in the hospital. We must let gay couples be judged on the same criteria as straight people when adopting. We must allow committed gay couples to be included on their partner's health insurance policy. If you agree in these basic human rights, Obama must get your vote.

5) The Earth - Someone should really tell John McCain that oil is something called a FINITE resource. The answer to our energy woes is not "Drill, Baby, Drill." Anyone who tells you that drilling for more oil will fix the energy crisis is an idiot. The reason we invaded Iraq? We did not like buying oil from Saudi Arabia. A big reason Russia invaded South Ossetia, Georgia? Oil pipelines . Oil is at the root of our biggest national security crises. We should have started investing in renewable energy decades ago, and if we don't start now, we will pay for it dearly later.

4) The Earth (Part II) - Hey, did you know that all this oil we consume is destroying our environment? You see, there is this thing called Global Warming and - oh, you've heard of it? Okay, in all seriousness, it's estimated that sea levels will rise about 1-2 feet worldwide by century's end. This is catastrophic. Hundreds of millions of people may die. And still, McCain's excited message: "Drill, Baby, Drill." Unconscionable.

3) Health Care - America is way behind in Health Care. When health care companies suggest assisted suicide instead of treatment, the system is fundamentally flawed. Health care is not about a company's profit margin. It is evil for companies to deny their clients medical coverage because of insurance contract loopholes and BS about "pre-existing conditions." The US needs to move toward Universal Health Care. We are the only developed nation that does not have it. The total financial burden of 45 million uninsured Americans far outweighs the possible cost of insuring everyone. Obama wants to fix Health Care. McCain wants to give you tax credits so you can buy into a broken system. Your call.

2) War - A mere month after 9/11, McCain was leading a drumbeat to war with Iraq by openly speculating Iraq was behind the Anthrax letters being sent to Congress (there has never been evidence of this, just as there is still no evidence Iraq was behind 9/11). The Iraq War will be remembered as one of this country's biggest mistakes, marked by falsified intelligence and incredible military mismanagement. McCain goes against Iraq's President (as well as the will of the American people) in resisting to allow our troops to begin returning home. He speaks openly about the possibility of initiating military conflict with Russia and Iran. Our military is stretched too thin and cannot afford a McCain presidency.

1) The Supreme Court - Given that one of the most liberal justices, Justice Souter, was appointed by the first President Bush, it's amazing (and really lucky) the Supreme Court is not as radically conservative as it could be. With John Paul Stevens and/or Ruth Bader Ginsberg (both currently in the Liberal minority) set to probably retire within the next four years, the highest court in the land could skew dangerously right wing, and it will most likely last for a generation. If your daughter or granddaughter is raped, do you believe they should be required by law to give birth to that child? If Roe v. Wade is overturned (which will happen under McCain), kiss your right to privacy and choice goodbye.

Feel free to pass this on.

Great blog about Palin's real views - feel free to email

Amanda Thompson — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:53:22 EDT

Yet another call to action to all you moderate women - forward this to all you know.

Miles Mogulescu @ The Huffington Post

Palin: The Most Extremist Candidate Since Goldwater

Posted September 5, 2008 | 06:48 PM (EST)

Sarah Palin is the most extremist major party candidate since Barry Goldwater, aligned with the most far right wing elements in American politics on issues ranging from denying that human activity has helped bring about global warming, to seeking to block protection of endangered species, to advocating the teaching of creationism in the public schools, to opposing abortion even in the case of rape and incest, to preventing teenagers from learning about contraception in school, to advocating drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, to flirting with Alaska voting to secede from the Union, to proclaiming our troops in Iraq are on a mission from God.

Moderates, centrists and independents need to be made aware of these positions and consider whether they want to elect someone with such extremist views to the second highest political office in the land, a heartbeat away from the Presidency of a 72 year old cancer survivor.

Moreover, they should questions John McCain's judgment and claims to be a moderate and a maverick within the Republican Party when he caved in to pressure from the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party to choose someone with the thin resume and extremist views of Sarah Palin to stand second in line to the Presidency.

Palin's nomination marks a decision by McCain to try to turn the election from one about the economy to a replay of past elections about cultural issues and about which candidate represents real Americans. If Republicans can make the election about cultural imagery and who is more of a "real American"--focusing voters minds on the war hero and the hockey mom--they may well win. But when it comes to the specific issues of the culture wars, the religious right represents a minority of voters and their positions scare many moderates and independents. Democrats need to focus on Palin's extremism on the issues and McCain's endorsement of such extremism by choosing Palin to stand a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Here are some examples of of Palin's extremist ideology which the McCain campaign wants to hide and Democrats must expose:

* Palin does not believe in science.

** Palin does not believe that global warming is caused by human activity. In an interview for the September issue of the conservative magazine Newsmax, Palin said"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."

** Gov. Palin recently sued Bush's own Interior Secretary for determining, based on the scientific evidence, that the polar bear is an endangered species. Documents released through a Freedom of Information Act request show that Alaska's state biologist agrees with the science of Bush's Interior Department, not Palin. "She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading," according to Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming. The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by deny this."

** Palin believes that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public schools. "Teach both," she said in a forum while running for Governor. Palin's statement closely mirrors the language of "Teach the Controversy", the slogan of the intelligent design campaign, under which evolution's "unresolved issues" and the "scientific weakness of evolutionary theory" would be presented alongside intelligent design concepts in public schools. This despite the fact that in 2005, the Federal District Court ruled in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, that teaching intelligent design in public school sciences course violates the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

* Palin is part of the most extreme wing of the anti-abortion and abstinence only movement. This should particularly worry moderate suburban women.

** In response to a questionnaire from the far-right Eagle Forum, Palin responded that she opposes abortion even in the case of rape or incest. While a Gubernatorial candidate, Palin stated that if her then 14-year old daughter were raped, she would not permit her to have an abortion. This places Palin on the far right of the anti-abortion movement. Even many pro-life supporters agree that abortion should be permitted in these extreme circumstances, Sarah Palin disagrees. In fact, when a majority of the legislature in the heavily pro-life state of South Dakota recently put an abortion ban on the ballot which would band abortion even in cases of rape or incest, many pro-lifers opposed the ban and it was defeated by the voters.

** In answer to another Eagle Forum question, Palin stated that she supports schools funding "abstinence-until-marriage" education and opposes schools funding sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools.

** There are serious questions whether Palin even believes in birth control. While in general, a candidate's personal family decisions should be outside the realm of political discussion, the pregnancy of Palin's 17-year old daughter raises questions about Palin's beliefs on birth control. Palin is a member of the deceptively named "Feminists for Life" who would criminalize not only abortion but the IUD and hormonal birth control methods (e.g. the pill). Although Palin's decision to keep and raise a baby with Down's syndrome may be admirable, the same questions are raised by Palin herself, already the mother of 4 other children, becoming pregnant at age 44. Palin is lucky that her failure to educate her daughter about contraception only led to an out of wedlock pregnancy. It could have led her to contract a sexually transmitted disease.

** Palin's answer to the Eagle Forum questionnaire also reflected other extremist views. She supports the right of parents to block their public school children from reading books or participating in curricula and classes which disagree with their religious beliefs. (This is consistent with Palin's firing of the Wasilla town librarian for refusing to remove books to which Palin objected from library shelves.) Palin is against expanding hate crime laws. She opposes the decision of the Alaska Supreme Court according spousal benefits to same-sex couple who are state employees.

* Far from putting "Country First", Palin has been closely associated with the far-right wing whack job Alaska Independence Party which questions the legality of the vote for Alaska to join the union and wants to hold a referendum for Alaska to secede. Just 6 months ago, Palin gave a speech to the AIP conventions calling on them to "keep up the good work" and wished the party luck on what she called its "inspiring convention." Palin's husband was an AIP member for 7 years until 2002 and she and her husband both attended AIP's 2000 Convention. AIP founder Joe Vogler said "I'm an Alaskan, not an American...I've got no use for America". There is evidence that Vogler was connected to domestic terrorism--He died in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad.

* Palin seems to believe that she knows God's will and that he is on the side of Republican political positions. She has said that the US sending troops to fight in Iraq is a "task that is from God". She called the building of a $30 million natural gas pipeline in Alaska "God's will." One can debate the pros and cons of these political positions, but claiming unique knowledge of God's will in human affairs is scary and contrasts sharply with the views of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who proclaimed, "Don't pray that God's on our side, pray that we're on his side."

* Palin has close political and religious ties to theocratic groups which do not believe in the First Amendment's separation of church and state and want America ruled by biblical law rather than the Constitution. Many of these groups are associated with Dominionism, an extreme religious ideology which, according to journalist Frederick Clarkson shares the following beliefs:

"1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation...2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity. 3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that...'biblical law' should be the foundation of American law."

** This Dominionist ideology is consistent with Palin's statement that she was the first "Christian Mayor of Wasilla", which was objected to by the prior Mayor of Wasilla who was also a Christian, must not one of Palin's denomination.

** Right before McCain selected Palin, she was vetted for McCain at a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, whose members include such leading Dominionists as Rev. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Tim LeHaye, author of the apocalyptic "Left Behind" books which predict the coming rapture in which true Christians will be instantly transported from earth to heaven and while the rest of humanity will be left to face plagues and pestilence on earth. After this vetting, Dobson, who once said he would "never" vote for McCain, issued a statement hailing Palin as an "outstanding" choice. It is reported that McCain caved in to the Council for National Policy in choosing Palin, after they unequivocally rejected his more moderate first choices of pro-choice candidates Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman.

** Palin's home church, the Juneau Christian Center, and its pastor Mike Rose advocates Dominionsim and is closely connected to the Dominionist movement. Rose is an advisor to Rodney Howard-Browne's Revival Ministries, one of the leading Dominionist organizations. Palin's church is also connected with the "Joel's Army" movement which uses stealth methods to recruit teens to the cause. One cannot definitely connect Palin to these extreme politico-religious views, but she certainly has her own "Pastor problem".

These views place Palin on the extreme right-wing of the American political spectrum and should raise serious concerns among moderate, centrist and independent voters. The McCain campaign will try to bury these views behind a rosy picture of an all-American hockey mom and mother of five with a Downs Syndrome baby. Despite Republican attacks on media coverage of Palin, the media seems to be focusing on the personal aspects of Palin's story and not the issues.

Democrats need to inform swing voters, in particular, of Palin's extremist views and McCain's caving in to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party in choosing her. If they are fully informed, centrist, moderate and independent voters are likely to think twice about voting to put Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/let-swing-voters-know-tha_b_124384.html?view=screen

Economic reform is VITAL.

AW — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:34:04 EDT

As a gay Realtor, I have witnessed many of the issues that Barack Obama has promised to correct and resolve. Unfair and predatory mortgage practices, fraud, foreclosures, short sales, people losing their jobs and unable to pay their mortgages, depression, anger, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, unfair treatment of gay citizens, different rights for different people...the list goes on. With the right government, laws, rules and messages in place, most of these problems can be resolved, decreased, eradicated, etc. After listening to Palin and McCain, I don't sense that they are concerned enough about these issues. Obviously, they are not concerned AT ALL about the 'equality of all men and women and right to CHOOSE" (i.e.- gay rights, pro choice, equal pay for equal work). I truly believe that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are our only hopes at this time in our country.

THIS ELECTION IS TEARING MY FAMILY APART

Matt Budd — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:49:11 EDT

Dear Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, You are driving a wedge between my parents and me.

This battle between Obama and McCain is now playing out in emails and telephone calls between New York and North Carolina. It started out harmless enough with occasional emails with subject lines like "535 people" and upon reading you discover that this list of no gooders is actually Congress. Then it started to escalate a bit with photos of certain candidates without American flag lapel pins to references to certain candidate's anti-Christian backgrounds. Then it became really heated when veiled and not so veiled references to Hitler surfaced. I had enough. What the heck happened to my parents? When did they suddenly turn into Jesse Helms and Anita Bryant?

I grew up in a small town in Pennsylvania in a household that by all accounts was perfectly ordinary. I don't ever remember politics being discussed, but I do remember as each election passed they would vote with the Republican Party. Not because of any social conservative views, but because they felt that the GOP espoused the same fiscal views. They were fiscal conservatives. I think it rubbed off on me. One of my earliest memories was going to school one day during the re-election campaign of Gerald Ford and his VP Bob Dole carrying a giant inflatable DOLE banana. I used it to beat those Carter-loving classmates of mine into submission. Needless to say that election didn't work out for Ford and to be honest I think I was just more into the theatrics and over sized props.

I always felt I grew up in a well-rounded almost liberal household. We subscribed to the New York Times on Sundays for goodness sakes and made countless trips to the city to see one Broadway show after another. I grew up in a household that appreciated art and music, which I think led both my sister and myself into careers in entertainment. They let me subscribe to Interview Magazine and we always had copies of The New Yorker in the house. Years later, when my mom was getting ready to come visit me in Los Angeles she asked my Dad, "What do we do if Matthew is gay?" And it was my father that responded, "We love him just the same." Needless to say when I picked her up at the airport with a well rehearsed speech about my new life as a gay man set to be given over lunch in a well chosen locale, she was first to put it out there in a nonchalant way. I almost drove off the side of the 405 as she said, "Your father and I already discussed it and we love you very much." When most of my friends were dealing with being ostracized by their families, mine was just about ready to join PFLAG.

I've gone through political changes over the years. I marched and blew whistles in the streets of Los Angeles in opposition to anti-gay initiatives. I went to a few Act Up meetings. I remember spending one Friday night getting on a bus headed to Sacramento to protest at the state capitol. It was the same time that Christo's Pink Umbrellas were up, but unfortunately we left and came back in the dark of night without seeing one of those darn things. I realized that I needed to stand up for my rights even if my other friends were content to sit on the sidelines. I was no true activist by any means, but it was certainly a step up from my over sized prop days.

Fast forward to 2008. I think it's the last eight years of this awful Bush administration that's ramping everyone up. People all over are so tired of these Bush folks and want a CHANGE. Oh Lord, there's that word. To me, I saw it in Barack Obama very early on. It was his speech after winning the primary in Iowa that made me stand up and take notice. Before that it was all about Hillary for me, but as his star began to shine hers diminished in my eyes. I started to read up on his policies and ended up voting for him in our primary here. I was honestly disappointed in his support of that FISA bill, but I understood the politics of compromise in this post-9/11 world. I thought the Democrats did a great job with the convention and was amazed at Michelle Obama and equally blown away and moved by Barack's closing night speech to all those people.

My hopes that my parents might slightly feel the same way were dashed when I called home last Saturday and my mom said, "Oh that Governor Palin. She's so impressive. We are so pleased with McCain's VP pick." I thought, "What the heck? What are they thinking?" I responded as best I could with challenges to Palin's experience and was met with at best disinterest. I followed up days later with a list of things that were revealed about her past including the ethics investigations, her religious views that seem to form her worldviews and her daughter's distraction. My goal was to show how McCain made a flippant choice by paying no mind to his own health concerns in order to appease the right wing. "What if this woman became President?" I said. But alas, no worries from them. They feel that she has the executive background by being Governor to meet the demands of the VP job and I suppose ultimately the presidency. I finally said to them, "You know she doesn't approve of folks like me. She's voted against upholding the rights of Gays in the work force. What if she wants to enact laws against me? What then?" My father responded, "Well she's not going to do that. And if she does, I'll be here to protect you." My father does have a gun, but it's really nothing more than a dusty antique that couldn't be fired. I'm not so sure that's a match against Sarah Palin's arsenal, but I appreciate his effort.

The thing that really gets me is how I see Obama as the right choice to lead this country and they see McCain in the exact same way. I see Obama as ushering in a new era into Washington one that is filled with hope and optimism. Replace Obama with McCain in that sentence and that's my parents feelings. I just don't get it. Was watching too many hours of Fox News to blame? Their unwavering support of McCain has made me honestly take a step back and look at Obama. But instead of making me less supportive or disillusioned, it's only further intensified my support for Barack. I suppose that's the true lesson to learn if any. At the end of the day we can only agree to disagree. It's made me a stronger and more involved person. I'm going to keep fighting the good fight.

They love me and I love them back ten times as much, but until November 4th I say, "Put 'em up!"

Inspired by the GOP convention.

Lise — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:47:29 EDT

As many of you can probably assume (and likely sympathize), the GOP convention is making me ill. Not only because watching the people in the audience is like playing "Where's Waldo" of minorities (that's not the America I know), but because this party is completely fine, proud even, to be blatantly lying about Obama, his intentions, and the people who support him. And yes, some are very gifted at it. Sarah Palin even had me thinking "she's not so bad" for a second, before she brought forth a slew of lies that contradicted EVERYTHING Barack has said he will do while in office. Yes, I am proud that Obama, a democrat, finally stood up to the GOP. But when he did it, he was using actual facts, not speculation. McCain's voting record is clear. You can go to http://www.votesmart.org/ if you doubt what Obama says is true. However the speechwriters of the GOP seem to think that speculation and assumption is all that is needed to sway the undecided American public in their direction. I hope, for all our sakes, they are wrong.

Giving to perhaps one of the most intelligent, well spoken, and caring "community organizers" I've ever seen run for office makes me feel a little better. I know that if I support someone I really believe in, I'm making my voice be heard and putting Obama one little step closer to the White House. And while donating time is also nice and I encourage all of you who aren't doing so already to take an evening or weekend to do so, the campaign is still funded by money. Obama has funded his campaign on small donations sent by millions of Americans. Keep in mind that the more we send to any candidate (regardless of which party we're supporting), the less dependency politicians have on special interests. So I encourage you to give now. I mean, how many dinners out or pairs of shoes would you give up to see someone in the White House we can trust? How many car washes would you forgo for American women to retain their right to choose. How many drinks at a bar would you give up if it meant the rights and privileges of heterosexuals were extended to all communities? McCain is a person who voted no on a nondiscrimination act that would have meant a lot to me. And while I'd love to receive the same privileges as married couples, I'm not referring to his vote to approve the defense of marriage act. No, I'm referring to his no vote on an act that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (In case you didn't know, that bill did not pass and yes it is legal to refuse employment based solely on a person's sexual orientation in the majority of states in this nation). For a party that seems to say the word freedom more times than George Michael's song on repeat, they don't seem to know what the word means.

For those of you reading this who are Republican, I urge you to look at why you're voting the way you are and ask yourself if the past 8 years really have been all you have wanted them to be, both in your community, at home as well as globally. Because if McCain's voting record is any indication of how he'll run the country, Barack's absolutely right in saying that a McCain administration will mean more of what we've been getting for the past eight years. And not just on civil rights issues, but on issues involving health care, foreign policy, aid for our troops, and the environment. And with 3 potential vacancies on the Supreme Court, he will undoubtedly ensure that his legacy lives on for many decades to come.

Let's do something to change the course our country has been on, shall we? If this blog moved you in any way, you can show your appreciation by contributing to his campaign right now. Even if it's $5, that's $5 with your beliefs written all over them.

http://my.barackobama.com/helpfightback

Thank you for reading.

From the Washington Blade; Biden is a great choice.

jeffrey — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:09:40 EDT

NATIONAL

Obama ends suspense, picks Biden
Del. senator called ‘proven advocate’ for gay rights

LOU CHIBBARO JR
Saturday, August 23, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s decision to pick Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) as his vice presidential running mate drew immediate praise from gay activists in Delaware, who called Biden a strong and reliable friend of the gay community.

After more than two months of deliberation over selecting a vice presidential nominee, Obama announced Biden’s selection shortly after 3 a.m. Saturday in text messages and e-mails sent to his campaign supporters.

Although Biden, 65, has not signed on as a co-sponsor for as many gay-related bills as activists would have liked, he has voted for gay-supportive legislation and against anti-gay measures nearly every time such legislation came before the Senate during his 35-year tenure as a senator, according to Delaware activists.

“You won’t see him taking the lead on gay issues, but whenever there is a vote, he’s always with us,” said Peter Schott, president of the Stonewall Democratic Club of Delaware, a gay rights group.

“He’s a great choice for vice president,” said Steve Elkins, executive director of Camp Rehoboth, a gay social and community service organization in Rehoboth Beach, a Delaware resort town with a large gay community.

“Biden has always been very supportive of everything we’ve done,” Elkins said.

Last year, after announcing his candidacy for president, Biden joined other Democratic presidential candidates, including Obama, in expressing support for an employment non-discrimination bill that includes both gays and transgender persons.

"We have reason to think he's very positive on all LGBT issues," said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality.

In a questionnaire sent to all presidential candidates by the Human Rights Campaign, Biden also indicated, similar to Obama, that he supports civil unions for same-sex couples rather than marriage rights. Like Obama, Biden said he favors providing couples joined in civil unions with all of the rights and benefits of marriage.

Biden dropped out of the presidential race earlier this year after losing to Obama and other candidates in the early primaries.

In his role as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has been credited with shepherding through the Senate earlier this year a sweeping global AIDS relief bill that includes a provision repealing the U.S. ban on HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.

HRC gave Biden a rating of 78 out of a possible 100 in its most recent congressional scorecard on gay- and AIDS-related issues, which covered the years 2005-2006. Biden lost points in the rating, according to HRC, because he didn’t sign on as a co-sponsor to the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow same-sex partners of U.S. citizens who are foreign nationals to obtain the same immigration benefits as foreigners who are married spouses of U.S. citizens. Delaware activists have said they believe Biden would vote for the bill if it reaches the Senate floor. The measure has been stalled in Congress for more than four years.

Over the past 20 years, Biden’s HRC scorecard rating varied from a perfect 100 to a 63.

In recent years, Biden has voted for hate crimes legislation and against a constitutional amendment calling for banning same-sex marriage. As a candidate for president earlier this year, Biden said he favors repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which bans gays from serving openly in the U.S. military.

In 1994, Biden broke ranks with many of his Republican and Democratic colleagues by voting for an amendment to prevent the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy from being enacted into law. The amendment, which lost, came at a time when President Bill Clinton backed the policy as a compromise after Congress refused to support Clinton’s original plan for allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

Biden’s only significant vote against the interests of gay rights came in 1996, when he joined many of his Democratic colleagues in voting for the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage under federal law as a union only between one man and one woman.

Information compiled by HRC shows that between 1990 and 2000, Biden voted for three separate versions of hate crimes bills that included protections for gays. In 1992, Biden voted for a procedural motion to stop an attempt by Congress to bar the D.C. government from implementing its local domestic partners law. The motion failed. “In selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, Sen. Obama has chosen a proven and effective advocate for fairness and equality that our entire community can be proud of,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Sen. Biden’s record in the United States Senate is one of support and understanding that has been unwavering throughout his career.”

Please let me marry the one I love!

Seeking Equality - That's it. — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:44:13 EDT

I am a gay American. I have known that I was gay since I was around 10 years old. I grew up hiding who I was until I turned 31. It was a life of deceiving myself and the one's I love.

As an American, I've been told all my life that I live in the Land of the Free; a place where all men are created equal. Yet, each day I'm reminded that I am not free to openly express my love for the person I want to share my life with. I am also not equal; I do not have the same rights and privileges as those around me. I am not asking for anything special, just the freedom to marry the person I have loved for the past 9 years and the equality to create a home, a family, and a life with all the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

Our country has matured over the years in our free rights movements. We've realized that a man and woman should be able to love one another no matter what the color of their skin is, but the love of a man for a man or a woman for a woman is denied by the government in a majority of the 50 states. Currently, California and Massachusetts are the only two states that offer the right to legally marry. New York recognizes marriages from other states, and Massachusetts also performs weddings for those from New Mexico and Rhode Island as those two states do not prohibit it.

I truly believe the United States is the greatest country on the face of this Earth. It saddens me though, that countries like Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain all allow two people that are in love, but happen to be of the same sex to legal marry in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of God, but our great country does not. Additionally, 15 other countries, including Croatia, Mexico and the United Kingdom, allow same sex partnerships or unions.

My partner and I held a commitment ceremony, in our Church, with the help of our Pastor, under the eyes of God; to the amazement of some, there were no lightning bolts and the Church did not explode. God loves me. He always has and He always will.

All I want to do is have the same rights as a man and woman who get married. I want to be able to have a home in mine and my partners name without one of us having to purchase renters insurance. I want to be able to know that if something happens to one of us, that the other will not have to be penalized or jump through hoops to maintain everything we worked for together. I want an opportunity to adopt a child and raise him in a house filled with love, encouragement, and faith.

I hope that Mr. Obama can take a stand and make a real change. When he was born, his parents would not have been able to legally marry in several states; that wrong has been corrected. It now needs to be corrected for those of us who still are a footnote to the belief that all are created equal.

I implore you Mr. Obama to take a stand for true freedom; for equal rights for everyone. Most times it is not easy to do the right thing, but that doesn't make it any less right.

Evangelical contact

Nancy A — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:31:31 EDT

For evangelicals, as an evangelical myself, I bear witness that you should never underestimate your fellow members. I've had two opportunities recently with my own pastor and another in the community to discuss the issues, including the hotbed surrounding abortion and gay rights. Both after discussion understood the separation of church and state works in both directions and of personal moral beliefs vs the law protecting the right to have those beliefs whether they agree with those choices or not. The main disagreements between the parties is the conservative right wanting to legislate morality versus this being between the individual and their maker if they are believers and the law insuring their choice to make those decisions.

Don't ever write a group off as unapproachable as a whole and get the word out where ever you can, you never know what you can do until you try.

repost: Obama and gays in the military

Duane Kuehn — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:28:33 EDT

Hi All,

We should all learn from history. When the very far right Republican Party that was his creation elected George Bush the father, he turned on them, he voted "Yes" to Civil Rights.

The result was a Republican Party of close-minded bigots who turned on him. This turning included many death threats, and death threats in Texas are promises in a land where people keep their promises.

Rather than run, George Bush gave what some consider the most amazing speech of his political career, and that man could give a speech. He called the Party Big-Wigs and Big Money to a meeting and talked to the outraged and angry mob.

The gist of his speech was that when he was in the armed service, he watched black men fight and die next to him. That if these black people could fight and die for this country, they deserved Civil Rights in this country. George Bush walked away from that meeting to thunderous applause.

John McCain is no fool. He must attack Obama's stance of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. He must because these are his trump cards with the huge voting block of the Religious Right.

Bill Clinton tried to allow gays to serve openly in the military. One of his generals had a hissy-fit about it and it changed to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy". It was a little better than the days of Vietnam when our troops were spied followed and spied upon in attempt to catch and criminalize anyone who was gay. A time when some of our most honored and highly decorated soldiers were thrown out of the service, not for sexual misconduct but for the mere fact that they were bisexual or gay.

Strange when one considers that the most famous of military leaders, Alexander the Great, was a homosexual. The homosexuality of Alexander of Mesopotamia is a documented fact, which proves that gays can be the best of soldiers and military leaders. That the Spartans were often homosexual couples because they would fight harder when fighting beside someone they loved.

The point being that gay men and women do not join the army to get a date.

Being gay is not a behavior; it is a natural part of life. It is not a "choice" for most anyway, most hate themselves for being gay and nobody would choose to live life in a closet of self-hatred. I do not think the marines have to worry about being raped by a gay soldier.

Sexuality should not really enter into the picture but as a man has the right to say, "I have a girlfriend back home", or a woman has the right to say, "I have a husband back home", and so does the gay soldier have the right to share his life back home with his comrades in arms. Gay soldiers should not be forced to tell lies to their friends in the service for fear of court martial.

If a gay person chooses to fight for the United States of America, the United States of America should recognize that person's human rights; and the armed services are no exception.

repost: Obama and Gays in the Military

Duane Kuehn — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:26:34 EDT

Obama and gays in the military

Duane Kuehn — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:24:36 EDT

Gay rights and the Bible

Duane Kuehn — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:52:02 EDT

"You can make the Judea/Christian Bible say anything you want it to say", the answer to just about any interpretation that does not agree with the status quo.

The "status quo" is the interpretation that best fills the pocketbooks of wealthy preachers and churches. Even in this, "enlightened" age "Bible Thumpers" and their innocent followings preach hate and discontent, oftentimes without a clue that they might be incorrect.

The "clue", of course is always the knowing that the Bible, for some reason seems to contradict itself. Some appear to easily ignore that two opposites seem to be said at the same time. "The Word is not confused; it is humankind that confuses the Word. -Jesus the Christ.

In the case of Christianity and Homosexuality, this is summed in Christ's words to love thy God and thy neighbor vs. a backhanded approval of hating homosexuals.

The heartbreaking problem with this is that each time the Bible is re-translated; the "status quo" becomes the guide. This is to say that in new versions of the Bible, which make scripture easier to read, not only change the words but tend to bury the Wisdom a bit further with each new translation. Making it, each time, just a little bit harder to find what the Bible actually says.

Dealing with such an explosive issue as "homosexuality" becomes a bit less easy as newer Bibles actually include the term "homosexuals" in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Though that which a modern society terms "homosexuality" as "sin" is very far from the truth of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

For the modern "Christian", reading through the Torah (Old Testament) is not so necessary. However, Jesus of the New Testament (also called the New Testament), references the Torah and it is nice to get a better picture of this older scripture.

What the Bible really says about homosexuality is not so easy to explain, as the Bible actually is not pornographic and references to sexual behavior are normally a symbolism of "selfishness". One does not have to be an avid reader of the scripture to realize that all of that which is called "sin" therein is based upon one thing, "selfishness".

The "selfishness" of Eve, in biting the forbidden fruit was the deception that she would become as "God"; is symbolized by the sexually placed fig leaves over the genitalia. The "selfishness" of the men of Sodom is as well symbolized by the sexually placed offer of the two virgin daughters.

Further reading of the scripture will give to us a better glimpse of life in the "City of Men" (meaning not a city of "God" but a city of the ego of humankind). That, "Even the women and children were thieves and murderers (not that even the women and children were homosexuals). You see. Sexual excursions are often used to symbolize "selfishness".

The men surround the house in the story of Sodom to signify the selfishness of the city. Later we find written that, "Even the women and children of Sodom were thieves and murderers". The sin of Sodom was the failure of the city to follow God's Word, "If a stranger should sojourn unto your land, give him water for his thirst and a place of shade to rest." Neither Sodom nor its sister city Gomorrah had any hospitality.

"Lust", in this modern day of sexual obsessions, is most often thought of in a sexual context. However, Biblically "lust" is a selfish desire of anything, such as coveting, killing, etc. All the hurtful things some people do to others to please the ego of the self.

In fact, if one is not used to reading the Bible, some important definitions might be in order. Definitions, which, to the best of my knowledge, most church leaders, leave to the imagination. Things left ignored for the probable reason of keeping the Bible "mysterious".

"Evil" is most often considered the opposite "Good". More in line with the truth of "Evil" is the old adage, "Sometimes Good can come from Evil".

This because "Evil" is simply and unequivocally, "Good which is used (twisted) for Selfish Purpose". One can test this definition in any circumstance.

My personally favorite description of the Bible is, "The Good Book which is often used for Selfish Purpose". I believe the Bible to be filled with timeless wisdoms, which, like a garden hoe, can be used to cultivate Spiritual Growth.
Nevertheless, also like a garden hoe, it can be used to hit one's neighbor over the head.

The same rule applies to "Evil" as applies to "sin", if it is selfish there is Evil at hand.

Another Biblical word that is easily misunderstood is "Love". We live in an era that is obsessed with "sex" and this "sex" spills into the term "Love". "Sex" can be, but is not always, a physical manifestation of "Love". The same rule, again, applies and will apply throughout the Bible. If it is selfish for either partner, then it is not "Love", it is an egotistically invoked sexual enterprise, in the name of selfish pleasure and often to the detriment of one's partner. This self-gratification is not of "Love".

Biblical "Love", in today's language, would be "Acceptance". When "sex" is a manifestation of this "Acceptance", it is "Love". One of any sexuality should take care in one's behavior concerning sexual excursions.

The Biblical "God", when speaking to Moses from a burning bush, defines God for us. This bush is not to be confused with a President. When Moses asks for a name, that which is called "God" replies, "I AM THAT I AM" (emphasis is Biblical, not my creation). In this manner, we may replace the term "God" with "I AM THAT I AM". The reason for this replacement is twofold.

The Bible is written by a patriarchal society for a patriarchal society. The "male" is dominant in this society and therefore "God" is depicted as a male. The Bible is, in fact, a personification of creation itself. Substituting "I AM THAT I AM" for the term "God" renders the "male" image of God neutral and gives a more forthright and understandable depiction of the nature of God.

In this, "I AM THAT I AM" shall say, "Let us create man (Spiritual humankind) in our image". Moreover, a bit after, "I AM THAT I AM" created man (Spiritual humankind) in his (read the) image of "I AM THAT I AM". "Male AND Female created He (I AM THAT I AM) THEM.

"God" has created spiritual humankind in the image of "I AM THAT I AM". Both, male and female are the single image of "God". For God will later create the human form of the dust and blow into the nostrils the Spiritual essence of "I AM THAT I AM".

This is important because "God" does not change the Word. Before "God" creates the physical body of humankind, God shall say to the Spiritual-essence of humankind to, "Be fruitful and multiply". Some claim this to be the first Commandment of the Lord; however, the Word does not give humans the right to select, that which is commanded, and that which is not commanded.

Commandments of the Lord are specifically related as such and the Primary Commandment of the Word is not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. True today as when written, that "Fruit" is to twist "Good" into "Evil" for selfish purpose.

These things written here are of importance if one is to recognize what the Bible "says" of "homosexuality".

Probably the closest point to mention anything of that which we today term "homosexuality" is found in the story of King David and Jonathan, son of Saul.

King David is notorious for his love of women, his infamous virile attractions causing many instances that might be considered un-Godly by those who would call themselves "righteous". However, possibly to the regret of those very "righteous", King David is not allowed to enter the Kingdom for one reason only, "You have warred and you have blood upon your hands".

King David tells of his love of Jonathan, "A love that even far exceeds his love of women".

King Saul chastises Jonathan for "confusing his mother's birthright" or "confusing his mother's nakedness". Most will interpret this as Jonathan's losing his inheritance of the kingdom to David.

However, in a patriarchal society, the inheritance of family name, property and status are the "father's birthright", including the kingdom. The mother's birthright is religion and gender specific. "Confusing thy mother's nakedness" is a direct reference to sexuality.

To assume this is evidence of Jonathan and David having a physical relationship would be no different from reading "homosexuality" into the Story of Sodom. However, that at least Jonathan may have experimented in what we would term a homosexual manner that is very common to young men. The conclusion drawn being that King David, "God's chosen" was, in the least, unconditionally Accepting of Jonathan's experimentations.

In the New Testament, we find Jesus answering a man in the book of Matthew. The question arises about the rule that the brother-in-law of a widow is to marry the widow that she may bare a son to continue the family name.

"All things are not for all to understand. Some are born Eunuchs, some are made Eunuchs by man and some are Eunuchs in devotion to the Father." -Jesus the Christ

People usually think of the term "Eunuch" as defined by its Greek definition, a male who has been castrated after birth.

In his statement, however, Jesus is obviously using the colloquial of "Eunuch" as being, "one who does not reproduce".

No male can be born, "castrated AFTER birth", this is also evidence that those whom we would now term "homosexual" are (or can be) BORN homosexual. That some are born homosexual is consistent with the finding of many studies. The most recent of which being the homosexuals have asymmetrical brains as do straight women. Men and Lesbians are shown to have symmetrical brains.

"some are made Eunuchs by man", are those castrated after birth.

Priests of the time did not castrate themselves "in devotion to the father", be they the Biblical Levites or others. Especially when one recognizes that history lacks the medical knowledge, lack of anesthetic, anesthesia and sharp instruments. Castrations were often deadly. Castrations being normally the result of cuttings with hatchets, swords or knives, which, by today's standards, were extremely, dull.

Another main reference to justify a spreading of hatred toward that which we term "homosexuality" is found in Leviticus.

Leviticus is the book of laws of the time that covers everything from taxation, health and sanitation to recompense and devotionals.

Most used to approve persecution of homosexuals is the rule not to lie with a man as with a woman. This law, however, has to do with health and sanitation, as do some of the others.

One should not eat prepared meat on the third day, "…ye shall be put to death". In a time with no adequate preservation, prepared meat would begin to spoil by the third day and, "…ye shall be put to death".

There was no refrigeration, drying prepared meat would turn it into a rock and salting would produce and inedible block of salt.

Shellfish was not to be eaten, "…surely ye shall be put to death." Shellfish spoiled within a matter of hours and "…surely ye shall be put to death."

For a man to lie with a woman as with a man brings only one possible sexual position to mind, anal sex, "…surely ye shall be put to death." There was no tap water and bar of soap in a bathroom. Water, in fact, was a very important commodity, not to be wasted in baths. Anal would be a serious conduit for the spread of disease and "…ye shall be put to death."

For a man to lie with a man then a woman would be even more dangerous in the spreading of disease and "…surely ye shall be put to death.

This is not to condone or condemn any type of sexual behavior of any sexuality. One should take care in sexual behaviors.

In Exodus, Moses' father-in-law tells Moses that Moses should create a system of judges whereby Moses does not spend so much time sitting as judge of the people. There is no evidence whatsoever that God approved this plan. God, of course, had given man the authority to exercise judgment (that which is commonly termed "Free Will"). Hence, each individual could choose to follow her/his own Free Will or follow the Will of God.

We can almost see that place in Leviticus where the law of Moses itself begins to change, that humankind takes it upon himself to not only sit in judgment of others but to do that which countermands God's Commandments. Placing "and ye shall be put to death" as humankinds right to condemn others and give as due a capital punishment, usually by stoning. We see it as also becomes claimed as God's instructions to countermand not to kill. Much earlier, we see also that God gives instructions for punishments of those who kill inadvertently and those who kill with premeditation. No punishments from God give humankind the right to kill her/his fellow.

Neither Moses nor Aaron is allowed to deliver the people into the Promised Land, for they had not the Faith. In the New Testament, Jesus will speak of the church leaders (Pharisees) and scribes (those who wrote scripture) and how they changed the scripture to suit their (selfish) purposes.

Under what is called Mosaic Law (Never called God's Law) the rule of judgment will be that if two persons shall witness against a crime, the criminal is guilty automatically. If there is only one witness, the judge shall decide guilt or innocence.

The most persecuted of the time were those against who were most easily witnessed by two persons, the prostitute. Jesus shall walk with the prostitute, the most witnessed against and most punished by stoning. Jesus took the most persecuted in hand that all should know not to persecute one's fellow.

Still so many deny Him!

There are other spots here and there in this Judea/Christian Bible that some grab as meat to spread hatred of the homosexual. Those places only worth mentioning in answer to those who opt to grab any camel hair that they appear more righteous than the neighbor does.

Loveya,
Duane Kuehn

Why I'm Voting Obama

A_Hussein_Jackson — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:55:59 EDT

I am the voter every wants.

I'm a "working class white", a woman, a registered independent, and resident of a super-delegate swing state. (Thanks to the current interpretation of our Constitutionally provided Electoral College, this means my vote actually *might* mean more than yours, depending on where you live.)

I've given before a brief outline of Obama's policy, and why I implore others to vote for him. But on a personal level, here's why I, individual that I am, am voting for Obama.

I am a single mother. I am a welfare mom. I work full time, and am the sole provider and caretaker for my son. My ex evades his court-ordered child support payment every single month without repercussion.

My son has special needs. These require certain services, such as an early intervention therapist and speech therapist, as well as annual hearing exams, and attending a (more expensive) special preschool. In the fall he'll begin a wonderful program for speech delayed children at a local elementary school, which will help defray some of the childcare expenses I currently incur.

I have no health insurance for myself or my son. Two weeks ago I had to take him to the ER for a high fever and ear infections. This will cost me over $1,000 that I cannot afford. I have foregone needed medical treatment for myself numerous times over the past three years because I simply could not pay what it costs to get well in this country.

I am a full-time university student. I am a member of the Honors College at my university, with a GPA of 3.89. I work very, very hard for my grades and my acquisition of knowledge. My university is facing serious budget cuts, and some of my favorite professors, as well as entire departments, were let go at the end of the Spring semester. I am taking two majors and two minors. The topics I study will help me to one day earn an excellent living in a field I love, helping refugees, honoring people of a variety of faiths, and hopefully preventing unnecessary terrorist violence and both civil and multinational wars. Currently though, school is something I struggle to afford, as grants and loans are not increasing at the rate of tuition.

I live with my best friend, who has done international relief work, works full time, majors at the same university in womens studies, is a devoted woman of the Christian faith (she and I have attended church together for over 20 years), and also happens to be a lesbian. I believe she should have full rights in her love, benefits, and healthcare with her future life partner as any heterosexual woman would be granted for her husband. She suffers from diabetes, and if she were to be rushed to the hospital, her girlfriend would not be able to have access to medical information, simply because she is not family (and, by the laws of the state we live in, never can become family). I believe this is fundamentally prejudiced and wrong.

I'm voting Senator Barack Obama for the next President of the United States because I believe in harsher penalties for dead-beat dads. Because I have suffered great pain in my life from medical neglect at the hands of my abusive family, and since as a result of letting the insurance industry lobbyists write our nation's health care agenda for the past generation. Because my son is a beautiful, brilliant boy and I want him to always have access to the services he needs, to attend a great school, and to have every opportunity in life to flourish and become the man I believe God has destined him to be. Because I don't want to see my son sent to Iraq or Iran or any other war, to kill the sons of other women, or be killed or maimed by them. Because I believe that love is a beautiful thing, not to be controlled or regulated by government officials. Because I believe "family" is the people who love you, lift you up, and care that you are taken care of - regardless of their gender, blood, or sexual orientation.

I am not asking for a handout, or a turn to socialism or communism. I am proud to be an American and love the process of true democracy. As I said before, I will make a substantial income in my field once I graduate, and I will gladly contribute to taxes for future college students, welfare moms, and special needs children. I'm asking for change now, to help me get to the point where I can help others. Because that's what I hope America is, and because that's the nation I want to leave to my son.

We have the awesome power and responsibility of the VOTE in this country. It is incredible. I am proud to be a registered independent, who votes each candidate separately based on how I perceive them as individuals and policy-makers, not on their party affiliation. And I am proud to say that November 4, 2008 I will be voting for Obama. I hope any of you who do not wish McCain to become President and have the legal right to vote in this country, will take a moment now to register to vote, if you have not already done so. Here are a few links to where you can register, right now, today. Exercise your freedoms and your rights fully, and be thankful we have the ability to elect our legislative and executive officers.

http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.html?ms=googlevr7&gclid=CI6jtf--hpQCFRQYsgodFV7cVg
http://projectvote.org/index.php?id=15&gclid=CMmQiJS_hpQCFQWxsgod_E75Ww
https://electionimpact3.votenet.com/declareyourself/voterreg2%5Fret/

originally posted in my LJ 6/10

A_Hussein_Jackson — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:51:46 EDT

Ok, so I've kept my big political mouth shut long enough. It's time for the ranting! Feel free to leave intelligent comments. I'm all for debate, but not name-calling. Just thought I'd lay that out there before I begin...

A few facts about our current Administration:

* when Bush took office, gas was $1.47 a gallon. Now it's $4.00 a gallon, national average
* the economy is crumbling. Food prices are up, as is unemployment. Wages are static
* over 30% of the US population is BELOW the poverty limit (including me)
* college tuition rates are at an all time high, while funding for institutions for higher learning is decreasing (we're cutting many of my favorite teachers, as well as entire programs at the state university I attend)
* the "War on Terror" has dragged on for years - without making the US demonstrably safer
* Hamas is now in control of the Gaza Strip
* Al-Qeida has grown in support, strength, and numbers over the past 8 years
* people in New Orleans are still homeless, living in emergency FEMA trailers
* terrorism in Iraq has increased greatly over the past five years

To all my Clinton supporters - I'm sorry your candidate did not win. I respect Hillary and the incredible race she ran. But whether you intially supported Clinton or Obama, if you want to see change in the White House, do not abandon the Democratic National Convention now - vote Obama. McCain will surely continue the Iraq War, sending more and more Americans to die needlessly in a war that is not supported by the majority of our citizens and without clear objectives. Our standing on the international scene has decreased tremendously. The US dollar is at a pitiful low. We are spending great gobs of money on a war on foreign soil, while Americans struggle to pay their mortgages, buy groceries, keep up with credit card debt, and send their kids to school. A man who loses his job in this country may not be able to afford to fill his gas tank long enough to find a new one. There are record foreclosures going on. Our economy is in shambles. Whatever politicians and the media call it - an "economic downturn" or a "recession" - this is a sad, scary position. We need to change things and we need to change them fast.

Vote Obama - please. Don't keep sending good money after bad, to keep our soldiers far from home and coming home maimed, without fixing VA funding laws (Bush wants to cut veterans medical benefits, yet still send more troops off to die and face loss of life and limb).

Vote Obama - please. This is the one and only candidate who did not accept campaign funding from political lobbyist groups. McCain, on the other hand, accepted more fundings from such groups in the 2000 primary election against Bush than any other candidate. He has a vested obligation to special interest groups and corporations - He cannot be trusted to put the interests of American citizens above the interests of his financial partners, American corporations.

Vote Obama - please. We need change and we need it now. I don't want to hear that America "isn't ready" for a black President. If we aren't ready in 2008 then racism has won and this country would rather be poor and ignorant, than egalitarian. Thomas Jefferson - a slave owner, but also an important founder of this nation - wrote that "all men are created equal". If we aren't ready to embrace that principle now, in the face of the terrible state that white men have left this country in, I am sad and want to move my son and myself to another place, where people aren't judged by skin pigmentation, but by what they stand for and believe in.

Vote Obama - please. Will it really hurt you to allow gays to have marriage and equal rights? My best friend and roommate is a lesbian, and I love her like a sister. I see no LOGICAL reason why she and her girlfriend should not be able to one day marry, if they so choose.

Vote Obama - please. We don't need another tottering old fool in office. We've suffered that indignity for the past eight years and it has not been to our benefit. Let someone young, fresh, and with his ideals not yet watered down through years of back-door deals and bribes take office.

I'd like to end my plea with a historical note: The last time America elected a one-term Senator from Illinois to the office of President, he saved this Union from its greatest threat. President Abraham Lincoln was young, a wonderful public speaker, and truly looked beyond Democrat and Republican lines to seek the best position for the entire nation. Obama has reminded me of Lincoln since the start of his campaign, and I sincerely hope America IS ready to vote a great man to office once again.

Thank you.

The Right Plans to Use Marriage as an Wedge Issue ...

Scott A. Giordano — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:53:46 EDT

Let this be a wake up call to GLBT activists and Obama supporters ...

American Progressive

rayghoward — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:21:18 EDT

The term Progressive has been given a negative connotation by Conservatives. They interpret progressives as people who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, raise taxes, aggressively support gay and reproductive rights, raise taxes, and ultimately want to replace Democracy with Socialism. Does that sound right? I do not think so. Progressives are not monolithic in their thinking on these topics as they would want you to believe either. I am a proud Progressive while supporting gun rights (registration of all guns, better background checks on buyers and sellers, and limits on assault rifles), lower taxes (for middle class earners), ban on gay marriage (civil unions protected), limits on abortion (ban on partial birth abortions, abortions in 2nd and 3rd trimesters except for incest, rape, or to save the mother's life) and I am for a free market economy (with lowered trade deficits and outsourcing and increased job training and education).

Progressives are the ones who are best equipped to deal with the new world landscape of the 21st century.

Gay couples rush to get married in California

Joe from San Antonio, TX — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:58:16 EDT

SAN FRANCISCO - County clerk offices opened their doors Tuesday to hundreds of gay and lesbian couples with appointments to secure marriage licenses and exchange vows on the first full day same-sex nuptials were legal throughout California.

From San Diego to Eureka, couples readied their formal wear, local licensing clerks expanded their staffs and conservative groups warned of a backlash as the nation's most populous state prepared to join Massachusetts in sanctioning gay unions.

In San Francisco, a gay men's chorus was singing on the front steps, where a party atmosphere was lit up by rainbow flags and supporters handing out cupcakes to happy couples.

Helen Zia and Lea Shigemura sang "The Chapel of Love" as they walked to the city attorney's office to get married. The couple, clad in beige jackets and slacks, exchanged vows with Zia's mother by their side.

"This is the most meaningful day of my life. I've always wanted to get married," Shigemura said. "I just never thought it'd be possible."

Unlike Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, California has no residency requirement for marriage licenses. Many couples are expected to head west to wed.

The May 15 California Supreme Court ruling that overturned the state's bans on same-sex marriage became final at 5:01 p.m. Monday, and clerks in at least five counties extended their hours to mark the occasion.

Already, dozens of same-sex couples have seized the opportunity to make their relationships official in the eyes of the law. They included actor and gay rights activist George Takei, who arrived with his longtime partner, Brad Altman, at West Hollywood City Hall on Tuesday morning to get their marriage license.

"Today we are all here to give flesh and blood reality to that ruling. We are going to make history," said Takei, who played Sulu in the 1960s "Star Trek" television series. "Congratulations to all of us and may equality live long and prosper."

Every county was required to start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses Tuesday with spaces for "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be.

As couples prepared to marry at the Contra Costa County clerk's office Tuesday morning, three opponents of gay marriage from the Westboro Baptist Church picketed outside, carrying signs with sayings such as "God is your enemy."

Members of the sect are most often seen at military funerals in demonstrations claiming U.S. combat deaths are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

The protesters were easily outnumbered by about three dozen supporters of gay marriage, who held signs that read "Hate is not a family value" and "My marriage is not threatened by theirs, why is yours?" Police vehicles lined up near the demonstrators.

On Monday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who helped start the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83.

Newsom picked the couple for the only ceremony Monday in City Hall to recognize their 55-year relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement. More than 650 same-sex couples have made appointments to get marriage licenses in San Francisco before the end of the month.

Newsom called officiating the wedding "this extraordinary and humbling gift." After the mayor pronounced Martin and Lyon "spouses for life," the couple kissed, then emerged to a crowd of well-wishers who showered them with rose petals.

The celebrations are tempered by the reality that in a few months, Californians will go to the ballot box to vote on an initiative that would overturn the high court ruling and again ban gay marriage.

On Monday, three lawmakers and a small group of other same-sex opponents gathered outside the Capitol to criticize the Supreme Court decision. They urged voters to approve the ballot measure.

"This is an opportunity to take back a little bit of dignity ... for kids, for all of us in California," Republican Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa said. "It really disturbs me that the will of the people was overridden by four members of the Supreme Court."

In both San Francisco and Beverly Hills, where two women became the first same-sex couple in Los Angeles County to marry legally, small groups of protesters waved signs with sayings like "Repent or Perish," but they were outnumbered by supporters waving rainbow-striped flags.

Groups that oppose same-sex marriage have pursued several legal avenues to stop the weddings. On Monday, just hours before the ruling went into effect, a conservative legal group asked a Sacramento court to order the California agency that oversees marriages to stop issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses.

A hearing was set for Tuesday.

A UCLA study issued last week estimated that half of California's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married over the next three years, and 68,000 out-of-state couples will travel here to exchange vows.

___

Associated Press writers Laura E. Davis in Los Angeles, Michelle Locke in Oakland, Evelyn Nieves in Santa Rosa, Steve Lawrence in Sacramento and Samantha J. Young in Woodland contributed to this report.

In answer to this blog question titled "Issues"

Mary — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:15:06 EDT

Chris says on their first post:

"I want to know where Mr. Obama stands on Homosexual rights (or special rights based on sexual preference) and abortion."

1. Obama touches on variety of issues | US Senator Barack Obama... questions from a friendly crowd of about 1,000 on a variety of topics including
Social Security reform, education, the economy and the debate on gay rights. ... http://obama.senate.gov/news/050208-obama_touches_on_variety_of_is/-9k

2. Q & A: Obama answers questions at town meeting | US Senator Barack ...... Gay marriage - "I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but I do support ... based on not
discriminating against people and on providing them their basic civil rights.". ... http://obama.senate.gov/news/050506-q_a_obama_answers_questions_at/-14k

3. 'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address | US Senator Barack Obama... that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage;
school ... And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was ... http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/-32k

4. 'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address | US Senator Barack Obama... that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage;
school ... And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was ... http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/index.php-32k

5. Call to Renewal Keynote | US Senator Barack Obama... that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage;
school ... And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was ... http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_1/-34k

6. Race Against Time - World AIDS Day Speech | US Senator Barack ...... some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man
and ... from the days of our founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a ... http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061201-race_against_ti/-25k

7. Race Against Time - World AIDS Day Speech | US Senator Barack ...... some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man
and ... from the days of our founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a ... http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061201-race_against_time_-_world_aids_day_speech/-25k

8. Barack Obama - US Senator for Illinois... Obama Calls on Rice to Condemn Ruling Against Saudi Journalists, Support Human Rights. ...
Obama Joins Kennedy, Lewis to Introduce Civil Rights Act of 2008. ...

Barack Obama is a candidate that supports the equal rights of ALL citizens!

Plenty of Blunders to Go Around

Naomi — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:21:14 EDT

One of the things I have heretofore admired about Barack Obama and his campaign is that there has been a notable absence of "what were you thinking?" or "you've got to be kidding me" moments. While Hillary has been ducking imaginary sniper fire and John has been wishing us Jews a happy "Jewish Halloween," Barack has been remarkably intelligent.

That's not to say that there haven't been controversies. But even in the face of the Reverend Wright story, Barack has been open and honest and forthright. A controversy is not the same as a blunder.

During the last few days, however, three incidents caught my eye -- one by Hillary and two by Barack -- that made me cringe.

Dr. King, gas prices, and $.69/lb bananas

Beth from ColoradObama — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:01:23 EDT

So I'm sitting here watching the documentary on History Channel about Dr. Martin Luther King. I've made enough stir fry to last for a few nights of left overs, and I'm ready to blog while I watch the documentary about Dr. King

Margaret Cho

Nikk — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:58:01 EST

I say get Margaret Cho onn board Obama!!

http://capitolpunishment.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/18/what-ever-happened-to-gay-marriage/

Bad Attack Ads

Alamantra — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:31:56 EST

I wonder why Hillary Clinton doesn't realize how weird it looks to the casual observer when she runs attack ads in Texas that assert that Barack Obama won't debate her when there is a debate scheduled in Texas on Thursday night.

The Princess Bride, Same-Sex Marriage, and Politics

Chasphil — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:19:32 EST

Same-sex marriage and politics have for awhile now been forced to march down the aisle together. But, how can The Princess Bride, a fantasy that hit the screen two decades ago, help us gain a better perspective on this devisive political issue. If you are interested, read the extended post to see why I think it can.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Landon Cox — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:20:41 EST

In 1993 the Clinton campaign introduced a compromise between two competing factions in America; those who wanted an all-out ban against homosexuals serving in the military and those who wanted to be able to serve their country regardless of sexual orientation. Drafted by Colin Powell, this new policy prohibits any member of the Armed Forces to "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability", and was codified into law under section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which regulates the military.

This policy remains on the books, informally known as "Don't ask, don't tell" or DADT, and results in service members being discharged daily on accusations of homosexuality. On average, about 2 people a day are discharged, with 742 discharges on grounds of violating DADT in 2005, an increase from 668 in 2004. In another twist of irony, while the Pentagon admits that it is having increasing trouble meeting its recruitment goals, they estimate that an additional 41,000 gays and lesbians would enlist if DADT were repealed, in addition to the service men and women they could recall . The General Accounting Office estimates that it costs taxpayers $200 million dollars a year to recruit replacement officers for the ones that are discharged; unfortunately, heterosexism seems to have superseded rationality. However, there are far more important reasons to overturn DADT than purely a numbers game. DADT itself is gutting our military, and overturning the ban would solve our current recruitment crisis and therefore eliminate the current threat of overstretch of our armed forces. While fighting two overseas wars, plus maintaining a military influence across the globe, we cannot sustain continued losses any more than we have to on the battlefield. A sustained overstretch of United States armed forces would signal weakness that would invite regional conflict to challenge our dominance and hegemony; the visible overextension of our forces has the potential to significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to international conflicts in the Middle East and various hotspots of animosity. If the Army were ordered to respond to a crisis today, it would be to deploy troops whose readiness is far below what operations require, resulting in a disastrous military campaign.

However, overstretch isn't the only crisis facing the readiness of our military today. DADT causes paranoia of expression and suppression of sexuality that increases disease outbreak specifically in closeted homosexuals ; suppressing of emotions triggers the flight-or-fight response by triggering the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) which, when overused chronically suppresses immune system functions in a number of ways. The SNS secretes neurotransmitters and hormones into the bloodstream which, overtime, have an adverse effect on the immune system; one of such hormones is cortisol, which eventually halts the formation of lymphocytes, as well as rendering existing lymphocytes useless. These lymphocytes are key to stopping the spread of infections, and without them disease runs rampant. This immunosuppression turns otherwise mild infections into disease episodes, a costly risk for any soldier. Obviously, diseases have an adverse effect on the readiness of our troops, which magnified by the current overstretch of US forces only sets up the stage for a collapse of US hegemony. Some may question the importance of a unipolar world dominated by a single super power in the wake of increasing trends such as globalization, but a world in which the United States exercises its hegemony has tremendous advantages; other nations are more inclined to accept American values, thus facilitating cooperation on various issues such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony, and the events that could preclude a global nuclear exchange. Since the military is the most visible sign of our hard hegemonic strength, then a well-equipped and ready military is essential to strong US leadership around the world. Our cooperation with other nation's militaries is also uniquely threatened by sustaining DADT; all of our NATO allies outside of Turkey have removed restrictions on homosexuals serving in the armed forces. Going into a situation that requires international cooperation with a homophobic schism in the midst of combat guts internal cohesion of individual military units. If the argument that the world is shrinking and globalization is on the rise is true, then this type of international cooperation is absolutely essential to rapid response and containment of regional conflicts worldwide.

Additionally, there are far more critical and personal impacts to the dehumanization and institutionalization of "the closet" that DADT promotes. The very premise of DADT creates the mindset that homosexuals are monsters that need to be suppressed in the military; this spills over to the rest of society because we define the model citizen as the citizen soldier . When different societal groups are excluded from being part of the identity of a soldier, then they will undoubtedly be excluded from acceptance and calculations made by the majority of society. This results in isolation, Otherization, and ultimately dehumanization; when people are no longer viewed in the 'us' category of the us/them dichotomy, then any atrocity can become justified in the name of preserving the 'us.' Combined with the 'tyranny of survival' that is an inevitable aspect of heterosexism (as they posit that homosexuals pose a unique threat to the survival of heterosexuals), then systemic violence ultimately becomes an unavoidable result, and gays are brutalized and attacked in the public sphere; gay bashing becomes a legitimate response and this violence is therefore codified within our society and seen as a natural part of it. Therefore, homophobia and heterosexism result in a precedent of social moral slavery that justifies the eternal coercion of minority groups, resulting in inevitable systematic oppression. However, heterosexism is just a branch from the abusive tree of patriarchy; the oppressive nature of a hyper-masculinized, hegemonic military has the effect of reinforcing traditional gender norms that have unique impacts on women; failure to stop the spread of patriarchy will ultimately ensure the redomination of women and effectively crush the feminist movement. However, challenging regimes of heteronormativity can liberate society from multiple instances of oppression, as homosexuality offers a unique challenge and alternative to oppressive and coercive heterosexuality . Under DADT, individuals lose the ability to define themselves, which denies personal autonomy and therefore personal agency, subjecting them to compulsory heterosexuality.

Therefore, the United States Supreme Court should grant a writ of certiorari to an appropriate test case, and applying a standard of strict scrutiny, and hold that 10 U.S.C, 654 and Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice constitute violations of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively lifting the ban of homosexuals from openly serving in the United States military, enforced by the United States Department of Defense. Supreme Court action is critical for several reasons. First, it changes the suspect classification for sexual orientation from lowest level of scrutiny to strict scrutiny, meaning that there must be a compelling governmental interest for discrimination to be tolerated. Second, it would reverse a long standing trend of judicial deference to the military, one that has been in place ever since their infamous decision in Korematsu v. United States during World War II. Ending judicial deference is critical to maintaining an independent judiciary, which is key to having a separation of powers as the framers of the United States Constitution intended. Having the Supreme Court overturn DADT would set a fair bright line between soldier's rights and national defense, preventing future military abuses by forcing them to rely on unbiased research. If the Supreme Court ever wishes to be an institution dedicated to the preservation of rights and the rule of law, they must stand up and reclaim their position as an arbiter of rights and send a beacon of hope throughout the nation that we will no longer tolerate discrimination based on vacuous assertions. Otherwise we will have failed in our mission to ensure one nation with liberty for all.

nuber one

Mackenzie — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:46:35 EST

Just to get things started, i would like to ask if anyone knows why Obama is against gay rights? I am not gay myself, but i support the right to choice and privacy. Also, i wonder if anyone knows if Obama has an oppinion on fluoridation? I mean i personnaly choose not to be poisoned but many are unaware of the danger lurking in their tap water. anyone feel free to respond

A Common Sense Argument for Marriage Equality

AtlantaMichael — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:10:57 EST

How many of you have ever known the joy of being in love? How would you feel if you had to live with the heartache of knowing that you could never marry the one you love and that your relationship was thought of as less healthy and less meaningful than the relationship of the person sitting next to you? As a gay man living in the United States this is something I have to live with daily. I would not be allowed to marry a lover with whom I had enjoyed a long, loving and monogamous partnership because there are some in my government who tell me that my relationship is not healthy and there some within the Church who tell me my love is a sin. As a student who has studied and researched American politics and as a Christian who has studied his Bible I would like today to discuss some of the reasons why marriage is denied to homosexual couples and what the effects of ending this discrimination would be on our society. According to Dr. Davina Kotulski, there are more than 1400 rights, benefits and protections that come with marriage to which the government denies approximately 30 million LGBT Americans access to solely on the basis of whom they love. In 2003, The Pew Research Center for the People and Press conducted a poll on the topic of gay marriage. Of those respondents opposed to gay marriage, 28% believed that homosexuality was morally wrong; 17% believed that gay marriage was incompatible with their religious beliefs and 16% believed that marriage must be defined as the union between one man and one woman only. Let us now examine these points of view critically and rationally to determine if they are indeed valid reasons for continuing to discriminate against 3 to 10% of the US population.

I’d like to examine the most popular objection first: that homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore should not be validated through marriage. For better or for worse, one of the ways by which a democratic society determines what is moral is through consensus: what the majority believes is right is usually considered right. According to a Gallup poll conducted in 2003, 54% of American adults believed that homosexual behavior was morally acceptable – the majority approves. But even if this were not the case, Section 1 of Amendment XIV to the US Constitution guarantees all citizens (that’s me) equal protection under the law. In other words, the rights granted to my neighbor may not be denied to me without due process. And in 1967, the Supreme Court in the case Loving v Virginia ruled that marriage was “a basic civil right of man.” Taken together with the XIV Amendment, it is therefore unconstitutional to deny me the right to marry.

Next, I’d like to examine the second most popular objection to gay marriage: that homosexuality is a sin and therefore should not be validated through marriage. In Leviticus 11:10 the Bible forbids me to eat shrimp. In Exodus 35:2 the Bible says clearly that if I work on Sunday I should be killed. And finally, Leviticus 25:44 states that I may own slaves from neighboring nations. Yet in our culture we are more than content to ignore these and many other passages of the Bible while still quoting Leviticus 18:22 (Thou shalt not lay down with a man as thou dost with women . . .) as justification for our homophobia. But even if you are willing to accept this inconsistency, the fact remains that in the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees for the separation of church and state. And in 1878, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment stating that not to separate church and state would “make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land and in effect allow every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

Thirdly, I’d like to examine the final objection I mentioned: that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman and its definition cannot be altered. The truth is that our society alters the definition of marriage whenever it becomes necessary or convenient. Until the latter decades of the twentieth century it was nearly impossible for a woman to get a divorce in the United States; marriage was defined as a lifelong commitment. Today, according to statistics compiled in 2001, 39% of women and 41% of men between the ages of 50 and 59 have had a divorce. Until 1967, it was legal to deny marriage to interracial couples in this country. Today, a man and a woman may marry regardless of their ethnicity. In both cases, our society has altered its concept of marriage. Why not now?

So what would happen where gays and lesbians permitted to marry? According to Jonathan Rauch of The Economist, “if marriage has any meaning at all, it is that, when you collapse from a stroke, there will be at least one other person whose job it is to drop everything and come to your aid.” Marriage binds couples together, not only in a contract between one another but also in the eyes of their families and friends. In our culture, marriage is the way for a couple to provide one another with support and security – in good times and in bad. In addition, James Q Wilson writes in his book The Moral Sense that “of all the institutions through which men may pass – schools, factories, the military – marriage has the largest effect.” It is his contention as well as Mr. Ruach’s that there is no institution more capable of civilizing young men than marriage. If one accepts this reasoning, then one concludes that married people, on the whole, are likely to enjoy greater emotional support, a higher sense of security and a finer degree of civilization than do their unmarried counterparts. Therefore, it can be argued that the best way to instill “family values” in the homosexual community is to allow them to experience marriage. In addition, marriage encourages monogamy. According to the CDC, in 2003, an estimated 59% of the nearly 750, 000 men diagnosed with HIV so far contracted the virus through male to male sexual contact. One wonders how many fewer would have been so diagnosed had they been encouraged to enter into stable, monogamous marriages.

In conclusion, there will always be gay men who would prefer never to marry. But continuing to deny gays and lesbians the right to make the choice between marriage and single-life violates the very principles of freedom, equality and the rule of law that this country was founded upon. If we do indeed “hold these truths to be self-evident:” that we are all created equally and that we are all entitled to the same rights, then we cannot allow so many of our citizens to continue to be denied those rights that so many more take for granted. But even if this weren’t all true, one fact yet remains and is perhaps the most compelling of all: we love. In the words of Brian McNuaght: “Despite the Holocaust, we love. Despite Joseph McCarthy, we love. Despite Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafley we love. Despite the horrors of AIDS we love. Despite everything they say about us and do to us, we love. Despite everything, we love and we love well.”

I am an American citizen and it’s time that I be allowed to marry the one I love.

We Wish The Clintons Would Just Go Away

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:29:06 EST

Why We Wish The Clintons Would Just Go Away

By Paul Jenkins

Posted December 15, 2007 | 11:49 AM (EST)

Because they surround themselves with people like Mark Penn and James Carville (Rove-like figures, just dumber and more duplicitous than Karl), and rather than making the Clintons look pure by contrast, they make them look even sleazier.

Because they lie more often than they tell the truth, and we can't take it anymore (where to begin? Ah, perhaps, one of Bill's freshest: he was always against the war in Iraq).

Because when they don't lie, they avoid telling the truth, prevaricate and try to laugh it off.

ARTICLE- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/why-we-wish-the-clintons-_b_76930.html

Personal Political issues in this campaign

Obietta from Oakland, CA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:21:05 EST

December 7, 2007 To: Hillary, Barack, and John. I would like to say this to all the candidates. I am pretty fed up with political as usual. I don’t want to hear the candidates run each other down in order to prove who is better. I just want the facts. I want to hear that they have heard the people’s desires and have some plans for addressing them. I want to hear about what they plan to do about health care, education, war, the prison system, children’s issues, foster care, violence in this country and abroad, mental health care, and so on. I want to make up my mind after hearing their ideas, not the party line or the best answer to get votes. Give me the truth. I am an adult and I will vote on the best person to improve life all around for everyone in this country. I am moving farther and farther away from voting Democrat or Republican and wanting simply the best. Don’t smooze me with the best prepared line. Tell me the truth. This is what we should want for our country the opportunity to choose the best because they are the best for the country at the time. This should not be a contest of egos or parties. It is not about who will be King, or a ruler, it is about the people and how to give us the best life possible in the best run country in the world. That is all it should be about. Not fortune 500 companies, not pharmacology companies, not Oil companies or anything else that has to do with the buying of America. We are selling our soul to other countries, letting the buy up companies and land, owing money because of lobbying interest, etc. Illegal Aliens Everyone here is an illegal alien. Even those brought here by force, to slave and work for others. People come here because we have sold them a dream. And in truth we do offer, I hear from others, the best opportunity in the world to succeed and get ahead. The Mexicans did not bomb us nor are they robbing us of our jobs. Most of us would not do their jobs under penalty of death. They are looking for an opportunity. A worker program would be best for people seeking work in this country, but people already here who have been here for a long time should have the opportunity to choose citizenship or the work program. This is as much an issue of prejudice as it is fear of people misusing our borders or sneaking into our country to cause us harm. Most of them have already earned there rights here and would help our economy and bring greater skills as have others from around the world who have come here. Yes protect us but do it fairly. This is a time of good judgment and not prejudice, fear, misunderstanding or punishment. They are already here now what do we reasonable do? ReligionWhat has happened to separation of church and state. We should not be talking about a person’s religion. The only thing that matters is do they have any moral value. A good conscience and the ability to consider others globally, as well as, locally. Religion has too much power to influence this country. I believe in God or a higher power, that is my choice and the choice of others to believe or not, but it is not a good reason to choose a candidate. Our forefathers knew this would be a problem and tried to account for it. I don't care about your religion. This is another prejudicial and controlling influence. Unless you are evil incarnate and out to destroy the world because of your religious beliefs I do not want anyone to choose a church philosophy to determine the next President of the United States. We have had a few who used that pretense over and over and were still some of the worst leaders we have had. Religion should not be an issue in an election. Case in Point: Prejudice against Gays based on Biblical beliefs. If you actually study the truth it was never about sex. We have to study where the Jews were in their belief system at the time, how they were living and why. Is the bible inspired by God, probably but in truth it has been tampered with by Mankind and the beliefs people had at the time they lived in when the Bible was written. The case against Homosexuality had to do with needing to replenish the seed of the Hebrews after they were nearly wiped out. It had to do with a prejudice against Women, therefore not sanctioning a man behaving like a lower case woman and other ideology during the time. It was looked upon as a sin more for men than women because they were supposed to be superior. My point being that just like issues of slavery put into the Bible because of beliefs at the time, issues of food and diet, women, superior religions, and so much more, these were not items sanctioned by a superior being but by Mankind because of a limited understanding. Somethings are true perhaps forever, other things do not stand the test of time. I know this is a Christian based country, although many of our founders were Masons. This does not mean we use this belief to condemn others. Are we losing our Civil Rights? Some rights should not be voted on and taken away by the stroke of a pen or a vote. Some rights are inalienable and once decided upon and not changed because it is a basic human right for all. I could go on and on but I think you get my point. Much needs to be addressed openly in this country and dealt with by reasoning people not people swayed to one side or another by Religious dogma or any other ideology. This is the 21st Century and we need to take steps to move away from and old mindset and into a more logical, well thought out one. Thank you,

Obietta Elizondo

P.S. Oh! Witches. This is another misunderstanding. Witches are not evil devil worshoppers. The Wiccan religion is an Earth vased religion that has been abused and slandered.. I am none of these things, but seriously appaulled by the lack of education adults have in this country let alone our youth.

We had "the talk"...

Erica in Wolfeboro, NH — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:49:05 EST

A few days ago I had "the talk" with Zachary, my seven year old. NO, not the "birds and the bees" talk, but a talk about homosexuality and what being gay means.

While you all are aware of who I am supporting for president, so are my children. Both Zach and Andrew are huge Obama supporters (well, as huge as you can be at 7 and 5). Recently, I have overheard Zachary making statements like "I hate Mitt Romney" or "Mitt stinks".

Now, I am not a Romney fan, but I don't want my kids walking around saying things like that. If, by some crazy chance, Romney does get elected, I want the children to respect him as our president. I don't want their views of him tainted by the things that I believe.

Anyway, back on track here.....

I felt that it was time to talk with Zachary about the differences between the candidates. I want him to understand that I don't HATE Mitt (or any other candidate) I just might not agree with them on some issues. Of course, this means I have to discuss the issues. And while discussing these issues I need to keep it on a seven year old level.

I started by explaining just that. That I just don't agree with Mitt on the issues. Of course, my brilliant little man wants to know more. Like "what issues".

Me: "You know 'X' right? What do you think of him?

Zachary: "I think he's a good guy."

M: "Do you think he is married?"

Z: "Yeah"

M: "Well, actually, he isn't."

Z: "But he probably has a girlfriend, right."

M: "Actually, no, he doesn't. He's gay. Do you know what that means?"

Z: "No."

M: "Well, it means that he falls in love with boys."

Well, Zach CRACKS UP! He thinks that this is the funniest thing that I have ever told him...either that or he is SO embarrassed that he doesn't know what else to do. Eventually, he pulls himself together (as much as a 7 year old can) and we move on.

M: "Right now, because of the laws, 'X' can't get married like boys can get married to girls. This is one of the reasons that I am voting for Obama. Mitt Romney doesn't believe that he should be allowed to." - Keeping it on his level I decided not to explain the difference between civil unions and marriage...

Z: "Well, if he just changed his mind, then he could get married."

M: A little giggle on my part...."It doesn't work that way, man. Gay people are born that way. 'X' was born to like boys, not girls. You can't change being gay, because you are born that way."

Z: "Well, you weren't born that way and Daddy wasn't born that way and I.......was I born that way?"

And now it's my turn to laugh that nervous laughter...

M: "Well, I don't know, baby. I guess that is something you will figure out as you get older."

We went on to discuss a few more of my friends that are gay and eventually, the conversation turned to civil rights (which I compared to what MLK Jr did for African Americans because that is what he knows).

Then he asked me about more issues...and I did my best to explain my thoughts on the war and social security on seven year old terms.

It was not an easy conversation but in it I realized something: my parents never had this conversation with me. This is not because they were homophobic (actually quiet the opposite, they were always comfortable with my gays friends and never discouraged my relationships with them). But the world is changing.

Part of this every changing world terrifies me - it terrifies the mother in me. The other part of me is SO excited about this changing world - the part of me that loves "X" with all my heart, the part that wants for "his" world and "my" world to be equal in so many ways, the part that has never understood why EVERY human being is not treated equally.

Children today seem to be oversexualized (ask me someday about the time I took Allyson school shopping while trying to keep the school dress code in mind) and never seem to get enough attention. I wonder about this...

Recently a person from an online forum that I am part of blamed all this change on "the pill" - as in the birth control pill. He claims that due to the ease of pregnancy prevention women have stopped having children, raising children and the world has been in a downward spiral ever since.

Now, I don't agree with this person but I wonder how close this is to true...

I wonder when we (and I am not talking just women here, men too) lost sight of what is important. I wonder when we stopped worrying about so much abut who was raising our children and started worrying more about keeping up with the "Joneses". I wonder when we changed so much and what brought us to this.

I digress....

I was so happy with the outcome of Zach's and my conversation. It was such a big boy conversation and he handled it so well. We saw "X" this weekend and it was like nothing had ever been discussed.

While it terrifies me to have a conversation like this with my little man, I am so proud of him. No matter how hard it is to have these conversations - it is so important that he learns to be open minded, openhearted and kind and children learn that in their home. I am so proud that he has never once judged someone by their skin color, sexual orientation or otherwise.

This is what I want my boys to be! These are the men I want to raise! What better way to raise these young men than by having a president that encourages this as well? I hope that Barack realizes (whether he wins the nomination or not - though I am doing my best to be sure that it happens) how many lives he has changed and will continue to change as long as he keeps fighting the good fight!!

Not so fast, Earl.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:33:13 EDT

In his column at the Huffington Post dated October 25, Earl O. Hutchinson dramatically asserts that:

"While Obama will publicly say and do the right thing in condemning homophobia through the front door, the temptation to cash in on it through the back door is evidently just too irresistible. It's crass, cynical, but it's politics baby pure and simple. And that's all the more reason to keep the heat on Obama to dump McClurkin."

Yet he goes on to say:

"When this writer called Obama out on his scheduled October 28 South Carolina gospel tour appearance with the Grammy winning, anti-gay morals crusader, Obama snapped back with a public statement hotly insisting that he's a staunch opponent of homophobia and that he vehemently disagreed with McClurkin's views."

It would be crass, calculating, even cunning politics if Barack Obama set the plan in motion with his solution already in mind. Ironically, the point made by Mr. Hutchinson better supports the contrary view that instead Barack Obama saw a rhetoric-laden situation with well-entrenched, passionate people casting aspersions across a sharp divide, then swiftly, creatively applied his diplomacy to craft a solution consistent with his vision of a United States of America.

Next time somebody asks if this Senator has enough experience (to insinuate to the contrary,) recall this thoughtful, timely solution to what many were calling a crisis. The scale is admittedly different, and so, too, in some ways are the stakes, from much of what our President deals with, yet the solution flows logically from the most able candidate for this office we have in the race. The outcome is wonderful, compelling evidence of the awareness, sensitivity, talent, and vision this man brings to his endeavors.

Barack H. Obama is going to make changes despite the naysayers; the only remaining question is which elected office he will be doing it from in 2008. The evidence continues to mount that the Senator deserves and would put to excellent use the platform of the White House.

Yes, you can see a strikingly similar response this morning at the Huffington Post. ;)

DNC Talking Points to Sow Discord Amongst The Right-Wing Knee-Jerks

Brad — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:28:58 EDT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- After a week of fighting over who is the true conservative candidate in the race, the Republican presidential frontrunners are in Washington this weekend trying to win over evangelical leaders at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit. Despite what conservative Christian John Stemberger called "pandering" by the candidates, the GOP field, with its spotty records, flip flops and unimpressive campaign performances isn't catching on with this critical Republican base. [Washington Post, 10/19/07] According to a CBS poll released yesterday, white evangelicals "feel that Democrats, not Republicans, are paying more attention to their top issues," and a recent Pew poll showed that support from young evangelicals is up for Democrats. (CBS News, 10/18/07, Washington Times, 10/2/07)

No one has questioned the conservative bona fides of these Republicans more than Focus on the Family's James Dobson, who will be honored during the summit at a gala dinner Saturday night. Dobson said he would rather not vote at all than vote for Giuliani, hopes he won't "get stuck" with McCain, has resisted supporting Romney, and said Thompson was "Not for me!" Disappointed with his options, Dobson told Sean Hannity earlier this month that "there's still a possibility that one of those other candidates, a dark horse, could come from nowhere." (Fox News Hannity and Colmes, 10/8/2007) He even wrote in a New York Times op-ed earlier this month that
conservative leaders may abandon the Republican presidential nominee in favor of a third-party candidate in 2008 - a clear sign of GOP problems ahead. (New York Times, 10/4/07)

"If the GOP candidates can't gain the support and trust of key Republican constituencies they need to get elected, how can they possibly expect voters to trust them to lead our country?" said DNC Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. "As they hemorrhage support, the GOP frontrunners seem willing to do or say anything to get elected, but even Party leaders like James Dobson are questioning the trustworthiness of candidates who waffle and feign to score political points."

Conservative Leaders Iffy on Republican Frontrunners

Dobson Will Not Vote for Giuliani. In an op-ed posted on the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com Dobson wrote, "My conclusion from this closer look at the current GOP front-runner comes down to this: Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's -- Dobson's? -- choice between
him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran -- or if worse comes to worst -- not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else." (WorldNetDaily.com, 5/17/07)

Tony Perkins Doesn't See Giuliani As the GOP Answer. Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said to CNN of Rudy Giuliani, "I cannot, under any circumstance, see the conservative base of the Republican Party being excited and working for a presidential candidate that is pro-abortion." (New York Times, 10/19/07)

Dobson Prays Republicans "Won't Get Stuck" With McCain. "James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family as well as the Focus Action cultural action organization set up specifically to provide a platform for informing and rallying constituents, came out strongly against a McCain candidacy during a radio interview. Dobson said in response to a statement McCain made on gay marriage, "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances....Dobson added that there are a lot of other things, pointing out that McCain is not in favor
of traditional marriage, and concluded saying, I pray that we won't get stuck with him." (Associated Press, 1/17/06)

Tony Perkins Calls McCain "Questionable on the Issues". To MSNBC earlier this month, Perkins raises doubts about McCain's position on abortion, saying "McCain is questionable on the issue." (New York Times, 10/19/07)

Tony Perkins: Romney Log Cabin Letter "Quite Disturbing." "In the 1994 letter addressed to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group, Romney strongly argued for gay rights. 'We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,' Romney wrote, adding that he would be more aggressive than Senator Kennedy in pushing for gay rights...'This is quite disturbing,' said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who had praised Mr. Romney as a champion of traditional values at the group's conference in late September. 'This type of information is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney. He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.'" (New York Times, 12/9/07)

Hemming and Hawing, Dobson Avoids Supporting Romney. In response to conservative commentator Sean Hannity's assertion that "at the end of the day, you are now saying that the only top-tier candidate you would support would be Mitt Romney?" Dobson replied "Sean, I don't agree with that statement, either. We have reports that were given in Salt Lake that indicated that it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to capture the nomination the first week of February. They're just not going to be able to get that number of votes. And who knows what will happen?" (Fox News
Hannity and Colmes, 10/8/2007)

Dobson Says Thompson is "Not For Me!" According to the AP, in a private email Dobson wrote, "'Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?' Dobson wrote. 'He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope
that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!'" (Associated Press, 9/20/07)

Paul Weyrich Says Conservatives Pulling Back From Thompson. Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the Arlington Group, an "umbrella coalition of almost every major social conservative group in the GOP constellation" said the possibility of the coalition backing Thompson was slim. "It's just not going to happen now...a lot of people who had intended to support him pulled back." (Politico, 9/26/07)

Barack Responds to Human Rights Campaign Questionnaire

Scott A. Giordano — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:25:12 EDT

Read Barack Obama's responses to Human Rights Campaign 2008 presidential questionnaire.

Changing the Debate on Gay Marriage

Curtis M. Faith — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:06:14 EDT

From my blog at www.unitedinthestates.org

It seems to me that we have been arguing an issue on the grounds that there is nothing wrong with being gay but I believe that we make the fight harder when we engage religious people on moral grounds.

Instead we should engage them as an issue of separation of church and state.

---------------------

One of the Blogs that I read regularly which seems to have a high proportion of interesting links is called Think on These Things. Today there was a post which contained a speech by Barack Obama on Religion and Politics. In the speech Barack Obama calls us to discuss the role of religion in our society. We need to keep religious decisions in our churches and not use our political organizations to make religious decisions and impose religious penalties as this simply begs the question: “Which religion do we use as the arbiter?” It is the role of our churches to make decisions on questions of religion.

The role of government should be only to accept and accommodate the religious beliefs of the people. It should not serve in judgment over those decisions especially when there is significant debate within the religious communities with respect to those decisions. For example, some churches allow women to be ministers some do not. It would not be prudent for the government to inject itself into this debate. People are free to choose their own religious beliefs and thereby associate with those who hold common values. Therefore there is no need for the government to involve itself in religious debates.

Nowhere is this truth that governments should not be the arbiter of our religious decisions more evident than in our discussions over gay marriage. Nowhere does an approach that separates religion and politics bring more clarity than in the debate on Gay Marriage; clarity which should make it possible to get beyond one of the more volatile topics of the last few years.

The government should accomodate and respect the decisions of all churches with respect to how they define marriage as a contract and the terms of that contract. The governments role in this case should be the same as it is with respect to all other contracts. It can serve as judge and arbiter of the contract itself in the event of a dispute but it should not set the terms for that would be to cross the line and step squarely into the middle of what is an entirely religious decision.

If some religious organizations choose to accept marriage between man and man or between woman and woman, then it should not be the role of the government to disagree. Each of us is free to chose another religious organization for our own worship and so this neutral stance by the government in this respect should cause us no harm and no worry.

To those of you who claim there is such clear evidence that God is against homosexuality that we simply cannot as a society permit gay marriage, I ask you to consider the following from the bible book of John:

John 8 (New International Version)
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

You don’t have to be religious or Christian to realize that what Jesus is counseling here is that we each focus and worry about our own sins rather than condemning the sins of others.

Clearly we should have a government that leaves us all free to interpret what a sin consists of and to work on those sins we decide are most important rather than one that acts against Jesus counsel above to be tolerant of others. Especially in cases where entire religious orders have defined these actions we might consider sins as not being sins at all.

Do we want governments that outlaw dancing between men and women? Do we want governments that do not allow women to teach? Many of our existing religions have taught these as sins in the past. We should be more tolerant and accomodate those who have made different choices than we have.

A realization

Robert1991 — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:32:30 EDT

How come so many strict constuctionalists (code word for pro-abortion) judges oppose:

Gay peoples constitutional rights?
Getting rid of the Patriot Act?
Allowing young people to play violent video games?

How come so many pro-lifers are for...

The Death Penalty
An unnecessary, bloody war in Iraq.

It seems to me that conservative positions tend to be hypocritical, whereas Liberal positions are all about choice.

Congress should demand Gen. Pace resign or be fired

Bruce from Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:39:20 EDT

To begin with, 24 nations allow Gays to serve in their militaries. When will America stop being ruled by the right-wing Christians?

The Generals associated with the Walter Reed scandal were fired, and rightly so, but Pace is allowed to oversee the military, in which over 60,000 gays and lesbians serve their country, sacrificing their lives right along with heterosexuals. I say we should allow these gays to have a withdraw surge. Get them out of the military. Then see how Iraq does.

Such comments by people in positions of power inflame those who hate gays, giving some people justification to take violent action against gays. Pace says he has his right to share his "personal views", based on his "upbringing". Hmmm. Should terrorists' actions be justified if they claim it's part of their upbringing? I'm sure Pace was referring to his being a "Christian." As a "Christian" I wonder what other personal views he holds. I would hate to hear what he has to say about Jews and those of other religious persuasions, who, by the way, also serve in our military.

This man should be fired and demoted. There should be some kind of accountability for such damning actions. This country won't progress until people in key positions of responsibility and power are held accountable for such immoral comments.

I know everyone who is Christian does not share this man's beliefs, but there's enough of them that do. And just because they're the majority in this country does not make them "right". All we have to do is look to the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Haggard, and now Peter Pace to see that this is true. I want to see Congress and those Christians who disagree with Pace speak up and take action against him. And it's time to get rid of this stupid "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Seperate but Equal?

Gabrielle from San Marcos, TX — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:00:17 EST

I read online that you (Obama) support civil unions for gays and lesbians but not marriage? What does that mean?

It reminds me of separate but equal schools - during segregation did Blacks get the same education that whites got, what did it feel like to have to sit at the back of the bus, eat behind the restaurant, go thirsty because there was only a White Only water fountain nearby! I should know!

I wake up every day afraid that my children will be taken away, I get spit on, beat up and called names, my children get bullied at school, my family, church, temple or synagogue abandons me, I am denied getting to be with my life partner of 25 years while they are dying in a hospital room, crosses are burned in my lawn, foul language and derogatory names are scrawled across my home and cars, to name but a few, and why? Because people want to segregate us, prove we are different, justify their hate by quoting and reinterpreting scripture.

Gays and lesbians ARE ALREADY integrated into societies on planet Earth; ANY legislation segregating them from a society at large, from making them stand out like they are different, like they are less than is just plain wrong. You see, if you take away the religious aspect that includes all these inaccurate beliefs about gays and lesbians, you are left with prejudice and discrimination. Time and time again I read and listen to Christians, Jews and Muslims repeat untruths about Gays and Lesbians using the same arguments and words they used to explain to me how Blacks were inferior and perverted, "IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE IN THE BIBLE, KORAN or TORAH, blah blah," they say. It would seem anyone over 40 years old would remember this and be a bit suspicious that Gays and Lesbians are just the new Blacks, Italians, Vietnamese, Jews, Women, or Mexicans, etc....

The Hate that people spew out and pass down like a baton of injustice knows no boundaries and is not original. You just can't compromise on protecting people's civil or human rights. And don't you go there with this "marriage is not a civil right" line, you know what I am talking about. Voting was not a civil right for Blacks or Wimmin either. Semantics aside, the legal protections of marriage and the myriad ways they effect our lives alone make it a civil matter.

I am a Lesbian and like most Lesbians or Gays in this world I work for you, I change your baby's diaper, I administer medicine to your mother, I pick up your garbage, I make your beds, I represent you in court, I clean your fruit and vegetables at the market you shop at, I drive your children to school and teach them, I do everything that ordinary and extraordinary people do every day - I am everywhere and I am a human being. I deserve and I have a birthright to be treated equally and respectfully.

I will no longer be like an invisible black slave and I am showing up with a dream of my own - that every Gay and Lesbian's civil and human rights are protected with zeal, discipline and vigilance by the Democratic Party, the government of the United States and every state in the union in every possible way every day of the year. Do you have the courage and discipline to represent me?

Civil Rights

Newt — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:04:56 EST

After supporting the re-election of President Bill Clinton, many gays and lesbians were disgusted with his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. I believe that lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgendered and other XYZ folks were instrumental in Clinton's reelection for a second term. Then he turned around and stabbed us in the back.

Now we are looking to Barack Obama with the same hopes and reasons we had while working toward Clinton's reelection. Will we finally get the civil rights due to us as American citizens, or will Barack's middle of the road perspective reflect Clinton's 1996 attitude?

Equal Rights for all Americans

Gay marriage threatens people for two main reasons: 1) People don’t think about families and children when they hear about gay marriage, they think about two men kissing or having a wedding, or worse, having sex. 2) Religious and conservative leaders denounce homosexuality as immoral, so validating gay relationships in any way is seen as wrong. In general, a learned or even innate aversion to homosexuality is a gut level response that is often justified by religious rhetoric. This may seem simplistic, but the best way to counter these negative basal responses is to refocus on the positive outcomes of civil unions, which is fairness, equity, and an end to social and financial discrimination.

Why civil unions are necessary

Family law is designed around providing structure for people who have already assumed responsibility for other family members, especially children. To recreate all of the specific rights, privileges and entitlements associated with marriage is an overwhelming task. Hence the recent push for gay marriage. We didn’t really have any divorce law to speak of until the 1950’s or so when the Catholic Church’s refusal to give divorces spurred legislators and courts to go around Church restrictions and create public policy that fulfilled the need for divorce. The same thing has to happen with family law. Religions should not and cannot be allowed to dictate who gets equal rights in this country. From protecting children to providing equity in health care, both rights and responsibilities are clearly delineated with civil union contracts that are comparable to marital and domestic relationships. Here is a classic example of extreme financial disparity without civil union structures: Two women are in a long term relationship, and one or both are biological mothers of their children. If mother #1 owns real estate (including their home) and puts mother #2 on the deed(s) to the property, mother #2 has to pay taxes on the equity in the property. Which means the family is paying extra taxes on property they already own, simply because tax laws that covers married couples doesn’t include them! Another scenario, same family: Mother #1 has a retirement plan with $100,000 in it, which is really worth about $500,000 if she actually retires (due to employer pay-ins and investment earnings). If she dies, her partner and kids can only receive the $100K as a lump sum paid to them as beneficiaries. And they’re taxed on it when they receive it! But if she were married to a man, the family would receive the full $500K paid out as retirement payments. This is under federal law, which of course the States follow for tax purposes. That’s a huge financial inequity that many gay families in their thirties, forties and fifties are facing right now. And of course, there’s all the rest of the thousand or so “missing rights” ranging from health care benefits to child protection laws.

Establishing civil unions ends the marriage debate & undermines the gay-baiting the RNC uses as their primary GOTV tool.

Year after year Republicans utilize anti-gay rhetoric to mobilize their religious base. It didn’t work in 2006 because it’s hard to look like they’re taking the moral high ground when a bunch of Republicans have recently been caught, well, cheating basically. Because of the perception of war profiteering and political corruption, we lucked out in the local and national elections. This is especially timely right now because Republicans will definitely pull out their old tricks for the 2008 Presidential election. As long as gay and lesbian Americans don't have full equality under federal law, they'll continue to push for equal rights. And rightly so. Which means the Republicans can continue to use the fear of gay marriage and gay rights as their prime GOTV and fundraising mechanism with their right wing constituents. Establishing civil unions nullifies the gay marriage debate and pulls the rug out from under the right-wing hate mongering gay-baiters.

Are civil unions good enough?

History teaches us that separate but equal does not really work, at least as far as race is concerned, but we simply can’t use the word “marriage” without incurring the wrath religious zealots. So we need to be careful with descriptors for civil unions. What this does for us as Democrats is 1) Allows us to take the moral high ground for a change, with respect to equal rights and family protections; 2) Insures our gay constituents stay on board as Democrats. (Remember that the gay vote may have been what carried Clinton into his second term, yet he turned around and signed the “Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, right after he was reelected in 1996, which drove many gays out of the Democratic party in disgust.); 3) Republicans will have a harder time using anti-gay rhetoric once gay relationships are properly and legally recognized and the issue of “protecting the institution of marriage” is more or less a moot point. Most importantly, we shouldn't wait another ten or twenty years to tackle this issue, in fear of Republicans saying “I told you so, those Democrats are always blah, blah, blah?” We can pull the rug out from their fear-mongering fund raising GOTV strategies and just settle the question of equal rights once and for all. They’re going to criticize us anyhow, simply because some States and Municipalities have made a stand for equal rights. We have to do it at the federal level sooner or later because it’s simply the right thing to do. If we can undermine the Republican gay-baiting GOTV machine before 2008, we stand a much better chance of staying in power and getting a Democrat for President.

What’s it going to take to achieve equal rights for gays in America?

Like the fights against slavery, miscegenation and racial segregation, it’s going to take some effort by the silent majority of Americans who support equal rights, at least as civil unions. Slaves weren’t freed simply because black people resisted. It took the efforts of a huge number of non-blacks to stand up, speak out, and yes, even give their lives over this issue. It’s time for the average American heterosexual to speak out for their oppressed neighbors, co-workers, friends and relatives. Gays and lesbians are a minority in this country; there just aren’t enough of us to be an effective political block. Our allies need to start communicating with elected officials, and not just to say they want us to get equal rights, but that they’ll vote against politicians who do nothing to make the necessary changes. Always remember, in this country we believe in doing what's right, even if we're oppressed by the majority who continue to believe in and vote for prejudice and repression. But beliefs are enough; we need action. It’s time to walk the talk.

Newt

Advice pt. 1

Neil from Omaha, NE — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:45:56 EST

I know it's super early in the campaign, but where can I get an Obama for Pres. 08 shirt? I know I'd love to have one. Basically, any sort of merch. would be nice right now. Bumper stickers, shirts, signs, etc.

I'd also like to see Barack's opinion on same-sex marriage and the rights of same-sex couples. I understand that such a topic may be a bit too touchy for half of the country, but I want to know what Obama plans to do for same-sex couples. I guess it's a bit of a curious twinge, but I would really like to know.

I hope there's enough support behind Obama for this election. A lot of the opposition I've heard is his lack of experience, but all you need to do is just listen to him for a while, then you'll see his maturity and his experience. Some say that book smarts will never be able to replace pure experience, but I say what makes experience? Other than presidents on their second term, every president is a newbie in some way or form. There'll never be a more experienced president than FDR, and we all know where that landed him.

Right?

-Neil O.