"If you're gay, lesbian, or bisexual, would you sacrifice for your trans neighbors and siblings? If you're trans, would you sacrifice for your gay, lesbian, or bisexual neighbors and siblings? It's something worth knowing about yourself and those around you." --Autumn Sandeen, 4/19/2010, the night before GetEQUAL's DADT repeal protest at the White House
Public Calendar
Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, as it has in the past regarding DADT with its Letters From the Frontlines series, puts a human face on the toll that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has taken on those serving in silence. Each day this week, SLDN will feature a letter of a service member that has felt that impact of this discriminatory legislation.
Below the fold is a letter is by Lynne Kennedy, partner to Capt. Joan Darrah, U.S. Navy (Ret.). They have been together for 20 years this December.
NOTE FROM PAM: Keyboard protection on, as you watch a circular firing squad with the fundies going down hard. I also have word that WND's Joseph Farah was on a radio program over the weekend and went batsh*t berserk, so I'll see if I can get that audio for you soon.
The war on the flailing, desperate, bible-beating hypocrite movement continues as Ann Coulter's pummeling WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah and the social conservative conference, Take Back America, that dropped her as a speaker for agreeing to headline the gay conservative GOProud HOMOCON event. She went on the Fox News program Red Eye and underscored the chicanery of these holier-than-thou bedroom peepers.
The heat generated by the e-blasts from WND could fry the egg that is on Joseph Farah's face. This is from his latest missive to burn my inbox...
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter intensified her attacks on WND last night on Fox News Channel's "Red Eye" show, accusing those at the largest independent news site who dropped her from the "Taking America Back National Conference" in Miami of being "fake Christians."
Coulter claimed she was never actually booked for the event, repeated her resentment over publishing her e-mail explanations to WND Editor Joseph Farah for appearing at GOProud's Homocon event and lashed out at WND for "pushing the birther thing," which she said is not supported by any conservatives.
"These are fake Christians trying to get publicity," said Coulter.
Previously, Coulter called Farah a "publicity whore" and a "swine" for WND's decision to drop her upon learning of her plan to speak to the homosexual Republican group.
In response, Farah issued the following statement: "Coulter called me a 'publicity whore' for my decision. But look who is on television talking about this - throwing mud, name-calling, smearing not only me but my entire staff. I will not engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks that have made Coulter so famous and that are making her even more of a media darling in this age of reckless anger and character assassination for the sake of entertainment. Every day, since we made this decision at WND, I thank God for giving me the clarity of mind and discernment to make the right choice."
As to Coulter's new accusation that she was never even booked for the conference, Farah had this to say: "Coulter agreed to speak. She was retained through her speakers bureau on the basis of a previous fee for an unfulfilled engagement. We promoted her appearance at the event for six months in a high-profile manner with no objections by Coulter. We were just about to pay the balance due on the remainder of the speaker's fee when this bombshell dropped about her keynoting the Homocon event in New York one week after our conference. If Coulter didn't consider herself booked, she had ample opportunity to tell me that during the last six months and during our e-mail conversations. Knowing how quick-witted she is, it would likely have been the first reaction she had, rather than one she had to think about for days. We haven't asked Coulter to refund the money we paid to her for a speech she will never deliver. But, if I were making the charge that I was never booked, I would be more than willing to refund the money I was paid by supposedly 'fake Christians,' 'swine' and 'publicity whores.'"
..."I have no desire to extend this public debate with Coulter, for whom I have lost so much respect, and I certainly won't trade personal attacks," he said. "The issue for us remains clear: GOProud, a group that supports same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the U.S. military ranks, should not be embraced or validated by people who accept the biblical and traditional definition of marriage and the understanding that armies and navies have one purpose - to defeat enemies. My position is that homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be affirmed, condoned, encouraged or laughed about."
Wow. So Ann's ad hom attacks were fine until she put you in front of her acetylene torch? And about not being interested in a public battle, gee, Joe, then why are these public e-blasts still flowing freely on the internets? LOLOLOL.
Coulter also repeated her claim that Barack Obama's failure to prove his constitutional eligibility for office, raised by WND and of concern, according to recent polls, by at least 58 percent of the American people, are nothing more than a big joke.
"He's pushing the birther thing," she said of Farah. "No one who is conservative believes in it either, someone who wants to get hits for his website may promote it."
In fact, most of America's top talk-show hosts have acknowledged on-air that Obama's constitutional eligibility is a valid issue, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs and many others - not to mention former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
Wow, that's a list of really credible peeps, Joe -- keep it coming.
She continued: "I will say that [Farah] could give less than two sh--s about the conservative movement - as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, human events, also sweetness & light, american spectator and national review etc, etc etc). He's the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing. for ONE reason: to get hits on his website."
Farah responded to Coulter's remarks, saying, "Ann is angry. I hope she calms down and there can be some restoration, repentance and forgiveness. She said some mean things about me, but I can sleep at night knowing I did the right thing in God's economy."
OMG, this beatdown is hilarious! I will enjoy the next chapter in this soap opera. Meanwhile, GOProud is laughing all the way to the bank on all of the free publicity Farah is giving HOMOCON.
We here at Pam's House Blend don't usually run front page asks for donations on Pam's House Blend, but we're making an exception for this ask for donations from TransYouth Family Allies. It's case specific, and the case seems pretty darn important to a couple of us baristas.
When this story, highlighted in Kim's piece below, fully breaks with the filing of the impending lawsuit, we will be covering the case in depth.
Creating space for our broader community's youth is one of the main reasons I'm persoanlly an activist, and this case -- and the ask for donations -- specifically is on point about creating space for transyouth.
~~Autumn~~
Those of you who follow my Facebook may be aware that I made an emergency trip to Kansas this week. A school there was refusing to recognize a 10 year old transgender girls gender identity. They were requiring her to attend school as male and wouldn't budge.
I met with a school across town and they were happy to have her and wanted to learn how to make her school experience safe and productive. We registered her and expected that she would start school later in the week. I flew home to AZ.
Now the district administration has become involved and informed the parents (two moms) that their child will not be accommodated at ANY SCHOOL in their district. The child must present male or gender neutral, must use a male name and male restroom. The reason given is that to do otherwise would "interfere with the learning environment".
We are going to file suit against this school system . TYFA has retained the best attorney in KS with experience in GLBT discrimination. We need to raise an estimated $25,000 (or more) to litigate this case. I am calling this fund raising effort "Pennies From Heaven". Make any donation amount but end it with .01 (example 20.01) so that we know you are donating for the KS Defence Fund. Are you with me here?
It is time to take back our schools for gender variant students everywhere and we are going to start in Kansas.
In response, the Conference of the Mexican Episcopate published a communiqué Tuesday, stating, "We lament that on expressing these concepts in public opinion, there are those who recriminate and threaten, warning of intolerance, when tolerance is the possibility that we all express our opinion and positions."
They warned of slander, not intolerance
"We believe that equating these unions with the name of marriage is a lack of respect, both of the very essence of marriage between a woman and a man, expressed in Article 4 of the country's Constitution, as well as of the customs and culture itself that have governed us for centuries," the bishops affirmed.
Do you mean the culture of the Catholic Church that was imposed upon the Aztec and Mayan peoples at swordpoint, and brought them slavery, smallpox and syphillis?
The archbishopric of Guadalajara also published a communiqué, in which it warned that the American Psychological Association has indicated that children who grow up with parents who are in a homosexual relationship have three times as much risk of suffering from depression.
Which others attribute to religiously inspired discrimination....
The Church will not roll over on this, they struck back in Ireland where they re-instated Bishops enmeshed in the paedophile scandals and they got away with their abuses in Mexico. If nothing else, they will in the end try and incite a revolution or at least an electoral overturn of the government and the Courts
They have a long track record of doing that, you see, and the legal maxim is that "past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour."
Elswehere, Catholic writers and spokespeople equated the Mexican Supreme Court and the Alcalde of Mexico City to Franco and Pinochet; odd choices as it was the Roman Catholic Church who supported both and helped them into power
Augusta State University's requirement that a graduate student read material about counseling gays and increase her exposure to that community after she objected to counseling homosexual clients was "academically legitimate," a federal court judge ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Randal Hall's decision enables university officials to expel Jennifer Keeton if she does not follow the remediation plan, which professors designed to "address issues of multicultural competence and develop understanding and empathy."
Hall said the case is not about "pitting Christianity against homosexuality," but rather the constitutionality of the school's requirement.
This denunciation comes at the heels of another case in which a student claimed that she was "forced" to choose between her religious beliefs and her vocation. Last month, the courts ruled against Julea Ward, a student at Eastern Michigan University who claimed that she was removed from the school's counseling program because of her strong religious views against homosexuality.
"I think the governor of California and the attorney general today have to defend the Constitution and have to enable the judicial process to go along ... and an appeal to go through. So if I was governor, I would give that ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court."
If the self-financed Republican candidate for Governor of California (who apparently had never bothered registering as a voter -- or actually voting -- before 2002) had her way, the state in the worse financial shape in the country would spend money defending Prop 8. How many teachers salaries could the state pay for with the money the state would spend defending Prop 8; how much infrastructure could be paid for with the money the state would spend defending Prop 8; how many state workers would have their mandatory three furlough days off a month reduced with the money the state would spend defending Prop 8...Meg Whitman doesn't care. She believes California should spend its extremely short resources defending Prop 8.
GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman - trying to tamp down opposition from conservatives who say she is undermining them - criticized Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday for not defending California's same sex-marriage ban, now before a federal appeals court.
Whitman's first definitive statements on how she would handle the issue as governor came hours before she spoke at the opening of the three-day state GOP convention in San Diego, where she is facing open hostility from conservatives over her positions on illegal immigration and climate change.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman said Friday that she would defend voter-approved Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage, if she becomes governor next year.
The announcement, made just hours before she addressed the California Republican Party convention here, put the Republican candidate at odds with both Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, Whitman's Democratic rival in the governor's race. Both Schwarzenegger and Brown have refused to defend the law against court challenges.
...When asked by The Bee, however, during a campaign stop Friday whether she'd defend Proposition 8, she said, "The issue right now is, as I understand it, is 'Will Proposition 8 have the appropriate support to actually make an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals?'
"And I think the governor, the attorney general today has to defend the constitution and has to enable the judicial process to go along and has to enable an appeal to go through," she continued. "So if I was governor, I would give that ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court."
So to shore up her position with social conservatives, she takes a stance that's fiscally unsound. Nice.
As a Calfornian who is concerned about how broke the state is, if we must see Prop 8 defended, let's let the state "outsource" the expense of defending Prop 8 to the Alliance Defense Fund -- the Alliance Defense Fund and its donor base.
Hey, one can make the reasoned, fiscally conservative argument that letting the private sector handle this appeal would save the state a whole lot lot of cash the state just doesn't have. One doesn't even have to be a fan of freedom, equality, and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people to find fault with Meg Whitman's stance on the appeal of Prop 8 -- Just from a fiscal perspective, California just can't afford the millions of dollars it would take to defend Prop 8.
So again, if Prop 8 is to be defended through the Appeals process, let the conservative Christians and Mormons who financed Prop 8 now fund the initiative's defense via their leaders' chosen legal team -- the Alliance Defence Fund. It's the fiscally conservative thing for California to do.
NOTE FROM PAM: The reaction from Servicemembers United...
"This survey of military spouses contains many of the same insulting and derogatory assumptions and insinuations about gays and lesbians that ran throughout the last survey," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and a former U.S. Army Human Intelligence Collector who was discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "Answer choices suggest things like the Defense Department possibly distributing flyers in military neighborhoods if, as they say, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is repealed and that the 'readiness' of military families might somehow be impacted. Again we stress that neither the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff nor anyone else would ever stand for such insulting questions being asked about any other minority group in the military in this day and age. The Pentagon's senior leadership should seriously consider Servicemembers United's offer to meet with them in person to talk about the insensitivity of these surveys and how the poor handling of these surveys might negatively impact implementation."
Politico has posted a copy of the survey about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the Department of Defense is sending out to 150,000 (opposite-sex) spouses of servicemembers.
To be fair, promising reports broke Wednesday that a Pentagon spokes person called speaking to same-sex spouses a "high priority" for the working group. But upon closer examination, as with the original survey of troops, it does seem little thought was actually given to how to get around the problems inherent to DADT legislation.
Regardless, the survey indicates that the Pentagon Working Group learned little from the previous uproar and repeats many of the same errors. After the fold some select questions and commentary.
Remarkably preserved crooner Pat Boone has a commentary up at WND that boggles the mind, "The mosque at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." You have to read this crap to believe it -- it's TEH CRAZEE from beginning to end. Now I understand just how unbalanced these "Obama is a Muslim" are despite actual facts they have to disbelieve. The aging crooner:
While the controversy still rises and rages on, around the proposed "Cordoba House" mosque and Muslim cultural center right on the edge of Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center stood till Sept. 11, 2001 - there is a world-famous building, dedicated by its current residents to similar purposes, in the middle of Washington, D.C.
We call it the White House.
...He was elected president, as we know, having promised: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!"
Almost immediately upon assuming the presidency, he began to make statements claiming America was no longer a Christian nation and that America might be considered a Muslim nation.
...For two years, the president has scarcely noted the National Day of Prayer nor participated in it at all. You'd think a Christian president would be motivated otherwise. Muslims and homosexual activists have been invitees at the White House more than any Christian or Jewish representatives have; odd for a Christian, isn't it?
His evidence (not sourced, btw) that there is something evil afoot:
"Barack Hussein Obama was born to an 18-year-old Caucasian woman and a Kenyan father. Virtually all his early influences, including his biological father and his Indonesian stepfather, his mother and grandparents - were socialists, atheists, and/or Muslims."
"He went to two schools in Indonesia as a young, impressionable boy. One was Catholic, the other Muslim. In both, he was identified as a Muslim, and in the latter he was of course indoctrinated in the Muslim faith."
He said publicly he "still love(s) the sound of the Muslim evening call to prayer," and could still recite the appropriate prayers.
One of his close friends took him on a prolonged visit to Pakistan during those years, and the question remains about Obama's passport. If it was American, he would not have been allowed in Pakistan - so what was it?
This kind of lunacy is why the White House had no business even addressing the stupid poll addressing the ignorant Americans whose views match Pat Boone's. It does not matter whether the President is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist or anything else. They miss that point, but they are not in a reality-based universe to begin with.
And these claims of Obama creating a "Muslim America" because the President has spoken about Islam in a positive manner in the past are beyond absurd, given the influence of evangelicals in the political process in this country. What about the pressure of the religious right (Falwell, Dobson, Rick Warren, et. al.) that throughout the years has forced politicians to grovel and make bold claims of faith in campaigns when religion has no business in government.
Below the fold, some reactions to the column that were on my Facebook page. Hilarious.
"There is still a lot of work to do" before DOMA will be repealed. "Look at the trouble we're having with ENDA." he added. But [Brian] Bond conceded that there are inconsistencies in President Obama's positions. In response, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, stated, "Respectfully, we need President Obama to push for full inclusion of the LGBT community on ENDA, on marriage- we need the full get, not the lesser get. The highest office in the land sets the tone for the whole country." Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is "99 percent supportive of your issues."
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a big deal for the transgender subcommunity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community. If you ask most trans-identified people what the current, most important national issue is for our subcommunity, the answer will more often than not be ENDA. That we don't have either the House or Senate currently working with any diligence to pass ENDA -- that LGBTQ community still has no idea what the "bathroom language" that Rep. Barney Frank and other House member will be attaching to a final version of ENDA is going to look like, and that the President Obama has failed to be a leader and "fierce advocate" for a fully inclusive version of ENDA...
Well, I'm left wondering if our politicians know the difference between the political grapes and lettuce of the LGBTQ civil rights movement regarding employment, and the actual people who are left oppressed when Congress and the White House fail to show leadership on LGBTQ employment issues. Congress sees an LGBT employment bill; I see the oppressed people who are impacted by the passage or non-passage LGBTQ employemnt bill.
I know I'm left with that question of what I do -- what do we do as a community beyond what we've been doing this whole session of Congress -- to further passage of ENDA.
This is what GetEqual -- the organization I recently joined the board of directors for -- is doing with regards to ENDA:
We're heading into the end of summer, and there has been both an eerie silence from Congress and whispers of surrender from the White House about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Despite these challenges from our elected leaders, GetEQUAL is determined to pull out all the stops to get ENDA passed in 2010.
We've heard promises for 40 years that this legislation will be passed - but we have a moral obligation to speak out while it is still perfectly legal for employers in 29 states to fire someone for their sexual orientation and in 38 states to fire someone for their gender identity or expression.
Our elected leaders tell us that this legislation is "complicated" and we should continue waiting.
But while Members of Congress are back in their home districts trying to save their jobs, we are left waiting for legislation that would safeguard ours. There are millions of LGBTQ Americans who are at risk of losing their jobs, at a moment's notice, because there are no federal job protections in place.
This isn't a legislative issue - this is a moral issue. And we're targeting legislators in specific states who have not yet shown the moral courage to support this legislation.
We're tired of legislators telling us that basic job protections for LGBTQ Americans are politically inconvenient - that some are more concerned with securing their own jobs than those of their constituents. We're tired of being asked to wait - we've been waiting for 40 years.
GetEQUAL has created a targeted list of legislators who we think need to hear from you in order to pass this legislation in 2010, as promised. [1] Every day that this legislation is not passed, there are LGBTQ Americans scared to be "out" at work, fearful of losing work stability, discriminated against for not conforming to gender stereotypes, or fired for acting "too gay."
We appreciate your ongoing commitment to taking bold action to secure LGBTQ equality, and we look forward to connecting you with our local organizers on the ground in your state!
..."Conservative" icon Glenn Beck, in a conversation with Bill O'Reilly, said basically he doesn't care about the attack on traditional marriage. Asked if the California ruling will harm the country in any way, he responded: "No I don't. Will the gays come and get us? I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: 'If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?'"
Rush Limbaugh, the iconic leader of American conservatism, hired the noted homosexual singer Elton John to perform at his wedding. He has not aired one of his bitingly satirical "gay community updates" in years.
"Conservatives," it seems, are on the verge of not only accepting homosexuality's domination of the culture, but embracing it.
Count Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck as the latest deserters in the culture war and in the battle for sexual normalcy. They have flinched at "precisely that little point which the world and the devil are ... attacking," and so have forfeited the right to consider themselves any longer culture warriors.
Let's be clear: Endorsing homosexual behavior is not a conservative position, period. Supporting special rights based on aberrant sexual behavior is not conservative, period. Supporting either civil unions or marriages based entirely on using the alimentary canal for sexual purposes is not conservative, period.
You [Ann Coulter] will be received with a standing ovation [at HOMOCON] for pandering to a group that wants to put open homosexuals in the same showers and barracks with sexually normal soldiers (priority No. 4) and is fiercely opposed to any attempt to elevate protection for natural marriage to the Constitution (priority No. 7 - see GOProud website).
...Glenn Beck has completely and shamelessly surrendered on the issue of gay marriage, and did so on Bill O'Reilly's program, only the most-watched cable news program in all TV land...Even O'Reilly, who is a notorious squish on the subject of the acceptability of homosexual behavior, was taken aback by Beck's capitulation and rightly accused him of "ignoring the profound change in the American family."
Folks, we are starting to see real damage to core of the professional homo-hate machine. The fiscal conservative/libertarian lite wing of the GOP, as well as those like Beck and Coulter, who depended on that demo for their meal ticket in the past, sees the legal handwriting on the wall for the social conservatives (aka loonies) and are publicly making a break for the door to more credibility), with the alignment now toward the burgeoning Tea Party wing.
It's pretty clear that a corner has been turned, with the green light foor Beck and Coulter likely being the 138-page Prop 8 legal ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that decimated the pathetic case presented by the defenders of marriage discrimination. The sorry-ass, religious, culture, and bias-based excuses to prevent opening civil marriage to lesbians and gays couldn't stand up to the reality-based legal standard, as Olsen and Boies smacked down the so-called "experts" who bothered to show up to testify. Just a peek at Walker's Findings of Fact alone put those ridiculous arguments completely to bed.
Beck and Coulter, who are thinking about their professional bottom lines, are placing their bets on the legal wind blowing away from the bible-beating theocrat wing of conservatism.
Again, while I can't always agree with their political positions on issues, credit also has to go to GOProud, which has managed to become a deeply lodged splinter into the social conservative movement in a very short time (the LCR was never this effective). It was first an irritation, and now it's making the bible-beaters hurt badly if they are taking this infighting public over HOMOCON. Makes we wish I could get up there to cover the event, which is on September 25 in NYC.
"I strongly encourage Mr LaBarbera to head out to his local bookstore, buy an Ann Coulter book and actually read it. For a guy who claims to be a "fan," he seems completely clueless about what Ann has actually written and said about gay people and gay conservatives.
If Mr. LaBarbera spent less time obsessing about gay sex and hanging out at gay Pride events, maybe he would have a little more time to read one of Ann's books."
After Mexico's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City must be recognized in other states and that same-sex couples could adopt, the Archdiocese of Guadalajara claimed that same-sex marriage was worse than Mexico's drug war.
People who cannot tell the difference between cold-blooded murder and two people building a family are not fit to be a part of any normal, human, ethical discourse in the twenty-first century. They have no moral compass at all.
And it gets better. In response to the Court's adoption ruling, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara added, "Would you want to be adopted by a pair of faggots (maricones) and lesbians?" "His Eminence" further claimed, without evidence, that Mexico's Supreme Court justices were bribed by the Mexico City mayor. Making things up also seems to be a Catholic value.
The Archdiocese's comparison and Iniguez's hateful rhetoric should not be seen as abberations. They are an extension of Pope Benedict's hyperbolic, fear-mongering characterizations of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Benedict has called same-sex marriage as among "some of the most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good today" and a threat to creation.
Rome has criticized neither the comments by Iniguez, nor the comments by the Archdiocese. And the Bishops' Conference of Mexico stands by them:
We lament that in manifesting these concepts to the public, there exist those who respond with recriminations and threats, claiming this is intolerant, when tolerance is supposed to ensure that we call all express our opinions and positions. For this reason, we express our solidarity and our feelings to Cardinals Norberto Rivera Carrera and Juan Sandoval Iniguez about this delicate issue.
Iniguez refers to gay men as maricones and an Archdiocese spokesperson says LGBT people are worse than murderers, and they're the victims of "intolerance". We're familiar with this kind of "flip-of-the-script" in the United States, as well. It is always significant when the Roman Church hierarchy does not respond to a hateful comment (or gives implicit support, as in this case), because they would certainly censure a supportive comment from a prelate very quickly.
Most importantly, comments like these are a reminder that despite desperate claims to the contrary, opposition to gay rights is fundamentally about bigotry and hate.
For the homobigots out there who are worried about the downfall of marriage if gays and lesbians are allowed to partake in it, let this be an example of how mundane and committed married life can be for some of us working hard on The Homosexual Agenda.
My lovely wife Kate and I decided, instead of eating babies and participating in an orgy, to spend Friday night cleaning out the pantry and fridge of outdated and spoiled food.
It was a revelation of sorts, with various "science projects" in the fridge, and long-outdated canned goods in the pantry. And some of the dates were frightening.
Some of the fun discoveries in the fridge:
Moldy green Sargento swiss cheese
Ziploc bag containing two boxes of leftover Chinese food, one had leaked through and discolored the box
Rubbermaid plastic container with what looked like was a half of an onion at some point.
Jar way in the back with one dill pickle floating in its water
Deli drawer with various opened packages of deli meats at least a month old.
Apples that have been in there at least 2 months at least and do not look spoiled (that seems unnatural, no?)
Applesauce that was ancient and still didn't look spoiled (scary)
Various discolored, freezer-burned meats that we didn't Foodsaver
Some treasures in the pantry:
Three cans of Healthy Choice soups with expiration dates of 9/2009 and 7/2008(!).
Can of Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup (that one I'm blaming on Kate), date: 7/2006(!)
Cans of corn dated 8/2009
Open boxes of pasta and rice, who knows how old.
Open box of Lorna Doones
Open bag of Original Goldfish crackers from June
And that was our deviant Friday night of marital bliss, Maggie, Brian, and the rest of you homo-haters out there.
Feel free to share your pantry and fridge purge nightmares in the comments, or tell us about your Friday perversions that should scare the fundies.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would prohibit discrimination in employment based on an individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Federal law already prohibits employers from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, physical disabilities, national origin or genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee. Yet it is still legal in 38 states to fire or refuse to hire someone based on their gender identity. Likewise it is still legal in 30 states to fire or refuse to hire someone based on their sexual orientation.
Because it is lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people who suffer from the employment discrimination that ENDA addresses, the legislation is generally portrayed as only benefiting LGBTs and its passage as a sort of "gift" from the mostly heterosexual Congress to LGBT people. This is an unfortunate distortion.
While it is true that LGBT people are in dire need of the protections ENDA would provide, ENDA is in the best interest of heterosexuals too. And I'm not just talking about heterosexuals facing employment discrimination because they are perceived to be gay. The truth of the matter is that everyone benefits when the best person is hired for the job.
This was brought home to me earlier this week when I heard that Judge Anne Levinson was confirmed as the new civilian auditor for the Seattle Police Department's Office of Professional Accountability by Seattle City Council's Public Safety and Education Committee. Her qualifications and commitment to excellence in public service are clear in her distinguished civil service resume. The Stranger's Riya Bhattacharjee summarized:
A Seattle Municipal Court judge from 1999 to 2001 where she dealt with criminal cases, Levinson developed and presided over one of the country's first mental health courts. She served as chief of staff and then deputy mayor for Mayor Rice and was legal counsel in both the Rice and Royer administrations. Levinson also chaired the Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission-a quasi-judicial body that regulated private telecommunications and energy companies. She is one of the four owners of the Seattle Storm. Levinson was also part of the Seattle Police Chief Search Committee. "It's important that the chief fosters an environment that actively investigates misconducts and implements reforms when necessary so that the public has respect and confidence in the police," she says. 'We have a mutual goal here of treating all citizens equally." Levinson underscores the importance of encouraging community policing in Seattle. "It's also important to have early warning systems to identify potential problems," she says."
Not insignificantly, Shaun Knittel at Seattle Gay News reminds us that Levinson was one of the state's first openly LGBT public officials. Folks around the Blend will recall that as Chair of Washington Families Standing Together, Levinson lead the Approve Referendum 71 campaign to victory in 2009, making Washington the first state in the nation whose electorate ratified an LGBT family recognition (domestic partnership) law at the polls.
So yes, Judge Levinson is a highly-qualified and respected public servant. She is also a lesbian. We here in Seattle are protected by several layers of anti-discrimination law at the city, county and state levels, so sexual orientation wasn't a factor in the City's decision to hire her. But I can't help but wonder if Judge Levinson had applied for the same job in Tampa, say, or Salt Lake City, whether her appointment wouldn't have been summarily rejected due to a characteristic that has no bearing on her ability to bring excellence to the job. Such an outcome would not only have been a loss to her as an individual, but to the predominantly heterosexual population she sought to so ably serve. When heterosexuals discriminate against an LGBT person in employment when the LGBT applicant is the best person for the job, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
A video of Judge Levinson's confirmation hearing is below the fold.
Here's just a text snippet of dialog between the two -- It's some back-and-forth discussion between CitizenLink's Director Of Digital Media, Stuart Shepard, and CitizenLink's Education Analyst, Candi Cushman. The two Christian activists discuss the "sneaky" "gay agenda"/"homosexual agenda" in the public schools.
Stuart Shepard: If there is one characteristic trait of the gay agenda in the public school system, it's this: It's sneaky. It's usually designed to look like something else -- it's disguised as something else -- to make it hard for parents to realize what's going on.
What can parents look for? -- How can you help them identify what's going on in the classroom? What do they see?
Candi Cushman: Oh what you say is so true. Gay activists realize that most parents in this nation do not want this kind of teaching coming in a taxpayer expense in their public schools. So, homosexual activists have become very adept at getting subtle -- at sneaking in these homosexuality lessons into things with innocent sounding titles.
Then, no sh**, they go on to discussing how lessons on student bullying, and safe school programs, are ways that homosexual activists sneak in these homosexuality lessons into public schools.
And here I was thinking that when they talked about "homosexuality lessons," they were going to talk about how discussion of gay sex was being introduced in Kindergarten classrooms. Nope, bullying and safe schools.
It's something to behold, that these two really think and believe that school systems trying to address harassment and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identified students -- as well as against young boys and men that are presumed to be gay because they are perceived to be too effeminate by their peer students; as well as against young girls and women that are presumed to be lesbian because they are perceived to be too masculine by their peer students -- is a way for homosexual activists to sneak in homosexuality lessons into public schools at taxpayer expense.
Can we think of the children please, Stuart and Candi? You know, the victims of harassment and violence?
Ah, the "sneaky" "homosexual activists."
Well, one doesn't need to wonder very hard as to why many in the LGBTQ community see these conservative "Christians" as bigots and haters. Folk like Stuart and Candi sadly are examples of those so looking for the evils of homosexuality in every nook and cranny of society that they don't see any real dangers of LGBTQ student bullying -- of student harassment and violence.
I watched the recent video of Brian's discussion with Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign and was left wishing that Brian had devoted more time to discussing the practical and real impact of marriage restrictions on gays and lesbians.
Both of you have spoken at length about your normative vision of ideal marital and child-rearing policies, often as if we were deciding such policies in a vacuum. We all know where you stand on the policy questions.
But you've never really addressed what should happen to existing gay and lesbian families. See, your normative argument about how things should be ignores the practical lived experience of legally-married same-sex couples and of LGBT parents raising biological and adopted children.
And this omission, I believe, lies at the root of your public-relations difficulties. So what can you do about it?
Well, you would go a long way toward building good will with the LGBT community if you would propose a meaningful alternative legal arrangement to govern their lives and families. You oppose civil unions, domestic partnerships, and similar state-sponsored arrangements. Are there any arrangements that you favor? If so, why? If not, why not?
And while you may not think that NOM should be in the business of offering alternatives, by treating marriage and the incidents of marriage as a zero-sum game, you practically beg for gays and lesbians to call you "bigots"--because you are lobbying for a restriction of their rights while refusing to offer up anything that's relevant to their actual lives.
Granted, Maggie has in the past suggested that LGBT couples could obtain the legal incidents of marriage through private contracts, wills, and similar personal legal documents. But what about those incidents of marriage that can't be contracted into? What about, for example, federal or state marital exemptions from gift tax or estate tax? What about the spousal testimonial privilege? There are no legal documents that can bestow these (and other) non-contractual legal benefits onto private individuals, absent state licensure or intervention.
In other words, benefits like these only attach to a "marriage." Should LGBT couples not have these benefits? If they should, then how should they get them? And would you lobby for the necessary legal changes? If they shouldn't, why not?
Moreover, even if, arguendo, all of the benefits of marriage could be obtained through private contract, the average couple cannot afford the thousands of dollars needed to acquire the limited protection offered by, for example, a will or a power of attorney--both of which, legally speaking, are rather poor substitutes for marriage, as both are subject to facial legal challenges, whereas intestate succession and spousal power of attorney are conferred by law and can only be denied if the entire marriage is nullified. Why should LGBT couples alone be required to bear this legal risk at a prohibitive cost?
By failing to offer a meaningful, viable alternative, you leave your critics with no choice but to question your motives. I understand that being called a "bigot" offers you ample opportunity to play the victim card and to ply for attention and donations in the short term, but it's a remarkably short-sighted strategy. You can only cry "wolf" so many times. People will eventually tire of the hysterics.
So permit me to ask Rick's question one more time: In light of the reality that several states have issued valid, legal marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and in light of the reality that many states permit LGBT couples and individuals to raise biological or adopted children, what do you propose? Should we void or nullify all legal same-sex marriages? Should we outlaw LGBTs from having biological children? Should we outlaw LGBT adoption, whether as primary parent or as second parent? Should we remove children from LGBT homes?
I invite you to clarify your position on this matter.
In response, Farah issued the following statement: "Coulter called me a 'publicity whore' for my decision. But look who is on television talking about this - throwing mud, name-calling, smearing not only me but my entire staff. I will not engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks that have made Coulter so famous and that are making her even more of a media darling in this age of reckless anger and character assassination for the sake of entertainment. Every day, since we made this decision at WND, I thank God for giving me the clarity of mind and discernment to make the right choice."
Those of you who follow my Facebook may be aware that I made an emergency trip to Kansas this week. A school there was refusing to recognize a 10 year old transgender girls gender identity. They were requiring her to attend school as male and wouldn't budge.
Remarkably preserved crooner Pat Boone has a commentary up at WND that boggles the mind, "
We're heading into the end of summer, and there has been both an eerie silence from Congress and whispers of surrender from the White House about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Despite these challenges from our elected leaders, GetEQUAL is determined to pull out all the stops to get ENDA passed in 2010.
For the homobigots out there who are worried about the downfall of marriage if gays and lesbians are allowed to partake in it, let this be an example of how mundane and committed married life can be for some of us working hard on The Homosexual Agenda.
This was brought home to me earlier this week when I heard that Judge Anne Levinson was confirmed as the new civilian auditor for the Seattle Police Department's Office of Professional Accountability by Seattle City Council's Public Safety and Education Committee. Her qualifications and commitment to excellence in public service are clear in her distinguished 
