Exposing the moral bankruptcy of the unraveling professional 'family values' crowd

At the religious right's Family Impact Summit this past weekend, a brave woman took on the self-righteous, prevaricators at the event. Cathy James, a lesbian, who has a child and is in a committed relationship with a partner, stood up and politely challenged the anti-gay statements of the panelists and John Stemberger and Peter Sprigg were guffawing to address her.

Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin was there as she brilliantly framed her questions to the panel.

Hi. My names is Cathy James and I would like to challenge all of the individuals here listening today to really take a look at some of the rationale and some of the comments that speakers have given in regard to things such as ?why government gets involved with personal relationships, that is, for the procreation of children. I think as most of the attorneys will tell you, that civil marriage was created for one purpose only, and that was property and how to divide property.

And so I am a lesbian, I live in the Riverview area with my partner of thirteen years and our son who is seven. And I go to work Monday through Friday and attend church weekly, I volunteer at the school, I volunteer at the homeowners association. And what I have a hard time understanding is why you are interested in keeping a legal framework from us in being able to handle the same things as heterosexual couples and such things as visitation, and hospital?. And how to divide our property in the same way, and how to parent our child?

The stunned silence was amazing. John Stemberger thanked her for coming and tried to stammer out an answer. He said that some forms of discrimination are perfectly legitimate ("home ownership benefits society in the way renters do not.") and ended by saying, "marriage uniquely benefits society in the way same sex couples do not." But Cathy remained calm and firm:

But in what way? What's the difference in the benefit? How does your marriage benefit society more than my relationship with my same gender partner does not?

Peter Sprigg jumped in to assert that "without question" the best family structure was headed by a man and a woman. But Cathy persisted:

"But now you're devaluing, what, over fifty percent of the children who live with one parent or that one parent as died or that they're divorced and now they're just living with one parent. You're devaluing them and that's not fair.

By now the panel was speechless, leaving Peter Sprigg to stumble around trying to get his footing. "Each person's relationship choices serves as an example to the rest of society - and if that example becomes more widespread, more people will make the same choice, more children will suffer."

You have to go read the rest.I wish there was video of that one.

***

And here's another drop kick to that fundie crowd:

Joe Murray, a former columnist and former staff attorney for the American Family Association, Don and Tim Wildmon's "family values" machine, is now supportive of LGBT rights (my interviews with him are here and here). He has written up a great piece on the recent Values Voter Debate that was held last week. When you read this snippet, imagine how it was received by the Base.

It is not coincidental that the road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions, thus while one hopes that conservative leaders, such as Don Wildmon, began their crusade motivated by morality, it appears that a number of them have been hypnotized by the siren song of the almighty dollar.

Christian activism has become a lucrative business. According to its 990 form, the AFA took in millions. Arguably, such revenue was made possible by sending out "Action Alerts" warning homosexuals will throw Christians in jail under the hate crimes bill. Such rhetoric is misleading a best, dishonest at worse.

How does one protect Christianity? Send money. Call it cash-back Christianity, and the VVD was no different.

The VVD had an opportunity to restore sanity to Christian public activism, but it quickly became a political sideshow to see which candidate was the political Christian of choice.

The result? A conservative carnival.

Alan Keyes channeled his inner Benny Hinn, while John Cox mused about transvestite teachers. Sam Brownback stated that Bush should have the spent the political capital earned in 2004 on the Federal Marriage Amendment, not Social Security Reform, and Mike Huckabee proclaimed that if the U.S. leaves Iraq, it loses.

Oh my. Let's put it this way -- there were probably not love letters from the AFA flowing into Joe Murray's inbox for simply sharing the truth about how and why the family values crowd has placed itself on shaky moral ground.

Actually, I have to say, since Joe has been writing columns of this nature, I've been Googling to see reaction from the Wildmons or the rest of that crowd for a response of some kind. Nada.

I guess the Wildmon and Co.think by ignoring the columns that no one will notice what's going on -- that someone who worked in their ranks has opened his eyes to see how extreme the movement has become.

We're noticing that silence, Don and Tim. The walls of your movement are tumbling down; the anti-gay conferences and forums held by organizations like yours are increasingly poorly attended. Only the rabid among you continue to get together for those non-stop pious circle-jerks of intolerance. What a sad, small world you live in.

If anyone tuned into that Values Voter debate, it was indeed a scary sight to behold. These people are so stewed in repression, self-loathing and fear; they gain strength from irrationally lashing out at tax-paying, law-abiding citizens that happen to be LGBT, or anyone who dares to think that the government belongs out of the bedrooms of America.

To see so many of the GOP presidential candidates pander so shamelessly before this unhinged crowd shows how hijacked the party is to the far right fringe. It's a recipe for political disaster, and it's quite enjoyable watching them drive themselves off the cliff.

***

The endless lies about ENDA continue, btw, illustrating Joe's points quite well. Look at the latest email "action alert" from Don Wildmon of the American Family Association that Joe passed along. A snippet:

ENDA (H.R. 2015) could enshrine "sexual orientation" in federal law

Call Your U.S. Representative today to oppose ENDA

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) H.R. 2015 is likely to be voted on this week in the U.S. House. ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior- homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace. That could spell trouble for Christian business owners, churches and faith-based groups. Proponents of the bill quickly point to "religious exemptions" in the bill, but most agree that it is a sham.

Here is more information about ENDA H.R. 2015 from our friends at the Family Research Council:

* ENDA affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.

* The issue is not job discrimination: It is whether private businesses will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists' attempts to legitimize homosexual behavior.

* The first "religious exemption" clause is very narrow and offers no clear protection to church-related businesses: Religious schools or charitable organizations, religious bookstores, or any business affiliated with a church or denomination fall outside this narrow definition, and could presumably be required to hire homosexual applicants.

* The second "religious exemption" clause fails to offer protection for all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses. The position of a teacher of religion at a church-related school would be exempt, but, e.g., that of a biology teacher would not. Thus, most of the teachers and staff at a religious school would be covered by ENDA, which means that the church would be forced to hire homosexual applicants for such positions-despite the fact that their lifestyle would be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs of the organization or company.

* It is unlikely that the "religious exemption" included in the bill would survive court challenge: Institutions that could be targeted include religious summer camps, the Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, religious television and radio stations, and any business with fifteen or more employees.

* ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their most deeply held beliefs into account when making hiring, management, and promotion decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people's lives.

* ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.

Take Action

Clearly, this is an enormous threat to the freedom of religion and also places unfair burdens on businesses, which should be allowed to make employment decisions based on their religious convictions and business needs.

In 31 states, it's legal for an employer to fire you because of your sexual orientation; in 39 states it is legal to fire someone for being transgender.

If fairness in the workplace for LGBT employees under ENDA is the nightmarish proposition Don outlines above, why do so many businesses, large and small, support ENDA? HRC:

[A] total of 124 Fortune 500 companies now include transgender people in their policies; this is more then 10 times the number that had such policies in 2001. In addition, exactly 49 of the Fortune 50 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies. (Exxon Mobil Corp. is the only company in the Fortune 50 that does not.) In fact, 433 companies in the Fortune 500 - or nearly 90 percent - include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies as of spring 2007.

Read the rest of this post...

House votes to expand health insurance for kids, Bush promises to veto

And watch even more Republicans lose next year as a result of the idiot we have leading our country. More from AP. Read the rest of this post...

Episcopal church leaders reassure the world that they don't REALLY like the homos all that much

Phew, I'm glad they settled that. Because nothing would disturb Jesus more than church leaders who unequivocally loved and accepted everyone in their flock.

Absolutely disgraceful. Read the rest of this post...

Global warming conference

I was reading about the global warming discussions at the UN yesterday, and I couldn't help but wonder, why on earth does this meeting matter? The major nations aren't interested in doing anything real, and in particular the US still has over a year left of an administration that's allergic to environmental progress.

Fortunately, Mark Goldberg helpfully explains the relevance and the context:

[T]he significance of today's meetings needs to be understood in the longer term. In 2015, Kyoto will expire. As the thinking goes, it will take two years to negotiate a successor to Kyoto, then another four years for member states to actually ratify the treaty.

In December, the process of negotiating a successor to Kyoto will kick off with a meeting in Bali. This meeting will be largely technical in nature, i.e. what sort of carbon emissions targets should be achieved and how to set up a global carbon credit market. The purpose of today's meetings was not to talk about those technical issues, but to inject some desperately needed political will into the Bali meeting.

So it's going to take a while to get this thing rolling, and even longer to get ratification, and it's important to start building toward that all now despite apparent intransigence. Well, then. That does make sense. Read the rest of this post...

Law firm of Bush's AG pick represents Iranian group "suspected" of being a "'front' for Iranian espionage and anti-American activities"

Well, well, well. The GOPers have been apoplectic about Iran this week. It's not quite a state secret that Cheney wants to start a war with Iran. Today, Senators Kyl and Lieberman are pushing a dangerous Senate resolution that could move the U.S. closer to a war with that country. Giuliani, McCain and Romney have been in a frenzy about Iranian's president speech at Columbia. Duncan Hunter, who is easily one of the biggest buffoons in Congress (no small feat), wants to cut all federal funding for Columbia.

Now comes word from ABC's "The Blotter" that Bush's pick to be our nation's chief law enforcment officer has represented an alleged Iranian "front" group:

For more than 25 years, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities say they have suspected the New York-based Alavi Foundation is a "front" for Iranian espionage and anti-American activities.

For more than 25 years, court records show the foundation has been publicly defended and represented by the New York law firm where attorney-general nominee Michael Mukasey is a partner: Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

The foundation says the firm continues to represent it.

Mukasey personally handled at least one matter in court for the foundation.

Just review the rhetoric of McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Duncan Hunter and the rest of the GOP knuckleheads eviscerating Columbia University for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak one time at the school. Yet, could our next A.G. have been making money from that terrorist regime?

McCain accused Columbia of "rank hypocrisy." Let's see who the hypocrites are now. And just imagine the howls from the right wing if a Democrat had these kinds of links to an alleged Iranian "front" group. Read the rest of this post...

CNN host says “Jesus and Hitler had a lot in common”

Really. He did. Hey maybe that Iranian president guy can get his own CNN show too? Read the rest of this post...

Journalistic progress on Iran

The New York Times does a piece on how -- despite right-wing hyperventilation -- Ahmadinejad isn't really that important. Not in his own country, and not in the grand scheme of international relations, except for how we keep supporting him by giving him too much attention and being belligerent.

Political analysts [in Iran] say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system.

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

"The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad," said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. "He is not that consequential."

Wait, Americans -- even our political leaders -- don't understand the culture and government of a Middle Eastern nation? And this lack of understanding contributes to unnecessary increased conflict? I can't believe it!

On the bright side, it's nice to see an article pointing this out. More like this, please. Read the rest of this post...

Cholera claims another life in Iraq

Cholera claimed yet another life in Iraq with the problem now covering most of the country due to Iraqis migrating from one region to another as a result of sectarian violence. Shipments of chlorine, the chemical used to clean drinking water, had been held up at the border but have now entered Iraq. Chlorine has been used in numerous deadly car bombings in Iraq so the government had been cautious about importing the chemical. Read the rest of this post...

Insert caption here

Hint: There's a self-loathing man-whore in the picture (well, okay, there's two, at least).

Read the rest of this post...

Is Ralph Nader planning to put yet another Republican in the White House?

Starting to look that way. The man is an egotistical idiot. He has done more than any man in America to destroy the environment and further corporate interests at the expense of the individual. Every single crime that Bush-Cheney have committed is on Ralph Nader's head. And now he may be planning to do it to us all again. Read the rest of this post...

Petraeus' funny numbers

From the Wash Post:

Civilian casualty numbers in the Pentagon's latest quarterly report on Iraq last week, for example, differ significantly from those presented by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his recent congressional testimony. Petraeus's chart was limited to numbers of dead, while the Pentagon combined the numbers of dead and wounded -- a figure that should be greater. Yet Petraeus's numbers were higher than the Pentagon's for the months preceding this year's increase of U.S. troops to Iraq, and lower since U.S. operations escalated this summer.

The charts are difficult to compare: Petraeus used monthly figures on a line graph, while the Pentagon computed "Average Daily Casualties" on a bar chart, and neither included actual numbers. But the numerical differences are still stark, and the reasons offered can be hard to parse. The Pentagon, in a written clarification, said that "Gen. Petraeus reported civilian deaths based on incidents reported by Coalition forces plus Iraqi government data. The [Pentagon] report only includes incidents reported by Coalition forces for civilian causality data."

Read the rest of this post...

By the way, you're not safer. Violent crime is going up.

Yes, the President who told you he'd make you safer, well he lied. Violent crime is on the rise again. This is another one of those areas where Republicans talk tough, but don't really do anything. Crime decreased dramatically during the Clinton administration. Under Bush, we're in more danger in our cities and towns. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering our top law enforcement official for the past couple years was Alberto Gonzales.

Heckuva job, Bushie:

The number of violent crimes increased by a larger amount than expected last year, extending the first significant rise in murders and robberies in a dozen years, according to an FBI report released today.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program shows that robberies surged by 7.2 percent and murders rose 1.8 percent from 2005 to 2006. Violent crime overall rose 1.9 percent, notably more than an increase of 1.3 percent estimated in a preliminary FBI report in June.

The increase was the second in two years, following a 2.3 percent jump in 2005. Taken together, the two years comprise the first steady increase in violent crimes since 1993.

The FBI report presents a significant political challenge for the Bush administration, which has faced growing criticism from congressional Democrats, big-city mayors and police chiefs for presiding over cuts in federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies over the last six years.

Of course this is a significant political challenge for Bush. Every single issue is a significant political challenge for Bush. We need the Bush team to actually focus on the policy, not the politics. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Okay, get cranking. There's much to discuss. Read the rest of this post...

Suicide bomber attacks reconciliation banquet in Iraq

What burgeoning democracy hasn't had a suicide bomber that kills 16 people at a reconciliation event? Read the rest of this post...

Myanmar junta threatens protesters - 5,000 still march in Yangon

The Bush administration was making noise on this subject yesterday, suggesting they would announce sanctions targeting the leaders of the junta and "those that provide financial support to them" which of course, would primarily be China, the local power who provides enough support to the brutal dictatorship to keep it afloat though somehow I doubt the Bush administration will ever take any action against China. How else would big business in the US deliver products that fail quality and safety standards at such a low price and who else would buy the Bush/GOP debt? What a pathetic and laughable threat, but what we've come to expect.

The protest today, the sixth straight day, is impressive because when the military junta makes a threat they mean it. The difficulty for the junta is the special protected status of Buddhist monks in this very religious country. Arresting, attacking or using violence against the monks could provoke a counter-reaction strong enough to promote a much bigger uprising across the country and the end result is unclear. Read the rest of this post...

Why did Bush cut & run from a free press in Egypt?

This sounds a lot like Bush I abandoning the Iraqis who jumped up when the US said "I have you covered" during the first Gulf War. If Bush II wants to talk about democracy he's going to have to actually back up his talk with action because just like in Iraq after the Gulf War, people who heed the call and stand up will pay a very severe price. The Egyptians who promoted an independent press after listening to Bush are now being arrested and threatened with jail.

Two days later, on Sept. 13, Eissa and three other newspaper editors were hauled into court and sentenced to a year in prison for publishing articles critical of Mubarak; his son and presumed heir, Gamal; and other government officials. It was the biggest single assault on the press in Mubarak's quarter-century in power and one of the worst blows in years to media freedom in the Arabic-speaking world.

Yet there was no reaction from the State Department or the White House, which Kassem once credited with helping to create the space his newspaper occupied. "We were getting air cover from the Bush administration," the publisher told me. "But when the fighting started last month they were not out there with us in the outposts. Instead, they effectively said, 'You are on your own.' It's put us in a very difficult position -- and I mean all of us who supported democracy in the greater Middle East."

If the US has any interest in democracy and remaining friendly with Egypt into the future, we have to do better than this but since when has Bush ever really cared about democracy or a free press? So is Bush going to stand up for the three journalists in Egypt who were just sentenced to prison for "damaging the image of justice" whatever that's supposed to mean? Read the rest of this post...