Gay/Lesbian Rights

This should really be a non-story, but the right could not resist. They swift boat anyone they can and their latest victim has done the honarable thing.

From Matt:

Amanda Marcotte resigned from the Edwards campaign.  It was her decision.  Amanda feels encumbered by the campaign and unable to effectively defend herself from the right-wing.  As such, it's the correct decision to make because a Presidential campaign is the wrong place to be if you want to hit back at the right on your own behalf.  Aspiring bloggers for campaigns should take note of the restrictions placed on your freedom when you go to work for a campaign.  The personal cost can be quite high.

Melissa at Shakespeare's Sister is still with the Edwards campaign.  Bill Donohue's attack on Edwards failed, and we know that creepy bigots like him only have power if we grant it to them through our own actions.

Now how will this baby grow up to function properly in society?

Mary Cheney, the vice president's openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

It's a baby boom for grandparents Dick and Lynne Cheney: Their older daughter, Elizabeth, went on leave as deputy assistant secretary of state before having her fifth child in July. "The vice president and Mrs. Cheney are looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild," spokesman Lea Anne McBride said last night.

Cheney, 37, was a key aide to her father during the 2004 reelection campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL. Poe, 45, a former park ranger, is renovating their Great Falls home.

Isn't this something that can destroy our society? I certainly expect the Christian right to start releasing statements condemning this news.

Oh wait. I almost forgot. We are talking about the group of double standards. The entire "practice what a preach" meme is non-existent when you talk about the Christian right (see - Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Mark Foley, etc., etc., etc.) Is there any wonder why they are in such turmoil now a days?

Hopefully this new child will show those who believe that same sex couples aren't capable of raising children properly, that they are flat wrong. True I can't be that optimistic. I got a sneaking suspicion that the excuse will be "they came from good stock". Of course they can make that judgment without knowing the "stock" of any of the people they chastise. That is the double standard of the Christian right. Now I need to re-read my New Testament to see where it was Jesus said "treat others how you want them treated, not how you expect to be treated", or "only you are entitled to happiness and riches in life, others are meant for nothing".

I did a post last week trying to make the argument that the fact Mark Foley had to live a life of shame because he was a member of a party that would not accept his sexuality. In turn this life of shame leads down a dangerous road that can lead to the behavior that caused Foley's downfall. This is not a result of him being gay, but rather a result of the intolerance by people in our society - namely the Republican Party and Christian right.

Aravosis has found an article in today's L.A. Times by gay writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile that echoes my same thoughts:

Foley's closet wasn't just about protecting his political career. He seemed to be filled with shame. According to one gay man quoted in the Washington Post last week who challenged Foley on his voting for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, Foley justified marginalizing gay marriage by saying, "I could never compare any relationship I have ever had to the nature of my mother and father's relationship."

For Foley, homosexuality meant second-class status.

That kind of self-loathing is bound to play out in harmful ways. Would Foley have made online sexual advances on teenagers if he were openly gay or if he'd been reported on, truthfully, by the media as a gay man long ago, and faced the consequences? It's quite possible the answer is no.

The radical right is of course trying to say that child predators are a by product of homosexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply search for cases of child molestation/internet predators and you will quickly see that almost all cases involve a predator preying on someone of the opposite sex. Watch Nightline's "To Catch a Predator" and you will notice one thing in common amongst all the people caught - they were going after the opposite sex.

Foley was forced into leading this secret life. There are rumors that he did have a partner, but even if that is the case the fact remains he still had to live a life of secrecy. He could not openly talk about his private life in front of his own colleagues. To make matters even worse, Foley was being forced to continue this charade by people within his own party. He wanted out of Congress, yet key players in the GOP (including Karl Rove) refused to let him resign. They kept him there by threatening his future career of lobbying. In other words, Foley is a product of the system the Republicans want to create, and that product is very dangerous.

Gives me flashbacks of Footloose:

Chicago gay rights activists are concerned about what may have been a hate crime in the Lakeview neighborhood.

The Chicago Public Library says that about 100 books were destroyed after someone set a fire in the section for gay and lesbian literature.

It happened Tuesday about noon at the John Merlo branch of the public library in the 600 block of West Belmont.

Newsradio 780 is told that someone is believed to have set fire to books with a cigarette lighter and that about 90 gay and lesbian books were destroyed, and that about 10 books destroyed in the African American literature section.

Thanks Bill Frist. By your quick action last week to bring this very heated debate back to the floor of Senate so it could reach its certain doom, you have created more tensions in our nation. What a guy you are.

Hopefully this will send a message to the Christian right that their support for the gay marriage ban is less than expected:

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing an embarrassing defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Supporters knew they wouldn't achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a gain in votes over the last time the issue came up, in 2004. Instead, they lost one vote for the amendment in a procedural test tally.

Wednesday's 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally. The 2004 vote was 50-48

This could end up going either way. The Republicans could use it to motivate the base by saying they need to get more control in Senate or the base could end up not paying attention to it and letting the issue die until 2008.

The Democrats, on the other hand, need to really push and motivate their base even more. They need to make the 40 and under crowd well aware that this would not have even been brought up for debate if the Democrats held control on the Senate. This could be a great booster for a 2006 platform - "We feel it is more important to debate issues such as health care, FEMA, oil prices, Iraq and a host of other issues facing this nation than it is to argue about gay marriage".

In E.J. Dionne's latest piece, he brings up the current pandering by the Republicans and Administration to their base and explains who should really be angry about it:

This month's offensive by President Bush and his allies in Congress against gay marriage and flag burning proves one thing: The Republican Party thinks its base of social conservatives is a nest of dummies who have no memories and respond like bulls whenever red flags are waved in their faces.

The people who should be angry this week are not liberals or gays or lesbians, but the president's most loyal supporters. After using the gay-marriage issue shamelessly in the 2004 campaign, Bush and Republican leaders left opponents of gay marriage out in the cold as they concentrated on the party's real priorities: privatizing Social Security and cutting taxes on rich people.

When Bush was at his position of maximum strength after the 2004 election, did he use his political energy on behalf of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Not at all. In an interview with The Post on Jan. 14, 2005, he dismissed the question, arguing that since many senators felt that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was already an effective bar to the spread of gay marital unions, there was no point in fighting for a constitutional change.

You got it right there Dionne - the loyal supporters of Bush should be pissed off as hell about this current round of pandering. One year ago Bush dismissed the need for a gay marriage ban, so what has changed in that time? The only thing that has changed is his and his Republican parties approval rating.

So what about the other issue coming up - flag burning? Dionne also looks at that:

The constitutional amendment to ban flag burning is also about electoral politics. As a Senate Republican leader said happily, a vote against the amendment "would make a good 30-second spot." An official of the National Republican Congressional Committee said that "if Democrats choose to vote against a Constitutional amendment" banning flag desecration, "I think they'll pay a price."

Again, proof that the Republicans do not care one bit about America - only about their votes. Screw the vast majority of America, the Republicans are only worried about whoring themselves to the small percentage of their base. We are the employers of Congress and I demand we dock their wages for this atrocity they are committing this month.

Here are some interesting tidbits from this New York Times article:

All but one of the 44 Senate Democrats — Ben Nelson of Nebraska — have voiced opposition to the measure, as have some moderate Republicans, a result that would kill the measure for the year.

Remember this vote requires 2/3rds of the Senate to vote for it so now they got 56 of the needed 67 votes. Perhaps they are getting closer or perhaps:

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said that while he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, he said he would vote against the amendment to ban gay marriage because the matter was already being addressed by the states. He quoted the late Sen. Barry Goldwater as saying that government "ought to be kept off our backs, out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms."

"This is a matter which ought to be left to the states, and the states are taking care of it," he said. "It's a matter of privacy, it's a matter of tolerance, two very, very highly placed values in our society."

John Aravosis over at AmericaBLOG has an action alert up and needs everyone's help so please take a minute and check it out and help out by all means.

John Aravosis over at AmericaBLOG has an action alert up and needs everyone's help so please take a minute and check it out and help out by all means.

What amazes me is that the Republicans are so worried about politicking that they are willing to back-burner the entire country to take up the issue of gay marriage this week. When I think of the problems surrounding our country; Iraq, healthcare, FEMA, energy crisis, immigration, record level deficits - just to name a few, it is no wonder that the Republicans have shown they are the party of Republican'ts.

While they are spending their time in the coming weeks to debate an amendment to our constitution that will meet a certain demise, they are hoping to motivate the far-right Christian base of their party. Any one on the right who buys into this is a fool. The Republicans have been promising things like banning gay marriage since they took over in 1994. So why are they so interested in it now? If you don't know the answer to that then it is time to wake up.

The Republicans are facing the challenge of their life this year to keep control of Congress. Their poll numbers have sunk to all time lows and even the conservative base is losing faith in them. Now the Republicans have decided they need to dangle a vision of "hope" in the face of the far-right once again.

Russ Feingold has issued the following statement regarding his walk out of today's hearings on the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage:

“Today’s markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.”

I could not agree with Senator Feingold more. The Constitution is the very fiber of this nation and what makes it what it is. When politicians use it as a political tool it is an insult to every single person who has fought and died for our country. Unfortunately, the Republicans enjoy using it as a tool. They are doing this just to appeal to the radical Christian right and that is wrong. This amendment is facing a certain defeat on the Senate floor and even if it gets past the Senate their will not be enough states to ratify it.