Reality, Meet the GOP

Reality and the Republican Party are not close friends.  That was evident on election night when Karl Rove blubbered and fought with his pocket calculator trying to dispute the election results his own network, Fox News was reporting.

Now, perhaps, there is a watershed event.  Former House Speaker and failed presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was quoted in the Huffington Post as saying, “I don't think these guys have a clue.”  He was speaking about the Republican National Committee and its internal review of what went wrong during the election . 

Part of that interview was most relevant for LGBT Americans, when Gingrich breached the subject of Gay Marriage. He felt that the GOP needed to open their eyes and see that the majority of Americans no longer have a problem with same-sex marriage.  Wow!

Specifically he made the distinction between “"marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state".   He went on to say, “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period."

The phrase “accommodate and deal with reality” is what struck me most.  After all, this is the man who actually thought he had a shot at the Presidency.  A man who was divorced twice and has a spotty history of infidelity, as well as being reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee, seriously thought he could stand up to the scrutiny of a Presidential run?  It would seem that reality and Newt were not well acquainted.

Newt was even a signatory to the National Organization for Marriage pledge regarding a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  What happened? 

Well, Newt and the GOP are not immune to public opinion, and though they seem to be fighting it every step of the way, he and others on the right have seen that the age of bashing LGBT people to rally the base, no longer works.  Time is marching on and leaving that sad chapter in American political history in the dust.
  
"I didn't think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act," he said. "It didn't seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing."
This may bode well for the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Perhaps even the conservative voices on the bench will see the tide turning and clear the way for federal recognition of same-sex unions.  We can hope for that, but one stumbling block still stands in the way, and that’s Justice Antonin Scalia.  His recent comparison of the ban on sodomy to a ban on murder might give us a clue to his thinking.  Though he claims to be a “textualist” when it comes to the Constitution, he is more of an absurdist, reducing his arguments to absurd comparisons. 

In the end, his absurdity may not matter.  My hope is that Scalia will be writing the minority dissenting opinion on DOMA and that his words will look every bit as silly as Karl Rove on election night. The tide has turned and Scalia doesn’t notice, and when you can’t see something that is so evident that Newt Gingrich can see it, then you might end up looking as absurd as your argument. 

Heading Off The Cliff

You can't turn on a news report without hearing references to the "fiscal cliff".  Terrifying? Not so much, but still a real issue.

Quite frankly I don't think the Republicans have any intention of negotiating and a re perfectly willing to do a Thelma & Louise on January 1.  Why?  Because they can let the automatic lifting of the Bush tax cuts happen, the spending cuts and all, then they can pass a bill that cuts taxes for the middle class and still say they didn't raise taxes.  They cut them!

Pretzel logic for sure, but the GOP excels at that.  They can pass legislation to restore the military spending and claim they were defending the nation. More pretzel logic.

When this happens, and I do believe it is a "when" not an "if", the Democrats in Congress need to make it abundantly clear that it is the GOP 's fault. They need to control the narrative and not let the Republicans play their semantic game. 

I suspect President Obama is already working on a speech that will lay out the facts for the American people in a way that makes it abundantly clear who is at fault for this mess.

In the long run it wont hurt us much, unless the stock market gets neurotic and starts kicking in some automatic selling programs.  Oh and then there is the debt ceiling....   The Chinese curse is coming true, "may you live in interesting times."

Emanuel

Emanuel is translated as "God with us".  That was the biggest message of Jesus and of the birth narrative. The story in my opinion was meant to give a graphic example of what Jesus taught in later life  He took the idea of God being only in the Temple and moved the focus to individuals.  God was and is with us, not hidden behind the veil of the Temple.

Jesus was a reformer.  His path was meant to bring us closer to the divine and to free us from the rules and structures of the Pharisees.  His path broke free from the rigid rules and relied on the simple commandment to love one another.

As I celebrate this season and reread the birth narratives I know that indeed a new light did come into the world.  May the light of this season brighten your days.

Note:  Sometimes I get off on a theological bent and I have to reassert that what I write is just my opinion.  Take what you like and leave the rest.

The Christmas Story

"And an angel came to the woman and told her she would bear a child."

That's not a direct Biblical quote, but it is paraphrased.  If you think I am referring to Mary being visited by an angel, I am not, I am referring to Abraham's wife Sarah.  She was told by one of the three angels that visited them she would have a child.  She laughed!

The same story happens again the the opening of the new testament when Elisabeth and Zechariah are visited by Gabriel and told they will have a child, John.

The same story happens again in Luke when another angel tells Mary she will have a son, Jesus.

So what gives?  Three identical stories with the names and times changed, yet essentially they are all the same.

Well, I am not a Biblical scholar, and never attended Divinity School, but here's my take on it:

Each of these births was seen as an important milestone. Their story is told through a familiar lens of an older well-known story.  This is not to shroud history, but to reveal the truths behind the tale.  They are great myths that pass along knowledge and wisdom through generations.  They are not historically accurate.

Just like the slaughter of the innocents in the New Testament, there is a matching story in the Old Testament.  Moses is hidden in the bull rushes to avoid being slaughtered by Pharaoh in Egypt. Likewise, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to avoid having Jesus killed by Herod.

Why?  Because it was important to show that Jesus was of the same caliber and even greater than Moses, who "came out of Egypt".  That story was very familiar to all Jews who heard it and they would no doubt have gotten the comparison. 

Did it happen?  There is no historical evidence for Herod slaughtering children, but that wasn't the point of the story.  It was a literary device to get Jesus into Egypt, so he could later emerge with the importance needed to convey who he was.

Wise men?  They most likely never existed, but their presence in the story shows once again, and this time to Roman citizens how important Jesus was. His birth narrative is not historical fact, but another literary device to infer his importance.  It is filled with truth, but very few facts.

Does this mean I am not a Christian?  Absolutely not.  As a follower of Jesus, I find these stories meaningful and worth retelling again and again, but without understanding the "why" of these tales, they easily become just a bunch of fictional stories. 

As Bishop John Shelby Spong noted in his book, "Liberating the Gospels" these tales are best viewed as "midrash".  It is a Jewish tradition of retelling a story with new characters to show their real importance and to connect with a new audience. 

So take some time and really read the Christmas stories again and don't look for facts, but instead seek the truth they convey.

Merry Christmas.

Human Rights - Family Rights

In  case you missed it, December 10 was UN Human Rights Day.  It is something we as LGBT Americans should take to heart. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a wonderful document.  It is intended to assure freedom and justice and a voice for all people.   The United States along with 48 other countries signed the declaration in 1948 and it has become the standard by which human rights are judged.

One of the key provisions in this historic document is the provision that the family is a “natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Interestingly enough, the UN declined to give a definition of the term “family”.  They did this because they saw as early as 1948 that families were defined in different ways by different cultures.  They went on to specify that, ““in giving full effect to the recognition of family in the context of (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) article 23, it is important to accept the concept of the various forms of family…”

In other words, our families are ours to define.  For LGBT Americans that is really important.  Now that the Supreme Court is taking up DOMA and the California Proposition 8 case, it means more than ever. 

The reality of same-sex marriage is this, until there is a federal law that assures recognition of marriages from all states, same-sex or not, a marriage license is pretty much just a nice piece of paper.  The union and its rights will be good only in the state where it was signed.  In other words your family may be OK is Washington State, but in Texas you are just a couple of friends. 

For family arrangements beyond the hetero-normative model, it gets even more difficult.  In the leather community for example, there are lots of families consisting of 2-3 or more individuals who are in a relationship with each other that they consider a family.   It is not unusual for a leather “Daddy” to have a couple of “boys” in his or her household.  (For the uninitiated  the title of “Daddy” has nothing to do with parenting.  It is a role as well as an honorific and it can apply to a man or woman.  Likewise, the idea of “boys” or “bois” or “girls” has nothing to do with minors, these are roles assumed by leatherfolk and are terms of affection and position within the leather family structure.)  These leather families are often as tight knit and valid as any blood-related family and in many cases more so. 

If the UN Declaration is to be believed, even these very non-traditional families have a right to exist and be recognized, because the reality of families in the US is this, only 20% of households consist of married husbands and wives with children.  The Norman Rockwall family unit is a myth, and it is time we began understanding just how varied families in our country are.  

Same-sex marriage will be a step toward this recognition, but it will still leave millions of American’s out. 

It will take a lot of work and a lot of education to fulfill the goals of the UN Declaration in the 21^st Century.  It will take families of all types making their case for recognition.  It will be uncomfortable for some people but if we are to take human rights seriously we have to understand that all families, deserve respect and rights. 

So next time you hear of the problems of human rights, don’t automatically assume it is a third-world issue.  As LGBT Americans we still live as second class citizens who are denied the right to form legally recognized families of our own. 

The War On Christmas has been over for more than 100 years!

I am so tired of the fake War on Christmas that Fox News continues to foist on the uneducated viewers of it's alleged news.

If we want to celebrate a "traditional American Christmas" like our founding fathers, then we should go to work on Christmas Day just like any other day.  In fact when the pilgrims came to America, they did not celebrate Christmas, it was considered too decadent.  The holiday was actually outlawed in Boston until 1681 and was punishable by a fine.  After the Revolution, congress was even in session in 1789 on Christmas day.

It remained a little noticed holiday until it was made a federal holiday in 1870.

So to the Fox idiots, Merry Christmas, the War on Christmas was won on June 26, 1870 when Congress passed the law making it a federal holiday.  Now go out and SHOP!

More Holiday Gun Violence

As if the mall shooting wasn't enough, now a gunman entered an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut and opened fire.  Details are sketchy, but there are victims and the shooter is dead.

Happy friggin Holidays! 

There isn't a war on Christmas, but apparently there is a Christmas War.  Time for serious gun control in this crazy country!

Happy Holidays! Another Shooting!

A lone gunman walked into a busy mall near Portland, Oregon and opened fire.  He was carrying a high-powered assault rifle and began shooting people at random, creating chaos which ended with two victims dead as well as the shooter himself who took his own life.

Merry Fucking Christmas! 

Now, isn't it about time we had that discussion of gun control in our country or are we just keep going to let crazy people have guns?  Additionally, are we going to admit that being armed does not equal being safe.  There is a right to carry concealed arms in Oregon, yet no one "defended" him or herself against the shooter.  

Even police called to the scene did not shoot back, fearing accidentally killing more innocent bystanders.  That is why having a gun is not "protection".  even a skilled marksman would have a high probability of causing unintended deaths or injuries trying to defend against a wacko shooter like this.

Why do we continue to bow down to the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby whenever the idea of actually trying to control the number and availability of guns in this country?  Because politicians are cowards.  They are afraid of actually having to argue in favor of a civilized policy regarding handguns and assault rifles.  They are afraid of having to tell the truth, guns do kill people.

Do I sound angry?  Oh hell yes.  Year after year assault rifles and handguns spread death and destruction across our country and yet we refuse to even discuss it.  It's time to stop pretending that this is an issue of right to protection and self defense and call it what it is, a well orchestrated effort on behalf of gun manufacturers to keep selling armaments intended for the military to civilians.  It's not about the Second Amendment, it's about cash. So let's stop the charade and get down to brass tacks.  Time for a comprehensive gun policy in the US that is sane and sensible.

December 7 - Still Lives in Infamy

Seventy one years ago on a lovely December morning, Japanese bombers launched from aircraft carriers made a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor. That attack has often been credited with awakening the American public to the state of chaos in the world and ushering us into World War II.

That historical point will be debated for another 71 years most likely, but the impact of the attack has never been in question.  America suddenly realized we couldn't sit by while the world waged war, isolationism was no longer an option.

9/11 is often likened to Pearl Harbor and with some good reasons.  On that day, America realized we were not immune from terrorists and isolationism was not an option.  The big difference was the enemy.  In WWII the Axis powers were sovereign countries, bent on taking territory and expanding their power.  On 9/11 a handful of very dedicated fanatics got the attention of the world with a couple of box cutters and a well executed plan.

Both these tragedies  shook our country from it's complacency.  In the case of Pearl Harbor it threw us into one of the worst wars in human history, and in the case of 9/11 it threw us into the longest war in US history.

It is a good day to remember the men and women who lost their lives that day in December 1941 and the generation whose valor and sacrifice defeated a tyranny the world has not seen since.

Few who were at Pearl Harbor are still alive, but their story will never be forgotten.

Take a moment to remember.

The Next Bush

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to worrying about everyday problems, a new and very ugly one sprouts up.  It's another Bush!  George Prescott Bush to be exact.

He is a Republican dream candidate too.  A vet, a conservative and with brown skin!  Son of Jeb Bush and his wife Columba Garnica Bush George P. Bush has registered as a political candidate in Texas for 2014. 

Once again the GOP is grooming a candidate for the White House.  Bush with his non-artificial skin color and Mexican-American heritage is just what the GOP is looking for.  He is targeting the office of Land Commissioner first, a good place to make connections with wealthy and at 36 years of age, he has a long career ahead of him.

The biggest problem is his past.  Back in 1994 he broke into his former girlfriends home, had a confrontation with her father and tore up their front lawn by spinning his car in circles on it.  As The Smoking Gun says, he is the "creepy" Bush.  Naturally, the family did not press charges but the police report gives details.

Now, your job, as a thinking adult with at least some leanings toward the left, is to make sure this creep never gets elected.  Your vote and your work will be needed to nip this Bush in the bud at the ballot box in 2014!

Transgender Day of Remembrance

Back in the dark ages when I was a child, the only person I ever knew of who was transgender was Christine Jorgensen an American GI who underwent what was then called "sex-change" surgery in 1952. Christine was a media sensation in the 1950's and was often the brunt of off-color jokes in the press and on TV.

Later in my "disco days" I met several drag queens who were actually transgender.  At the time that term was unknown and the unfortunate "she-male" was the monicker used.  It didn't take long before I was friends with several male-to female transgender folk.  By that time the word was starting to gain traction and "transexual" and "transgender" entered my vocabulary.

I didn't know any female to male trans folk, or at least I thought I didn't.  I did know quite a few very butch dykes, and several who preferred to be addressed as "sir".  The leather community at that time was still developing some of the traditions we hold today, so few people were called "Sir" unless they were from the Renaissance Fair. 

Later I met a good friend who was a cute butch dyke.  She always gave off a masculine vibe, even to the point that when she was at the local leather bar, she got hit on my guys who didn't know her true sex.  I soon learned that she had decided to transition, and my education into gender really began.

Now, I know dozens of transgender people both transmen and transwomen and each has a different story to tell about their transition.  All have fascinating stories to tell of their journey and how they finally made peace with their gender identity.

I urge you to not be afraid to ask your friends who are transgender to tell you their story.  You will learn a great deal about the resilience of the human spirit and how it affected their lives.  If they are like many of my trans friends, there will be both heartache and happiness in their tale.  It is a struggle much like the one gay and lesbian people go through when we realize our sexuality is different from many of our peers.  It is a story you need to hear.

So on this day when we remember the hundreds of transgender people who are killed every year as a result of prejudice, hatred and misunderstanding, hearing the stories of your friends struggles will give you a better perspective. 

Bill O'Reilly Explains It All for You - The End of America

Hyperbole is the stock and trade of most of the right-wing talking heads.  Whatever they dislike is always catastrophic and disastrous.  For example, "same-sex marriage will end traditional marriage as an institution".  Let's look at that closer.  Right now 9 states have same-sex marriage.  Add to that the District of Columbia and you have 10 and yet in all those states opposite sex people continue to marry and divorce.  Their families are unaffected by the gay and lesbian couples who have chosen to marry and life goes on.

So given the penchant for exaggeration it's no surprise that Bill O'Reilly has pronounced "traditional America" dead, or at least on life support.  His reasoning is that the "secular progressives" are bent on destroying the American way of life.

First off, he doesn't clearly define what this mythical traditional America is.  He does go on to indict "secular progressives' as libertines who will gleefully abort fetuses and pass out drugs, but as to the traditions, he is silent.

My suspicion is the term "secular progressive" is a trial balloon.  He and the other pundits are coordinating their efforts to find another boogieman to scare their viewers with.  Apparently "the gays" are no longer effective enough.  The fact that he calls Obama a "poster boy for secular progressives" gives me a clue to the new talking points for the right-wing.

What he fails to say by not giving examples of "traditional America" is that he really means 'white America".  He blames the loss of the election on voters who want "free stuff" (that is code terms for welfare queens) and not on the GOP's inability to connect with the majority of the country.

Again, he is deferring the blame when it lies directly with him and his ilk.  The far-right has alienated everyone but the most staunchly conservative, especially on social issues.  It is a party of white men and the wives who slavishly follow their husbands political beliefs.  It is a party of rich businessmen who manipulate politicians to their will.  It is a party of people who watch too much Fox News and there is the root of the problem.  It is a part out of touch with reality.

O'Reilly's vision of "traditional" America is a country that existed only for a few years in the 1950's.  The "nuclear family" living in the suburbs.  A time when white America prospered and everyone else was a second class citizen.  Guess what?  Not that way any more.  It's time to adjust and embrace the diversity of our wonderful country or be left in the dust bin of history.  I suspect O'Reilly will be quite at home there, amid the wreckage of the GOP he helped to destroy.

Why Mitt Romney Lost the Election?

Today the Wall Street Journal, now a News Corp/Fox News clone bemoaned Romney's loss and explained it this way:

"...lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign."

This is one of the most self-serving excuses I have ever heard.  Romney was awash in money from day one.  His personal wealth could assure that he never ran low on funds, and for a media outlet to come up with this excuse sounds like a plea for more ad dollars.  "Yes, just spend more, and much of it on advertising in our paper, and you will win next time."

What a bunch of malarkey!

Romney lost because he was not in touch with the changing American demographic.  He lost despite millions and millions of dollars spent on unrelenting TV and newspaper ads.  He lost because he is so unlike most American's the common man just couldn't connect with him.

The country is no longer a bunch of middle-aged white guys, it is a rainbow of races and sexes, and the GOP message doesn't work any more.

Mitt tried to get empathetic but ended up looking just plain pathetic.  When he was at the Daytona 500, he tried to appeal to NASCAR fans by proclaiming that he had friends who owned NASCAR teams.  Here's the truth Mitt, that resonates with the 0.1% and not the rest of us poor suckers out here.

I could go on with gaff after gaff, but why bother.  Mitt Romney will soon be back working with his dressage horses and his political career will be forgotten.  Good riddance.

United States of Tokers?

Colorado and Washington State both passed initiatives to legalize marijuana. This is pretty historic stuff since in other states the battle still rages over medicinal uses of the drug.  Additionally, the federal government still considers pot a controlled substance and it's verboten in all 50 states, even for medical use, but some states chose to ignore that.

What I think is happening is that people are realizing that marijuana is no more dangerous than America's drug-of-choice, alcohol.  In fact, it might be less dangerous since few if any deaths have occurred from pot-overdose unless you count the ensuing obesity from eating too many brownies.

The main barrier against pot becoming legal is the private sector.  Private prisons, a growing phenomena, are filled to the rafters with people arrested for using or dealing marijuana, and without the criminalization of that drug they will lose money.  I suspect law enforcement folks would welcome the decriminalization since it would free them up to do other things, and the gangs who deal the drug would suddenly become obsolete.

I am a tea-bottler and haven't used any mind altering substance, save caffeine  since 1986, but I have lots of friends who do and as far as I can tell, few of them have become hardened criminals. I think the old saw about Marijuana being a gateway drug only holds true as long as users are forced underground.  It may be time we reexamined our attitudes toward cannabis and found some middle ground.  Meanwhile, if you live in Colorado or Washington, don't break out the bongs yet.

The Cross in the Closet - Worth a Read

The closet is a dangerous place. 

For LGBT folk who have kept their sexual orientation a secret, the effects are myriad, and most people who come out remember the process vividly.  It can be a time of turmoil, liberation and sometimes alienation, but it is a rite of passage that is essential to many LGBT people’s life stories.  That is why the title “The Cross in the Closet” intrigued me and more importantly, the subtitle “One Man’s Abominable Quest to find Jesus in the Margins.” 

Provocative stuff?  Yes, but not as provocative as the premise of the book.  The author, a straight man, lived for a year as a gay man, coming out to his family, friends and colleagues.  He wanted to see what it was like to be identified as gay.  That got my attention.

When I found the author, Timothy Kurek, was a student at Liberty University, the notorious hard-line fundamentalist college founded by Jerry Falwell, I was more intrigued.  Kurek realized that his characterizations of LGBT people were troubling and he wanted to know the truth.

The story might seem familiar to those of us who grew up during the Civil Rights struggle.  White journalist John Howard Griffin sought a greater understanding of the realities of being black in America, so he underwent treatments to turn his skin dark and he immersed himself in the African American community.  His landmark book, Black Like Me is still in circulation and is a unique window into the times.

Kurek in his own way immerses himself in the LGBT community, starting in his home town of Nashville, Tennessee, where he comes out to his family and friends with predictable results.  Fireworks.

His life is turned upside down as he finds out the reality of living as a self-identified gay man.  Only a close friend and a gay man he befriended while hanging out at a Karaoke Bar know his secret.  The gay friend agrees to act as his boyfriend  to both tutor him in “how to be gay” and to act as a foil for any unwanted sexual advances.

Now for the reader who is looking for dirt, you won’t find any in this book.  What you will find is a very interesting perspective of a man who is a “closet straight” for a year.  What you will also find is a touching and deeply personal story of how a fundamentalist Christian deals with a crisis of faith.
Kurek finds that the demonized image of the LGBT community was as much a myth as the idea that all Christians are closed-minded and judgmental.  He makes his way into the LGBT community in Nashville and finds that there are a good number of LGBT Christians there, something he never expected to find.
Not surprising is the abundance of “church speak” Kurek uses.  Remember he comes from a deep background of Bible quoting education, so there are lots of references to Biblical passages and principals, but don’t let that put you off.  During his year Kurek gains insights into not just the LGBT community, but to his own faith and what it means to follow Jesus.

By the end of the book, he has not only had a change of heart regarding what it means to be gay, but he finds a deeper understanding of what it means to be straight as well. 

Overall, this is destined to be a book that will be quoted for years to come.  Kurek’s  journey of discovery resonates in ways that are unexpected and profound.  It is an epic tale as he meets some amazing and wonderful characters including Christian activist Dr. Mel White and the far-right firebrand,  Shirley Phelps, (yes that Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church).

Kurek eventually comes back out of his self-imposed closet, and again the results are profound, but this time in ways he never imagined.  The Cross in the Closet changed how I looked at fundamentalist Christians perhaps as much as they way Kurek might have once looked at gay men. 

Romney- Liar with no Shame

I used to think Mitt Romney was lying because his handlers and advisers gave him trumped up talking points, but now I believe it is a pathology.  His latest whopper was his assertion that Chrysler was closing all the Jeep plants in the US and shipping them to China.

It's a lie.

A big lie.

So big that Chrysler PR people jumped on it as fast as the press did.  They are not closing plants in the US, they are expanding into China so they can sell more Jeeps there!  It's a success story that Romney has twisted and tried to turn into a failure.  It is another example of how he apparently cannot or will not tell the truth, when it doesn't serve his purposes.  He is even putting it in a TV ad even though the press, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers say it's not in any way true.

This is a symptom of the desperate campaign Romney is running.  It is also a good example of the kind of president he would make. We don't need a pathological liar as president, we had that once with George W. Bush and nobody wants to go through that again.

The Sincerity of Mitt Romney is Obvious in His Spray Tan

As almost everyone noted, Mitt Romney is really a chameleon.  In his notorious appearance in front of a Hispanic audience on Univision back in September drew a lot of criticism that he was doing "brown face".  His complexion mysteriously grew paler in recent appearances but the fact remains that he is getting the spray tan treatment to look less New England pasty. 

Now it's no secret that people on TV use makeup, but the whole spray tan thing raises what I think is a character issue. Mitt is trying to present a hip-healthy appearance that will appeal to younger voters, and it is not who he really is.  It's a symptom of his chameleon-like personality that adapts to what ever audience he is playing to.  Dark tan for Hispanic, whiter for the Mid-West. \

Much like his position on policies, he shifts constantly leaving the Salt Lake Tribune to wonder "which Romney is running for President".  They, a Utah conservative publication endorsed Obama!

The whole thing reveals Romney as the ultimate political animal, willing to do anything and say anything to get elected.  That is not what America needs from any party.  

Time to Get Serious. Romney Would be a Disaster for LGBT People.

Romney has already promised to do so much on his mythical "day one" of his presidency it seems silly, but don't laugh too hard.  One of his promises is to reverse DADT.  You can bet the rest of that would include rolling back any rights LGBT people have won in the past four years.

The idea that LGBT people would vote for Romney is beyond my understanding, but I guess some people can successfully live in "cognitive dissonance" and not go crazy, for a while. My problem is apathy.

I see a lot of folks parroting what the right-wing media has been saying through back channels about the Obama presidency.  They have pushed the framing that Obama hasn't delivered on his pledges to LGBT people during his first 4 years in office.  That is simply not true.

Here are the advances made during the administration:

• Federal Goivernment extends tax benefits to same -sex partners of federal employees.
• Awarded the Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King.
• Banned discrimination in federal workplaces based on gender identity.
• Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009.
• Lifted ban on people with HIV/AIDS from entering the country
• The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". 
• Hosted first White House conference to prevent bullying.
• Support for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. 
• Support for a transgender-inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act. 
• Secretary Clinton's speech last December in recognition of International Human Rights Day in which she stated the importance of advancing LGBT rights. 

Then, last May, on Meet the Press, vice-president Biden personally endorsed marriage equality.

And there is a lot more. The point is we have so much to lose in this election and everything to gain.  Romney wants to turn back the clock on LGBT rights.  Get out and vote to elect President Obama for a second term!

Seriously.

The Pope Calls Gays "Defective".

This story is a bit old, a week or so, but I just couldn't let it go without a comment.

Pope Benedict XVI offered these harsh words as not only a man of the cloth, but the purported keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven in an last week.  He said we LGBT people are, “a concept of human nature that has proven defective.” 

Is the Pope saying that LGBT people are just a concept, or is he saying God blew it and we are a mistake of creation?

Either way, these just don’t sound like words that should emanate from the Vicar of Christ.

He went on to say that the church needs to, “promote those values that permit the full development of the human person.”  The clear implication of that statement when taken in context of the whole message is that gays and lesbians are somehow not fully developed. 

Let that sink in a little and then consider that he was speaking to a conference of French bishops.  That country is poised to pass legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry.  His admonition that, “Marriage and the family are institutions  that must be promoted and defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature, since whatever is injurious to them is in fact injurious to human coexistence as such.” 

Add to that his previous statement  that same-sex marriages would  “ undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,” and I am starting to believe he is more likely channeling Maggie Gallagher rather than Jesus.

Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of this kind of proclamation coming from an organization that is rife with scandals, the what  jumped out at me was the phrase about “undermining the family”.  That struck me because family is very important to me and it is to every citizen. Family is so important that the UN Declaration of Human Rights enumerates the right to family as one of its guiding principles and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights goes even further.

Rightly, this covenant, which is signed by almost every major industrialized nation including the US does not give a definition of family.  In fact it purposefully eschews a definition in General Comment 19 on Article 23, “The Committee notes that the concept of the family may differ in some respects from State to State, and even from region to region within a State, and that it is therefore not possible to give the concept a standard definition.”

You see, my family is vastly different from the mythical “nuclear family” of a heterosexual man and woman, and 2.5 children.  The fact is few families (only 20% according to the US Census) fall into that mold, so I have to ask what family the Pope is worried about us “defective” people undermining? 

I have a right to the kind of family I define and so do you.  Whether it is two women, two men, a single parent, or a group of three or more people raising their children, or any combination with or without children, your family is yours to define.  And guess what?  This is not a new idea.

Pope Benedict needs to open his scriptures and recall the words of Jesus when he asks “who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”  In that passage, (Mathew 12:48-49) Jesus goes on to  point to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.”   His definition of family was based on anything but the nuclear model. 

I find it very odd that a Pope who is infamous for being a very conservative thinker, has trouble using a definition of family that is over 2000 years old.  I can only wonder if he was shown the kind of family Jesus spoke of would he find them “defective” as well?

For me, I will ignore the words of the man in the red shoes and be content to cherish my family, my partner, my extended family, and our relationship in all its richness.  It is not only the United Nations that tells me I can enjoy the kind of family I define, but human nature, and as such it is no mistake or defect, it is my family and that is a concept I can live with.

Pro-Life Republican Presures Mistress into Abortion.

These kinds of stories are getting so prevalent they almost aren't news...almost. 

This one is a doozy.  Seems the Pro-life, family values guy, Scott DesJarlais, a Tea Party Republican no less had an affair.  He is a doctor and against ethical guidelines, he had an affair with a patient, adding more scandal to the story!

Then when she got pregnant, something a doctor should have known how to prevent, he tried to pressure her into an abortion for the sake of his marriage.  Funny, I would think someone concerned with the state of his marriage would not have had an affair, unless that was the arrangement he had with his wife. 

This is not a new charge. It surfaced in 2010 during his campaign against his Democratic opponent, Rep. Lincoln Davis.  The new part of this is the transcript taken from court documents that really show what this guy is made of.

According to Huffington Post who released the transcripts, the following little family-values discussion took place on the phone:

"You told me you'd have an abortion, and now we're getting too far along without one," DesJarlais tells the woman at one point in the call while negotiating with her over whether he'll reveal her identity to his wife. They then discuss whether he will accompany her to a procedure to end the sort of life the congressman now describes as "sacred."

"You told me you would have time to go with me and everything," the woman complains.

"I said, if I could, I would, didn't I? And I will try," DesJarlais says. "If I can [find] time, you're saying you still will?"

Nice stuff, what Family Values are made of eh?

More here.