Too Progressive

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!? Sally Kern, a disgusting bigot and also a state rep from Oklahoma claims that Homosexuality is more dangerous than terrorism and that gays are destroying society. She goes on to compare gay people to cancer calling them “deadly and destroying our children and this nation.”

UPDATE: The Oklahoma legislature thought only 50 people were listening, but now over 700,000 people have signed an open letter to Sally Kerns telling her that her “hate speech” that she says is merely “free speech” has consequences (just ask the mother of Matthew Shepherd). Click here to add your name to the petition.

Also, another petition which calls for the termination of Kerns’ position within the House can be found here.

[Earlier: Oklahoma rep says homosexuality is more dangerous than terrorism]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!? Sally Kern, a disgusting bigot and also a state rep from Oklahoma claims that Homosexuality is more dangerous than terrorism and that gays are destroying society. She goes on to compare gay people to cancer calling them “deadly and destroying our children and this nation.”

See the disgusting video and Sally Kern’s contact information after the jump.

I’d hardly say that either Democratic candidate has done a great job addressing issues of equality. But who could blame them? John McCain has already said he would seek out the advice of Karl Rove, and we all know how the Republicans (and particularly Karl Rove) will have no problem using such issues against to “divide and conquer” the electorate in this election just like they did in 2004, and just like they did in 2000.

Regardless, Clinton has said she would work to repeal “Don’t ask don’t tell” and to extend federal recognition to same sex couples.

She called for extending federal recognition to same-sex couples, repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and rejected claims that she doesn’t speak forcefully enough on gay issues — something that supporters of rival Sen. Barack Obama have asserted during the campaign.

“I talk about gay issues frequently,” she said. “I’ve been a longtime friend of the gay community — I’ve been talking about these issues since 1999 when I first ran for Senate and went on record as the first major candidate to say we’re going to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ I talk about ending discrimination all the time.”

“I think extending federal benefits is a very important step forward,” she said. “I don’t see why a same-sex couple in California, which has a domestic partnership law, should be able to take advantage of the Family Medical Leave Act if one of them is ill, while a couple in another state without such a law cannot.

“I would like to see federal benefits extended to same-sex couples that meet certain standards of commitment regardless of the state in which they reside. Too many couples cannot share life decisions, or jointly own property or take care of one another within a recognized legal framework. I want to change that.”

Read the full interview here.

Via Politico:

As the Democratic presidential hopefuls gather in Los Angeles for a precedent-setting gay-sponsored and -themed debate, new data show that in the key Electoral College states the endorsement of gay rights groups hurts a candidate much more than it helps.

Quinnipiac University polls of voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania — the big three Electoral College swing states — found voters by large margins more likely to see the endorsement of a gay rights group as a reason to vote against, rather than for, a candidate.

Polls have shown that an increasing number of Americans support equal civil rights for gay Americans, so you know, consider the source (Quinnipiac University).

The Human Rights Campaign is sponsoring a debate between the Democratic candidates tonight from Los Angeles. Vivian Paige has much more info on the event.

And here’s why:

6. Currently, only Massachusetts recognizes equal marriage rights for same sex couples. Do you believe the civil institution of marriage (with absolutely no requirements imposed on religious institutions) should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex?
__Support X Oppose

Last night I (briefly) mentioned Tommy Thompson declaring that employers should be able to hire and fire employees based on sexuality. Looks like he needs to get together with his campaign staffers, not to mention himself, and figure out what he really believes.

A (bored and lonely) Thompson staffer responded to an email complaint sent into the campaign while the debate was still airing claiming that Thompson misheard the question despite answer the question TWICE with the same answer. Then this morning on CNN, Thompson HIMSELF declared he misheard the question.

TOMMY THOMPSON: I made a mistake. I misinterpreted the question. I thought that I answered it yes when I should have answered it no. I didn’t hear, I didn’t hear the question properly and I apologize. It’s not my position. There should be no discrimination in the workplace and I have never believed that. And, in fact, Wisconsin has one of the first laws, which I supported.

JOHN ROBERTS: Right.

TOMMY THOMPSON: So, I just made a mistake and that’s all I can say. I’m sorry and I misinterpreted the question and I answered yes, when it should have been no…. It’s not my position, it never has been. I have always been against discrimination and prejudice. In fact if you would have listened to the debate, they asked me a question about racism and I said that the president of the United States, whoever he is, has to take the point and has to be the person that does not allow discrimination or racism in any degree, whatsoever.

How convenient to have “misheard” the exact same question TWICE. Not exactly someone I want to be my President.

The legacy of George W. Bush

UPDATE: And on another note, Tommy Thompson just claimed that employers should be able to fire homosexuals, simply for being a homosexual. I wish a followup question had been asked such as “So should employers be able to hire employees based on race, religion, or sex too?”

Via Washington Blade I see that Virginia lawmakers will again consider a bill to require that students receive parental permission before joining extracurricular activities in public schools a measure that will target gay-straight alliances in high schools.

Gay rights supporters fear HB1727 could threaten the existence of some 60 gay-straight alliances in Virginia’s public schools.

However, some lawmakers have tried to get around giving off this appearance by saying that the law will apply to all extracurricular activities. No one is buying it, though. The bill’s sponsor? Matthew Lohr, delegate AND bigot from Rockingham County, and Harrisonburg. Lohr has proposed the same atrocious piece of legislation for two straight years, both times it passed in the House before meeting a more appropriate fate in the state Senate.

Delegate David Englin of Arlington predicts the same fate for the 2007 version of the bill, also adding that Senate Republicans tend to be more moderate than Republicans in the House.

Del Englin went on to say:

“I think it would be tragically wrong to force a gay child to come out to his parents in order to benefit from the emotional and psychological support of a [gay-straight alliance], or to force a straight child to get permission from her parents to actively promote tolerance and understanding of her gay and lesbian friends.”

Del. Englin also said he will introduce a LONG OVERDUE bill requiring Virginia hospitals to allow any patient to name any individual as their next of kin for visitation purposes. That is just one law he plans to introduce to combat the vile pile of GARBAGE known as the “Marshall-Newman amendment,” last year’s ridiculous measure “banning gay marriage” in Virginia. Although as we all know, gay marriage was already “against the law” (also see: Republicans attempting to “divide and conquer” an electorate). Englin went on to say of his measure:

“This is an issue that ought to get broad support, even among social conservatives. It will provide some practical measure of protection for gay and lesbian families.”

Englin also plans to introduce other bills to combat the Marshall-Newman amendment, one to FULLY REPEAL the measure, and another which would leave the “one man, one woman” language, but repeal the rest of the amendment. Englin says he doesn’t expect either to pass:

Englin said it is not realistic to expect either measure to pass this year, particularly with gay rights opponent Robert Marshall chairing the committee in charge of the bills. He and other state lawmakers who opposed the amendment want to take a stand.“It’s important to make the statement that my constituents, who voted three to one against the amendment, don’t accept November’s result as the last word on the issue,” he said.  “Personally, I don’t believe that November’s defeat absolves me of my duty to stand up for all of my constituents, including the people who will be harmed by the amendment.”

Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria), the only openly gay member of the GA, plans to introduce a few “pro gay” measures of his own, including one to combat the Marshall-Newman amendment. Ebbin plans to add a clause similar to the language Marshall used when he originally introduced the amendment in 2005:

The text that was left out of the ratified amendment read, “A right, privilege or obligation may be bestowed on an unmarried person by statute even if it is among the whole number of rights, privileges and obligations of marriage.”Ebbin’s other legislation will include a bill to prohibit employment discrimination in state hiring based on sexual orientation, as well as race, creed, gender, marital status or disability. Former Gov. Mark Warner issued an executive order prohibiting employment discrimination before leaving office in 2005. Current Gov. Tim Kaine upheld the order, which added sexual orientation to the state’s ban on employment discrimination against public employees.

Cross posted at Raising Kaine and Daily Kos!

I’m seriously beginning to think some lawmakers in Massachusetts are mildly retarded (and some voters too). In another edition of “first I voted for it, before I voted against it,” we have this from Massachusetts:

The MA legislature took it’s first major step in caving to Mitt Romney (also see: hypocrite) and other religious zealots by advancing a proposed gay marriage amendment ban to a second legislative session. They then turned around and WISELY voted to nullify the first vote.

The FIRST vote came WITHOUT DEBATE (how smart of them), the legislature then recessed, only to return an hour later to vote against the original vote. They recessed again, and reconvened until 4:30pm.

If indeed they do allow bigotry to be put up for a popular vote, John over at AmericaBlog sums up my feelings best, with this quote:

Which leads one to ponder, what would the Massachusetts legislature do if racist legislation came before it? Pass it, I guess.

Bigotry is alive and well, even if we are making some progress. The state of New Jersey today voted to allow same sex civil unions.

The vote in the General Assembly was 56-19. The Senate vote was 23-12. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a civil unions bill into law.

Steven Goldstein, director of Equality New Jersey, sums up how a lot of people, including myself, feel about civil unions:

“Nobody knows what civil unions are in the real world, that’s the problem. We want marriage equality, not a law that discriminates.”

Of course though, Republicans are blasting the measure saying that same sex couples are not as good, and not equivalent to “real” marriage.

A major concern I have about banning gay marriage, and civil unions, is the fact that gay couples are sometimes barred from hospital visitation when their significant other is admitted for care. The New Jersey civil unions measure WILL ALLOW HOSPITAL VISITATION, as well as adoption. So, while the this measure (and any other measure short of GIVING FULL MARRIAGE RIGHTS TO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES) is similar to the horrible “separate but equal” laws, it is ONE STEP in the right direction.

A friend of mine today suggested I do a recap of the 2006 ballot measures, more specifically the Arizona gay marriage measure which failed, the first one of it’s kind to meet such a fate. At first I thought “no, that’s sort of dated,” but then decided it may be a good idea, especially considering the possible implications the amendments may have on possible 2008 presidential candidates. So here goes…

ARE MODERATE REPUBLICANS AND LIBERTARIANS NO LONGER WELCOME IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY???

As many of you know, there were so called “marriage amendments” on the ballot in eight states, including Virginia, Colorado, South Carolina, Idaho, Tennessee, South Dakota, Arizona and Wisconsin. The amendment passed in each state except for Arizona. However, despite the fact that the measure passed in seven other states, gay and lesbian activist groups were still encouraged because the measures, on average, passed by less than in recent years. Fierce battles were fought over the amendment particularly in Virginia, Wisconsin, and Arizona. In Virginia, an anonymous homosexual couple donated $1 million to The Commonwealth Coalition to oppose the measure, and in Arizona, the Human Rights Campaign donated $100,000 to fight the measure. Organizations fighting the amendments held out hope they would be able to pull out a win in both Wisconsin, and Virginia, but were unsuccessful. In Arizona however, they DID pull out a victory when the measure failed on November 7. Even in traditionally red state South Dakota, the amendment BARELY squeaked by.

Like Virginia, opponents of the measure in Arizona tried out a new tactic to fight the amendment. Instead of focusing on how unconstitutional the amendments were, they decided to focus on how heterosexual couples were affected, especially since gay marriage and civil unions are both already outlawed in both states. Steve May, co-chairman of the Arizona Human Rights Fund, had the following to say in May, 2005 when it was first proposed that the amendment be placed on the ballot,

This initiative would take away health insurance to unmarried couples across the state. Voters are intelligent and fair. They will know what this is really about.

Unlike most other states, the amendment trailed in the polls from the very beginning in Arizona. A January, 2005 poll done by the Arizona Republic showed 54 percent were not in favor of the measure, while 40 percent approved, and 7 percent were undecided. In the end, the voters in Arizona made the right decision, shutting the door on the measure by a two percent margin.

In Virginia, some bloggers, and commentators even speculated that the amendment possibly HELPED Democratic Senator-elect Jim Webb defeat incumbent Senator George Allen, since polls show that many people that voted “YES” on the amendment, also voted for Jim Webb (I don’t buy it - voters DRIVEN to the polls for the soul purpose of voting “YES” on the amendment were probably never going to vote for Jim Webb to begin with). Might this perhaps mark the beginning of the end to the marriage fear mongering from the right in attempt to rally the religious zealots for votes? According to an Associated Press article, Matt Foreman (executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) thinks it’s a possibility,

“What we’re seeing is that fear-mongering around same-sex marriage is fizzling out,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. He noted that the bans that succeeded won by much narrower margins, on average, than in the past.

Aside from gay marriage measures, other “Liberal” measures were very successful on election day 2006. In Missouri, voters passed a measure backing stem cell research, in South Dakota, voters struck down a law limiting a woman’s right to choose to only cases where the mother’s life was threatened, and in all SIX STATES holding a vote on state minimum wage (Arizona, Colorado. Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Nevada), voters approved wage hikes.

The Liberal Progressive believes the GOP is clearly alienating some “moderate Republicans,” and “independents,” which it could typically have counted on in recent years. The executive vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans agrees,

“Republicans lost this election because independent voters abandoned the GOP. Social conservatives drove the GOP’s agenda the last several years. Their divisive agenda alienated the mainstream Republicans and independents who determined this election’s outcome. Social conservatives should take responsibility for this loss.”

This brings me to my next question, which is, how will “socially liberal” Republicans do in their 2008 presidential bids? An argument could easily be made both ways. On the one hand, one could say that potential candidates like Rudy Giuliani (former Democrat, and mayor of New York), could potentially do well because Republicans feeling alienated from the party would come out in large numbers to support. On the other hand, one could also argue that “light R’s” may not come out to vote in primaries, therefore more Conservative candidates like Mitt Romney will more likely advance to run as the Republican parties nominee for President in 2008.

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in 2008. The 2006 mid term elections were certainly at least a slight step to the left for America, although I think it will take until 2008 for us to see just how FAR to the left we have actually gone. I hope Americans continue to wake up to the fact that Republicans use issues like gay marriage, and abortion to “divide and conquer” the electorate, and hopefully Americans will continue to reject these tactics of using bigotry and intolerance to win elections.

What’s ruining the “family values” of the holier-than-thou, bible thumping, religious zealots today? Certainly the fact that (based on 2005 statistics) 43% of all marriages fail within the first 15 years isn’t a cause. Never mind the fact that, after 75% of those people remarry, over 65% of second, third, and fourth, etc. marriages end in divorce. Certainly though, these numbers simply MUST be the fault of two men, or women, wanting nothing more than the right to enter a lifelong commitment to each other and share the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

One statistic that REALLY jumped out to me was a Census Bureau report done in 2001 which showed a mere one out of every five adults has never been divorced. Meaning, only about 20 percent of American adults have never been through a divorce. Wow. Some values huh? Britney Spears knows family values too!

Now, I know this entry is a bit out of the blue, but a few articles I came across today “inspired” (if you wish to call it that) me to write on this tonight. First, was a CBS News report out today that showed per 1,000 teenage girls age 15-19, about 40.4 of them give birth each year! Clearly, we, as a society need to spend a little more time preventing “kids having kids”, than we do worrying about the sexuality of other grown adults.

Another article that struck me even more, was an AP report which appeared on CBS’ website yesterday, regarding Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s desire to give bigotry a vote! In other words, Romney wants to allow the voters of Mass. to decide whether or not to allow legal gay marriage to continue in the state. Seems innocent enough, right?

“One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest,” said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a pro-gay marriage group. “It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon.”

In other words, all of these so called “marriage amendments,” that Republicans have put up to a public vote in recent years (most recently this year when Virginia, Colorado, South Carolina, Idaho, Tennessee, South Dakota, Arizona and Wisconsin voted on the issue) in an effort (straight from the play book of Karl Rove) to create a “wedge issue,” energize their base, and swing some independent votes their way, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Here’s another interesting stat: Massachusetts is the only state to fully legalize gay marriage, it also has the lowest divorce rate of any state!! Vermont and Connecticut have legalized civil unions (my personal opinion on civil unions is that they are likable to “separate but equal laws,” or segregation, however, they are a STEP in the right direction).

Wal Mart, of all things, also came under fire from radical religious groups today. Seems Wal Mart paid to become a member of the “National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce,” as well as “Out and Equal,” an organization promoting gay-rights advances in the workplace. Apparently, this warrants a boycott from the American Family Association, and forces Operation Save America to plan prayer/preaching rallies outside of Wal Mart stores across the country. Rev. Flip Benham of Operation Save America had this to say about Wal Mart,

“They’re all being extorted by the radical homosexual agenda.”

Oh? I think Flip needs a vocabulary lesson:

ex.tor.tion (noun) - the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.

I would hardly call Wal Marts voluntary donation to, and joining of two diversity groups, “extortion.”

Alas though, Wal Mart caved, and released a letter which contained the following:

Wal-Mart will not make corporate contributions to support or oppose highly controversial issues unless they directly relate to our ability to serve our customers.

The zealots were pleased. Apparently, Wal Mart is only allowed to participate in the free market when they’re doing things like discriminating, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, driving up the U.S. trade deficit to China, etc. They are not however, permitted to participate in our free market when donating to organizations which promote diversity.

I’m not trying to launch an attack on religion, or some online flame war, but I think Americans need to seriously get a grip! The level of hypocrisy in our society is out of control. Religion should not be used as a means to suppress other people, as it has been for centuries. Meaning, please stop using bible quotes as reason to discriminate! Instead, think about THIS VERSE which people opposed to equality all too often conveniently forget to mention:

“Judge not lest you be judged.” - Matthew 7:1