In explaining its reasons (experience, we agree, is a major one) for endorsing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, GayWired Media takes a fresh approach:
As LGBT people fighting for the right to marry—the right to a legal recognition of partnership—no one knows better what Hillary Clinton has faced in her fight to be treated as her husband’s equal. With the exception of Eleanor Roosevelt, the First Lady’s position was always that of loyal “spouse” whose job it was to smile, nod and support her husband. Hillary Clinton was the first woman to step into the role of first lady ready to fight in a public forum… for better or worse, and as anyone who read headlines during her eight years in the White House knows, the press and the right-wing made her fight tooth and nail for the respect she earned.
Well done. And equally well done is this succinct summary of Barack Obama’s liabilities in the area of equality:
But whereas Clinton’s support of LGBT issues is consistent — in her autobiography Living History, she calls “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” a terrible “compromise” of her husband’s presidency — we get the sense much of Obama’s support is merely PR. The omission of the word gay from his South Carolina victory speech and refusal to remove openly homophobic gospel singer Donnie McClurkin from a performing engagement on his campaign trail further support those fears.
At first glance, none of the candidates for president on the Republican side express anything resembling a strong commitment to LGBT rights. In fact, many express the opposite. But one holds a strong commitment to state’s rights—a commitment that, thus far, has protected LGBT rights at the federal level while discouraging any amendment to the constitution that would prohibit same sex marriage. Coupled with his commitment to ending the war in Iraq and putting an immediate end to this costly and misleading charade, Ron Paul may look like the dark horse to lead America beginning in January, 2009, but he’s far better suited for the role than many of his fellow party members would have you believe.
And certain Southerners still scream, “States’ rights!” while defending slavery.
We will give GayWired credit for proving that gay folks are not just single-issue voters, as it takes Paul’s stance on the Iraq war into account:
Ron Paul is that rare politician who has gone out on a limb—the only Republican nominee to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution, he says the war in Iraq was sold to Americans with false information and if elected president, he would begin yanking troops out of the Middle East immediately—no disrespect to the issue of gay marriage, but as far as we’re concerned, ending the war is the most important issue at stake this election.
And we must admit GayWired’s reasoning also takes a fresh (well, novel) approach:
Though Paul isn’t known to be an avid supporter of gay rights, he opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, has said “don’t ask, don’t tell” fails because it doesn’t take into account heterosexual behavior that is disruptive to service and has said he has no interest in interfering with two individuals in a social, sexual or religious sense. That said, he was an outspoken critic of the Supreme Court’s decision on Lawrence v. Texas which deemed sodomy laws unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. Though he called the law ridiculous, his support of states rights, he argued, gives the State of Texas the right to regulate sex using local standards.
A consistency that, while bizarre, is almost refreshing. His view on the rights of the individual and of the state have defined his entire career. Better the devil you know or the devil who shape shifts depending on how he’s doing in the polls?
We still think GayWired is off the hook endorsing Paul — or any Republican; where is it written that a news outlet must endorse a candidate from each party? Well, maybe it is a requirement with for-profit companies — but still: If we were forced to endorse one of the remaining Republican candidates (that is, remaining as of GayWired’s press deadline), we would have picked Rudy Giuliani.
Make no mistake: We can’t stand Giuliani — but when the other choices are McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul, choosing Giuliani is like choosing to have one eye gouged out, as opposed to having all four limbs amputated.
The reason John Edwards dropped out seems clear to anyone who’s been following the 2008 presidential race closely. The NYT summarizes the official reason so:
It was a decision rooted simply in the political reality of the challenges he faced in the 22 states holding contests on Feb. 5, according to people familiar with the decision, and had nothing to do with the health of his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, who has been battling cancer.
More telling is this short paragraph:
Throughout the campaign season, Mr. Edwards had not been able to break through the dueling high-profile candidacies of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and he had not been able to raise the kind of money that his two chief rivals had early on.
True. And the reason for that is the mainstream media itself: Just as the MSM is responsible for creating a great part of the myth that is Obama the Risen Messiah, there’s been a practical news blackout on Edwards.
Why that is… Well, nothing happens by accident in politics, and timing is never coincidental. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to guess that the big guys working the Democratic Machine decided it was time for Edwards to pull out — before Super-Duper-Whoop-De-Doo Tuesday. So he did.
It’s a shame, really; had Edwards any sort of chance to win the Democratic nomination, no doubt a significant number of us Kucinich supporters (and Richardson supporters, and Gravel supporters, and even Biden supporters) would have thrown our support behind him.
But that’s that, and now we’re presented with just two candidates, just as it was planned from the beginning. You were told more than a year ago that you would be choosing between Clinton and Obama, and now you are.
There is some good news on the “So long, and thanks for all the fish” front: Yet another Republican congresscritter has announced his decision to retire at the end of his term this year: Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. Why? He’s “just very tired,” he says.
Davis’ exit brings the total number of Republicans leaving the House (either through retirement or by running for higher office) this year up to 28.
Last week, Repubs Jim Walsh of New York and Dave Weldon of Florida announced their plans to retire this year; their departures leave two vacancies on the House Appropriations Committee.
With the continuing exodus of Republicans from the U.S. House, and the generally-accepted calculations of “vulnerable” Republican seats come November (Raising Kane offers an excellent breakdown), it’s as close to a sure thing as a sure thing can be that come swearing-in day, 2009, we will have a heavily Democratic — and filibuster-proof — House. And with a Democratic president (after eight years of the BFEE, a houseplant could take the White House as long as it had a D after its name)…
I’d like to say “the country will be ours again,” but the truth is, the new president and Congress are going to be spending the bulk of their time cleaning up Bush’s messes both overseas and domestically. Maybe, just maybe, sometime during the 112th or 113th session of Congress might we see some actual progress on other issues.
That’s assuming the president we get doesn’t screw up so badly (*coughObamacough*) as to lose re-election and sour voters on the Democrats.
But for now, we can be content in the almost-sure knowledge that the White House and the House of Representatives will be delivered back into the hands of the grown-ups come November.
Gordon B. Hinckley, the president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who led Mormonism through a period of global expansion, died Sunday at his apartment in Salt Lake City. He was 97.
. . .
Mr. Hinckley spent 46 years in the church’s top leadership ranks, nearly 13 of those as its 15th president, and became the its oldest president.
. . .
To Latter-day Saints, the church president is not merely a temporal figure but also an inspired prophet who interprets church teachings for the present day. In his first year in office, Mr. Hinckley issued a proclamation on the family. Besides reaffirming Mormon belief that families live on together after death, it condemned domestic abuse. It also said that gender was a characteristic determined even before birth, and that procreation was reserved only for a man and a woman as husband and wife.
Under Mr. Hinckley, the church endorsed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and financed political campaigns to support legislation that would ban same-sex marriage in California and Hawaii. …
In what will likely be remembered as one of the most offensive Christmas devotionals ever, LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley used part of his 2003 Christmas address to condemn homosexuals and to remind his audience that “the traditional family is under attack.”
“Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sinful practices observed therein, became examples of that which was evil and abominable in the sight of God,” said the nonagenarian leader. “It was Jehovah, speaking through his prophets, who decried evil and pleaded for righteousness. When there was no repentance, it was his withering hand that destroyed them.”
Rather than speak ill of the dead, we’ll just let the dead speak for himself:
158 Years of Racism in the Mormon Church = Merely “Little Flicks of History”
Mike Wallace: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon Church. Right?
Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s correct.
Wallace: Why?
Hinckley: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.
Wallace: Church policy had it that blacks… uh… had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, “Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.”
Hinckley: It’s behind us. Look, that’s behind us. Don’t worry about those little flicks of history.
Why Did It Take So Long to Overcome Racism in the Mormon Church?
I like that. “I don’t know.” That’s nice. “Mr. Hand, will I pass this class?” “Gee, Mr. Spicoli, I don’t know.” You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to leave your words right up here for all my classes to enjoy, giving you full credit of course, Mr. Spicoli.
Steve, a devout Mormon, feared God would not accept him if he were gay. The couple met with their bishop who urged Steve to rid himself of his homosexuality by going through conversion therapy, a controversial program intended to eliminate homosexual feelings. Steve felt he had no choice.
“I wanted to be accepted by God,” he said. “I wanted to be loved. That was everything to me. And so I saw no other route.”
So every week Steve joined other Mormon men for group therapy. Most conversion therapy involves different forms of behavior modification, attempting to make people straight by having them act straight. Some programs even teach men about stereotypically “male” activities, such as talking about football and changing motor oil. Steve did not find that his experience with conversion therapy was at all therapeutic.
“I would definitely call it brainwashing,” he said. “It was an exercise in humiliation.”
Channeling Groucho: Whatever It Is, If It’s Gay, I’m Against It.
Larry King: …As the mores have changed— for example, I know the church is opposed to gay marriage. Do you have an alternative — do you like the idea of civil unions?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Well… We are not anti-gay. We are pro-family, let me put it that way. And we… love these people and try to work with them and help them. We know they have a problem. We want to help them solve that problem.
King: The problem they caused or they were born with?
Hinckley: I don’t know. I’m not an expert on these things. I don’t preted to be an expert on these things. The fact is, they have a problem.
King: Do you favor some sort of state union?
Hinckley: Well, we want to be very careful about that… because that— whatever may lead to gay marriage, we’re not in favor of. We…Many people don’t get married. Goodness sakes alive, you know that. We have many people who have to discipline themselves. If they transgress, they become subject to the discipline of the church. But we try in every way that we know how to help them, to assist them, to bless their lives.
And How, Exactly, Does the Mormon Church “Help” Gay People Get Over Their “Problem”?
This is how:
And then there’s Stuart Matis. And countless other Stuarts.
That’s enough, we think, to give the heretofore-uninformed an introduction to Gordon B. Hinckley.
Having already run over Mary once, Liz prepares to back up and do it again.
Well, we assume Liz Cheney, the not-lesbian daughter of The Big Dick and his wife who’s not a lesbian but appears obsessed with lesbian sex, hates the guts (or at least the oh so sinful lifestyle) of Mother Mary— er, her sister, Mary Cheney, the boyish, brainless lesbian turncoat we love to hate (because she got hers, so to hell with everybody else).
It’s bad enough that Neocon Liz was working for the presidential campaign of Fred Thompson, until the ugly, mediocre actor with the hearing problem (or maybe just the stupid problem) dropped out of the race, but now Liz is working for Mitt Romney as senior foreign policy adviser (so Mitt’ll have some good-sounding made-up reasons to bomb Syria and Iraq and anybody else he damn well pleases back to the Stone Age the very second he receives divine inspiration to visit blood atonement upon them non-believin’ heathens).
I tell you, if my sister decided to work on getting Rabidly Anti-Gay Magic Underwear Man — who believes that a dead parent is better than a gay parent (helllllo, Mary!) — into the White House, I’d disown her (after I tried to have her involuntarily committed).
[T]he endorsement is likely to be well received among conservatives who comprise a critical primary voting bloc in both Florida, which votes Tuesday, and the 22 states voting Feb. 5.
Romney has also enjoyed the support of aides with ties to the Bush family, including top assistants to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former President George H.W. Bush.
Liz Cheney, 41, is the elder of Dick and Lynne Cheney’s two daughters. Her younger sister, Mary, has been more prominently in the public eye after revealing she is a lesbian and having a son last year with her partner, Heather Poe, despite the administration’s opposition to gay marriage.
Liz Cheney, the mother of five children, said in a statement: “Throughout his campaign, (Romney) has distinguished himself as a leader who can guide our country with a clear vision for overcoming the threats we face today. … I look forward to working with Governor Romney because he is the leader our country needs.”
Now, we don’t really give a hoot what idiotic pursuits Liz Cheney chases, and quite frankly, we don’t have a whit of sympathy for that elitist little traitor Mary Cheney either.
We’re just struck by how not surprised we are that one Cheney would throw another Cheney even further under the bus. (And we will be even less surprised if Mary Cheney comes out to support her sister’s decision.)
As Republican family dynamics go, politics (which, for those people, translates directly into money and power) is always thicker than blood.
Nevertheless, we think Liz Cheney sucks. And not in a good way.
Never mind that Saint Barry didn’t dare breathe the word “gay” alongside “young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian” in his South Carolina victory speech tonight (and why should he, when it’s our backs bearing his muddy bootprints as evidence of the way he trampled us in order to win SC in the first place?).
Rather, I am compelled to quote what he said about religion in his speech, which caused all three residents of my home to emit spontaneous shrieks of incredulous laughter (and two of us to shout something a little less polite than “Baloney!” at the television):
And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon.
Forget the Republicans — you, Senator Obama, made religion a wedge among Democrats in this campaign. You used gay Americans as a wedge to woo rabidly homophobic Southern evangelicals who would have voted for you anyway. You opened a fissure the size of the San Andreas Fault between black fundamentalist Christians and gay and lesbian voters — a fissure that may never heal. You continue to employ the politics of division.
Also worth noting:
There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.
There he goes again, with the meaningless “hope and change” rhetoric — as he steadfastly refuses to tell us what he hopes to change, and how.
Empty words, empty rhetoric, empty suit — all held afloat by the politics of division.
(And no, I’m not bitter about Obama’s SC win; I knew that was going to happen, and I don’t care. What’s important is Super-Duper Tuesday, when the big states vote. And, unless something unforeseen happens — like some crazed Obama supporter dropping LSD in the nation’s water supply — February 5th should fix Obama’s little red wagon, once and for all. I certainly hope so, anyway; I’m sick of hearing his empty promises, and sick of writing about his ruthless steamrolling of the American gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community.)
I posted yesterday about a Southern Poverty Law Center article, titled Straight Like Me, by Casey Sanchez, which blasted the ex-gay movement. In my post, I note several inaccurate reports. In this post, I provide a brief email interview with Michael Brown, president of the FIRE School of Ministry, who was named in a companion piece, Former Ex-gay Minister Speaks Out. I emailed Dr. Brown with some questions about these statements and he was very kind to respond quickly.
Throckmorton: In a recent SPLC article, you are referred to as giving a keynote at the latest Exodus Conference. This subject of this article asserts that you believe the Old Testament law should be followed regarding homosexuals. Is this your belief?
Brown: Absolutely not! I am not and have never been a reconstructionist or theonomist, and if we were to put practicing homosexuals to death, we would also have to put Sabbath breakers to death, among many others.
Note that Brown does not say, “Absolutely not! I am not and have never been a reconstructionist or theonomist,” period.
He qualifies his “absolutely not” with “if we were to put practicing homosexuals to death, we would also have to put Sabbath breakers to death, among many others.”
The only conclusion we can draw is that the only thing stopping Brown from advocating death for “practicing homosexuals” is that he hasn’t figured out how to justify singling out “practicing homosexuals” for execution without putting “Sabbath breakers” (”among many others”) to death as well.
