General: October 2006 Archives

Arizona Senator and likely Republican presidential candidate John McCain raised some eyebrows last night by saying he is in favor of gay marriage. McCain told an NBC cable audience: “I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that.”

A few minutes later, McCain attempted to clarify his position, saying: “I believe that if people want to have private ceremonies that’s fine. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal.” (source)

Playing devil’s advocate here, let me turn his argument around.

“I think that heterosexual marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that. I believe that if straight people want to have private ceremonies that’s fine. I do not believe heterosexual marriage should be legal.”

Kind of puts bigotry all in perspective, doesn’t it? And I love the “if you want to call it that” part, that even puts the validity of the ceremony into question.

Early on, I had real hopes for John McCain as being a more intelligent and compassionate type. But now, I see that he’s just like the rest of the Republican ilk. If he runs for President in 2008, he will pretty much be a rubber stamp of what Bush stands for, which apparently at this point in time, is about coercion and torture.

President Bush signed a sweeping terror interrogation and trial law this morning, creating a legal process for trying terrorism suspects and giving the president the power to determine whether interrogation methods violate international treaties.

“We will meet our obligation to protect our people. And no matter how long it takes, justice will be done,” Bush said at a White House bill-signing ceremony. “With the bill I’m about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice.”

The legislation applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq. Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration’s plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law. (source)

Now that we have officially become a country that participates in torture and death, I’m wondering how we are different from the “bad guys” who are terrorizing us? I also am worried about American soldiers who are captured. What treatment will they receive now that we have essentially thrown the Geneva Convention out the window?

You can’t fight evil by doing evil. John McCain, you of all people should know this!

BOSTON — When same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, among those who tied the knot were former Rep. Gerry Studds and Dean Hara.

But getting married didn’t protect them under federal law: Hara has learned he is not eligible for any portion of Studds’ estimated annual $114,337 pension following his partner’s death last week.

The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act blocks the federal government from recognizing the 2004 marriage between Studds and Hara or other same-sex couples. [...]

Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the death of Studds may illuminate an inequity Congress enacted in “an era of fear and trepidation of gay marriage” when it appeared Hawaii might allow same-sex marriage.

“This is maybe a moment of education for Congress,” he said. “Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses.” (source)

Education can only happen by those willing to learn.

A conservative activist group has written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking her why she used the “morally provocative” term “mother-in-law” to describe the mother of a homosexual man. [...]

“I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator,” Rice said at the ceremony. “I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark’s parents, Claire and Richard, his partner, Jason, and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have a wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that’s always important to us. Welcome,” Rice said. [...]

“The question arises, what guidelines do the State Department and White House follow? Neither federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act) nor District of Columbia law recognizes a marriage between Dr. Dybul and his partner, and ’mother in law’ is therefore both linguistically (and possibly legally) improper and morally provocative.

“Why did Secretary Rice deploy the term in the presence of the First Lady? We’ve written to ask her, and we’ll let you know what we hear,” said FRC (Family Research Council) President Tony Perkins. (source)

This is the agenda of the right wing Republican Party today. It is the agenda of the Family Research Council. The two agendas are the same, since the current Republican Party has been bought by these right wing lunatics. It only goes to show their true intentions -- when all is said in done, they want gay folks to have nothing; no public recognition, no public support of our relationships to cement our relationships, something they would call “stability”, nothing. They want us to have nothing. At some point, the party really has to ask themselves honestly, “what went wrong?” They used to be the party of “less intrusive government” and lower taxes. Now, it’s tax tax tax, and they have their noses in practically every aspect of our lives -- who can marry who; who is allowed to be recognized by the government as a “marriage” (or even a “family”, for that matter), so we don’t give away those wonderful marriage benefits to undesirables; what role the government has in the most intimate decisions a family could face (remember Terri Schaivo?).

They really have shown their cards. I first wrote about this on Oct. 12, 2006. I think the intent of Rice was to attempt to show some tolerance of our families -- something I felt was the act of lame and dishonest politics. I know, so what else is new? I know what these people really feel about us. The truth is, aside from the tax money that they suck from us, they really have no other need for our families. If it wasn’t for the money, talent, hard work, and diversity we pour into this American democracy, they would be very pleased if we were collectively taken to an island and quarantined. They won’t say that, but we all know it’s true. No one will say it, so I’ll say it.

So for Rice to acknowledge that there are indeed gay families out there and to make reference to this mans “mother-in-law”, acknowledged that family. Of course, this did not go unnoticed by the neocons such as the Family Research Council who were quick to point out that the term “mother-in-law” only exists because the state and federal governments has made it so through marriage. If no marriage exists, then the term is inaccurate. And, they are right.

But perhaps this has a silver lining to it. I want to tell myself, “baby steps....”. The Republican Party has a big problem on their hands. They’ve painted themselves into a corner on just about every issue there is; equality, immigration, the declining middle class, the pathetic minimum wage that they repeatedly refuse to raise, the lack of aggressive AIDS education to reach communities across the board because it will appear that they are promoting sex -- none of these issues are being addressed because we are “fighting the war on terror”. Well, if your own house collapses, what difference does it make?

A week ago today, and just six days before the religious right’s anti-gay hullabaloo, Liberty Sunday, Condi Rice swore in a new U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Dr. Mark R. Dybul.

The ceremony also featured a very curious group of people for a high-level Republican affair; from the State Department’s website:

“I would like to extend a special welcome to the First Lady. Mrs. Bush... a number of Ambassador Dybul’s family members joining us on this auspicious occasion. They include: partner, Jason Claire; mother, Claire Dybul; father, Richard Dybul; and mother-in-law, Marilyn Claire. Please join me in extending a very warm welcome to all of our distinguished guests.”

Dr. Dybul is gay, and is, ostensibly, “married” to Jason Claire. (source)

I’ve largely withdrawn from politics. Perhaps you’ve noticed me writing about it less and less? Quite honestly, it’s not worthy of my time or trouble. People don’t care. People don’t vote. People don’t get politically involved. And I can understand that when 95% of all politicians will lie to you about what they really believe. They may believe in some sort of equality, but they aren’t going to say that. They will talk about tax reductions, but when they are elected that all changes because they are confronted with the fact that you can’t reduce taxes when we are spending money like there is no tomorrow.

Perhaps there will be no tomorrow. Hell, I’m just going along for the ride at this point. It’s hard for me to get involved in politics today given that the mind set of the American population is to go to the polls and vote people’s rights away with the flick of a lever, without even knowing (or caring) about the PEOPLE they just screwed over. It’s hard for me to get involved when they put that above what our troops are going through in Iraq, what is going on in Korea, what is going on in Darfur, and how we are ruining our planet. There are even Americans who can’t tell you the name of the current President of the United States. For me to say I don’t care is saying a lot since I’m a political activist. At least I used to be.

The American populace is uneducated about a lot of things. But what they do know about are gay people, even though many have never known a gay person. I’m a gay man. That means that I’m a ..... potential (probable) pedophile, probably gay because I was sexually abused early in life, sex addict, probably do drugs, probably have AIDS, am trying to “recruit” their children into the homosexual “lifestyle”, trying to make my lifestyle “legitimate” by daring to ask to marry my partner of 31 years, and last but certainly not least, a “faggot”. We do love labels, don’t we? What else is there to know?

What do I say to that when that is what we’ve been reduced to? Is it worth my time to dignify that with an answer? Honestly, I’m more worried about letting my health club know my new credit card number since my last one was stolen, and getting my Xanax prescription refilled.

Other than that, life is good!

U.S. House leaders may have delayed taking action against former Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley because they were afraid of appearing anti-gay, according to Sen. Orrin Hatch.

Utah’s senator called Foley’s sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages to congressional pages “abysmal” and inexcusable, but he also defended House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has drawn repeated criticism for not acting on concerns brought to his office earlier.

Hatch’s defense, presented to the Tribune editorial board earlier this week, centered on how busy Hastert is as the Republican leader in the House.

But he also said: “I don’t know anybody today in the Congress who wants to act or be homophobic, so that may be part of the problem here.” (source)

So, the Republicans would rather let a pedophile (who happens to be gay) remain free, so that they won’t be labeled “homophobic”? Do I have the logic right?

If they were really worried about being homophobic, perhaps they should have put a damper on trying to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep marriage out of reach for gay couples. I suppose they will say that they are “protecting the sanctity of marriage”. Well, you know what? That “protection” comes at a big price for gay couples who are also denied the financial benefits of marriage. And those benefits are quite substantial.

But you won’t hear them talking about that. They will say that it’s “up to the states” to determine if each state wants to afford gay couples any recognition what so ever. Not one Republican has made an effort to address these issues. So, for Senator Orrin Hatch to say that they didn’t go after Foley for fear of being “homophobic” just doesn’t really hold much water.

So why didn’t they go after him? What’s the real reason? It’s quite simple. In fact, it’s the same reason the Catholic Church kept moving pedophiles around to begin with; to hide the fact that there were pedophiles in their midst, and they happen to be Catholic. Or, in this case, Republican. So what did the Republicans do? They swept the issue under the carpet as if it didn’t exist, just like the Catholic Church.

And what do you think they will do from here on out? I’ll tell you. They will blame pedophilia on gay men.

Some conservatives have reacted to former Rep. Mark Foley’s sexual messages to teenage boys and announcement he is gay by suggesting homosexuals are more likely to molest children, a link that psychiatric groups say has no basis in fact.

Yet the stereotype seems to be sticking, repeated in the conservative and mainstream media. A columnist for the Wall Street Journal suggested that homosexuality exists on a continuum stretching from “just another gay guy” to “a compulsive, predatory sex offender.” (source)

It would seem that the Republican Party is full of homophobes. But we already knew that. What I find amusing is how they are now trying to deal with it. For example, today in USA Today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in Mark Dybul, the nation’s “new global AIDS coordinator”. Not only that, she recognized his partner Jason Claire, and referred to Claire’s mother as Mark’s “mother-in-law”. In other words, Rice acknowledged them as a gay couple. Does the Republican Party even realize how transparent they are?

Hey, maybe this would be a good time to go after immigration rights for gay partners? Perhaps they could develop a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for the partner of a gay couple who lives in a foreign country who wants to immigrate to the United States to stay with his partner? Don’t say you are the partner of a gay person living in the U.S., and we will let you in. Kind of like the don’t ask, don’t tell policy in place for our military now. And we all know how well that policy is working.

At a State Department ceremony this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warmly acknowledged the family members of Mark Dybul, whom she was swearing in as the nation’s new global AIDS coordinator.

As first lady Laura Bush looked on, Rice singled out his partner, Jason Claire, and Claire’s mother. Rice referred to her as Dybul’s “mother-in-law.”

The celebratory moment for a gay couple was emblematic of the political identity crisis facing the Republican Party, two years after an election the GOP won in part by making gay marriage an issue and less than two weeks after revelations about a Republican House member’s advances toward teenage boys.

We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers’ unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. - Ben Stein

Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids. Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior for homosexuals doesn’t stop us from continuing to elevate such folks to positions where they gain access to our kids. - Linda Harvey

The funny thing is that you would think the left — particularly the gay left — would be a bit more interested in not having 16 and 17 year old teenagers classified as young children for legal/sexual/political purposes. If that were the case, then a whole lot of dirty old men would need to be prosecuted for felonies when they pick up street hustlers. - Jonah Goldberg, National Review

But in today’s politically correct culture, it’s easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert’s head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts’ decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where’s Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one? - Wall Street Journal editorial

The failure to use the word “homosexual” in describing Foley’s dirty talk is likely due to fear over being labeled “homophobic” or biased by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which exists to make sure that only positive portrayals of homosexuality are permitted in the media. Plus, the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association previously warned the media, in connection with sexual abuse by Catholic Priests, to avoid linking homosexuality to pedophilia. ..... But knee-jerk references to Democratic misconduct won’t get Republicans off the hook on this one. This is the time for conservative media outlets, including the blogs, to insist that the Republican Party and the conservative movement stop protecting homosexuals in its ranks. The pro-homosexual groups in the Republican Party which shielded Foley from legitimate questions about his closeted life should be exposed and discredited. - Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media

“...well, this man’s gay; he does what gay people do and so don’t worry about it.” - Pat Robertson

Just a few little tidbits from the Internet. I guess now I know why my neighbor has assumed that I am a child molester, without even knowing me. It’s ok -- we’ve both agreed to deny the existence of each other. Besides, they are hardly ever home which I find strange since they have school-aged children. Yet, they will be gone a week at a time. Wonder if I’m a nosey neighbor?

I guess if you are a gay male, many people assume you have a tendency to try to molest children. It’s rather frightening to think that many people pre-label you in this manner.

As far as Pat Robertson is concerned, I’m not too worried. Truthfully, the man is a nut case. He’s also talking about assassinating people again...

“We have the ability to take him [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.”

“We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,” he continued. “It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” - Pat Robertson

Let’s be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions--as they probably already have--for if I have a copy of The List, there’s a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone. (source)

Apparently, there’s now a “list” out of people who will probably take the fall for the Foley scandal. The list includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications. It’s not known if the people actually on the list are gay or not, but the current line of thinking (if you can call it that) is that there is some sort of gay network in Washington, and that we protect our own. In other words, it’s the gays who are causing all of this and how the Republicans are probably going to spin this. That is how this story is evolving. And if there’s one thing that religious conservatives hate worse than dishonesty, it’s homosexuals--especially homosexuals who are representing them!

It all kind of reminds me of the Joe McCarthy era when we were hunting for “communists”. I guess homosexuals are the new communists today. Of course, Joe McCarthy also went after gays as well. But it’s good that we have moved beyond government spying of gay Americans.

As for those gay people who serve (or “work for”, if you prefer) extremely homophobic politicians, I’m at a loss to know how to respond...

What’s interesting about The List--which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications--is that (if it’s accurate) it shows that some of the religious right’s favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices? After all, Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy. (source)

How does one work for someone who puts you on the same level as someone who would have sex with animals? I guess you would have to have no self-respect what so ever.

And here’s a thought... Religious conservatives love to talk about “high moral character”. How can you have “high moral character” when you have no personal integrity? Is it possible to have both at the same time?

WASHINGTON - A senior congressional aide said Wednesday he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office about worrisome conduct by Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record) toward teenage pages more than

three years ago,

long before officials have acknowledged becoming aware of the issue.

Kirk Fordham made his comments to The Associated Press in an interview as a Kentucky Republican canceled a campaign fundraising event with Hastert. Rep. Ron Lewis (news, bio, voting record) said he wants to know the facts behind a scandal that has roiled Republicans since last week.

“I’m taking the speaker’s words at face value,” Lewis said in an interview. “I have no reason to doubt him. But until this is cleared up, I want to know the facts.

“If anyone in our leadership has done anything wrong, then I will be the first in line to condemn it.” (source) Highlighting my own

I guess I’m to the point of obsessing about Foley, but this story just keeps getting stranger and stranger. I can buy into the whole in-the-closet thing. But using alcohol and being sexually abused as an excuse to further abuse children just seems like a complete cop-out to me. I don’t have much sympathy for it.

You know, everyone has periods in their life that are just plain hard to get through. We all know that. But you don’t substitute that hardship by making other people’s lives more difficult. Especially when they are at a significant disadvantage to you.

But now, it’s coming out that House Speaker Dennis Hastert was told about this abuse 3 years ago, and did nothing about it! So, what’s his excuse going to be? He got bit by his dog which cause sudden amnesia?

It just boggles the mind the world these people live in.

One senior House Republican told CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger that this scandal "could be the congressional equivalent of Katrina. Our base is moral conservatives and we look like a bunch of hypocrites who just didn't want another scandal before the election."

Meeting with reporters Monday, Hastert said his aides and Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., heeded the wishes of the parents of the former House page, who wanted such questionable e-mails to stop but didn't want the matter pursued. Shimkus and the House clerk told Foley last fall to cut off all communication with the former page, who lived in Louisiana.

Hastert says neither Shimkus nor his own aides saw the 2005 e-mail, noting that it was far less sexually explicit than the electronic messages that ABC News revealed last week.

"There wasn't much there other than a friendly inquiry," Hastert said of the 2005 message from Foley, R-Fla., described as "sick" by the boy. The message asked for a photograph and mentioned a different teen who was in "great shape." (source) Highlighting my own

It amazes me that the Republicans are now looking for dark cover away from the light of this controversy. Just a few of thoughts....

1) They compare this to President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. Dare I point out that Monica Lewinski was an adult? That small omission from their argument makes a big difference.

2) Yes, they do look like a bunch of hypocrites, because they are. If you are going to preach "moral values" and "family values" and use those values as a weapon, then you must realize that that same weapon can be used against you. So when that happens, and you try to push the blame on to something else; Bill Clinton and his affair, or the use of alcohol by Rep. Foley to justify his actions, don't be surprised if some will see you as a hypocrite.

3) I can understand that the parents of this teenager didn't want the matter pursued. IRRELEVANT! There was possible criminal activity involved (just read the private messages exchanged between Foley and the teenager), and, more important, how many other children could have been involved.

To me, this logic is similar to that of a rape victim. He/she may not want to pursue the rape because of the stigma of public exposure. But what you have to realize is that the rapist could be doing the same thing to other people. The fact that Rep. Foley specifically made reference to yet another teen should suggest this, and be grounds for an investigation.

4) Pointing to his use of alcohol as the reason Rep. Foley did these deeds is a diversion. It's the same damn argument used to suggest that being a gay man makes you want male children. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions and may make you act out on something that was already there to begin with, namely, his desire (well known by many apparently) to be with male teenagers. I'll grant you that. He drank, and acted out on impulses that were already there. To blame that on alcohol is nonsense.

Aside from the lurid details that are coming out of this, what sickens me most is a complete denial of responsibility from the heart of this matter by Foley's party, and Rep. Foley himself. An investigation should be done, and those who had information and didn't come forward with that information are just as guilty as Foley himself. They should resign.

Remember the Catholic priests who abused so many children? That was allowed to flourish for decades because no one in power came forward and took responsibility. Which brings up another possibility. Perhaps we have a Catholic priest scenario playing out here. Are there others who have abused congressional pages, both heterosexual and homosexual, that we still know nothing about? It makes you wonder.

We are dealing with people's lives here, and Foley's party is talking about how this is going to potentially make them look bad in November.

How sick is that?