Optimism for reception of lesbian family rights

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of a non-biological lesbian mother, granting her custody over the children she helped raise. The court found that the it was in the best interest of the children to stay in the custody of the non-biological mother, citing her ability to provide more stabilty for the children. This was a break from the traditions of the court which has historically ruled in favor of the biological parents in custody cases.

Reaction from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community emphasized the importance of providing healthy homes for children and family rights, finding that aspect of the case to be more essential than LGBT equality.

A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article quoted LGBT leader Lee Carpenter:

"These things are frequently framed as gay rights issues, in terms of the parents' rights. That's partly true. But the part of the story that's missing is it's very important for kids," said Leonore F. Carpenter, legal director for Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, which represented Ms. Jones, along with attorney Maureen Gatto, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

"A child in a homosexual household deserves the same rights as a child in a heterosexual household," she said. But she emphasized that "This isn't just about gay families. Any [third party] who has been acting as a parent can apply this."
Read More!

I was pleased to find on a LiveJournal account by Booju_Newju a posting that presented the Post-Gazette article with a question: Should biology play a part in custody?

Comments invariably said that the interest and safety of the child must come first in custody cases, even from those who stuggled with the idea of a same-sex couple raising children.

McCain still unclear on gay marriage

I have been looking for a breif statement by John McCain on same-sex marriage. While I think this one is a bit too brief, McCain is not even afforded time to elaborate, the question does come across loud if not clear:

He is for a ceremony, but not for same-sex marriage. In other words, he is still being elusive on the issue.

I included the commentary from Netscape, because I thought it was interesting to see how this clip was percieved by many people across the country. It never ceases to amaze me how the majority of the population has not yet learned Politician-Speek. You have to listen carefully to these guys because they are paid to be our servants, yet they are masters of spin and vagueness.

Check out the link to the clip under View Story.

Benedict for Saturday Breakfast

I have to hand it to the Vatican, their PR machine runs smoothers than GW's. Here's another Vatican Blog speaking the highest praises of Pope Benedicts visit to Turkey.

My favorite part was this excerpt:

From his support for Turkey’s European Union membership to his speaking in Turkish during prayers in the ancient city of Ephesus, the Pope surprised and impressed.Most enthusiasm was reserved for his decision to pray alongside Mustafa Cagrici, the Mufti of Istanbul, at the Blue Mosque.The Mufti characterised the moment when Pope Benedict faced Mecca and clasped his hands in the Muslim manner, as the full apology that the Pope failed to make after his controversial address about Islam at Regensburg University in Germany in September.

A symbolic apology? How about a real one.

Anti-harassment policies challenged in New Jersey

This was interesting to read, considering that my final project for Investigative Reporting is on this subject. I thought I might share it.

The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on the burden held by public institutions to provide a safe learning environement to students who are bullied.

Blog Cabin covered it nicely.

El- Banco de Wal-Mart. Waxing Philosophical

I am not going to elaborate on this. I will simply break it down.

Wal-Mart is the enemy of the small business, making it an enemy to Republicans.
Wal-Mart is also the enemy of believers in a living wage, making it an enemy to Democrats.

So, who the hell is supporting Wal-Mart? The Independants?
No, apparently, it is the Mexicans.

Wal-Mart will open a bank in Mexico, expecting to begin operation in the secon-half of 2007. Some say that this is going to open up opportunities for competition in Mexico, but I think it is only another facet for Wal-Mart to expand upon it capitalistic quest for global domination - or, should I say oppression.

Credit, as we have seen in the American marketplace has a way of making the economy move, even when there is increases in unemployment, inflation and poverty. But, it does this by making the rich richer and the poor poorer, thus weakening the middle class and threatening the core of democractic society. In a country like Mexico, where the middle class is bourgening and struggling to survive, there is no room for credit and debts.

I don't think this is going to open up opportunities to Mexico. No.
I think this is only going to further subjugate the Mexican people, making them more reliant of American dollars and American job to function.

Pope "Eggs" Benedict and the Turkey. Or, was it Bologna?

Perhaps the media is having a hard time processing the importance of the palpal visit to Turkey.
Reuters is raving about Turkey's "welcome" to the Pope Benedict XVI. United Press International says that the Pope's visit is "easing tensions." But, the Muslims in Turkey don't seem to be singing the same tune.

Let the gainsaying begin.

Reuter's went on to say that fears of large protests were "unfounded." Why, then, were there 3,000 police officers needed to keep order?

If the response was so "positive" to the Pope's visit, why, according to the Pope's own blog, were there only 250 people in attendance at the open air mass he conducted at the shrine at Efes?

(BTW, I think its awesome that the Pope, 79, has a blog, even if it is pure PR. I conjured the image of the Pontiff sitting at an iMac typing away at his Blogger account and laughed for about 15 minutes solid.)

ABC, Small Gov Times, and CNN say that thousands have been in protest since prior to the Pope's arrival. All of them pulled the story from the contradictory Reuters wire.

Nicely done modern media.

Perhaps the coverage should be contradictory. It's fitting, considering that Pope "Eggs" Benedict is under such scrutiny in the Muslim world.

Recall September, when Eggs made a speech in Regensburg, Germany that inflamed the Muslim world quoting 14th Century Christian Emporer Paleologus who said that the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhumane" things. (Read more on this statement)

Muslim protests followed.

The "Sausage-fest" of Vatican cronies apologized. Even after Muslim extremists destroyed a couple of churches and murdered a nun in Somalia, Eggs did not.

On the issue of Christian-Muslim relations, Eggs seems to be set on saying and doing all that the politicians cannot, and speaking with a firm, intellectually conservative voice.

So, why is he in Turkey, a Muslim country? After all, Eggs publically objected to Turkey's application for membership into the EU in 2004, saying the country is "in permanent contrast to Europe."

The media's message: (If you read between the lines)

Eggs and his sausage-fest of advisors still believe that Islam is connected with violence. When al-Qaeda in Egypt spoke out to say that the Pope's visit is part of a "crusader campaign," the Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi translated it as a threat of violence.

He said that they are not concerned, but that "[T]his type of message shows once again the urgency and importance of a common commitment of all forces against violence."

The Issue of Palestine
The Pope is not a Crusader. Rather, he is a firm believer in non-violence. He believes that an intellectual conversion is the only genuine one and that violence corrupts the process of personal conversion.

But, the Palpal history is not unblemished when it comes to Muslim-Christian relations, and when Egg's positions on Islam, Turkey and the EU are brought to the table for a discussion about violence, crusading and Palestine, that history cannot be disregarded.

Eggs recognizes that the Turkish people are different. Unlike the majority of Christians in Europe, they are strong supporters of Palestine. Without a reconcilitation on such a volatile issue in world politics, the two idealogical sides have no place entering into an economic or a political contract.

Forget violence. Forget John Paul's legacy of cooperation and mediation. Forget the EU. The root of this visit is, on the eve of Turkey's enduction into the EU, to remind the world that the Turkish people stand against Israel.

And who better to highlight a religious divide in Jerusalem than the Pope himself?

Aviation, radiation, signs Boeing aiding US nuclear build-up.

This report just came across the Reuters Wire:

LONDON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - British Airways (BAY.L: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Wednesday that "very low traces" of a radioactive substance had been found on two of its aircraft being examined in a police probe into the death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.

The airline said in a statement that three B767 short haul aircraft were taken out of service for forensic examination. Initial results showed "very low traces of a radioactive substance on board two of the three aircraft."
Read more!

Low levels.

Let us examine a few other common items that emit low levels of radiation.

Televisions
Microwaves
X-Ray Machines
Medical Wastes
Smoke Detectors
Some types of old glass and ceramics
Foods that contain Potassium
And, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, so does your drinking water.

So, the next time there is a detection of "low levels of radiation" on board a plane, let us suggest that the flight attendants turn off the video-screen, microwaves and smoke detectors. Tell the pilot to turn off his radio. And, heck, have the caterers remove all of the bananas from the plane. Then, run the test one more time.

Since it seems that there are "low levels of radiation" everywhere we turn, it makes you wonder, why were these planes really grounded. Perhaps they are facing the same problems as American Airlines did with there MD80's. They announced the grounding of 22 plains yesterday when they found paint in the fuel system.

Is this a coincidence?

Here is another thought. The MD80 is a Boeing product. The three planes grounded by British Airways were B767's, also Boeing's.

Ironically, at this time, the companies stock is trading at $88.75 per share which is up 0.78, Boeing Cheif Exec. James McNerney met with Zeng Peiyan, the vice-premier of China, and the company signed new contracts with Singapour Airlines and Air Berlin. Boeing is also a producer of weapons for the United States military.

Perhaps this is our answer to why there were "low levels of radiation" on the British Airways planes. Incidently, nuclear chemicals can leave traces of "low levels of radiation" on weapons that have been manufactured in the same plants.

Boeing is no stranger to nuclear technology. It was a Boeing B-29 that dropped the bombs over Hiroshima.

And, Boeing is also an active participant today's military. Most recently, they built a "Small Diameter Bomb" which is revolutionizing the industry by allowing more artillary to be carried by Air Force Bombers. And, that is just what they are telling the media about, and they were awarded the contract to help build the next model of the F-22 Raptor.

Check out Defense Industry Daily to see what else they are working on.

And, perhaps you should wear your radiation suit the next time you board a Boeing plane. I heard that "low levels of radiation can cause testicular cancer.

Some injuries in Iraq are unseen, many unreported.

Staff Sgt. Raymond Lee recieved a head injury when a roadside bomb blew up his humvee. A coma rendered his military career over.

This South Carolina produced report was a captivating retelling of the soldiers story. But, what I found disturbing in it is a statement, buried in the middle amidst a bunch of mundane detail about Lee's instant messaging habits: the Pentagon "refuses to release information about soldiers injured in Iraq" for fear that the information may be beneficial to the enemy.

Two questions: How? And, why?

I can't think of any reason why the type of injuries sustained by our military men would be of any benefit to the so-called enemy. Perhaps details about when and where incidents that involved injuries would be problematic, but statistics themselves?

I don't buy it.

That information would be valuable only to war protestors who would argue, as CNN did, that there would be far more deaths and casualities reported in this war if not for the brilliant efforts of medical staffers to keep our boys alive.

Pesbyterian Church needs to make up its mind. Its getting queer

The Presbyterian Church dropped charged against Janet Edwards, a Presbyterian minister who oversaw a gay marriage in June 2005. The commission hearing the case decided on November 15 that charges against Edwards had been brought past the deadline to file.

The constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reserves marriage for a man and a woman, although ministers may bless other types of “holy unions.”

Sounds a lot like the Democratic party to me.

Waffling.

Read More!

USA Today Blogger got it right... slightly left of center.

Kristen Powers, a blogger a USA Today argued that the Clintonian Era ushered in a new kind of liberal, and more importantly, a new kind of Democrat: the centrist Democrat.

This election cycle, the Dem camp spoke about faith, God and actually had nominees on the ballot who oppose abortion. They are growing more fiscally conservative. Perhaps this is in reaction to the neo-con believe in debt spending, but more likely, it is a party in jeopordy of losing its identity by meandering too close to the middle of the road.

Check it out, she nailed the ballot and the liberal misgivings.

Not surprising, the reactions in posted comments did as well by missing the point.

Truth.com

Mike Seate of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review laid out a plea to our public officials: Come Out Already.

His article mademe think of two things: My Aunt Sharon and Gray Davis. Remember him?

Yeah.

I understand that Mr. Davis kept an apartment in West Hollywood, a window-dressing wife and a fetish for twinkies.

Are you surprised?

I mean, like Seate said, you mean to tell me that this guy can't find a date... or even better, where is his "wife?"

Arizon Sen. John McCain expresses concern about party platforms, I'm concerned about his.

John McCain is my choice for president in 2008. Let me just put that out there.

But, I a must say I am a bit concerned with his positions. Why?

He believes in small government.
He opposed the war in Iraq, but now that we are there, he has taken a stance that we have to finish what we started in order to preserve stability in region.

McCain does seem to have a firm grasp on his strengths. According ot a Business Journal report, he told a conservative political action committee this week that he felt the party's greatest strength was in the weakness of the Democratic party.

"The election was not an affirmation of the other party's program. Try as hard as I could, I couldn't find much evidence that my Democratic friends were offering anything that resembled a coherent platform or principled leadership on the critical issues that confront us today," McCain [said].

McCain wants a return to traditional Republican values of limited government. He says he has faith in the conservative nature of Americans. I like it.

Here are my concerns.

McCain is governor of the only of eight states to reject a ban on gay marriage this midterm election. I need to know if he accredits this to the conservative belief in limited government, or if he recognizes that there is a significant liberal contingent in this country that wants to see equal rights for everyone.

Second, he says he believes in small government, but he wants us to stay in Iraq and embed American personnel in their police force. This says American Colonialism to me.

I hope to hear a clarification on how he justifies these positions... soon.

Same sex marriage bans pass in seven of eight states.

The count is still going on, but it appears Arizona was the only state to reject a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage yesterday. Still, there is no reason to be disheartened.

Althought the ban was passed in South Dakota, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Colorado and Virginia, it was not by an overwhelming margin. Look at the numbers.

(in percents, for ban/against ban)
Arizona: 49 / 51
Colorado: 56 / 44
South Carolina: 78/ 22
South Dakota: 52 / 48
Tennessee: 81 / 19
Virginia: 57 / 43
Wisconsin: 59 / 41

Average: 61.7 / 38.3

Take the Bible-belt states of Tennessee and South Carolina out of the mix and the numbers are even tighter.

Average: 54.6 / 45.4

Pretty close to an even split.

What does this mean? Though the American people may not yet be ready to hear same-sex couples say 'I Do', they are not ready to write discrimination into their constitutions. While this is not necessarily a giant leap for homo-kind, it is a small step toward equality.

Election Coverage

Today is the big day, the one that we political geeks wait two years for. On the second Tuesday in November of every even year, we are the ones who sit in front of our televisions (usually two or three in my case - one on CNN, one on FOX, and one to watch my favorite episodes of Six Feet Under in the down time) with multiple editions of various newspapers spread across the coffee table and our laptops handy to post comments on web pages and track minute-by-minute exit poll updates throughout the country.

What will I be watching tonight?

Proposed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage in eight states:

• Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Colorado
• South Dakota
• South Carolina
• Arizona
• Idaho
• Tennessee

Congress

Rick Santorum has got to go in Pennsylvania. My vote is going toward the pet-rock, Bob Casey, not because of his glowing qualification, but because Santorum is insane.

Tammy Baldwin, an openly gay congresswoman from Wisconsin, and of course, Barney Frank, because he's entertaining.

Governors

Ed Rendell is on the top of my list because, well, Ed Rendell is the man. I actually would love to see Ed Rendell for President in 2012.

Let us not forget dear Arny. I love Arnold Schwarzenegger for all that he has done reshaping the state of California after the havoc that Grey Davis wreaked there, even if he did veto the gay marriage bill. I only wish that I didn't have to double check the spelling of his name every time I write it.

States

Minnesota has some interesting races going on, namely Sen. Paul Koering's race for re-election.

In Colorado, there is the medical marijuana bill, which is always entertaining.

And, of course, California leads the pack with seven propositions on the ballot, inclusing two that address immigration issues. Schwarzenegger himself put three props on the ballot.

It's going to be fun. We'll keep you posted.

Target Iran: A discussion on US foreign policy.

The New York Society for Ethical Culture hosted a discussion on Iran and US foreign relaions policy on October 16. It was aired Sunday on CSPAN2's BookTV. The guests were Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector and author of Target Iran: The Truth About the White House Plans for Regime Change, and Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker's national security correspondant.

Ritter took the opportunity to discuss his views on the Bush administrations foreign policy and the potential it has to incite war with Iran.

He also discussed the source of this policy. "Neo-Conservatives," as he calls them, including Republican minds like Dick Chaney, "Scooter" Libby and Donald Rumsfeld, have spent the last 20 years perfecting their ideas on nation building and the global pro-democracy movement, according to Ritter.

"They had twelve years under the Reagan-Bush administrations to practice it,
then spent eight years during the Clinton era perfecting it in think tanks," Ritter said.

It is from this political movement, according to Ritter, that the "Bush Doctorine" was derived. Wiki justifies the Bush policy as follows:
"The United States possess the means - economic, military, diplomatic - to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes. Further, and especially in light of the domestic political reaction to the attacks of September 11, the victory in Afghanistan and the remarkable skill demonstrated in focusing national attention, it is equally true that Americans possess the requisite political willpower to pursue an expansive strategy."

This is troublesome, as Hersh and the majority of the audience members in attendence of the event pointed out, because not every American agrees with the purpose or the practice of the "neocon" strategy. Although the power may be present, the question of will exists.

According to Ritter, the United States is not the only nation in which the Bush Doctorine is playing out. The UK has adopted it as well. And, accordingly, British military officials are calling for a change in policy.

"Sir Richard Dannatt is calling for [Prime Minister Tony Blair] to change its policy on Iraq," Ritter said, referring to statements made by UK's Cheif of the General Staff earlier this month. "British policy is destroying the British army."

In his book, Ritter discusses at length what he believes will be the result of the rhetoric coming from the White House at present: full scale war with Iran. He gave a point-by-point timeline for what he anticipates will occur following the October election season.

First, the Bush administration will begin working the politics of war with Iran by accusing them of developing a nuclear weapons program. Ritter, a weapons inspector for the UN from 1991-98 insists that no nuclear weapons exist in Iran, but the story will play out in Iran the same way as it did in Iraq: once the accusation is made, the US will do what it takes to prove that WMD's exist in Iran.

"The burden is on Iran to prove that they do not have nuclear weapons," he said. "But you can't prove a double-negative."

He then anticipates that the US will convince the UN to begin inspections, at which point Iran will pull its oil off of the market. Prices of gasoline will rise in the US, and the common consumer will feel the burden "in their pocket."

"The US is function just above margin. The US is not producing enough oil to support itself," Ritter said. "If Iran pulls its oil, the US will fall to about four percent below margin."

In the end, America's oil-addiction will drive us to war with the Iran. Iran will then turn to the North Korean's and the Chinese for nuclear weapon, according to Ritter, and it is at that point that we can expect to lose a US city to nuclear attack.

Herst was a bit more optimistic.

Although he did not disagree with Ritter's assessment of the Iran situation and the potential that US foreign policy has to start a war, he continually brought the conversation back to the fact that people in this country have varying opinions, and popular opinion has power.

Ritter made a statement at one point about the Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice's diplomatic trip to Iran. He called it fruitless, saying that she wasted time by talking to the Iranian President Mohammad Ahmedinejad.

"[He] has no power," Ritter said.

Constitutionally, this is true. The majority of power rests with the Prime Minister, the Shah and legislative parties in the Iranian government. But, Hersh interjected the importance of popular opinion.

As for the Bush doctorine, Herst said, "[Bush] is going to do what he's going to do whether its because of God, his father or whatever it is." He paused for a moment, and then, "...the twelvth step."

He said that if had any advice for the Joint Chiefs, it would be, "Let's take a mulligan." Go back and pray for forgiveness.

New Jersey Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

In case you haven't heard yet, the New Jersey Supreme Court made a ruling on Wednesday that called for equal rights to be granted to all citizens, regardless of sexual-orientation. Some are calling this the next step down the aisle for gays and lesbians.
Here is the press release sent out by Equality Advocates Penssylvania yesterday.

VICTORY! NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT RULES FOR EQUALITY
In a groundbreaking decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court
ruled today that lesbian and gay couples must be granted
equal relationship rights under the law.

In the Court's opinion in Lewis v. Harris, New Jersey
Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin stated, "To comply with
the equal protection guarantee...of the New Jersey
Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex
couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits
enjoyed by heterosexual married couples." The Court gave
the New Jersey legislature 180 days to decide whether to
amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or
enact a parallel structure with all the rights and benefits
of marriage.
Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, formerly the Center for
Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, praised the decision. "This
is a critical step towards achieving true equality and
justice for lesbian and gay families. We urge the New
Jersey legislature to treat all families equally by granting
marriage for all committed couples," said Stacey Sobel,
Equality Advocates' executive director.
It is unclear at this time what the impact of the decision
will be on Pennsylvania's same-sex couples. It will not,
however, affect the 1996 Pennsylvania Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA), which prohibits same-sex couples from being
married in this state. That legislation also states that
Pennsylvania will not recognize same-sex marriages from
other states.
Lee Carpenter, the legal director of Equality Advocates
added, "The reality is that thousands of gay and lesbian
Pennsylvanians are involved in committed, loving
relationships, pay their taxes, and contribute to their
communities. However, these citizens are denied the very
basic legal protections that others take for granted, such
as the right to visit a loved one in the hospital or
automatically inherit property. We hope that in the coming
years Pennsylvania will remedy what is clearly an unjust
situation."
# # #
Equality Advocates Pennsylvania is dedicated to achieving
equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
individuals in the Commonwealth through direct legal
services, education and policy reform.

I will be busted for this later, I am sure of it. You have to love that web crawler. But, as a political commentator, I find it hard to keep my mouth shut in this one.

My personal reaction:

This couldn't have happened at a worse time. Call it the Republican October Surprise, but same-sex marriage has once again become the ultimate WMD - Weapon of Mass Distraction. Watch as the religious right jumps onboard the bandwagon, stir up their constituency and flood the voting booths with anti-gay votes instead of pro-political platform votes.

Already, check out the letters to the editors of the NY Times.
The article itself stated:
The ruling in New Jersey left it to the Legislature to decide whether to legalize gay
marriage. Even so, the threat that gay marriage could become legal energized
conservatives at a time when Republican strategists say that turning out the base could
make the difference between winning and losing on Nov. 7. With many independent
analysts predicting Republicans will lose the House and possibly the Senate, President
Bush’s political team is counting on the party’s sophisticated voter turnout machinery to
hold Democratic advances enough that Republicans can at least maintain control.
Read More!

Can anyone say "Iraq?"

Political ads found unlawful under obscenity laws.

This one is for all of the politicians in this country.

Shut up!
At least that's what this Dissident Voice writter said. Robert Rivkin, San Francisco based author of GI Rights and Army Justice, is actually arguing that he would rather give up some of his own privileges of free speech in order to stop the madness of campaign ads. He wants to create a constitutional amendment that would ban the airing of politically motivated advertisements altogether.

As an advocate of free speech, I find it hard to agree with Rivkin's proposition. But I have to wonder if some of the political ads aired on television today would stand up under obscenity laws.

The Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word "obscenity" means material that deals with sex. I do believe that there has been an increase in the amount of sex-talk in the media, especially as it refers to the differences in a marriage between homo's and hetero's.

In a legal context, obscenity scrutinized by the "Miller test ". That is to says that sexual content is judged on:

• Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the purient interest,
• Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or social value.

I don't think that the average person finds political ads appealing in any way, let alone to be of purient interest.
I don't know about the "average person", but I am patently offended whenever a politician misleads or lies, especially when it is in the name of protecting their own image or destroying that of a political opponent.
Considering the fact that political ads are notoriously one-sided, I don't see how they are of any real artistic, literary, political or social value. Especially when the air time that they consume could be dedicated to far more entertaining and education programming such as Dancing with the Stars.

Perhaps Rivkin is on the right track here.

Focus on Foley failure.

Focus on Michael Gaynor, a lawyer from New York summed this one up well on renewamerica.us:

Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936), American writer and humorist, was right:"Politics ain't beanbag." The Mark Foley scandal demonstrates that yet again.

Mr. Foley, a Republican Congressman who rejected some fundamental values shared by the bulk of Republicans, promptly resigned as a Congressman (thereby avoiding expulsion); took the rehabilitation clinic route Congressman Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island, had followed (again) earlier this year; publicly announced that he is gay; and, in addition to claiming an alcohol problem, claimed that forty years ago he was molested for a couple of years by a clergyman he never saw fit to accuse before and whom he still has not named.

Want to read more?
At what point does gay become something other than a freak show?
LGBT community should give Foley a nice big thank you for his contribution to the betterment of their image. Perhaps he will win a lifetime achievement award from GLAAD.

California falling off the left edge.

Fuck!

Google Santorum

After Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa, stood before Congress denounced homosexuality a spectacle ensued. When he equated gay sexual relations to sex with a dog, an LGBT community storm rose against him nationwide and he recieved his own place in history: Santorum has now become synonimous with "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".

We can thank sex-columnist Dan Savage, author of Savage Love and editor of The Stranger in Seattle, for this. He made it a personal quest to defame the name of Penssylvania's Senator for his statements in the AP Interview.

SANTORUM...It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately...

Philadelphia Weekly ran a feature on Savage and all of his hostilities. A previously well-known and frequently syndicated writer, he rose to a new level by making his web site, www.spreadingsantorum.com the number one hit on Google searches for "santorum". His site ranks above Santorum's own site. Check it out, click here.

Although it is an excellent profile, it leaves out one key element: by taking a political stance as Savage has alienated himself. Although he may have risen to a new level of notoriety and put Santorum's comments on a massive public display, he has pulled the pulpit out from beneath himself and now stands among the ranks of Michael Moore. Ouch. Ouch. and More Ouch.

True, Savage's reasons for hostility are indisputable (right?). Check out the full text of the AP interview. But, when you are having donations checks returned from Bob Casey's camp because they don't want to be affiliated with you, something needs to be said for the solidarity of the gay civil rights campaign. Notoriety cannot be gained at the price of self-respect, and we can't expect the religious right to take LGBT rights seriously when we are throwing scat in their faces. Though it is funny Mr. Savage, perhaps you have gone too far.