May 31
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
(I cross-posted this at my own blog)
A recent Gallup poll shows that the time has come for the anti-gay activists to hang up their hatred, or at least move it on to another, less fortunate group.
Here is what part of the survey had to say:
PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, finds current public tolerance for gay rights at the high-water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades. There is still considerable public opposition to complete equality for gays, particularly with respect to marriage. However, after several years of lower support for gay rights, support is now springing back to the relatively high levels seen in 2003, just before the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2003, decision striking down a Texas sodomy law. (According to Gallup trends, that ruling appeared to produce a backlash of public opposition to gay rights.)
The clearest example of the recent renewal in pro-gay rights attitudes comes from a question asking Americans whether they believe homosexual relations should be legal. Public tolerance for this aspect of gay rights expanded from 43% at the inception of the question in 1977 to 60% in May 2003. Then in July 2003, it fell to 50% and remained at about that level through 2005. Last year, it jumped to 56% and this year it reached 59%, similar to the 2003 high point.
Here are some of the results:
Spectrum of Support for Gay Rights^
May 10-13, 2007
Yes No
% %
Homosexuals should have equal rights
in terms of job opportunities 89 8
Homosexual relations should be legal 59 37
Homosexuality should be considered
an acceptable alternative lifestyle 57 39
Homosexual relations are morally acceptable 47 49
Same-sex marriages should be legally valid 46 53
^ See tables for full wording of each item/question.
(more…)
May 23
2007
Punted| Category: Uncategorized |
Tiny Queer Footballs extends its congratulations and mazel tov to Mary, Dick, Lynn, and Heather Poe. Mary, the daughter of Vice-President Cheney, gave birth to a baby boy this afternoon. On the one hand congratulations!
On the other…
Should something happen to Mary we wish Heather the best of luck in trying to maintain her “custodial” status, however, under Virginia law she is not able to adopt or be added to the birth certificate.
*Update: It appears that Samuel David Cheney was born at Sibley Hospital in Washington, DC where second same-sex parent adoption is legal and the second parent is allowed to be on the birth-certificate. This will give some hope to Heather. Best of luck to all.
FamilyPride has a virtual baby-shower site up
May 22
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
(I’ve cross-posted this at my blog)
I saw that Stacy (who believes that a demon is responsible for the creation of the Xerox Machine) was having a bit of a hissy fit over the reaction of Falwell’s death. This occurred on May 17. I saw it that day and my first thought was, here she goes again. This woman is supposedly a family counselor. So what does Mrs. Counselor have to say today about those nasty homosexuals?
Here is the title to her little rant (and I’ve only given a part of what she had to say):
“Sodomites Rejoicing Over the Death of Dr. Falwell”
In a few days I am going to get on an airplane and fly to Israel….and I am thrilled beyond words! That’s part of the reason I haven’t been updating this site with my normal hard hitting news about the militant sodomite activists and haters of God in the blogosphere. And maybe I’ll address some of that filth when I get back if I feel up to it, or maybe I won’t. I haven’t quite decided.
What I will say right now is that the outrageous comments from the Godhaters and militant army of sodomite activists about Dr. Jerry Falwell’s death is outrageous…and inhuman. Yet, despite all this venom, which is really showing their wicked and sinful and evil hearts, Dr. Falwell loved on them and stood firm for the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But what’s even more telling about the hateful vile that is being spewed particularily [sic] by the sodomite activists and a few Godhaters like Christopher Hitchens is that they HATE Dr. Falwell more than they do the death of Saddam. Do a quick search and compare the two deaths and you’ll see exactly what I mean.
They loved the darkness rather than the light is what the Scriptures say, and folks, we have real live examples of that working its way out in our culture. I for one, rejoice with the angels that Dr. Falwell is now home with the LORD JESUS and that he is receiving all of his rewards. And while the earthly demons are rejoicing that Dr. Falwell is dead, I must remind them that the God they are mocking still LIVES and someday every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that JESUS IS LORD to the glory of God the Father.
If you are a Godhater, if I were you, I’d reconsider my options. We know where Jerry is…where are you going?
Wow. Sodomites, militant, filth, Godhaters, inhuman, venom, wicked, sinful, evil, vile, earthly demons. I’m sure Stacy, in her overactive imagination and tongue, could have thought of a few more words to describe us. I am going to blame her bad (but almost normal) mood on her upcoming trip to Israel. Who knows what choice words she will have about that nation of ‘unbelievers’…
Stacy, in her rage against the sodomite, forgot to quote some of Falwell’s own words against those that he ‘loved’–like we are to be blamed for 9/11, or his former love of segregation, and so on. Maybe when she gets back from Israel she can give us sodomites her views of ‘dr.’ Falwell and his love that he felt for us.
May 14
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
I just received an action alert from Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council (which is not about family or real research, but that is beside the point…). It is the worst piece of hypocrisy I have seen so far. Perkins is complaining about Lou Dobbs, a CNN person. I didn’t see the Lou Dobbs piece, so I can’t vouch for what Perkins has to say. Apparently Dobbs wants churches who get involved in the political process to have their tax-free status taken away. I couldn’t agree more. However, what is so disgustingly hypocritical is that Perkins has the ultimate nerve to quote Rev. Martin Luther King in his defense of the clergy getting involved in politics. What is so hypocritical about this? Perkins was involved in the buying of the KKK’s mailing list. It was Tony Perkins who signed the authorization slip. This mailing list was obtained from none other than the Grand Wizard of the KKK–David Duke. You can read all about it here.
Of course Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council, said he couldn’t remember the $82,000 that was spent on obtaining the KKK mailing list. At that point Tony Perkins was the campaign manager to Woody Jenkins, who unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate in 1996.
This is what Tony Perkins, today, had to say (the bolding is his):
Throughout American history, church leaders have spoken out on the vital moral issues of the day - whether it be slavery, civil rights, or in defense of the family and the dignity of human life. One of the enduring lessons the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught is the power a religious community can have in society. Reverend King said, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”
I can’t believe the nerve of this guy. He dares to talk about churches speaking out against slavery (and certainly not all of them did–in fact, it was a minority of clergy that spoke out against it) and civil rights, and dares even more to quote Martin Luther King–knowing full well that his boss, Woody Jenkins, had bought the mailing list of the KKK and knowing that it was his own hand that signed off the authorization slip. Maybe the next time black clergy members get up on a podium with Tony Perkins to spread their hate against gays and lesbians, they should remember who they are standing next to. And they should also remember their own history…
May 12
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
The other day on my blog I posted a letter that some guy had written about the Hate Crime legislation. As you can tell from my postings, this has become one of my favorite things to blog about because the level of lies has increased from these anti-gay activists. I am totally sick of these lies and what they do to people. Today (May 12, 2007), the San Francisco Chronicle printed my response. I’ll print the original letter and my response again (the paper added the title):
Stop all hate crime
Editor — It’s not often that I agree with President Bush. But a veto of the proposed federal hate crime law now before Congress would be the right thing to do.
The problem with the law is that it makes one victim’s life more valuable than another’s. If a gay person is murdered because the killer hates gays, the penalty would be more severe than it would be for a killer who murders someone in a robbery. That makes the gay person’s life more valuable than that of the robbery victim. That is just plain wrong.
CHARLES AMUNDSON
Walnut Creek
Here is my response:
Motive does matter
Editor — The main reason why so many people are upset about this newer version of the federal hate-crime legislation is because it will include gays and lesbians, pure and simple. Thus, there have been many lies and misunderstandings regarding the hate-crime bill. Some anti-gay groups claim it punishes thoughts, which is a total lie and all it takes is five minutes to read the proposed legislation to see that it only punishes violent actions based on hatred — not violent speech based on hatred.
Another lie is that it would make the life of a gay person more valuable than someone else.
Our system is based on motivation, which is why we have first-degree murder, second-degree murder and so on. The life of a person who is killed by someone who planned the murder is not more valuable than someone who is killed accidentally. But the penalties for these two crimes are different. The same goes for hate crimes. Crime motivated by hatred against a religion, against a race or against a sexual orientation is not based on who is more valuable. To say this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system.
KEVIN KAATZ
San Francisco
May 07
2007
Kevin| Category: Uncategorized |
(I’ve cross-listed this at my blog)
I’ve been reading quite a bit about American history and I have just hit the point which deals with the anti-slavery movement that took place before the Civil War. There are parallels galore to what black people went through then and what gays and lesbians are going through now–and from people who claim to be Christian. I am going to quote some material that is from a book by G. B. Tindall and D.E. Shi, America: A Narrative History, vol. I (New York: W.W. Norton, 1993, Brief 3rd edition), pp. 379-380, on the Defense of Slavery:
Antislavery in the upper South had its last stand in 1831-1832 when the Virginia legislature debated a plan of gradual emancipation and colonization, then rejected it by a vote of 73 to 58. Thereafter southern partisans worked out an elaborate intellectual defense of slavery, presenting it as a positive good.
The biblical argument in favor of slavery became one of the most powerful. The evangelical churches, which had widely condemned slavery at one time, gradually turned proslavery, at least in the south. Ministers of all denominations joined in the argument. Had not the patriarchs of the Old Testament held bondsmen? Had not Noah, upon awakening from a drunken stupor cursed Canaan, son of Ham, from whom the Negroes were descended? Had not Saint Paul advised servants to obey their masters and told a fugitive servant to return to his master (see Philemon in the New Testament–Kevin). And had not Jesus remained silent on the subject, at least so far as the Gospels reported his words? In 1843-1844 disputes over slavery split two great denominations along sectional lines and led to the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Presbyterians, the only other major denomination to split, did not divide until the Civil War.
Another, and more fundamental, feature of the proslavery argument developed a theory of the intrinsic inferiority of Negroes. Stereotyping the poor and powerless as inferior is an old and seemingly ineradicable human habit…Others took a more “practical” view of slavery. Not only was slavery profitable, it was a matter of social necessity….
I’m sure we can all see the parallels between what some ‘christians’ of the past said about the justification of slavery and what some ‘christians’ have to say about gays and lesbians. These groups said that slavery was found in the Bible and indeed, Paul wrote about slavery and did not condemn it. This led to many who believed that slavery was sanctioned by God Himself. Now, 180 years later we have the same kinds of people saying that the Bible condemns gays and lesbians. We have the same groups saying that gays and lesbians are inferior, in the same way that people said black people were inferior.
I think when these people take to the airwaves and do interviews, people need to start asking them hard questions–ask what their view of slavery is and compare it to what is found in their Bible. Then compare it with what they have to say about gays and lesbians. Make them think about what they are saying and doing. These people seem to think that the word of God is unchangeable, but yet the Bible condones slavery.
Besides, it is my view that religious views should not be injected into the making of new laws that restrict the freedoms of people. All of these anti-gay marriage laws are nothing but religious persecution on a minority. All of these anti-gay laws are created using the language of religious texts. This is fundamentally wrong. We are not a theocracy. I don’t understand how the courts can uphold these anti-gay laws–it is clear they are religious persecution and this goes against the most basic tenets of our Constitution.
May 04
2007
Punted| Category: 2008 Elections, Debate, Fundies |
As the 2008 election heats up, (in May 2007 no-less) the GOP had their first debate on MSNBC, hosted by Chris Matthews. And in the ONLY gay-related question fired at ONLY ONE candidate, Tommy Thompson, his answer was not-so-great.
Matthews: “If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?”
Thompson: “I think that is left to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.”
Well, as a person who would be affected by such rationale this writer is deeply offended. How is it right for a person to discriminate against people because they happen to be gay or lesbian, which of course has no bearing on how well they do their job, but not OK to discriminate against a person of color, or who prays at a Synagogue? Following that logic wouldn’t it be just as right for the individual business to discriminate against black people because he doesn’t agree that he should have to pay them or that since the Jewish people are not “saved” then they shouldn’t be hired?
But, lets’ be fair, he did say in the “spin room” that hadn’t heard the question correctly and that discrimination should not be allowed. “There should be no sexual discrimination whatsoever.”
Now I see, he just didn’t hear it right. When he answered “sincerely” that he thinks business people should make their own determination as to whether or not “they” should be. Makes so much more sense now.
UPDATE: John at AmericaBlog has Thompson continuing the fumble. (h/t Bad Fruit/ Bad Trees)
clarification to CNN this morning:
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.
ROBERTS: Right.
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.
OK, so building on the comment below, by Bloggernista, if this writer remembers what his teachers always said when taking a test. “Follow your gut and go with your first instinct.” In a playing field where hating TEH GAY is par-for-the-course it seems that he was saying what was really in his heart. When cornered on it in the “Spin Room” and again on CNN he changed his answer because he know there would be outrage. This is the reason why taking his “correction” as his answer is so hard to do.
