Prop 8 flak compares defeating gays to Hitler

I seriously wish I could live in California right now so I could vote against Prop 8, conceived by the scum of the Earth, all in the name of hate religion.

Yesterday at a rally in Sacramento, Brad Dacus, an official Prop 8 spokesperson (in the video above) went there, reasoning that defeating gays is like defeating Hitler. He is the President of the Pacific Justice Institute, a religious-right lawyers 501c3 organization.

Here is the transcript, courtesy of Crooks & Liars:

There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church.

And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Martin Niemöller, made his way to the front and (inaudible) said, "Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany."

Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back.

And as they did Adolf Hitler said, "The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me." And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day.

Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!

What a despicable human being. Care to tell Brad just that yourself? Drop him an e-mail at: pji@pacificjustice.org, or call the organization at (916) 857-6900. Please, be courteous, but that aside, let the wonderful, warm-hearted folks at the Pacific Justice Institute just how you feel about their brand of hate.

Incidentally, there ought to be some sort of law that you cannot invoke Hitler and the Nazis during any political discussion. I'm sure there are instances where doing so is perfectly valid, but seriously, Hitler and the Nazis are quickly joining the
Titanic and We can send a man to the moon, but we can't _______ clichés.

By the way, Niemöller was the author of the famous First They Came... poem.

Palin: amendment needed on gay marriage

This is some pretty interesting (and tragic) footage of Sarah Palin answering a question about gay marriage.

In a word, disgraceful. And it's neither surprising nor remarkable that Palin openly and overtly contradicts herself in less than 60 seconds:

I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

So, let's get this straight - you claim that you're not going to be out there judging individuals, nor sitting in a seat of judgment telling [them] what they can and cannot do, yet you want to amend the Constitution?

Call me crazy, but isn't amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman telling other people what they can and cannot do?

As a country, we've come a long way with regard to gay rights, but we sure have a long way to go, too. I heard an excellent interview with Melissa Etheridge on Air America Radio last Friday, and she put it best - you can't put the genie back in the bottle with respect to gay marriage. It might take a while longer, but we will get there, and gays will get the support, respect and rights they should've been given to them by the federal government long ago, the Sarah Palins of the world be damned.

Fred Barnes has gaydar

I almost forgot to post this one - it's from Fox News Sunday last weekend. Take a quick listen as Fred Barnes asserts that John McCain ought to flog [my word] Barack Obama over the issue of gays, both in marriage and in the military.

I just don't think it will wash - this isn't 1992. Times have changed, and McCain ought to be smart enough to realize that if he tries to gay the electorate to death, it will backfire on him, BIG.

God help me, I have to agree with the insipid William Kristol from the footage above - Obama does look more presidential. I've often despised that characterization in American politics because I always thought it was an oversimplification of a candidate's credentials (I still do in many ways), but Kristol is right. The more bitter McCain looks and sounds, the better Obama looks and sounds by simply doing nothing.

It's my firm belief that McCain '08 real does = Dole of '96.

GOBAMA.

Here's why Santorum is an ex-Senator

Here's another post that almost slipped through the cracks last week that I couldn't let go without writing about. Former-U.S. Senator-turned-political-columnist Rick Santorum just can't let the gay marriage thing go. I mean, will this guy ever get it? As Attytood noted last week, it's little wonder that this guy is an ex-Senator (I've said it before, and it bears repeating - it never gets old running the picture of conceited Rick conceding on election night in 2006). Anyway, someone living in a cave can monitor the political winds better than this guy.

Last week, in his Philadelphia Inquirer column, this is what Santorum had to say about California's impending recognition of gay marriages:

Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!

Those were just a few of the terms hurled my way in 2003 when I said that the Supreme Court's Texas sodomy decision opened the door to the redefinition of marriage.

When I wasn't ducking the epithets, I was being laughed at, mocked, and given the crazy-uncle-at-the-holidays treatment by the media. Or I was being told I should resign from my leadership post by some Senate colleagues.

Five years later, do I regret sounding the alarm about marriage? No.

I'm just saddened that time has proved right those of us who worried about the future of marriage as the union of husband and wife, deeply rooted not only in our traditions, our faiths, but in the facts of human nature: as Pope Benedict said, "The cradle of life and love," connecting mothers and fathers to their children.

(Cue epithets: Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!)

The latest distressing news came last week in California. The state Supreme Court there ruled, 4-3, that same-sex couples can marry.

In doing so, four judges rejected a statute that passed in a referendum with 61 percent of the vote that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

It's merely the latest in a string of court decisions that have overturned the overwhelming will of the people.

OK, if you're not inclined to hurl epithets, you might ask: Don't we have more to worry about than some court redefining marriage? After all, gas prices are soaring, health-care costs are rising, and our nation is at war. Why should we care what a few activist judges in California say?

Let's put aside the tired argument that the people should have a say in the laws of their government. That is so 18th-century white-male drivel. Thank goodness we have unaccountable judicial elites to make decisions for us bigots.

It's hard to know where to begin, here. First, I have to confess that it never gets old reading Ricky feeling sorry for himself. All sorts of epithets should have been thrown your way back in '03, Senator homophobe. Don't get me wrong - I'm not hateful like he is. He has a family and many young kids, and by all public accounts is a family man and a good father and husband. Good for him. (Really.) But, where I part company with Santorum in a hurry is when he feels the need to push his beliefs on everyone else, and as was the case in '03, on all Pennsylvanians and the Senate, too.

Next, Ricky talks about the "overwhelming will" of the people, and how they are opposed to civil unions. Well, let's talk about those numbers for a minute. As Kos points out, there are some pretty damning statistics that support gay marriage:

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them? (Same question asked every survey throughout the years.) See the chart at right for the results.

It seems like the trend toward favoring civil unions and/or gay marriage is on the march, and has been for decades now, despite the bleak forecast of gloom and doom by Santorum. What's more, age in California is directly proportional to approval of gay marriage - the older are less in favor, while younger respondents are much, much more in favor (see below). So again, it doesn't take George Gallup to predict which way the trend will likely continue in the foreseeable future.

Santorum also decries what the new California Supreme Court ruling will do to organizations that do business with the state:

The California court just declared that those of us who see marriage as the union of husband and wife are the legal equivalent of racists. And openly racist groups and individuals can be denied government benefits because of their views, including professional licenses (attorney, physicians, psychiatrists, marriage counselors), accredited schools, and tax-exempt status for charities.

In Massachusetts, the first same-sex-marriage state, Catholic Charities, one of the state's largest adoption agencies, was forced out of business because it refused to arrange adoptions for same-sex couples. In New Jersey, a Methodist group lost part of its state real estate tax exemption because it refused to permit civil-union ceremonies on church-owned property.

People discriminating against gays, or in his words, "the legal equivalent of racists"? GOOD. Because they are. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was forced out of business because it refused to arrange adoptions for same-sex couples? Boo Hoo.

I hope I live to see the day where gays are mandated by the federal government to be treated on par with race as it relates to getting tax breaks and preferential treatment, be it taxes or any other benefit, including federal contracts.

How sweet would it be for Halliburton to lose one of its no-bid contracts because it wouldn't hire Dick Cheney's daughter? Pass me a slice of irony with pepperoni, please.

Keep pumping out that propaganda, Ricky. Before long, I'm sure the Inquirer, a once-great newspaper, will be run further into the ground by GOP hack activist Brian Tierney for hiring the likes of you.

No wonder I don't subscribe anymore. Any paper that feels Santorum is worthy of a columnist slot isn't worth my 75 cents every day.

Plus, who an forget the senator's insanely asinine comment leading up the the 2006 election about Democrats who were trying to take over the U.S. Senate and House: that their election would be a "disaster for the future of the world."

A year and a half later, I'm still thankful that Pennsylvanians saw fit to bounce his ass out of the Senate.

Ventura spanks Buchanan on gay marriage

Speaking of gay marriage, this is a pretty sweet piece of footage - former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura taking Pat Buchanan behind the woodshed during a joint appearance on MSNBC's Verdict with Dan Abrams. My favorite line in the exchange:

VENTURA: "Well, first of all, I made a statement when I was governor and stand by it today. Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we as a government to tell people who you can fall in love with? I think it's absurd that fact it's even being debated."

That's about as poignant and spot-on statement as I've heard about this issue, ever. I haven't always agreed with Ventura in the past about certain issues, but I find myself agreeing with him and more and more. I wish this guy would run for national office and really shake things up.

Better yet, I wish Ventura would really get behind creating a viable third party in our political system. He has the right combination of moxie and determination to do just that.

h/t Crooks & Liars for the video

Ellen presses McCain on gay marriage

I have to tip my hat to Ellen DeGeneres, who had John McCain on her talk show the other day to discuss some issues. She courageously stood up to McCain about an issue that's obviously important to her - gay marriage. A partial transcript:

McCain said, "I think that people should be able to enter into legal agreements and it's something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas and decisions that have to be made. I just believe in the unique status of marriage between a man and a woman and I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue."

Ellen responded, "I think that it is looked at and some people are saying the same that blacks and women did not have the right to vote. Women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870 and it just feels like there's this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You are no different than I am. Our love is the same. To me, what it feels like, I will just speak for myself, it feels like when someone says, 'You can still have a contract and you'll still have insurance and you'll get all that' — it sounds like you can sit there, but you can't sit there. That's what is sounds like to me."

Of course, this is another example of a McCain flip-flop (which is again getting zero press). Cliff Schecter has plenty more on McCain's "refinement" on gay marriage:

The problem is that McCain himself not only supported an amendment to the Arizona Constitution in 2006 that would have banned any "legal agreements" including "insurance" for domestic partners, but he cut advertisements for the measure (which failed). He also told prominent campaign supporter the late Jerry Falwell--who blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians, among others--that if state constitutional measures such as this one were struck down by the courts, he would then support a federal gay-marriage ban.

The book The Real McCain, (written by Schecter) which I'm now reading, has more on this issue, and when I'm done with the book, I'll share more of my thoughts on McCain and gay marriage.

Good for Ellen for standing up for what she believes in to a nominee for President of the United States.

Shame on McCain, for again misleading the American people about his past position(s) on this issue. Of course, he counts on the fact that so few people will actually do the legwork and discover what those past positions are, he just spews forth lie after lie after lie, while our corporate media yawns.

h/t Crooks & Liars

What cut-ups: O'Lielly & Newt blast NYT

I almost laughed myself silly when I saw this footage - Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Lielly castigating the New York Times for its report on John McCain's alleged improper relationship with a lobbyist.

My favorite part: BOR intoning that "these people [The New York Times] aren't being honest, they're not reporting the news, and we have to stop this. Make them the villain, and that will galvanize people around John McCain."

Someone, anyone who works for Fox News bitching about another media outlet "not reporting the news" is akin to Dick Cheney complaining about the federal government's awarding of no-bid contracts.

I can't neglect to mention Gingrich's claptrap, either, including "a massive tax increase" and neither Obama nor Clinton being amenable "to making English the official language" of the United States.

I seriously doubt that the average Fox viewer, much less the drones who watch BOR, will even take the time to look into exactly what the candidates said, but both have proposed rolling back the tax cuts for people who earn over $250,000. Good. If Newt wants to call that a "massive tax increase," that's fine by me. But people need to know where that increase is going, and to whom.

When I first heard Gingrich say that, I almost jumped out of my chair with an "A-ha!" moment. You see, this is the exact strategy that Bush employed when he gave the rich the ill-advised tax cut back in '01. All but the most far-right thought that those tax cuts were a bad idea - even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated at the time that the cuts would blow a massive hole in the budget.

Fast forward seven years, and of course, people like Gingrich and O'Lielly count on the fact that most people haven't paid attention. Quite naturally, it's the Democrats who are pointing out that these idiotic tax cuts can't continue (oh yea, along with two wars that are going to cost us an estimated $2 trillion), and here's Gingrich and other Repubes on TV harumphing about Democrats' "proposing a massive tax increase," when they never should have been cut in the first place.

The whole issue of English being the official language of the United States is about 787th on the list of things that should be debated in this campaign. To me, it's just a rather sad, transparent attempt by far-right, xenophobic Repubes to discriminate against immigrants.

Think I'm going too far? This is the same Republican Party that wants to have discrimination put into the Constitution by banning gay marriage.

h/t to C&L for the video

Gallup Poll numbers on same-sex marriage

Believe it or not, I'm encouraged by these poll numbers, even though a majority of Americans are still opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. Over the last 10 years, the trend is headed one way, and its toward legalizing gay marriage. I hope I live to see the day.

I attended my first gay wedding a few weekends ago, and it was so wonderful to see our friends Jimmy and Jason so in love and committed to each other. (Not surprisingly, it was one of the funnest weddings I've ever been to.) Pennsylvanians take great sport in making fun of New Jersey (and often for good reason), but Jersey's well ahead of Pa. on gay marriage, and the state also has nicer beaches than Pa. does.

Incidentally, the last question in the footage above is absurd: "Should homosexual relations between consenting adults be legal?" Anyone who thinks it should be illegal is living in the stone age. What people do in the privacy of their own homes, between consenting adults, is no one's business, period.

Dems pass Hate Crime Bill; W might veto

What a surprise...

Bush is threatening to get out his veto pen once again - this time for a bill that would expand the definition of federal hate crimes to include those against gays and gender-related offenses.

I'm not shocked, but no less angry that Bush would veto something like this. After all, he did propose amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. All in the name of religion. I'm working on a much larger piece about theology and its role in our government - I'll publish it over the weekend.

This is reason 1,001 why I vehemently distrust organized religion. Faith has always been a private thing to me - I don't like discussing it with people, for the most part, except close friends and family. I'm a Christian, and I believe in Jesus Christ, but I don't believe in pushing it on other people, but Bush and his cabal have made doing just that a matter of governmental policy.

Quite frankly, it's my belief that Jesus would view criminals who commit crimes against gays as infinitely more reprehensible than a gay person who lives a good life and respects people for their differences.

In the wake of the Matthew Shepard tragedy (which is nearly 10 years ago), I'd think we could make more progress than this. Instead, we have a president who's eager to veto legislation that would provide harsher penalties for such atrocious hate crimes.

I guess we'll have to wait for a Democratic president to get it done.

Below is a video about the Matthew Shepard Foundation, which is run by his mother. I'm getting one of these bracelets.

Lewis Black on those #@!$%#$@!! queers

WARNING: This one is not for work, or for playing around the kids.

This clip is raw, but it makes such a good point that I had to share it.

Lewis Black is one of my favorite political comedians going. He's at the top of his game right now. I found a whole bunch of his clips on YouTube tonight, and they're great, but a friend of mine posted this on MySpace today, and I wanted to share it, because it's right on about gay marriage.

I too find it offensive that Republicans think that gay marriage is some sort of threat. It's a complete joke - the "sanctity of marriage." How about "the sanctimoniousness of the marriage issue."

This clip is just a bit older, because he mentions Rick Santorum, who I'm still elated no longer is in the Senate because of his Bush-rubber-stamp, insensitive, intolerant policies and political views.

Looking back now, it's patently absurd how the press, the electorate, and yes, Democrats let Repubes frame the debate and what issues were important in '04 and '06. I hope it never happens again.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if gay marriage were on a ballot today, I wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond to cast a "Yes" vote.

I read somewhere once that "there's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

If that doesn't describe the gay rights movement, I don't know what does.