The Arizona Bill Doesn’t Say What You or the Media Thinks It Says

Not that it should be a surprise, but the media is calling Arizona's 1062 Bill "Anti-Gay", discrimination, a return back to Jim Crow and other such nonsense.  The bill isn't any such thing.  The legislation that passed does one thing and one thing only.  It expands who gets covered under religious liberty claims under the law in terms of lawsuits.

Today the law in Arizona the law only covers you if somehow the government is involved in the preceding.  This expands it so if a private business or a church gets sued they can claim they are exercising their religious free will.

Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit.

Senate bill 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity", and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

Nowhere in this legislation does it say that you can hang a sign in your storefront refusing service.  It simply allows a business owner or a church to claim that they are exercising their right to their religious beliefs and a judge can't throw that out as a non-defense.  It will be allowed to be heard by a jury and they get to decide if that defense has merit or not.

People behave as if somehow the rights of one person automatically trumps the rights of another.  They don't.  Rights are given to all people.  There is no doubt that gay marriage is a topic that is virtually impossible to bridge the deep divides.  But lets say for instance a person who is divorced by no desire of their own.  Their spouse packed up and left after deciding they didn't want to be married anymore.  Most states today have no fault divorces so it is very likely that can just file and be divorced in relatively short order.  The spouse that was left is a practicing Catholic.  Over time they rebuild their lives and meet someone new.  They decide they want to get married again.  By Catholic doctrine they cannot be married in the church.  Should they be able to sue under the grounds they are being discriminated against because they are divorced?  Shouldn't the Catholic Church be able to walk into a courtroom and say this goes against their teaching and doctrines without being labeled bigot?

I, for the life of me, can't figure out why a couple would want to force a business to work with them when they don't want to.  Especially for something as important as a wedding.  This is a day that to a Christian is a sacrosanct covenant with God.  You are not just making that vow to each other, but you are making that vow to God himself.  You can disagree with that premise all you like.  It doesn't make it less relevant or real to a person who takes that seriously.

We have already seen a business taken to court for not wanting to participate in something they view as sinful.  A lawsuit is being filed in England right now to force the Church of England to perform Gay Marriages even the law has put in protections to guard that from happening.  We all know all too clearly what happens when a person speaks up about their religious beliefs that gay marriage is sinful.  They get called a bigot.  It never occurs to the person doing that name calling that they may be the ones who are bigots.  That they are the ones forcing another to go against deeply held beliefs and trying to force them to accept their choice to get married to someone of the same-sex.  No it is just the other way around.  It is just the Christian who is the bigot.  It is never anyone else.

I am not saying that the whole "agree to disagree" is something that is simple.  But it isn't as complicated as some make it sound when it comes to a baker, a photographer, a florist, or any other vendor that someone may use to celebrate their wedding day.  It is going to be a rare case indeed that another vendor that is more than happy to work with the couple isn't available and the only option is the one that feels this strongly about it.  Why would want to give your money to someone who is being forced to work with you?  Have you ever thought about what they could put in that cake?  I say that jokingly of course, but it could happen.

A business in a free market society should be allowed to decide for themselves who they work with and who they don't.  The consumers can then make their choices and decide if they want to give their money to a business who adheres to certain practices.  I certainly would never go to restaurant that hung a sign saying they wouldn't do business with a group of people for reasons such as skin color, religious background, or heritage.  I will take my money elsewhere.  That is the power that I possess.  Nor is that even a relevant issue when it comes to this piece of legislation.

A jury will get decide.  This law doesn't guarantee they will win, only that they will be heard.  One would think that gay activists would be happy to put this into a court of law.  They have done so many, many times over the past decade to force their will onto others.  Why are they upset about this?  This piece of legislation just took a page out of their playbook.  

A Night at The Grammy's

While this is a little late to the party, I have been seeing all the talk of what went on at The Grammy Awards on Sunday night.  Satanic rituals performed onstage by a woman who was raised in a Christian conservative home, the mass wedding performed by Queen Latifa, and Jay-Z and Beyoncé performing Drunk in Love together on stage.  

 I don't really expect anything different from Katy Perry.  It has been obvious for quite some time that she has rejected the values that her parents believe in.  That is her prerogative.  What I find insulting about it is the fact that she feels the need to publicly mock it, doing so in front of the artists who were there to see if they won awards for Gospel and Christian categories.  At least one artist got up and walked out.  Ms. Perry has the right to live her life anyway she chooses to do so, but somehow I have this feeling that she really isn't a devil worshipper and that wasn't done to get her own particular point of view across.  It was done to make people who are questioning their own belief systems to feel ashamed that they may have the audacity to think that Christianity is a good thing.  A person who is firmly set in a Christian lifestyle may be insulted by the performance, but they don't question their belief.  They simply shake their heads in disbelief and dismay.  

 Queen Latifa, and ordained minister of some kind, performed a marriage ceremony for 30 or so couples.  Some of these couples were of course same-sex couples.  Now, I would say this if all the couples were heterosexual.  The Grammy Awards is no place to get married.  This wasn't about making a lifetime commitment to another, it was about proving a political point.  That gay couples love just as much as same-sex couples.  I have never said they didn't.  A wedding and/or marriage ceremony is about is two people making a commitment to each other; for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, to remain faithful and loving for the rest of your lives.  Most people do decide to celebrate that commitment in front of their families and loved ones.  Others do it more privately.  The vast majority of people don't decide to do it because they want to the world to see their political viewpoint.  That makes a mockery of the thing that gay marriage advocates say that they are trying to accomplish.  Simple equality and the right to commit themselves to a person that they love.  What is so odd about it is that some of the lyrics that were being played out that night even talked about how marriage is more than a simple piece of paper.  If you want equality than stop acting like everyone in the world must approve of your marriage.  I have news for you, not everyone approves of all kinds of marriages.  There have been marriages that have been looked down upon since the beginning of marriage and that isn't likely to end anytime soon.  You don't need to me to like what your choices are in order for them to be the right choice for you.  I am never going to approve of gay marriage and that doesn't make your feelings and your commitment any less valid in your own life.  My religious beliefs tells me that it is wrong.  The sooner the activists get that the better off we will all be.  But of course, that would hinge upon it really being about just marriage, when for many it is not.  

 Now we can move on to Jay-Z and his lovely bride Beyoncé.  She was prancing around on stage barely dressed and moving her body in a salacious manner singing a song that included the lyrics "I can't keep my fingers off it baby, I want you".  You know, I don't really need to know what goes in the bedroom of any other couple.  I really don't.  It isn't something that interests me at all.  I have read two opposing views of this performance.  One from the very left leaning Think Progress that is basically saying that conservatives should jump at the chance of having this couple be the spokesmodels for marriage, because they make it look like fun.  

This may not be the vision of marriage conservatives intended to try to promote. And it’s absolutely a more aspirational, exciting good than the idea that marriage will discipline wayward men or provide support for women who can’t manage economically on their own. But if conservatives want to sell Americans on marriage, maybe they have to talk more about the bliss half of wedded bliss, to think about the desire part of making marriage desirable. And maybe the entertainment industry that Douthat’s singled out as the enemy of marriage has something to add to the case for marital happiness. If marriage is a product that conservatives desperately want to sell, the smartest thing they could do right now is to hire Beyoncé and Jay-Z as a product spokescouple.

Now I am far from the spokesperson for every conservative nor do I pretend to be an expert on marriage.  But I can think of no conservative that thinks that sex within the realms of a marriage is bad.  After all conservatives, especially of the social variety, tend to have much larger families.  Something must be going on in order for those babies to be coming along.  The difference is that we don't like talking about it publicly nor do we think that it is appropriate viewership for our young children for a scantily dressed woman making provocative movements while using euphemisms about a surf board.  I also am unclear of the conservative message that women should get married because they can't manage on their own.  Now the data is clear, the majority of children living in poverty are products of a single family home.  When you are married before you have children the chances of those children living below the poverty line decreases and not just a little.  That doesn't mean that conservatives are saying that women should get married simply because they need a man to support them.  You have a 70% chance of lifting yourself out of poverty if you follow three very simple things, graduate high school, do not get married before the age of 21, and do not have children out-of-wedlock.  The left leaning Brookings Institute didn't like these findings, but the finding are there nonetheless.  That is a far cry from saying that you must marry in order to support yourselves as women.  There are plenty of women who can support themselves and their children financially without the help of man, but that doesn't mean that they give a strong base for that child.  Two active parents is better for children to thrive.  

 I am not going to get into passing judgement on the marriage of that supercouple.  That is something that is between them.  He knew she was performer when he married her and apparently he has no issues with the whole "sex sells" part of her job.  He is obviously fine with it so it isn't up to me to say that it is wrong in all instances.  What I don't like is that being told that is what I am supposed to aspire to.  Sorry, but no.  In my relationship there isn't a great deal of jealousy going on, Thank God.  But somehow I don't think that me shaking my ass in a barely there outfit is part of the long-term game plan for a happy and successful relationship.  It also isn't the best role model for young children either.  But that is just some prudish conservative talking.  

Quote of the Day - Kent Greenfield Edition

“You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right.”

Law Professor Kent Greenfield

Yes, we already knew that.  

DOMA Section Deamed Unconstitutional

I have made no secret of the fact that I am against gay marriage, so it may come as a surprise to some that I am happy with this ruling.  I have also made no secret of the fact that I am a huge supporter of the tenth amendment and the rights of states.

Marriage is not the issue of the federal government.  It never has been and will remain that way unless a constitutional amendment on the issue is passed.  While I would like to see that amendment, the chances of it passing at this point in time is basically nill.  Due to that, I have to support this ruling.  Marriage is a state issue and I have never been able to wrap my brain around how a legal marriage could not be recognized by the federal government.

Even Justice Alito acknowledges in his dissent that the constitution doesn't speak on the issue:

no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.

If no provision speaks to the issue and Americans fully expect our government to treat people equally under the law, what is the justification for the federal government to decide which legally married couple they give benefits to and which couples they don't?

As a limited government. constitutional conservative,  I couldn't find a justifiable reason for that particular section of DOMA being upheld.  This doesn't change my views of gay marriage.  I am against it.  But marriage is state issue, not a federal one.   This is an issue that must be fought on the state level.  If states are going to legalize gay marriage, the federal government has no right to overrule that.  Limited government means just that, limiting the power of the federal government.

The main section of DOMA has not been overturned, a state like Connecticut that has legalized gay marriage has no right to force a state like Virginia to recognize that marriage.  As it should be.

Photo of the Day - Starbucks Edition

For those that have not heard, Starbucks CEO has decided that if you believe in traditional marriage you can just sell your shares.  Not that he has said it exactly, but I guess you don't need to buy their products either.  Perfectly fine with me.  I don't need your overpriced drinks and sandwiches anyway.  

Apparently in the name of tolerance and diversity, your views aren't welcome.  

An Open Letter to @McCainBlogette

Dearest Meghan:

I read you advice to the GOP about moderating or "evolving" as you put it.  You talked about social issues being the death of the republican party:

I know there are many out there, especially in the more conservative sphere, that regard me with disdain. I don’t fit into the traditional Republican box that the wingnuts who have hijacked my party think all Republicans should. For the last four years, I’ve been calling for Republicans to stop concentrating on social issues. I am a single woman in my 20s and that fact alone gave me the perspective that I don’t want to regulate a woman’s right to choice. I am pro-life, but because life is complicated, that choice is between a woman and her idea of a higher power. I believe if Roe vs. Wade were repealed, abortion would still go on. I care more about my economy, national security, and fiscal conservatism than I do about what other woman do with their bodies. It’s not my place, and I don’t believe it’s the government’s place, to make such decisions

Yes, Meghan abortion would still go on if Roe is repealed because repealing Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it leaves it up to the states to decide.  As a person who is a republican you should be believing in states rights, as that is what is meant, in part, by limited government.  Limited government is part of the platform of the GOP.  You see I think that you agree on abortion when it comes to this, I too don't believe that abortion should be a question of religion.  I believe that abortion is an issue of personhood and the constitutional rights that a person has.  Remember that line Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?  It is a little difficult to pursue happiness if you are dead.  To me abortion is about science, not about God.  That question has never been answered in a court of law and I think it should be.  Does a human being get afforded the same rights under the law that an egg of certain birds gets?  I would like a court to answer the question why a bird egg  has more value under the law than a human being does?  They are laws in place that you will be fined and/or jailed for damaging the bird fetus, but a human being in this country isn't afforded the same rights.  I think there is something wrong with that picture.  Why don't you?  

You go on to talk about immigration issues:

  I think America needs a better immigration policy and immigrants who were brought here illegally as children shouldn’t be deported.

I too think that we need better immigration policy.  It is next to impossible for a low wage earner to come here legally from Mexico, but it will take those same low wage earners from other countries.  That makes no sense.  Those things needs to change and adapt to the work force that we have and the work force that we need.  I am first generation, so I know all too well about the advantages of immigrants coming to this country.  This country was built by them and has flourished because of them.  But I must ask you a few questions about your stance on "The Dream Act".  You say that children brought here shouldn't be deported.  But the questions that people with your view-point never seem to answer are as follows:

1. Do we give those that came as children visa's but deport the parents?  If so, do you think these children/young adults are going to come forward if they fear that it means that their parents are going to be deported?  
2. What about the ones that came here as children but are over the age restrictions that The Dream Act puts into place?  Do we deport the 32-year-old, but not the 29-year-old?  Or whatever arbitrary age that the law comes up with.  
3. Do they get to cut in line in front of the people who have been in other countries going through the proper and legal process?  (As a relative of mine is doing)
4. What do we do with the people who paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to go through the legal process?  Do they get their money back? If not, doesn't that mean we are not being "fair"?    
5. How long before they are allowed to become citizens?  
6. Will they be afforded the same rights as other immigrants and citizens of this country who can sponsor relatives to come here?  If so, doesn't that potentially quadruple the number of people we are giving amnesty to?  
7. What do we do about border security?  If we don't secure the borders and every 30 years or so we give amnesty to people who come here illegally, why bother to have any immigration laws at all?  It is essentially becomes an open border policy.  

You see Ms. McCain it really isn't as black and white as your 20 something brain is led to believe that it is.  The issue is very complicated and people like you won't answer the hard questions.  That is the reason "right winged nuts" take the stand that they do.  Do you believe that America should have no immigration policy?  If so, doesn't that fly in the face of your desire to concentrate on national security?  A de facto open border policy is a national security issue, wouldn't you agree?  There can be no moving forward on this issue until the borders are secured.  Is the federal government making any real attempt to do that?  I think by the levels of crime in your home state that the answer to that question is no.  

I would think that one of the things that you are saying is that we should compromise and get good law for all Americans.  Forgive me if I am wrong about that.  But I get this feeling that I am not.  I am not blind to the fact that governing is about compromise.  But another thing that my not in my 20's perspective has taught me is that when you are entering negotiations you need to start in a place that is further than where you end up.  

Now, when you negotiate your contracts with MSNBC to bash talk about conservatives don't you start at a higher rate?  If so, why do think it is unreasonable for the republicans to do basically the same thing?  Because what I am getting from your essay is that we should be starting with a position that isn't much different from the democrats.  How exactly do you negotiate?  I hope you have an agent that is better suited to take care of your needs.  If not, you are doing yourself a big disservice.  

Another thing that you talk about is fiscal conservatism.  One of the things that leads to all the spending we do in this country is based on social issues.  That is another thing that your 20 something brain has yet to learn.  Fiscal conservatism requires discussion on social issues.  

You have brought "gay rights".  I don't care who someone loves.  But I do care what the gay right movement is trying to accomplish; a total dismissal of the biblical view of marriage.  That is bad and it must be punished.  My view-point is bigoted.    Many say that gay marriage will have no ill effects on society.  While it is too new in this country to gauge that, it has been around in Canada for more than 10 years.  A study has been recently released:

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.
A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.
When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

They go on:

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.
Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.
Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn andMaclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’saffair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”
But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.
Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

You see Ms. McCain, the agenda as well as the outcome has much broader effects than simple "fairness".  You see people who have strong religious views; which I would hope you feel that they are entitled to, are being forced to not only accept something, but being stifled.  The right of parents to pass down those biblical values to their children are being threatened.  Tolerance requires that both sides accept opposing points of views.  What is tolerant about private citizens being sued to accept something that goes against their deeply held belief system?  I, for one, view marriage as primarily a religious institution that for some reason that the government decided to get involved with.  Mostly so they can raise revenue with fees for licenses and the like.  You say you don't want the government involved in issues between a person and their God higher power when it comes to abortion but have no problem with that same interference when it comes to marriage.  

So, I have a suggestion for you, take some of that hard-earned money that you have received bashing discussing people like me, go and buy yourself a new pair of Jimmy Choos for the occasion and march yourself to your local board of elections and change your registration.  Why wait?  

R.I.P. America - Your Rights Are Gone

I am feeling down today; really down today.  One of the reasons is this story:

Chick-fil-A has pledged to stop giving money to anti-gay groups and to back off political and social debates after an executive’s comments this summer landed the fast-food chain smack in the middle of the gay marriage debate.
The Civil Rights Agenda, which dubs itself the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group in Illinois, said Chick-fil-A agreed in meetings to stop donating to groups such as Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Such groups oppose same-sex marriage.

This was done after an Alderman in Chicago was trying to block additional permits for the franchise owner to finish construction on the restaurant he was trying to open.  A restaurant, by the way, that had already had all the permits it needed to do business.  But this Alderman decided that he would shake the company down because he didn't the like the views of the corporate owner of Chick Fil A.  

Zero proof existed that Chick Fil A discriminated in its hiring practices nor did they refuse to serve someone based on their sexual orientation.  What they did do is give money to organizations that promoted traditional marriage.  Something that in our Constitutional Republic should be allowed.  If you don't like their beliefs, don't eat there.  That is your right as an American as well.  Instead an elected official has decided that he has the right to interfere with a person's personal belief and shake them down in order to get his way.  To squelch free speech and free assembly.  He has pissed all over the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.  

It is of no consequence if you agree with Chick Fil A or not.  You can be for gay marriage and realize how wrong this is. They have taken away their rights, what is stopping them from coming for yours?  America, the land of free, as long as Alderman Moreno says so.  

We are no longer free.  

Excuse me while I go to lie down and cry.  

Liberal Logic - Mayor Emanuel Edition

Rahm Emanuel, Chicago's mayor, has put his liberal logic on full display for all the world to see.  You see, the mayor decided to weigh in on the Chik Fil A non-controversy by announcing Chik Fil A doesn't share "Chicago Values".  Really?  It wasn't all that long ago that the mayor admitted that some in his city have the wrong values.  


Now this same man has decided that the city needs the help of The Nation of Islam to patrol the streets to help cut down on the unending violence in the city now being dubbed "MurderTown".  


So this idiot liberal would like to keep Chik Fil A from expanding in the City of Chicago, which of course violates our laws, because they believe in traditional marriage.  This belief, held by millions around the country, is simply that marriage is between one woman and one man.  It in no way wants to see discrimination against homosexuals.  Gay people can do what ever they want to do with that one exception.  That is it.  We don't call for violence against people, we don't call for the death of anyone.  We are simply stating that the institution of marriage is something that is held sacred and by redefining marriage we are being asked to accept beliefs that violate our religious views and conscience.  


Islam, however, is a very different story:

The Sunan Abu Dawud, named after its editor, is another reliable collection of hadith. Ibn Abbas reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . . "If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (vol. 3, p. 145, no. 4447).

 The next one from the same collection says that an unmarried man who commits sodomy should be stoned to death: "Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death" (vol. 3, p. 1245, no. 4448).

Thus, these two passages in Sunan Abu Dawud go further than merely rejecting and banishing homosexuals or sexual sinners, as we saw in Bukhari’s collection. Rather, Ibn Abbas says that Muhammad and the early Muslim community commanded their execution.

 The hadith editor Timidhi repeats Ibn Abbas’ narration: "Ikrima reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas that God’s messenger [Muhammad] said: ‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’" (Recorded in Mishkat al-Masabih, trans. James Robson, vol. 2, p. 763, Prescribed Punishments).

In the same hadith collection, the Mishkhat al-Masabih, a compendium that brings together other hadith collections, are found the punishments of being burned to death and having heavy objects thrown on the guilty homosexuals:

The Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan also have such a good record when it comes to your faith, Mr. Mayor:

"[T]he Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't a great man for me as a black person, but he was a great German. Now, I'm not proud of Hitler's evils against Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He raised Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there's a similarity in that we are raising our people up from nothing."
— Louis Farrakhan, radio interview, March 11, 1984

"Jews have been conclusively linked to the greatest criminal endeavor ever undertaken against an entire race of people … the black African Holocaust. … The effects of this unspeakable tragedy are still being felt among the peoples of the world at this very hour."

— The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (NOI book), 1991

"Who are the slumlords in the Black community? The so-called Jews. … Who is it sucking our blood in the Black community? A white imposter Arab and a white imposter Jew."

 — Speech by NOI national official Khalid Muhammad, Nov. 29, 1993

"These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It's the wicked Jews, the false Jews, that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's the wicked Jews, false Jews, that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"

 — Louis Farrakhan, Saviours' Day speech, Feb. 26, 2006


So these are Chicago Values.  Good to know. With values like these, it is no wonder the murder rate is so high.  

Fundraising on Gays for $500 Alex

This didn't take long.  Not that I thought that it would.  But I was asked by a commenter not too long ago how I felt that my religious views were being used like a tool by the GOP.

I wonder how gay people feel like when their private sexuality is being used as one?

No one in their right mind believes that President Obama ever was against gay marriage.  This is nothing but pandering to a group of people who were upset that he wasn't delivering on his campaign promises and were withholding those precious checks.  This is blackmail (from both sides of this equation in fact) plain and simple.

It is also cheap political theater.  He is trying to use this issue to distract conservatives and get SoCons worked up into a tizzy over an issue that the President has virtually no power to do anything about.  Marriage is a state issue.  Even the likes of President Obama seems to recognize that.

I also it think it is noteworthy that he even decided to bring his daughters into this.  What happened to family being off-limits?  You either keep your children out of the campaign, or they become fair game.  You don't get to have it both ways.

Do not be fooled by this folks.  This is a way to try and distract people off his failure of an administration, the poor economy, and all the factors that are working against him as he runs for re-election.  Don't fall for it.  Stay on message.

Friend –

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack

Do You Talk to Your 8-Year-Old about Your Sex Life?

I didn't think so.  I don't have one, but I can guarantee you if I did I wouldn't be talking about it with them.  Michele Bachmann is currently promoting her new book Core of Conviction - My Story.  During a book signing a young boy leaned over to her and said:

"My mommy's gay, but she doesn't need fixing."

I realize that gay is something that young children through around when they have nothing better to say when they are trying to hurt someone else's feelings.  But, the reality is an 8 year old doesn't really understand what that means.  Children are curious and ask questions.  But a child that age will usually be fine with a simple explanation, some families have two mommy's or two daddy's whatever the case may be, and they don't require any further information. 


This is how this is being characterized in the media:

The candidate, who is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, met her match with the soft-spoken, pint-sized activist

 Pint-sized activist?  You really expect me to believe that an 8 year old went up and said to his mom, hey mom, I heard that Michele Bachmann is in town for a book signing.  Could you please drive me over there so I can tell her that there is nothing wrong with you, even though you are gay?  


This is a woman who decided to use her own child to score cheap political points against a woman who believes that gay marriage is wrong.  The same gay marriage that has been voted down every time it has been put on a ballot, including in very progressive leaning California.  


Oh, and they just happened to have someone video tape it for them too.  





I could care less that this women is gay.  What I do care about is the fact that she is willing to exploit her own child for her own self interests.  Shocker, she is part of the occupy movement.  Remind me to add her name to the Mother of the Year award.

Liberal Logic - Rosie O'Donnell Edition

Rosie O'Donnell admits that her marriage to longtime girlfriend Kelli Carpenter was nothing more than a publicity stunt done in "anger".  Rosie seems to remember an all channel news conference by President Bush that never happened.  He did make a statement that day, but it was not covered by every channel.  In that statement he talked about his long held belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, and talked about the Defense of Marriage Act (that was signed by President Clinton). 

President Bush's view on marriage is very well known.  What is probably less known is that it is the same position that  President Obama has publicly stated.  Marriage is to remain between one man and one woman, and that legal unions can be made to protect the same sex partners and give them the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. 

But Rosie hears something totally different.  Her version of the statement is:

George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married.

I wonder if anyone will watch her on her recently announced return to television?  The woman runs out to San Francisco to get married simply to piss off President Bush.  I am sure the Bush missed a few nights of sleep over it.  Why would anyone take seriously someone who looks at something as solemn as marriage as some sort of act of vengeance?  Then she makes matters worse by admitting it, they have children.  Why would she want her children to hear this? 

H/T to The Other McCain and Newsbusters

Miss USA and Politics

I am sure by now you have heard about the Miss USA Pageant last week. Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked a question about Gay Marriage. The question came from openly gay Perez Hilton. Ms. Prejean answered the question by standing up for her Christian beliefs.
Perez Hilton does not have a record of tolerance. This is a man who "outs" other gay people, whether they want to be open about it or not. So it should come as no surprise that he has no tolerance for her beliefs.
What is really disturbing about it is his reaction to it on his blog. Calling her every name in the book. Isn't that uncalled for? It seems to me the only thing that she is guilty of is being honest about her value system.
No matter where you fall on this particular issue you should be at least be able to understand that others are not going to agree with you. Miss California goes to a Christian college. It makes one wonder if that background information was part of the decision making process that went into asking that question. Other people involved in the pageant lambasted Carrie's answer as well. Saying these types of politics don't belong in the Miss USA pageant. Well, then why was that question allowed to be asked? It was a yes or no question; you have 50% chance that the answer would be no.
I think that if you look at the evidence from this particular incident, you will clearly see that the hate is coming from Perez Hilton; not Miss California. I think that this is just one more glaring example of the intolerance towards people of the Christian faith in this county that is becoming more prevalent every day.