More Liberal Lies

I always used to like Tina Fey. Her work on SNL cracked me up, including when she lampooned Sarah Palin. After her most recent comments, however, I’m pissed.

Tina Fey won the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor last night (h/t Michelle Malkin). In her acceptance speech, she bagged on conservative women – in particular, Sarah Palin. She said that “I would be a liar and an idiot if I didn’t thank Sarah Palin for helping me get here tonight. My partial resemblance and her crazy voice are the two luckiest things that have ever happened to me…” Then, she criticized the sudden increase of conservative women politicians, saying that the surge was a positive thing for women – “unless you don’t want to pay for your own rape kit…unless you’re a lesbian who wants to get married to your partner of 20 years…[or] unless you believe in evolution.”

Really? You’re seriously going to go there? Okay…let’s go.

Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in 2000 when then-Democratic governor Tony Knowles signed a bill into law that dumped the state’s responsibility for sexual assault forensic tests – commonly called “rape kits” – on local police departments. The bill also required that the departments themselves pay for them, apparently, and not pass the cost on to insurance companies. Wasilla police chief Charlie Fannon (whom Palin had hired for the job) said shortly thereafter, “in the past, we’ve charged the cost of exams to victim’s insurance companies when possible.” This was all twisted by multiple liberal blogs into “OMG! Sarah Palin hates rape victims, she makes them pay for their own rape kits! We can’t let her get a heart attack away from the presidency!!!”

Horsefeathers. No mayor, not even in a small town like Wasilla, controls the policies of the police department up front. That’s what she hired a chief of police for. She didn’t know what Fannon was doing about the costs, and as soon as she found out about it she put a stop to it. Later, when Palin ran for governor, Fannon ran for mayor in Wasilla – and Palin endorsed his opponent. I think that speaks volumes. Yet we still have Tina Fey propagating the myth that Palin personally made the decision to charge victims for forensic tests.

The second remark she made angered me the most: she used gay marriage as a prop. I hate to burst the liberal gay bubble (and the Hollywood liberal one), but Palin is not the only politician in America who opposes gay marriage. An outrageous number of Democrats oppose it. Anyone remember DOMA? The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by then-president Bill “I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman” Clinton (that was the most outrageous part of it, because he’s never been able to keep it in his pants – he got around more than any of my gay friends). It all began in 1993, when the Hawai’ian state Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in keeping same-sex marriage on ice. Worried that the ruling would make gay marriage legal in Hawai’i and that other states would be required to recognize such unions, DOMA was introduced by Bob Barr and passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress in 1996. During the debate over the bill, Senator Robert Byrd – A DEMOCRAT – said,

”the drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal. Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the Holy Bible.”

Slick Willie had announced weeks before passage of the bill that he would sign it and supported it. The bill bars the federal government from providing benefits to same-sex partners and recognizing same-sex marriages as well as giving states the option on whether or not they will recognize such unions. A few months later, he told The Advocate, “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered.”

It’s also worth noting that a bill that would have banned employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation was defeated – by only a single vote. The only way that could have happened is if a number of Republicans supported it. All this happened just three years after Clinton’s promises to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military turned into Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. To date, not one gay liberal has been able to answer this for me, either…if liberals love gays so much, why is it that Democrat-registered black and Hispanic voters ensured the passage of Proposition 8 in California? Without those demographics, that bill never would have passed. Somehow, though, it was the damned churches that gay rights activists targeted. They would never have dared target their own party because they’re still hoping to get a few scraps from their table and are happy being lied to.

Mrs. Fey, don’t you dare condescend to me by telling me that my political loyalties are misplaced with conservatives. The fact remains, and it is one you cannot ignore, that there are plenty of Democrats in office now who are every bit as anti-gay and they’re not going to change their minds. You and your fellow Hollywood emotion junkies can bash people like me all you want and you can lie to yourselves about how wonderful the Democrats are, and you can call conservative women idiots, but the fact remains that you are supporting politicians who espouse the exact same ideals that you’re calling out in conservatives.

Not all conservatives think that way (obviously). Maybe, just maybe, those who DO would be willing to sit down and have a civil conversation if you would stop accusing them of being hatemongers, stop portraying them as crazy and idiotic, and actually come to the table for once in your privileged life. Truth is, you don’t know one goddamn thing about being a lesbian and you are not qualified in the least to talk about the issues we face.

The Difficulties of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (DADT) is taking a serious beating this week. First, federal court judge Virginia Phillips determined that DADT was Unconstitutional. Then she issued a moratorium on enforcement of the policy. Then the Obama administration challenged the ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – and the justices issued a stay of the moratorium, so I guess now DADT is enforceable again. I’ve been reading around some of the comments and there are two common running themes among those who believe that DADT should remain in effect.

First are those who have served and don’t have a religious undertone. After one commenter remarked that DADT should be stricken down, one former soldier replied, “this coming from someone who has never served nor understands the culture or code of the UCMJ.”

To those who fit that profile, I would say this: culture isn’t always right. I wonder what the culture was during WWII, when our country was still segregated and black soldiers were segregated from white soldiers as they were in civilian life. An awful lot of white folks actually believed that they were still superior to black folks – that was, at the time, the culture. What is the culture you’re talking about? Is it one that bans fraternization in the UCMJ, yet ignores it when it does happen? Is it one that forbids sexual assault in the UCMJ, yet gives little more than a slap on the wrist when a soldier is caught doing exactly that? Is it a culture that dislikes open homosexuals because you’re afraid we’re all nymphomaniacs who want to screw everything that walks?

If the latter is the case, then you’re wrong, and your opinion and attitude are based on pure ignorance. Most lesbians – myself included – aren’t interested in straight women. I have cute little crushes on a couple of celebrities, but last I checked Kate Beckinsale isn’t a US soldier and doesn’t plan to become one. Even still, if she walked into the room I wouldn’t be staring at her boobs and dreaming of motorboating. Why? She’s straight. There’s something about women who have slept with men that is more unappealing to me than the idea of shagging a relative. The fact that you straight men are always imagining women stripping down and sitting on your faces does not mean that lesbians do. I can’t speak for gay men, but those I know feel the exact same way. We are no more sexual than straight people are and we’re not out to have sex with everyone on two legs. Do us all a favor and dispell that from your culture.

The second running theme is entirely religious. One commenter wrote, “it is a taught perversion, not a born one. This is why the aggressive homosexual community is pursuing the school systems to try to indoctrinate the next generation of children. For the short term, it will work for a while, however, most know the difference of right from wrong, and it will backfire. You can see this happening now. As most people grow older, they will find the Lord and repent their sins and try to lead a sinless lifestyle. When they do, they will find peace in their lives. We have to pray for those in the homosexual community to find the Lord and repent their sinful lifestyle, and walk with Jesus. Only this way, will they truly inherit Heaven and find peace. If you love your fellow man, you will do the same.”

Okay…I am conservative politically. I am a lesbian. I am also a believing Christian. I do not find my faith at odds with my sexual orientation. If it were a choice, as you say it is, I would absolutely choose to be straight. Do you have any idea how much easier my life would be? If it were a choice, I wouldn’t have had crushes on other girls in class when I was in second grade! Do you really think it was a choice back then? I didn’t know what it was. All I knew was that if I told the girls I liked that I thought they were pretty, I’d be severely beaten (and, in fact, I was on several occasions). As an adult, I don’t sleep around. I won’t sleep with someone on the first or even the second date. I have a relative, though, who is as straight as straight can be, and she has done sick and twisted things in bed that I never wanted to know – she’s also lost count of the number of men she’s slept with. Tell me, whose “lifestyle” is really sinful?

Next up? Your Christian-ese. It is lost on most people. Non-believers, such as my roommate, don’t understand “finding the Lord”, “repentance”, and “inheriting Heaven”. You are speaking a different language to them, one that turns them completely off to our faith. The best way to help people understand Christianity is to live your life so that others want whatever is giving you peace. My gay and lesbian friends are far more interested in my faith BECAUSE I don’t say those things.

Your accusation that all gay people are infiltrating the schools to indoctrinate and recruit kids? Bullshit. Pardon my Japanese, but it’s pure bullshit. I will agree that there are gays and lesbians who are entirely inappropriate in teaching positions. The kindergarten teacher who made her class sign GLSEN pledge cards irritated me beyond belief. The high school teacher who took her class to her lesbian wedding without parental consent also irritated me. Recruitment, though? Please! If you are that paranoid about it, then take your kids out of public school. Nobody is trying to recruit any kids to choose the homosexual lifestyle. All we want is for kids who are attracted to the same sex to feel safe enough that they’re not going to have to survive what I did.

Finally, I will quote the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Read all of that one more time. Do you understand it? That means that if your entire hang-up about homosexuals like me is based entirely on your religious belief, then according to the Constitution – that document I would give my last breath to defend – you cannot pass nor enforce laws written from that perspective. You are entitled to your belief, but I am also entitled to mine. Neither you nor I are allowed to enact any law that forces other people to live according to our faith. I have always, always, ALWAYS been against hate speech laws because it would infringe on your rights to believe that my lifestyle is wrong. I have ALWAYS insisted that gay marriage should NEVER include a requirement that all churches submit to marrying gay couples. I expect you to pay the same level of respect.

I don’t want to make a political statement by serving; I just want to serve. Why is that so difficult? I will tell those of you who fit those two categories the exact same thing I tell my liberal gay friends: grow up. It’s not all about you and what you want. Challenge yourselves and you might just learn something.

Living Up to the Conservative Reputation

I often get into arguments – I’d prefer debates, but they’re almost never civil – with liberal gays and lesbians about my conservative politics. I am often told that I need to think for myself, something that gets under my skin in a big hurry. When someone says that to me, I like to quote Clarence Thomas: “It really bugs me that someone will tell me, after I spent 20 years being educated, how I’m supposed to think.” I do, in fact, think for myself. The fact that I don’t agree with you does not mean that I don’t have an open mind or that I’m only spouting what I’ve been told.

That said, the reason behind many gay and lesbian liberals believing I am a traitor is the base claim of hate from conservatives. Democrats are our friends, they tell me. They’re looking out for us. Republicans are hatemongering bigots who would have us rounded up and put in concentration camps and order us to be executed if they had their way, they say. I and others like me have long contended that this is a hysterical myth. All of us here at have gotten more hatred from fellow gays and lesbians and their straight liberal counterparts than we ever have from fellow conservatives, and that is a sad fact.

Where do they get their ideas, though? From idiots like this guy:


Before you go any further into this post, you need to watch that video. Most of what I say may not make sense otherwise.

First of all, he says “um” and “excuse me” way too much. That sort of thing is annoying and makes you sound absolutely incapable of articulating a complete thought. Second, he’s a couple of fruit loops shy of a full bowl if he really thinks anybody believes his attacks on this kid aren’t personal.

Andrew Shirvell is an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan. He is a Christian and there are some things he says that I would agree with (namely, that transgendered students do not need gender-neutral housing). However, he has taken his after-hours blog activity and turned it into something far more obsessively sinister, and whether I agree with some of his base-level arguments is entirely beside the point. Shirvell is not the norm among conservatives; he is on the far-right outer fringe of wackos who give us all a bad name. Either way, his behavior is what so many liberals point to when arguing with me when they say, “see? You’re a self-loathing closet case!”

Shirvell begins the interview by calling what he’s doing a “political campaign.” Okay…since when does a political campaign include parking outside your opponent’s home at all ungodly hours to get pictures of said opponent? Since when does a political campaign include going after someone who isn’t even involved in politics, for that matter? Shirvell’s blog is titled, “Chris Armstrong Watch” and it is about nothing but Michigan Student Assembly president Chris Armstrong – the first-ever gay president of MSA. The entire blog is about Armstrong’s activities, comments on Facebook, parties, friends and on-campus activities. Shirvell blows every single thing ever said or done completely out of proportion – if you don’t believe me, go see this cached version of the blog. You can only see the cached version because Shirvell, after AG Mike Cox read the blog himself and hinted at disciplinary action, shut it down for public viewing. You now have to be invited to read the actual blog. What you’ll see is everything posted until September 29, just a few days ago.

Anderson then brings up the point that I just did: Armstrong isn’t a political candidate or figure, he’s just a student-body council leader. Shirvell responds by saying (repeatedly) that he’s not the first person to criticize Armstrong. So what? Whether he is the first to criticize Armstrong is irrelevant. He’s the only one going to such extremes to document what Armstrong does. Make no mistake, his behavior is extreme. I don’t care if he is a U of M alumnus.

Shirvell says again that it’s a political campaign and is nothing personal. I beg to differ. When he follows this kid on campus, go to his home to take pictures, picket outside his home, and other such activities, believe me – it’s personal. I don’t like it when liberals protest outside the homes of former members of the Bush administration or bank CEO’s, I certainly won’t condone Shirvell, a grown man and a public official, doing it to a college-aged kid.

And, really – “Satan’s representative on the student council”? What is impersonal about that sort of tripe?

Then he brings up substance. What is the substance to his arguments? Who else has he targeted in this fashion? I don’t think anybody has come under his “political” scrutiny so openly. In a day and age when we have actual politicians doing actual damage to American freedom and culture, why is Shirvell targeting some kid in college who likely won’t go into politics and become the next Barney Frank? Of course, now that Armstrong has had this experience, he may change his mind and do exactly that. If one can survive a smear campaign of this magnitude then a political campaign would be a walk in the park. Do we really want this guy going that route because a conservative freaked him out? Is this the way to win hearts and minds?

The kicker for me is Cooper asking Shirvell, “do you consider yourself a bigot?” I have to wonder why Cooper would ask that question. Even members of the modern-day KKK and neo-Nazi groups would give an emphatic NO. They would tell you they are trying to have pride in their race the same way other races do. Of course Shirvell doesn’t consider himself a bigot. He likely thinks of himself as a Christian warrior girding himself for battle against “Satan’s representative on the student council”. Even to me, that sort of thing is silly. I do believe in balancing justice and mercy according to the Bible, but I do not believe in using our faith to batter another person into folding in fear. Armstrong recently obtained an order of protection against the AAG; Shirvell has taken a leave of absence from work and Cox’s staffers are hinting further at disciplinary action against him.

Mr. Shirvell, you are not in a political campaign. You are grown man stalking a college student and you’re using piss-poor excuses to rationalize your outlandish behavior. You’re a creep. Grow up or get out of public office. Idiots like you may be few and far between, but you are the reason that rational, reasonable conservatives end up being painted with the same broad, extremist brush.

Tip of the mean, black cowboi hat to my roommate, Katie, who attended U of M.

The Great American Double Standard

Back in the 1960’s, a revolt began in the United States. Christianity, which had dominated American culture up until that point, met its match in an ever-growing group of tolerance-loving hippies. They called for free love while they used mind-altering narcotics to reach a new plane of consciousness and tried to expand their horizons to understand other religions, ideals and cultures. The lovefest quickly went sour, though. Hippies unable to put the brakes on ended up in league with hate groups – extremists who didn’t just want to broaden their horizons, but wrest control from the religious types. They wanted to see the religious people suffer. Somewhere in the different phases of the movement an unspoken middle ground was discovered and by the time I hit my teenage years, the movement to undermine Christian influence in America was strengthening.

Nowadays, it’s an all-out legal war and there is no such thing as fairness.

I once watched the principal of my high school walk out to the flagpole on See You At The Pole day and tell a teacher who had joined us to either leave the group and go inside or be fired. Since then, such attacks have evolved. Now we have students being attacked by teachers at all levels of the educational system. We also have students attacking teachers. In nearly every instance, complaints revolve around so-called “hate speech” and students have seen their transcripts ruined while professors have lost their careers in the arguments.

This week, Dr. Ken Howell was fired from his position as a professor of Catholic studies at the University of Illinois. During an email exchange with a student, Howell wrote, “Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.” The student was offended but did not complain. Instead, a friend of that student complained to the department head, and Howell was fired from his teaching job as well as his position in the Catholic student center. The complaint was that Howell was engaging in hate speech.

I disagree. He was providing his personal opinion, which was based on his religious beliefs, to a student who asked for said opinion. I saw nothing hateful in what he said. Howell wasn’t calling for gays and lesbians to be stoned, hung, or imprisoned the way we are in other parts of the world. He was simply stating his view that homosexual sex goes against the natural order of things. Technically speaking, he’s right. The natural order calls for procreation, and same-sex couples cannot do that naturally. I dare any person to logically argue that he’s wrong scientifically speaking. Whether or not it is morally wrong is another issue, one I will address in another post. Either way he had every right to express his opinion. If I were his student and he said that to me, lesbian or not, I would not have taken offense for the simple fact that I disagree and would not want to be told that I’m not allowed to disagree.

That hasn’t been the only instance. In 2008, LA Community College student Jonathan Lopez was presenting his speech class assignment – a speech on any subject and/or issue of his choosing, with no boundaries – when his instructor, John Matteson, interrupted him by calling him a “facist bastard.” Matteson allowed other students to shout Lopez down and then refused to grade the speech. His subject of choice? Why CA Proposition 8 was right. I’m sorry, but I was under the impression that a speech class wasn’t about teaching politics. I always thought it was about teaching one’s students to be able to present a speech publicly that was proper, confident and had a good flow. When did politics require that a speech student understand that “prostheletizing (sic) is inappropriate in public school” in the instructor’s estimation. Matteson wrote “ask God what your grade is” on the evaluation sheet and reportedly later threatened to have Lopez expelled for complaining.

That same year, a little closer to home for me, an occupational journalism professor at Paradise Valley Community College (which is where I took my EMT courses and will soon begin paramedic studies) refused to allow Sara Sloan to graduate. The reason offered by the instructor and his panel was that, “you identify yourself as a Christian in your bio, and that certainly comes through in the bias of this article. . . . I believe it would be a turn-off to any religion editor or reader who wasn’t a born again Christian. . . . I would have found a way to make this article relevant and inspirational even to readers who aren’t hard-core Christians.” The ACLJ had to get involved to convince the school that such things were not to be considered when deciding whether to allow a student to graduate. I was unaware that the course Sloan was taking was meant to prepare her to enter into a religion-free workplace. If it had been designated a trade course that included a need to check her faith at the door, I somehow doubt Sloan would have enrolled.

Again, that year, Suffolk County Community College student Gina DeLuca was delivered a blow that her 3.9 GPA might never have recovered. An unnamed philosophy professor required – he didn’t request, he required – that all Christian students question whether or not God actually exists in order to participate in his class. DeLuca reportedly made high marks in the class until her faith became known to the professor and she was subsequently labeled “closed-minded,” “uncritical,” “hurtful,” and “blinded by belief.” Were such a requirement made of a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist student the mainstream media never would have let go of the story. Since it was a Christian being targeted, it was acceptable.

I have yet to find a single similar story of such abuses on the ACLU’s website. Christians can’t get away with that sort of thing today.

Most of the gay people reading this missive will want to ask me if any of the students I’m naming would care about my rights. Whether they care about mine is, to me, irrelevant; I care about theirs. Even if they would want to see anti-sodomy laws written into the criminal code again I doubt they would want to see me treated like an animal simply because I’m not like them. If I were to attack their rights to the point that those rights were removed, the same thing could one day happen to me, too. The fact that I may disagree with some of the things they believe shouldn’t matter. Hate speech laws and all that leads up to them are a double-edged sword. What we enact to stop our opponents today will be used against us tomorrow.

I am completely unwilling to allow any person in America be targeted for these things, regardless of how much I may disagree with them. I would even fight for the right of the new KKK to stage their demonstrations. I would fight for the rights of a gay group to have a pride parade and festival, as long as these events did not include nudity, public sex acts and/or violence. I would even fight for the right of a group of Christians to hand out literature outside a gay pride event. I don’t care how hurt you’ve been by a particular ideal; you should be adult enough to either debate in a civil manner or politely decline and walk away.

Today, however, we have gay rights groups and other liberal organizations demanding tolerance while being entirely incapable of giving it. They’re not asking for tolerance nearly as much as they’re demanding acceptance. There’s a distinct difference, one that needs to be learned before we end up shooting ourselves in both proverbial feet.

Washington’s Dividing (Gay) Issue of the Year: D.A.D.T.

For about a week now, the number-one searched term on internet search engines like YAHOO! has been: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” 

As with the previous administration, the current one is using an issue important to some members of the gay community to deflect from much larger problems most sane people would like dealt with first.

After completely failing the American people, Obama finally held a press conference today on the BP oil disaster which is closing down businesses, endangering the Gulf and all of its natural resources which human beings and wildlife rely on, and happened to kill a handful of decent hardworking Americans responsible for providing and refining energy that we need as a nation to remain productive.  In the conference, Obama accomplished what we all knew he was capable of doing: to assign total blame to BP and accept absolutely no substantial responsibility whatsoever.  

Couldn’t he have done this about 20 days ago?  Ahh, he must have been too busy playing golf, giving comedy routines to the Hollywood elite, and attending fundraisers and events for Barbara Boxer.  (Guessing by his track record of carrying candidates to victory in 2010 with endorsement, perhaps we can thank him for his contribution to at least one issue important to Americans: getting rid of pompous incumbents.)

And while he wasn’t playing golf and stumping for Boxer, he was busy having lavish state dinners with foreign leaders who attack American policies.  After inviting President Calderon from Mexico to the United States last week, we saw two Presidents disparage Jan Brewer’s noble efforts to protect Arizonans and rail in rounds of applause from a liberal Congress by trashing the majority of Americans who support it.  (Rumor has it one of those presidents were supposed to be American.)

Clearly Americans are royally pissed off at the administration and Congress which are reflected in the latest GALLUP tracking poll with the President’s approval rating at 46% and his disapproval rating at 47%.

What better way to attempt to distract from issues important to Americans like immigration and a current national crisis which goes far beyond the simple characterization of something equivalent to “Bush’s Katrina” than to stir up American disagreement on crucial matters of national security?

Clearly, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a matter of national security where its proponents have made their valid arguments and its opponents have made theirs.  Honestly, I am sorry, but I couldn’t care less about it right now.  Other than a few friends directly affected by it — one in particular who was kicked out of the military once it was discovered he was gay — it is not an issue that united Americans are focusing on.

Flashback a few years to George W. Bush.  If you recall; McCain, Kennedy, and GWB were trying to force amnesty down our throats before the 2006 midterm elections and in the heat of grassroots-American rage in its opposition to what became known as “shamnesty,” Bush directed Congress to jump on a divisive issue attached to homosexuality and they immediately began debating gay marriage.

Most strident adversity to gay issues like “gays in the military” come from people who equate homosexuality to a sickness or a social disorder of some kind.  But people change and in order to get them to change, we must exist in a society where the most important issues of the day like a national tragedy such as the oil spill or the complete and utter madness stemming from a simple Arizona law supported by the majority are discussed and resolved.

Clearly, this administration and its liberal congressional partners-in-crime are not, and have never been, interested in representing the core parts of its people who unite us.  If they had, their version of “health care reform” would have never had a chance to come up for a vote, we wouldn’t be using our hard-working tax dollars to contribute to bailing out Greece’s failed socialist policies, we wouldn’t be inviting foreign leaders who cannot control criminals within their own country to come on our soil and accuse us of all being racists, and we wouldn’t be witnessing the most embarrassing reaction to a national crisis.

Instead of blaming Bush this time, he’s blaming BP and has ripped a page out of the worst chapter of the Bush playbook: when you’re up against the ropes, turn against the voters and throw out a scapegoat issues sure to divide Americans to distract from finding solutions to our biggest current problems.

THIS is the extent of gay relevance in Washington.  It doesn’t matter which party is running the show.  But at least one of those parties don’t run around pretending to be our best friends so we foolishly walk into voting booths and pull levers to gratify their electoral hunger.

Until we can get matters on track like jobs, our economy, securing our borders, and assisting those in the southern states most affected by the BP gush, I’d prefer Washington stop using our community to divide Americans and screw with delicate matters of national security.

One Small Step for Equality

President Obama has made another controversial move today. He issued an executive order to the Department of Health and Human Services to end discrimination in hospital visitation. Here is an exerpt of what he had to say:

“Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.”

I’m conflicted on this. I’m very happy that, should something happen to me, I can make my own decision about who has the right to make decisions on my behalf and the hospital I’m in cannot override my choice. My partner will be allowed to visit me; hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid will not be allowed to limit my visitors to immediate family only. That has long been a contention with the gay community, and one I have always agreed with.

What I’m concerned about is the method through which Obama achieved this. His executive order, through checks and balances, can be overridden by either Congress or the Supreme court. It’s not easy, but it can be done. It is that very reason that Obama has refused to use the power of the executive order to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Maybe one issue is more heated than the other, but both are potential powderkegs and I don’t understand what his reasoning is for changing this universal rule without the approval of Congress, which would have been much more solid.

The power of the executive order is one that has long been controversial in and of itself. The president is capable of using this power for a myriad of things. Dwight D. Eisenhower used his executive power to forcibly desegregate schools. John F. Kennedy attempted to use his executive power to end race-based discrimination in employment and housing. Some small “holidays” or recognition days have been created by executive order. I don’t see a problem with the executive order per se, but it has been abused in the past – and in some cases, trying to do the right thing through this method has only resulted in more trouble.

Should I get into a serious vehicular collision or be shot in the head, there are certain relatives I would not want to have any right to make decisions for me. I should be allowed to choose who can be by my side. Should my partner ever be gravely injured, I would be absolutely inconsolable if her family were able to legally shut me out of her life. I cannot imagine standing outside the waiting room of an intensive care unit knowing that the one person I would give my last breath for is badly injured and I can’t get to her because her family never approved of our relationship and now they have the ability to kick me out of her life whether she likes it or not.

There are many theories about how this could end up working. Among them is that because there was no requirement in HIPAA that barred non-spouses and those not related by blood to visit in hospitals, executive order is perfectly permissable. For now, however, it’s nice to know that the hospital can’t kick our partners out in our moments of greatest vulnerability.

Let’s not forget, though, that this isn’t just about us. This is across the board for many different scenarios that have played out. Such policies about visitation rights have long been an issue for many different groups, gay and straight.

I’ll address the link to gay marriage later. Here’s a preview: I CALL BS!!!

Irony? Try Hypocrisy

(There’s been a lot going on in my corner of the world…I’ve been “seeing” a girl from my hometown who’s in med school here in Arizona, and that’s the only information I’m going to give–she doesn’t want to be identified publicly and won’t give me pictures until she’s absolutely sure I will never, ever post them on Facebook or MySpace (no matter how much I swear). As a result I haven’t been spending much time going to the library or my dad’s to use a computer. Once I fix my computer next month it won’t be so long between posts and responses. There’s also been an event that has rattled several of my friends in public safety, and I won’t give many details as I’ve promised not to give much away, but an Arizona DPS officer was killed last night while laying down stop sticks to end a chase. Pray for his family; he had a wife and four children aged 4 months – 7 years.)

Reader BurningMonk added this comment a couple of days ago to the post Burn Their Churches to the Ground:

I’m so tired of the irony of your blog.

Spend time doing something for your community, like building one, not splintering off.

Fighting back is the only way to achieve freedom. Please just check out some of the violence against gays around the world and in your hometown…Please don’t be the gay that will walk by as I get beaten up or threatened.

Read the book “Faggots” by Larry Kramer, and start to get a clue about your history.

Stop spreading Hate please, Conservative Gay…thank you

I felt this needed its own post and response. Here it is.

I am tired of the absolute hypocrisy and shill nature of the gay rights movement.

I will always, regardless of who the target is, stand up and either speak or act in defense of those targeted unfairly. If I hear a politician spewing outright lies, I will call them out. If I hear a fellow Christian disparaging all gays as being sick and twisted, I will correct them. If I were to see someone being beaten by a group of people simply for being gay, I would have absolutely no fear in taking a few hits to fight to protect them–I am well-trained and not afraid to take or offer harm if the situation calls for it, though I don’t issue threats unless I am about to actually do harm.

Note what I said there: regardless of who the target is. That means that if I hear a gay rights activist saying or doing something wrong, I’ll stand up against you, too.

Wanting equal rights does not give anybody the right to do or say anything you please. We’re not being rounded up and put in camps. Hell, we’re not even being arrested under sodomy laws anymore. The big issues now are the right to marry and protections for housing and employment (hate crimes is marked off the list, thanks to you guys–I have always been firmly against any and all hate crimes legislation). Housing and employment I can certainly understand; nobody should be discriminated against as long as they are responsible, capable members of society. Marriage (Philip will likely disagree with me on this) is something I don’t think we should mess with, and I’m perfectly fine with civil unions as long as they offer the same benefits under the law.

Either way, proposing violence against your adversary simply because you disagree with them is never excusable unless they do violence against you first. THAT is hate, folks, whether you like it or not. By doing and saying these things you are, believe it or not, persecuting them, and that is something they actually look forward to.

I know the gay community’s history quite well, as do Philip and Steve. There is just as much hypocrisy and crime in our past as there is in everyone else’s. BurningMonk, if I saw you being beaten I would fight just as hard for you as I would for any of my friends. I would be willing to do severe injury–even kill–to protect you from the violent thugs who actually do threaten us. Those punks are not being led by Christians today, however, and I will not tolerate them being branded as hatemongers any more than I would tolerate the punks doing violence.

If you want to know where the hate is, take a long hard look in the mirror. It’s a two-way street.

Innocence Lost

While I cannot publicize the names of either of my employers, I am proud that neither gives money to GLSEN.

I’ve known for some time about the practices of GLSEN and some of the teachers who are involved in the organization. It stands for Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Sounds harmless on the surface, doesn’t it? Fact is, GLSEN is anything but harmless.

Aside from the organization pushing books about same-sex relationships on kids who are too young for such subject matter (I’ve blogged about that subject before), GLSEN stood accused of some pretty outrageous stuff in 2000. High school students aged 14 – 19 were treated to seminars on how to engage in gay sex practices of all kinds–not the least of which included fisting. In one seminar, the adult doing the teaching posed a question to his early-teen audience: “spit or swallow…is it rude?”

GLSEN apologized to the public in Massachusetts for the lewd discussions being held between adults and children. However, one year later, at the NEXT annual conference, they took it even further: they handed out “fisting kits” to the kids and even included illustrated instructions on how to cut a rubber or latex glove to make a crude dental dam.

They have never backed away from their reading list, though. Just out of curiosity, I read a couple of the books on their list–Queer 13 and Passages of Pride–and I was absolutely astounded that this sort of smut is being peddled in schools. The two books I read so completely disgusted me that I actually had to shower after reading. As adults, we have control over what we read. If we want to read something racy that’s our choice; we’re old enough to understand. But we also control what the children in our society read, and allowing these books to be displayed in a public school is every bit as bad as molesting them.

Children are not able to understand these adult themes. Even 15-year-olds are too young for this sort of thing. It isn’t up to us to explain gay sex practices to kids. I didn’t have that information as a kid, and trust me, I figured it out just fine on my own.

Garbage like this makes the gay community a joke to the world around us. It makes us an enemy. When our children lose their innocence because we are incapable of foisting our urges on them, our society is doomed.

And the GLSEN founder, the very man who helped these things happen–he’s now Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar.”


I remember well when Madonna appeared onstage with Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears at the MTV Video Music Awards. At one point in the performance, Madonna turned and did a brief lip-lock with Spears. It was the kiss seen ’round the world, and everyone talked about it for months. It still gets more hits online than any other footage from the VMA’s.

I didn’t like it because neither of the women involved were lesbians and what they did was a blatant attempt at shock value. My life, who I am, is not political clout. I’m not here for someone else’s entertainment. The Madonna/Britney moment was deeply insulting to me because of the meaning behind it.

On Sunday night, Adam Lambert–the runner-up from the last season of American Idol–performed at the American Music Awards and turned in the raciest performance in the award ceremonies’ history. He didn’t just kiss a male dancer. He fondled one and ground his crotch on the face of another. Now Good Morning America has cancelled his scheduled performance, and the cancellation is making headlines. I can already hear the arguments coming from the gay-rights elite: “he was doing what’s natural to him! How dare you judge him! HOMOPHOBIA!!!”

I am thoroughly disgusted by the way homosexuality has been used as entertainment lately. I have no problem with someone being gay; I’m a lesbian myself and I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I don’t sleep around, I don’t use drugs, and I’m not an alcoholic. I also don’t go to gay pride events very often because what Adam Lambert did is normal at those things. I’ve seen worse in both Phoenix and my hometown of Houston. I saw way worse in San Diego and Los Angeles the year I went to those.

Gay pride parades and festivals used to be about showing the world that we’re here. It was originally about having no fear of what others could do to us during a time when the mere mention of gay sex was a crime. Now it’s about shocking everyone to the point that we try to numb their senses. It’s become a vindictive thing, and that’s not what pride was meant to be.

I believe with all my heart that Adam Lambert meant to do exactly that–shock the entire country. I’m not okay with that. None of us should be. What happened to simply being allowed to live normal, healthy lives with the people that we love? When did that fall by the wayside?

We’re doing more damage than we realize by behaving in this fashion. Shocking the people we disagree with is not going to get us what we want; it’s only going to push us further from it. Like it or not, there’s a large portion of our society–both Republican and Democrat–who don’t like brazen displays of sexuality. Hell, there are interracial couples who openly voted against Prop 8 in California because they believe homosexuality to be wrong. Do you think this behavior is winning their hearts?

I wish CBS’s Early Show would cancel him, too, but they won’t. They’ve already announced that he’s still going to perform. I had considered buying his album, but now I won’t give him a penny of my money. Every single gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered person should be every bit as offended by this display as we seem to be by those who point to it as a sign of sickness. Like me and my significant other, what you do at home is YOUR business.

Being indecent is not going to win the war. The next time you want to make a show solely for shock value, ask yourself this: how often have I ever seen a straight performer doing this onstage?

If you can’t remember, chances are it’s a bad idea. If your talent can’t get people’s attention on its own, that’s your problem.

Who They Are

In the past couple of weeks, a defense appropriations bill was hashed out and finally passed, sending it to President Obama’s desk. He signed it. What irks me about this?

Democrats tacked a completely unrelated piece of legislation onto the bill: an expansion of the federal hate crimes law. The expansion isn’t what you think, either.

Oh, sure, it expands the definition of a “hate crime” to include those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, as well as the disabled. It also includes those with disabilities (because we all know how prevalent hate crimes against the disabled are). An act of Congress that was originally intended to protect racial minorities after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. now includes other groups who largely have few or no genetic indicators.

The reach of this new extension is incredible. It flies in the face of Constitutional protections against double jeopardy by providing an in-road for federal courts to try people a second time for the same crime–both those who were convicted of crimes and those who were acquitted. Janet Reno supported this exact same piece of legislation back in 1998 as a way to “give people the opportunity to have a forum in which justice can be done if it is not done in the state court.”

This is expressly forbidden by the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The same Constitutional Amendment that says we cannot be required to say anything that would be self-incriminating also forbids the government from coming back and trying us a second time after we’ve been found innocent. The hate crimes legislation that Obama has now signed into law attempts an end-run around the Constitution and it’s been something the Democrats have salivated over since the Clinton Administration. It will have an unprecedented effect on criminal justice.

Here’s how it’ll work. Say two white teenagers attack and savagely beat a Hispanic man (this actually happened in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania). The victim dies two days later of his severe injuries. Police quickly arrest the teenagers on information provided by many witnesses, and the perps all start spilling it. Prosecutors go for the gusto: they charge them with everything they possibly can, including ethnic intimidation. The jury acquits, however, refusing to convict the boys of anything more than simple assault. The perps have been convicted of some charges, acquitted of others, and they’ll be punished.

Not so fast. Now, the new legislation gives the federal government the ability to step in and prosecute a second time.

Congressional powers were supposed to be limited; the States were supposed to be the authorities on prosecuting crimes unless several states were involved, in which case the federal government would have the power to prosecute a string of crimes in one case. This new legislation turns that ideal on its head. Federalism is not supported by the Constitution, but Obama and the Democrats are trying to force it on us. The Morrison decision by the US Supreme Court may have set the precedent, and this legislation may be scrapped after all–or it may not.

The original hate crimes law was protected by the Thirteenth Amendment, which gave the federal government the power to protect freed slaves. This addition, however, is absurd. What is more bothersome, however, is that Democrats have all but crucified Bush for the USA PATRIOT Act, saying that in passing the Act Bush “wiped his ass with the Constitution.” What do you call what Obama is doing?

Janet Reno said that hate crimes were especially deplorable because victims are chosen “based on who they are, not what they’ve done.” This argument is incredible. How many crimes are committed against a person based on what that victim has done? I suppose if my neighbor were to be mugged and beaten it would be because of something he did to piss someone off, right? The woman I talked to who was raped for an hour must have deserved it because of something she did, is that it? No. Hate crimes are no different from any other crime. In the event that I were badly beaten or killed by someone who did so because I was a lesbian, I would want that perp to be charged with actual crimes. I would not want him slapped with hate crimes, because that places my life in value above others, and I’m not worth more than any other law-abiding citizen in society.

The common argument I’ve gotten from some Democrats I know is that hate crimes are committed to terrorize an entire group, and that needs to be stopped. Okay…then let those acts fall under terrorism laws, if it can be proven. Hate crimes laws equal thought crimes laws. Our founders would be mortified.