Wednesday 8/6/2008
Homophobia is official
The inanity of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was most eloquently put by Keith Olbermann during his show Tuesday. If you missed it, go to his Web site and check out the video clip from his “Bushed!” segment. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26045577
It seems the Pentagon is having trouble keeping qualified Arabic translators, so it is offering huge bonuses to entice enlistees to re-enlist, or join for the first time: up to $150,000. Yet, hundreds who wanted to stay in their translating jobs were forced out because they are gay. It could cost $45 million just in bonuses to replace these gay translators that the military ousted because they had been outed. Olbermann appropriately calls the manner in which the current situation is being addressed “moronic” given the fact that Bush and McCain have repeatedly said that the war on terrorism is the country’s number one task. Yet, as Olbermann said, the administration willingly kicks out those who want to stay and continue to work on the front line against terrorism while offering $150,000 to those who want to leave.
“This is inarguably true,” Olbermann said. “The U.S. military, the presidential administration and our nation as a whole are officially more afraid of American gays than of Middle East terrorists! That is insane!”
It seems the Pentagon is having trouble keeping qualified Arabic translators, so it is offering huge bonuses to entice enlistees to re-enlist, or join for the first time: up to $150,000. Yet, hundreds who wanted to stay in their translating jobs were forced out because they are gay. It could cost $45 million just in bonuses to replace these gay translators that the military ousted because they had been outed. Olbermann appropriately calls the manner in which the current situation is being addressed “moronic” given the fact that Bush and McCain have repeatedly said that the war on terrorism is the country’s number one task. Yet, as Olbermann said, the administration willingly kicks out those who want to stay and continue to work on the front line against terrorism while offering $150,000 to those who want to leave.
“This is inarguably true,” Olbermann said. “The U.S. military, the presidential administration and our nation as a whole are officially more afraid of American gays than of Middle East terrorists! That is insane!”
Thursday 7/31/2008
The evils of Scouting revealed!
I love it when the Religious Right gets all “Sex and the City” in its thinking. You know, like how Carrie Bradshaw was intellectually and emotionally blinded whenever she would get back together with Big. Every time I’d be yelling at her, well yelling at my TV set, “You stupid girl! Think this through!” But of course, she doesn’t think things through.
And neither does the Religious Right. Take a look at this article http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32433
In fact, the entire CNS News Web site is a hoot. But I digress.
In its “fair and balanced” way of explaining the Catholic Church’s position regarding adoptions by gays, CNS states the following: “According to Catholic teaching, children should not be adopted by homosexual couples, because it does violence to them in the sense that the same-sex environment is not conducive to the children’s full human development. A child has a right to a mother and a father, and non-natural promotion of other “family” orders is not proper.”
Oh, that is such a delightful line! “Because it does violence to them in the sense that the same-sex environment is not conducive to the children’s full human development.” So think about all the harm that must be continuing to befall children in those same-sex environments created by such organizations as the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts. And obviously, when a parents dies, leaving the child with only one parent when he or she clearly has the right to two parents – one of each sex, mind you – then the state must step in and remove that child. It’s a right, remember, to have both a mother and a father. He or she can be returned once one of the surviving parents remarries, unless of course the child can be placed in a proper two-parent, mixed-sex couple home.
Oh yes, same situation in divorces. The child must be removed immediately and held by the state until one of the parents is the first to remarry. Think of how easily this would resolve all custody issues.
And it would only make sense that the Catholic priest I once wrote about in Michigan who adopted as I recall 12 boys and who was named Michigan’s Adoptive Parent of the Year would be required to give up all his adopted boys because the environment he has them in is not only a single-parent environment, but clearly a same-sex environment.
Of course, all that would only be the case if it is determined that doctrine is more important than a child’s needs.
And neither does the Religious Right. Take a look at this article http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32433
In fact, the entire CNS News Web site is a hoot. But I digress.
In its “fair and balanced” way of explaining the Catholic Church’s position regarding adoptions by gays, CNS states the following: “According to Catholic teaching, children should not be adopted by homosexual couples, because it does violence to them in the sense that the same-sex environment is not conducive to the children’s full human development. A child has a right to a mother and a father, and non-natural promotion of other “family” orders is not proper.”
Oh, that is such a delightful line! “Because it does violence to them in the sense that the same-sex environment is not conducive to the children’s full human development.” So think about all the harm that must be continuing to befall children in those same-sex environments created by such organizations as the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts. And obviously, when a parents dies, leaving the child with only one parent when he or she clearly has the right to two parents – one of each sex, mind you – then the state must step in and remove that child. It’s a right, remember, to have both a mother and a father. He or she can be returned once one of the surviving parents remarries, unless of course the child can be placed in a proper two-parent, mixed-sex couple home.
Oh yes, same situation in divorces. The child must be removed immediately and held by the state until one of the parents is the first to remarry. Think of how easily this would resolve all custody issues.
And it would only make sense that the Catholic priest I once wrote about in Michigan who adopted as I recall 12 boys and who was named Michigan’s Adoptive Parent of the Year would be required to give up all his adopted boys because the environment he has them in is not only a single-parent environment, but clearly a same-sex environment.
Of course, all that would only be the case if it is determined that doctrine is more important than a child’s needs.
Monday 7/28/2008
Proof in the Limbaugh pudding
You know, it occurred to me that I took the lazy way out when I said that words attributed allegedly to Jim D. Adkisson, the man accused of killing two people during a short-lived shooting spree at a church, could easily have been spoken by Rush Limbaugh. So I searched for the examples, and it really didn’t take that long.
During his show Oct. 1, 2007, Limbaugh, speaking rhetorically to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid said: “If anybody in this country has been trying to demoralize the troops, it is you, sir, and your members of the Democrat Party. You have waved the white flag of defeat.” The url to the transcript is here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100107/content/01125112.guest.html
Commenting about Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho during his broadcast April 19, 2007, Limbaugh said: “If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act.” See http://mediamatters.org/items/200704190008
And more recently, check out http://www.glaad.org/media/release_detail.php?id=4466 which has a link to an audio clip from Limbaugh’s June 23 radio show when he takes a swipe at both gays and blacks in the same tirade.
During his show Oct. 1, 2007, Limbaugh, speaking rhetorically to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid said: “If anybody in this country has been trying to demoralize the troops, it is you, sir, and your members of the Democrat Party. You have waved the white flag of defeat.” The url to the transcript is here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100107/content/01125112.guest.html
Commenting about Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho during his broadcast April 19, 2007, Limbaugh said: “If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act.” See http://mediamatters.org/items/200704190008
And more recently, check out http://www.glaad.org/media/release_detail.php?id=4466 which has a link to an audio clip from Limbaugh’s June 23 radio show when he takes a swipe at both gays and blacks in the same tirade.
Monday 7/28/2008
Rush Limbaugh be proud!
Another wacko decides that he has been chosen to eliminate the nasty liberal gay-loving peaceniks and goes on a short-lived shooting spree at a Unitarian Universalist church. See the article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting
Within the article is a quote from a police document that explains, in part, why Jim D. Adkisson did what he is accused of, allegedly using Adkisson’s own words. It’s something that could have come right out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth.
Adkisson "stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of the major media outlets," Investigator Steve Still wrote.
Except for the literal part that “all liberals should be killed,” the statement is something I can easily imagine Limbaugh saying during one of his programs. And I haven’t had a drink yet, sweetie.
Within the article is a quote from a police document that explains, in part, why Jim D. Adkisson did what he is accused of, allegedly using Adkisson’s own words. It’s something that could have come right out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth.
Adkisson "stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of the major media outlets," Investigator Steve Still wrote.
Except for the literal part that “all liberals should be killed,” the statement is something I can easily imagine Limbaugh saying during one of his programs. And I haven’t had a drink yet, sweetie.
Friday 7/25/2008
Marriage? Fine, but what about my gay divorce?
Always on the alert for an argument against same-sex marriage that isn’t religiously based (because such an argument doesn’t fly in court), I’ve discovered a new one that is being floated about. Sure, we can get married in California and Massachusetts, but what happens when we go Tammy Wynette on each other and want to file for a D-I-V-O-R-C-E? That’s not so easy, as pointed out in this L.A. Times article from today: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-gaydivorce25-2008jul25,0,5931791.story
It’s that pesky Defense of Marriage Act, and people like Andrew Pugno of protectmarriage.com are using it as a reason to show why extending marriage to same-sex couples at the state level is a bad idea. Not only have we been discriminated against in forming legally married couples, we are still being discriminated against when we wish to dissolve those marriages. Trying to form contractual arrangements as couples doesn’t fully protect us and often financially penalizes us, and when we do get to legally be married, we are still being financially penalized when the marriage sours.
Pugno is fond of pointing out that because of DoMA, letting gays marry is a bad idea. But his argument is only valid when DoMA is viewed as being unchangeable. The Defense of Marriage Act is just that, an act of Congress. And Congress can undo it.
It’s that pesky Defense of Marriage Act, and people like Andrew Pugno of protectmarriage.com are using it as a reason to show why extending marriage to same-sex couples at the state level is a bad idea. Not only have we been discriminated against in forming legally married couples, we are still being discriminated against when we wish to dissolve those marriages. Trying to form contractual arrangements as couples doesn’t fully protect us and often financially penalizes us, and when we do get to legally be married, we are still being financially penalized when the marriage sours.
Pugno is fond of pointing out that because of DoMA, letting gays marry is a bad idea. But his argument is only valid when DoMA is viewed as being unchangeable. The Defense of Marriage Act is just that, an act of Congress. And Congress can undo it.
Older blog posts
0 comments