Archive for the ‘The Homosexual Agenda’ category

“That’s When The Whores Come In”

July 10, 2007

My Senator, David Vitter, just a few years ago:

Louisiana Senator David Vitter, speaking at a Lafayette Parish Republican Executive Committee luncheon, referred to hurricanes Katrina and Rita coming through the same areas as a same-sex marriage.

In his statements at the luncheon, Vitter referred to the impact of both hurricanes on the Lafayette area. “Unfortunately, it’s the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita,” said Vitter. “I always knew I was against same-sex unions.”

And again, this time speaking in the U.S. Senate about the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment:

“I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,”

Those statements, like similar ones made by other idiots, are patently ridiculous. But they are even more astoundingly moronic in light of today’s news:

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, whose telephone number was disclosed by the so-called “D.C. Madam” accused of running a prostitution ring, says he is sorry for a “serious sin” and that he has already made peace with his wife.

“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said Monday in a printed statement. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”

Remember now, gay folks who want to marry are assaulting marriage and destroying America; conservative Christian right wing Republican straight white American males who go out whoring it up while wifey is oblivious at home, well, they’re just defending traditional values. Oh, and gay love is such a matter of public concern that we need a constitution amendment to prevent it’s public recognition. When married elected officials use their tax payer paid salary on whores, well, that’s a matter solely between the sinner and God.

“I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.”

O.k., now that I’m done puking, let me make a few points.

One, this would be a really dumb reason for anyone to vote against Vitter in the next election. Sorry, but my only concern is how well he represents Louisiana. What he does in his own time matters only in so far as it affects his representation. I don’t see how picking up a whore is relevant.

While the general principle in point one remains true, it doesn’t apply to Vitter. Why not? Here’s why not:

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) first got his start in Congress after replacing former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA), who “abruptly resigned after disclosures of numerous affairs” in 1998. At the time, Vitter argued that an extramarital affair was grounds for resignation:

“I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess,” he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]

Two, even for people who would take this into account, when it comes time to vote, I don’t think it will matter. I mean, it’s not like it was a male crack whore, or a teenage kid. Heck, Vitter can’t even hold a candle to his fellow Louisianans when it comes to scandals. The standard has been set too low; compared to the Haggards, Foleys and Jeffersons of the world, Vitter is an angel.

Third, I can respect an honest fundamentalist, for folks like Vitter, though, I have nothing but disdain. He’s out cheating on his wife with a f**king whore while at the same time telling committed and loving gay couples across this country that their love is more dangerous than a Category five hurricane? That’s some serious chutzpah. And the guy is Harvard educated; he can’t be so stupid that he actually failed to see the hypocrisy. He just didn’t care. Honesty? Integrity? Wisdom? Hell, basic human decency? He traded ’em all for a chance to pander to ignorant a**holes.

Wait, who’s the whore, again?

Now he says the issue is between him and God. Well, I hope God introduces him to a few of the committed gay couples he feared, so that they can explain to him what marriage is really about.

Advertisements

“God Hates Jerry Falwell”

May 16, 2007

Really:

Nothing I can add to that. But here’s a list of his life’s work if you’re wondering what led to Falwell’s condemnation.

Oh, and if you want a different perspective, here’s Tinky Winky’s Falwell eulogy.

UPDATE: Jesus’ General links here with “The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways.” And so to does the blogosphere. Act in mysterious ways, that is, as this post – one absent any commentary or insight (and needing none; the insanity speaking for itself) – had already become my all time most visited, even without all the guests referred by the General.

Afternoon Updates

May 15, 2007

First, the Decatur Daily reports today:

Three former Alabama Supreme Court justices are asking the country’s highest court to hear the case of Alabama death row inmates who say they don’t have adequate legal representation, but the state is arguing the inmates’ claim is “a work of fiction.”

I explained here that Alabama does an extremely bad job of providing attorneys to convicts on death row. Basically, if those folks want an appointed attorney, they have to first convince a judge that they have a valid claim. Stating a valid claim, though, requires extensive investigation, legal research and writing; in other words, stating a valid claim requires a lawyer. So, as the Tuscaloosa News put it today:

Inmates who are condemned to die have to convince a judge that they need legal representation to protect their rights and to prove that they have a substantial claim for an appeal.

But a suit filed by six death row inmates says they can’t make those cases effectively without an attorney. There’s a circular quality to their argument. They need a lawyer to convince a judge that they need a lawyer.

So the state is just wrong when it says that Alabama provides indigent capital defendants lawyers for post-conviction proceedings. That said, the state is going to win the lawsuit. No way is Scotus going to force the state to set up some kind of indigent program for post-conviction proceedings.

Second, the B’ham City counsel – only a few weeks after several members proudly declared their ignorance and homophobia – has just voted to adopt a new version of a resolution condemning, among other things, homophobia. An official declaration that gays are something other than the cause of the end of the world? Jerry Falwell must be spinning in his grave. Or wherever he is.

Third, once a terrorist, always a terrorist:

Victims of Eric Rudolph, the anti-abortion extremist who pulled off a series of bombings across the South, say he is taunting them from deep within the nation’s most secure federal prison, and authorities say there is little they can do to stop him.

Apparently, he’s writing nasty stories and sending them to fans who publish them on the web. He’s been doing so for quite a while; here’s my post on a similar report from a few months ago. Whether or not the prison authorities can prohibit the letters, like I said in the earlier post, the letters certainly justify Rudolph’s continued stay in a SuperMax prison.

Finally, a case I mentioned here is about to climax:

The owner of an adult store in Decatur launched her final appeal Monday against a state ban on selling sex toys, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the law as an unconstitutional intrusion into the bedroom.

Free Speech? Fine By Me.

April 20, 2007

Wednesday, I said that I agreed with Roy Moore that a public school in California acted unconstitutionally when it banned a student from wearing a shirt that said “Homosexuality is shameful.”

Today, via Bessemer Opinions, I read this story about Elizabeth Esser-Stuart, a student at the Alabama School of Fine Arts here in B’ham, and to whom the ACLU just awarded a $4,000 college scholarship in recognition of her work to protect civil liberties:

Elizabeth and 14 other students wore T-shirts to school that said, “Gay? Fine by me.” The shirts had come from a diversity program started by students at Duke University.

Deciding that the shirts might be offensive, the principal began pulling the students aside and telling them they could no longer wear the shirts. Elizabeth, only a sophomore at the time, did copious legal research on the students’ constitutional right to free expression. She met with the principal several times, urging him to lift the ban. She spent her days, nights, and early mornings working in support of the issue, despite confronting apathy from friends and peers.

In December 2004, Elizabeth contacted the ACLU of Alabama which, with the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, notified the principal that the censorship was unconstitutional. The principal lifted the ban.

Three points.

One, good for her. This country needs more people like that.

Two, consider how her actions undercut any argument that schools somehow need to protect the young minds of students from pernicious and offensive ideas. As Ms. Esser-Stuart demonstrated, students are perfectly capable of rationally judging ideas. In fact, she showed a whole lot more wisdom than did the ostensible protector: The school principal. 

Three, there is absolutely no fair way to distinguish an anti-gay shirt from a pro-gay shirt. Every argument in favor of banning one also supports banning the other. I think the much better practice – constitutional requirements notwithstanding – is complete freedom of speech. Let ideas succeed or fail on their own merits, not based on what some state official thinks is offensive.

Even When Roy Moore Is Right, He’s Wrong

April 18, 2007

Here’s his latest column.

First, he is dead right that the recent Ninth Circuit case Harper v. Poway Unified School District is a really, really, really bad decision.

Basically, the court held that a local school was allowed to prohibit a student from wearing a t-shirt because the message on the shirt might have caused other students “to question their self-worth and their rightful place in society.”

What was the message, you ask? It should not matter, like I said here, schools ought have no power whatsoever to regulate the content of student speech absent some concrete disruption. But if you must know, it was this:

Appellant in this action is a sophomore at Poway High School who was ordered not to wear a T-shirt to school that read, “BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED” handwritten on the front, and “HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL” handwritten on the back.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that my views on homosexuality are about as far from Roy Moore’s as can be. But I agree with him that in this case the school acted unconstitutionally. The possibility of psychological harm does not justify eliminating free speech.

So how is he wrong? Two ways.

First, according to his disciples, he’s wrong to suggest that the school acted unconstitutionally. Here’s Roy’s take (emphasis added):

Obviously, the liberal judges on the court cared little for traditional rights of free speech

And here’s a statement by his underlings on the Roy Moore Blog. Speaking about the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case (in which a principal disciplined a student for waiving a banner with those words on it) the mini-Moores say (emphasis added):

If one follows the original interpretation of the Free Speech Clause, there is no need to side with Frederick in this case.  The clause states, in pertinent part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”  Take the analysis a step at a time.  In the first place, the government actor involved here is not “Congress,” but rather a local school administrator.  Thus, from a traditional standpoint, the First Amendment has no application in this case. 

So which is it guys? Does the first amendment apply to schools, or not? Or does it apply when kids want to condemn gay students, but not when kids want to question drug policies?

Second, he is wrong about the Ninth Circuit. Moore uses the Harper case for a broader argument:

The United States Supreme Court properly vacated their opinion, which is nothing new for the high court, as it has reversed all eight of the other 9th Circuit cases that have come before it this term, an appalling reversal record for any circuit court of appeals. Since 1978, no other circuit court of appeals has had more decisions overturned. In the 1995-96 term of the Supreme Court, 27 of 28 cases from the 9th Circuit were reversed, and in the 2003-04 term, 19 of 25 cases were reversed, most by unanimous decision of all nine justices of the Supreme Court. . . .

The solution to the problem is simple. Rather than burden our high court with wrong decisions by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Congress has the authority to abolish that court altogether and create a new court in its place or divide the circuit into two smaller circuits, thus reducing the reach of its radical decisions. In the alternative, Congress can impeach a few judges for their irresponsibility, holding them accountable for their wayward rulings. Our respect for law and reverence for the Constitution demand that we no longer tolerate the behavior of the judges of the 9th Circuit!

For starters, I can’t be the only person scratching my head trying to figure why Roy Moore – Scotus basher extrodinaire – now thinks an appellate court’s worth depends on how often that court pleases Scotus.

More to the point, if the problem is burdening the high court with wrong decisions, then congress is going to have to get rid of much more than just the Ninth Circuit. 

It is probably accurate that the Ninth is reversed more than any other court. But that is because it covers a much bigger area than any other court. Hence, more cases to appeal. So the real question is how the reversal percentage of Ninth cases taken by Scotus compares to other jurisdictions.  

Roy is correct that in 03-04, Scotus reversed 19 of twenty five Ninth cases, or 76%. What he does not tell his readers is that the average for all the circuit courts in that same year was . . . 77%.

Roy is also correct that the Ninth had a few bad years in the mid-nineties. But consider the long view.

Over the last fifty years, Scotus reversed 57% of Ninth Circuit cases. For comparison’s sake, the Eight’s rate is 55%; the Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth are at 56%; D.C is 62% and none are below 46%. That’s just federal cases. 25 states have a higher reversal rate, among them Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In fact, the state average is the same as the Ninth Circuit’s: 57%.

Things don’t change much when the period of comparison is the last 12 years. The Ninth, at 61%, comes in behind the Second, at 62%, while 16 states have higher reversal rates.

In short, with the exception of a few crazy years in the mid-nineties, the Ninth gets reversed at a perfectly normal rate. There may be reasons to split the Ninth, but the reversal rate is not one of them.

Disney World More Dangerous Than Iraq

April 6, 2007

In the world of Spencer “allowing gay marriage would be worse than losing Iraq” Bachus, anyway:

Same-sex couples who want to exchange vows in front of Cinderella’s Castle now have the chance.

The Walt Disney Co. had limited its Fairy Tale Wedding program to couples with valid marriage licenses, but it is now making ceremonies at its parks available to gay couples as well.

“We believe this change is consistent with Disney’s long-standing policy of welcoming every guest in an inclusive environment,” Disney Parks and Resorts spokesman Donn Walker said Friday. “We want everyone who comes to celebrate a special occasion at Disney to feel welcome and respected.”

What dastardly villains! Making people feel loved and respected! That’s outrageous.

Oh, and I guess that Southern Baptist boycott really got Disney’s attention, huh?

Spencer Bachus Is A Complete Moron

April 4, 2007

My congressional representative, speaking yesterday in Shelby County

Bachus also condemned homosexual marriage as the worst threat to the nation. “We could lose Iraq and survive; we lost Vietnam and survived, but if we lose this battle over gay marriage, we are doomed,” he said.

Hey Spency, how about you get your head out of your a** and join the real world? My God, if we’re doomed, it’s because our country is run by people who believe this kind of ridiculously stupid crap. That statement is patently idiotic, and the lunacy is only highlighted when considered in light of what people who have actually studied the issue have to say:

Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or “man-on-dog” unions.

Geez. After the last election, there was a lot of questioning about how the Republican party managed to lose their majorities in congress. I can not speak for anyone else, but the big reason I did not vote Republican, and do not see myself voting Republican any time in the near future, is absurd statements like this beauty from Bachus.

Iraq? Whatever. Never should have gone over there, but now that we’ve screwed up the country, maybe we ought to remain long enough to put it back together. But I really don’t have strong ideas one way or the other.

No, it’s what Digby recently called the “Faith Based Straight Jacket” that really bothers me. These are the canonical conservative ideas; ideas that are true no matter what the facts, reason, or the law might say. Here’s how they made me vote in the last election. In this case, Bachus attacks the gays. But whether it’s a belief that gay people are going to destroy American, or that there is no such thing as global warming (not that it is too expensive to fix it, or that we can’t fix it, but that it does not exist), or that there were WMD’s in Iraq, or that activist judges are trying to make America a communist Gomorah, or that intelligent design is science, I could never vote for a person who is willing to assert as an undeniable truth of the highest importance a proposition that has no support in either abstract logic or empirical observations. 

In other words, if you as an individual think gay marriage is going to cause the country to collapse, that’s fine. But don’t try to make your personal belief the basis of public policy unless you can point to some reason OUTSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD that supports your position.

Bachus’ statement is nothing but demagoguery; an appeal made purely to the basest kinds of emotions. And if the Republican party ever wants to succeed again, they’d do well to replace their emotional appeals to ignorance with solid reasoning about legitimate problems.