For Susan Collins, DADT repeal is outweighed by GOP amendment ‘rights’

GOP amendments have a moral equivalency to DADT repeal, according to Senator Susan Collins. Both aren’t fair. Of course, one involves the lives of tens of thousands of gay and lesbian servicemembers and one is about the usual GOP obstructionist tactics. That’s not equal. She’s choosing the procedure over the equality.




AMERICAblog Gay

—  John Wright

Mike Heath looks to his 2nd Act, Amendment

In a blog post and related email blast, longtime (but now former) Christian Civic League of Maine/Maine Family Policy Council director Mike Heath is sending out a truly bizarre piece of mixed messaging. On one hand, he feels a need to reassure us of what should go without saying: That he won’t literally shoot down an adversary. But then, in the exact same message, Mike chooses to run a picture of a 9mm, before making a bizarre allusion to the easy way that said gun fits into the human hand. Take a look:

Preachers who sit idly by granting this matter the exalted status of debate are shirking their duty. Abortion and sodomy are not matters for debate. This is war.

All Christian men are in this fight to win. There is no other option. Generations unborn hang in the balance. We will not lose this fight. We cannot.

Does this mean that I’m going to get out my 9mm Glock and go shoot an abortion doctor this week? No, all such acts of violence, carried out as they are on the basis of private authority, are reprehensible. No one has the authority to harm another, because such an act undermines the stability of society. The same is true of abortion.

It does, however, mean that I’m going to rank these matters as more important in priority than taxes and the economy. We can deal with those lesser matters when we restore honor, virtue and truth to families and relationships.

When we turn to Jesus Christ the economy will begin its recovery. We will also learn to truly love one another, and our enemies. With Jesus Christ, and submission to His heavenly Father’s ten commandments, this is possible. Without Them it will never happen.

If God calls you to join these men in the acknowledgment of my ordination from God there are some actions you can take to start me on this narrow path. Here they are:

1. Pray for Paulie and me.

2. Make a financial donation. See the bottom of this email for instructions on how to do that.

3. Help us spread the word by forwarding this email to others, and by encouraging them to invite us to speak/sing to their church or group.

Glock26Qi8

My ministry is called
Helping Hands. Hands can be helpful in so many ways. The grip of a pistol is shaped to fit the same human hand that tenderly cups the cheek of an innocent infant. Manly honor and virtue are better expressed in the heroism of a Marine than in the willingness of a lukewarm Pastor to compromise the Word of God. As Christian men we must be prepared to defend virtue and innocence. Honor and truth require it.

Never forget that the freedom to know God in this world is under attack as never before. If we surrender to the athiests [sic] our promise to be One Nation Under God (Jesus Christ) then we submit ourselves to His judgment. We should not be surprised when our nation collapses. We will have earned it.

Ordination: Called to Continue [Mike Heath]

Uhm, okay. So let’s consider this. First off: The basic fact that most voices of political disagreement never even think to mention the possibility of a gun fight. There’s no reason to refute the possibility, as the possibility is nowhere near the tip of said voice’s mind, tongue, or trigger finger. The very thought of grabbing arms is a complete non-starter for the vast majority of politicos, left, right, or center. But here we have the man who basically defined Maine’s anti-LGBT movement for the past couple of decades first mentioning the gun possibility, then only proceeding to reject it for the reason that it “undermines the stability of society” (with the fallout on the same footing as abortion rights, in his view). Is that not concerning?

Next Mike goes on to, in the strangest of turns, hunt down a glock image from Google and clumsily shoehorn it into his post. And then what does he do after that graphic display? Offer yet ANOTHER gun reference, this time juxtaposed with the gentle touch of an “innocent infant” (a.k.a. “pro-life” messaging). Huh?!? What is he trying to say here?! And why?!?

All over this here Internet, Mike’s successor at the CCL of Maine, Carroll Conley, is trying his best to distance the organization and himself from the incredibly incendiary Heath. Understandably so. Maine’s most visible “pro-family” organization clearly wants to dodge a bullet that would kill their chances at any and all sustainability.

But still, one has to wonder: Where do the far-right social conservatives see a need to step in when it comes to (rhetorical?) gun control? Because we know that if one of our like-minded political pals was so seemingly fetishizing the way a deadly weapon feels in the hand, we’d at the very least have a private conversation about how this makes us look as a movement!




Good As You

—  John Wright

Crist For Marriage Amendment?

CHARLIE CRIST X390 (GETTY) | ADVOCATE.COMFlorida governor and U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist seemed to say that he supported a federal constitutional amendment against marriage equality, then said that his statement applied only to Florida.
Advocate.com: Daily News

—  John Wright

Charlie Crist uses CNN appearance to reiterate support for fed marriage amendment

You’ve got to be kidding me. This is some old-school-ass hypocrisy, given what was revealed in the documentary Outrage. Florida Governor and U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist went on CNN’s State of the Union and said this to Ed Henry:

HENRY: Another big issue, same-sex marriage. Many conservatives like Marco Rubio support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But this week, the former Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman came out and said he’s gay and he called on conservatives to kind of move to the political center and be more tolerant on this issue. You have previously said in your gubernatorial campaign, you supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Now that you’re trying to occupy the political center, are you still in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage?

CRIST: I feel the same way, yes, because I feel that marriage is a sacred institution, if you will. But I do believe in tolerance. I’m a live and let live kind of guy, and while I feel that way about marriage, I think if partners want to have the opportunity to live together, I don’t have a problem with that.

And I think that’s where most of America is. So I think that you know, you have to speak from the heart about these issues. They are very personal. They have a significant impact on an awful lot of people and the less the government is telling people what to do, the better off we’re all going to be. But when it comes to marriage, I think it is a sacred institution. I believe it is between a man and woman, but partners living together, I don’t have a problem with.

HENRY: But governor, doesn’t it sounds like you having it both ways by saying live and let live, but I also support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. If it’s live and let live, why would you ban same-sex marriage?

CRIST: Well, everything is in a matter of degree, Ed, and when it becomes to the institution of marriage, I believe that it is between a man and a woman, it’s just how I feel.

Well, you have to admit – he’s right there with the President on how he sees marriage. Crist is just a hypocrite on so many levels. How can you “believe in tolerance. I’m a live and let live kind of guy” then say you want to amend the constitution to specifically discriminate against a group of people? Come on Charlie, it’s 2010; that answer smells like rotten eggs.

Let’s go have some fun and review this snippet from Outrage…

Or how about this? Before John McCain picked Sarah Palin as is 2008 running mate, Charlie Crist was on the short list, sort of. The big news was that Crist magically was engaged during the hot run up to McCain’s pick and even the MSM laughed at the timing. Listen to Chuck Todd on MSNBC:

Joe Sudbay has more has more, including commentary on the mainstream media’s rank hypocrisy on actually naming lying gay pols. Chuck Todd just danced around the matter like it was an inside joke. Why didn’t he actually break some news?

Surely Ken Mehlman could shed light on this matter.

Related flashback:

* The Talk of the Green Iguana: Will American voters elect the first gay vice president in November?
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright

MEHLMAN REDUX: FL Gov. Charlie “Closet Case” Crist Supports A Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

In a transparent ploy to appeal to the teabaggers backing his GOP Senate opponent Marco Rubio, Florida Gov. Charlie “Closet Case” Crist today told CNN that he supports amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

“When it comes to marriage, I think it is a sacred institution, I believe it is between a man and a woman,” Crist said, “but partners living together, you know, I don’t have a problem with it.” “It’s just how I feel,” Crist added. Anti-gay activists have repeatedly pushed Congress to consider a Federal Marriage Amendment, but it has never gathered enough support to pass. The amendment was a central issue in the 2004 presidential election.

Of course, Dubya’s mouthpiece on the Federal Marriage Amendment was Quisling Ken Mehlman. Sometime around 2016 we’ll see Closet Case Charlie come out a la Mehlman, telling us that he was secretly working from the inside to keep the anti-gay GOP at bay.

Joe. My. God.

—  John Wright

Charlie Crist supports constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Yes, Charlie Crist.

Today, on CNN, the independent candidate for Senate in Florida, Charlie Crist, maintained his support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Here’s the transcript:

HENRY: Another big issue, same-sex marriage. Many conservatives like Marco Rubio support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But this week, the former Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman came out and said he’s gay and he called on conservatives to kind of move to the political center and be more tolerant on this issue. You have previously said in your gubernatorial campaign, you supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Now that you’re trying to occupy the political center, are you still in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage?

CRIST: I feel the same way, yes, because I feel that marriage is a sacred institution, if you will. But I do believe in tolerance. I’m a live and let live kind of guy, and while I feel that way about marriage, I think if partners want to have the opportunity to live together, I don’t have a problem with that.

And I think that’s where most of America is. So I think that you know, you have to speak from the heart about these issues. They are very personal. They have a significant impact on an awful lot of people and the less the government is telling people what to do, the better off we’re all going to be. But when it comes to marriage, I think it is a sacred institution. I believe it is between a man and woman, but partners living together, I don’t have a problem with.

HENRY: But governor, doesn’t it sounds like you having it both ways by saying live and let live, but I also support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. If it’s live and let live, why would you ban same-sex marriage?

CRIST: Well, everything is in a matter of degree, Ed, and when it becomes to the institution of marriage, I believe that it is between a man and a woman, it’s just how I feel.

Where to begin?

How about here, here, here and here. And, there’s also our post on Mike Signorile’s recent post at Huffington pointing out the “outrageous hypocrisy” of corporate media when it comes to naming who is gay:

Yet, there are many “open secrets” about gay politicians, many of whom are conservative and anti-gay. But, for some reason, that’s off-limits:
But the outrageous hypocrisy here on the part of the corporate media — and one that shows how they are manipulated by the right — is the fact that, even with proof and evidence, news organizations refuse to report on the secretly gay sexual orientation of conservative, anti-gay politicians and public figures when the argument for their exposure is made from the left. When Kirby Dick’s much-discussed documentary Outrage hit theaters in 2009, and later premiered on HBO (for which the film has now been nominated for an Emmy), many media organizations wouldn’t report on the conservative Republican politicians who were claimed to be gay in the film, like Florida Governor Charlie Crist or California Congressman David Dreier, though there was a plethora of sources and witnesses in the film — far beyond just “open secret” reporting.

I think Charlie Crist should be the new poster boy for the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman.




AMERICAblog Gay

—  John Wright

Save the 14th Amendment

Gay people have a real interest in fighting the effort to strip birthright citizenship from the 14th amendment, says Immigration Equality executive director Rachel B. Tiven.
Daily News

—  John Wright

Alabama senator asserts ignorance of the purpose of the 14th Amendment

Is this really surprising? From the Seattle Times:

WASHINGTON – Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington’s immigration focus should remain on border security.

His comments came after other Republicans recently questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.

Senator Jeff Sessions

The senators include Arizona’s John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona’s Jon Kyl, the GOP whip; Alabama’s Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee; and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.

I’m not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen,” Sessions said.

More below the fold.
As I’m sure most Blenders know, the Fourteenth Amendment addresses racial inequities that were endemic to the Confederate states before and during the Civil War. At issue here is Section 1, which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Dred Scott

This is very easy to understand: all persons born in the United States are citizens, all citizens are entitled to all the rights and protections of the Constitution, and no person — citizen or not — within a jurisdiction of US law shall be denied equal protection under the law.

This text was a direct response to the 1858 Supreme Court ruling, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Dred Scott ruling held that Africans who had been imported into the United States as slaves, and their descendants, were not citizens and therefore had no right to protection under the law and no standing to sue for their rights in any court. Further, it held that slaves were chattel, and that laws designed to free slaves amounted to illegal seizure of property and therefore unconstitutional. This is what the “honored gentleman” from Alabama has publicly expressed ignorance about. Not surprising, given Sessions well documented racist past.

The repeal of birthright citizenship would open the doors for a return to racial or bloodline based citizenship. More, it creates the possibility — the likelihood? — that other restrictions on citizenship could be imposed. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” But might it be constitutional for Congress to say that only adherents of a particular religion had the rights of citizenship, as long as religion was neither imposed or restricted?

Do we really want to go there?
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright

Mitch McConnell: let’s have hearing on 14th Amendment and ‘Birthright Citizenship’

It’s Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell leading the way on this BS. That alone requires examination for a host of reasons…

So instead of coming up with reality-based solutions regarding immigration reform, let’s have hearings on all sorts of things to stir up the Base. Should we take a look at the 2nd Amendment since “modern times” surely requires a different, discriminating eye than when “bear arms” meant a musket, not a stash of AK-47s?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) officially supports a review of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants children of undocumented immigrants status as U.S. citizens, his office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Monday.

…In offering his support, McConnell becomes the highest-ranking Republican figure to call for examining the reach of the 14th amendment. On Sunday, his chief deputy, Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) told CBS’ Face the Nation that he too would back hearings into revising citizenship laws. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — a one-time proponent of comprehensive immigration reform — has explicitly called for the 14th Amendment’s repeal.

Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright

New Hampshire House defeats amendment proposal

Just got word from Pam at Pam’s House Blend that the New Hampshire House of Representatives has defeated a proposal to put on the ballot in that state a constitutional amendment limiting legal marriage to unions between one man and one woman. The proposal was defeated by a vote of 201-135.

The New Hampshire House is also expected to vote today on a bill to repeal legal same-sex marriage in that state. Legislation allowing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire was approved last year and went into effect on Jan. 1 this year.

The House Judiciary Committee has recommended not passing either measure.

—  admin