“Head Figure Head” more about journalism than about Gov. Rick Perry’s sex life

Head Figure Head, the new e-book from Glen Maxey, details the author’s arduous and frustrating six-month effort to investigate rumors of Gov. Rick Perry’s gay sex life. Maxey served as executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas (now Equality Texas) during Perry’s tenure as a state representative, later serving for 12 years as a state representative, spanning Perry’s time as agricultural commissioner, lieutenant governor and governor. Of all the people who’ve attempted to look into the rumors of Perry’s trysts with men, Maxey is perhaps best positioned to get to the truth, and takes great pains to ensure we are aware of that fact.

The book is the narrative of Maxey’s research, assisted by a journalist from a national media outlet. Like almost every character in the book other than Maxey and Perry himself, “the Journalist” is referred to only as a pseudonym. Maxey and the Journalist begin their search for proof in June 2011 as rumors of Perry’s impending presidential bid are widely circulating. Immediately the pair find that almost every gay man in Austin has a friend who has a friend who claims to have slept with Perry. For the next three months they track those leads and come excruciatingly close to breaking the story.

—  admin

Family Research Council has yet to come out with ‘detailed response’ against SPLC charges

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Last night, I asked a very pertinent question on my blog about the Family Research Council.

In December after the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the organization as an anti-gay hate group, Peter Sprigg – one of FRC's spokesman – said that they will be coming out with a more “detailed” response refuting these charges.

It's been almost two months and no detailed response has come out. So I asked when was this report coming out. What's more, I presented my question directly to FRC's webpage.

I wasn't expecting an answer so imagine my surprise when I got one, albeit a standard one:

Dear Mr. Alvin McEwen:

Thank you for your interest in the Family Research Council. As you may be aware, FRC champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. We work to shape public debate and formulate public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

We appreciate the time you have taken to contact FRC, and the opportunity to address your concerns. A member of FRC's correspondence team will respond to your comments shortly. Once again, thank you for your interest in FRC's work.

Your confirmation number for this activity is 3926862. If any information in this email confirmation is in error, or if you have further questions, please contact us by telephoning 1-800-22 5-4008 Mondays through Fridays between 8:30 AM and 5:30 PM EST. From all of us at FRC, thank you and God bless.

Sincerely,

Family Research Council

Between you and me, I have a feeling that I'm going to be waiting so long for FRC's answer that “my credit will get good again.”

But still, it's nice to put their feet to some type of fire.

If you feel the need to, please do the same – respectfully – by going here. Ask them why is it taking so long for them to “refute” SPLC's charges.
 
Related posts:

Family Research Council defends itself with distorted studies . . . again

Family Research Council plans to go on tour against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Family Research Council's 'we are not a hate group' campaign gets destroyed on two fronts

Family Research Council's anti-SPLC campaign places bullseye on the backs of Republican leaders

Family Research Council digging itself deeper in the hole in war against hate group label

The Family Research Council tries to declare war on the Southern Poverty Law Center

Peter LaBarbera's ramblings exposes the Family Research Council's deception

Mike Huckabee tries to defend the Family Research Council from hate group designation and fails miserably

The Family Research Council should be apologizing to the gay community

Family Research Council, American Family Association named as anti-gay hate groups

 

Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  David Taffet

‘Unimagined rights’, detailed by advocates of gay-less fantasy world

This is what the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous Varnum opinion actually says about “unimagined” rights:

In fulfilling this mandate under the Iowa Constitution, we look to the past and to precedent. We look backwards, not because citizens’ rights are constrained to those previously recognized, but because historical constitutional principles provide the framework to define our future as we confront the challenges of today.

Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578–79, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2484, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508, 526 (2003) (acknowledging intent of framers of Federal Constitution that Constitution endure and be interpreted by future generations); Callender v. Skiles, 591 N.W.2d 182, 190 (Iowa 1999) (“Our constitution is not merely tied to tradition, but recognizes the changing nature of society.”).

When individuals invoke the Iowa Constitution’s guarantees of freedom and equality, courts are bound to interpret those guarantees. In carrying out this fundamental and vital role, “we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.” M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407, 4 L. Ed. 579, 602 (1819). It speaks with principle, as we, in turn, must also. See State v. Wheeler, 34 P.3d 799, 807 (Wash. 2001) (Sanders, J., dissenting).

Finally, it should be recognized that the constitution belongs to the people, not the government or even the judicial branch of government. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 2 (“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.”). While the constitution is the supreme law and cannot be altered by the enactment of an ordinary statute, the power of the constitution flows from the people, and the people of Iowa retain the ultimate power to shape it over time. See Iowa Const. art. X (“Amendments to the Constitution”).

It’s a straightforward take on the obvious: That time can and should force a reassessment of past oppressions. American history is filled with instances that validate this outlook.

But Congressman Steve King (Very Far R-Iowa) says “never mind all that.” Instead, he wants you to think that the unanimous Varnum panel just dreamt up some wacky, unimagined rights without any sort of justification or precedent:

(click to play audio clip)

*AUDIO SOURCE: FRC Action [FRC]

If you look back up at the above snippet, you’ll see that the court explicitly mentioned “the people” and the right to amend the constitution. That’s what makes this Iowa For Freedom effort even more egregious! The judges are in no way denying that Iowa’s anti-LGBT contingent could, in theory, go through the proper channels of passing a constitutional marriage amendment. That was not their task. The judges task was to decide whether the state’s laws preventing marriage equality passed the constitutional smell test, based on the current facts presented to them. They found the inequality stinky.

But this King ad is in no way surprising. Perhaps more than any campaign we’ve ever seen, this Iowa For Freedom effort is all about reducing the conversation to its most simplistic, base level. In a perfect world, it’s this aggressive rejection of deep analysis that would be unimaginable to political thinkers of the year 2010.




Good As You

—  admin