Republicans Unfit to Adopt

When is this nation going to stop persecuting Republicans for their alternative lifestyles? Haven't these people been stigmatized enough? It's time that this once great nation grants them the same rights as all American citizens!

Republicans Unfit to Adopt

Bill Robinson

If Ohio State Sen. Robert Hagan's proposal becomes law, Republicans would be barred from adopting. Wednesday night, Hagan wrote a mock proposal to counter one introduced by State Rep. Ron Hood (R-Ashville) aimed at banning gay adoption.

Hagan said that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."


For his part, Rep. Hood's legislation, backed by eight other conservative Republican lawmakers, would prefer 22,000 Ohio children to languish in foster care than be adopted or fostered by gay parents.

What is it about Ohio and Florida? There's always trouble brewing. As we know, they've got lots of problems with their voting machines, lots of dead white people who vote and lots of living black people who aren't allowed to. But now they have something else in common: the irrational-- and probably insincere-- fear of gay adoption.

Coincidence? No, rather, as USA Today managed to observe between colorful pie charts, "the second front in the culture wars that began in 2004." These closely divided states barely handed W. the election in 2000 and 2004, and it was in large part due to the gay marriage issue on the ballot, which got the faithful out of their trailers and into the polls. This election year, however, they've got a new tactic-- stop the gays from helping unwanted children.

Actually, Florida's had that covered since 1977, thanks to the Anita Bryant Law. But this week Ohio joins 15 other states by introducing this kind of homophobic, Republican base-baiting measure. In fact, the backers have said that if it fails in the assembly, which it will, they will fight to get it on the fall ballot. Never mind the fact that there are virtually no credible studies that show adverse effects in gay adoption or parenting, Ron Hood wants to save the children of Ashville, Ohio!

And who is Ron Hood? He's a no neck, proudly flashing his 3 month old daughter on his "pro-family" website. He's endorsed by the NRA (they loved his voting against the proposal to have gun owners lock up firearms at home, and his voting to allow concealed weapons anywhere); he's against abortion and the RU-486 pill, anti-union, and he has voted to repeal the minimum wage in Ohio. His background is in construction. Needless to say, he won the Outstanding Young Conservative Award in 2000.

Ron Hood is up for election and he's learned the lesson of Ohio: Wedge Issue. He's playing hateful politics, and he's done nothing in his decade in the state house to help children, except ensure more of them are born to parents who don't want them, with the hope that they will grow up working for less than minimum wage before being shot with a concealed weapon.

Ron Hood would deny homes to children who need them, he would deny children to families who want them. He is the bastard spawn of the last two Rove campaigns. He is emblematic of the future of the shrewdly divisive republican party. He is the face of evil, minus the neck.

And his email is: ronaldhood@usa.net

As a 43 year old lesbian mom in Ohio told the Cincinnati Enquirer, "It's like having someone put a KKK cross in your front yard. In someones opinion, you're not right. The crazy thing is they're the ones that have the hatred in their heart. They're they ones that have the fear in their heart. I'm just raising kids and paying taxes."

According to the latest ABC poll, most Americans believe allowing gays to adopt is a good idea. But what most Americans want never stops the cynical, political forces at work in Ohio during an election year. And, as we've learned the hard way, the rest of us can never afford to overlook what happens in Ohio.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-r...p_b_16311.html

a fit Republican parent

All the sociological data has shown that kids raised in same sex homes fare as well as kids raised in more traditional ones. I'm not aware of any credible studies showing any detrimental effects. On the other hand, kids who languish in the system, without adoptive or foster parents do suffer real, lasting and objectively measurable damage. The only basis for the policy is an irrational, Bible based contempt for homosexuals. Thats a piss poor basis for personal conduct and and dead wrong one for public policy. But they will probably get it passed like they have in nearly a third of the other states. Does anyone here think this is right or just or fair? and if, as you should, you don't, how do you reconcile this with your support for a political party that does things like this?

FK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chefmike

He's endorsed by the NRA (they loved his voting against the proposal to have gun owners lock up firearms at home, and his voting to allow concealed weapons anywhere)

He's playing hateful politics, and he's done nothing in his decade in the state house to help children, except ensure more of them are born to parents who don't want them, with the hope that they will grow up working for less than minimum wage before being shot with a concealed weapon.

---

I am not here to argue politics, just the gun thing. I have a concealed carry permit and go armed. I also took the course to get the license, go through a yearly FBI background check, and also need to get my county Sherriff to OK my permit yearly. People like me that go through all that hassle, are not the problem. I am held to a higher degree of discipline beings I am packing. You won't see me honking my horn, fingering another driver, etc. Legal guns, by honest citizans, make for a polite society. I have no desire to shoot another person, and pray they never put me in that predicument.

I have no problems with locking up guns in the household. Any responsible gun owner does this. I only have one not locked up and at bedside every night. (my kids are grown and I live alone) The only minimun wage earner that will be shot be me, will be the one trying to stick me with a knife. 911 is a great number to call, but ultimately, I am responsible for keeping myself alive. Cops can take 5 or 10 minutes to arrive. (assuming you live close to a city) One is not always awarded that time frame.

I'm all for getting guns out of criminals hands. Lock the bastards up for life. That's a court issue, not the gun's fault. Hell, the punishment is less for making meth these days, than for getting caught drinking 3 legal beers and driving home. I'm not supporting drunk driving either. Just putting things into prospective. I have a neighbor that was in prison 15 years for murder and got out for being a "model inmate". Go figure. Until he is back behind bars, I pack heat every time I walk out that door.

Nothing personal here chefmike, it's just the gun thing. Please reconsider that area. I DO respect most of your other opinions.

Jdeere562

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jdeere562

Legal guns, by honest citizans, make for a polite society. I have no desire to shoot another person, and pray they never put me in that predicument.

---

You live in a society deemed very impolite by most of the Western world. You live in a one which by simply making these guns available, perpetuate the crimes. Other countries run well without guns and have lower crime rates. This is just the same old claptrap that you guys need to extol to justify keeping your guns legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jdeere562

I'm all for getting guns out of criminals hands. Lock the bastards up for life. That's a court issue, not the gun's fault.

---

No it's not the guns fault. It's your fault entirely. Your fault for buying it, for supporting a government which allows you to carry concealed weapons, for supporting the industry and for putting the temptation or risk, of having it stolen and used in a crime.
If you didn't support all this, there would be less guns in society. Don't pass the buck - you're responsible for putting the gun in that criminals hands. He makes the choice whether to pull the trigger but I'd rather he had the choice of swinging a baseball bat, instead of semi-auto handgun.
seanchai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

It's your fault entirely.

---

I can see this could go no where in a hurry. I'm a decent person seanchai, and I'm sure you are too from reading your posts. You can't change my beliefs, and neither can I yours. I'm not here to make enemies. You keep posting pics of hot babes, chefmike has some great cooking tips. We can all get along here. After all, we come to this website for the same reason. :D

Nothing to do with being a decent person or not, Jdeere, I never called that into question - it's a difference of opinion that's all.
seanchai

Thanks for not turning this into an ugly thing seanchai. People can differ on opinions and still act rationally. You have a great night. I have a little babe coming early and we are doing a BBQ tomorrow. Sleep time now. Be safe my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

Nothing to do with being a decent person or not, Jdeere, I never called that into question - it's a difference of opinion that's all.
seanchai

---

This one I have a difference with you Seanchai, I have guns (nothing like the pic) and I don't think banning them helps anything.

Look at gun crime statistics in Europe and look at them in the USA.

Where does not banning them, help?

You want guns because you like guns - boys and toys, I'd be the first culprit on that one (see above photos) but as a society, it's a screw up. The US gun crime is sick and having access to those guns is a main part of that sickness.
seanchai

Well this arguement can go on all day, with both sides presenting facts. After all scientific studies show that when you start a topic with the phrase scientific studies show, people are 74% more likely to agree with you.

Also 47.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

It really isn't one of those arguments that can go on all day.
Societies with very little access to guns - have less gun crime.

You can debate of the ethics or reasoning for wanting guns but the great politician, Eddie Izzard made the point most succinctly...
"Britian no guns, low gun crime...
...USA guns, high gun crime
Britian no guns, low gun crime...
...USA guns, high gun crime"

or something similar.
seanchai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jdeere562

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chefmike

He's endorsed by the NRA (they loved his voting against the proposal to have gun owners lock up firearms at home, and his voting to allow concealed weapons anywhere)

He's playing hateful politics, and he's done nothing in his decade in the state house to help children, except ensure more of them are born to parents who don't want them, with the hope that they will grow up working for less than minimum wage before being shot with a concealed weapon.

---

I am not here to argue politics, just the gun thing. I have a concealed carry permit and go armed. I also took the course to get the license, go through a yearly FBI background check, and also need to get my county Sherriff to OK my permit yearly. People like me that go through all that hassle, are not the problem. I am held to a higher degree of discipline beings I am packing. You won't see me honking my horn, fingering another driver, etc. Legal guns, by honest citizans, make for a polite society. I have no desire to shoot another person, and pray they never put me in that predicument.

I have no problems with locking up guns in the household. Any responsible gun owner does this. I only have one not locked up and at bedside every night. (my kids are grown and I live alone) The only minimun wage earner that will be shot be me, will be the one trying to stick me with a knife. 911 is a great number to call, but ultimately, I am responsible for keeping myself alive. Cops can take 5 or 10 minutes to arrive. (assuming you live close to a city) One is not always awarded that time frame.

I'm all for getting guns out of criminals hands. Lock the bastards up for life. That's a court issue, not the gun's fault. Hell, the punishment is less for making meth these days, than for getting caught drinking 3 legal beers and driving home. I'm not supporting drunk driving either. Just putting things into prospective. I have a neighbor that was in prison 15 years for murder and got out for being a "model inmate". Go figure. Until he is back behind bars, I pack heat every time I walk out that door.

Nothing personal here chefmike, it's just the gun thing. Please reconsider that area. I DO respect most of your other opinions.

Jdeere562

---

Well, to be realistic, we're never gonna ban guns in this country anyway...it's a moot point. But I do not like or support the NRA. As for your remark on penalties for meth labs versus drunk driving, I'm a wee bit skeptical.

edit: but I will readily admit to having lived near, or traveled through places that I thought about carrying a gun. But I was always worried that I would just end up shooting myself in the foot, or even worse, the family jewels...

not sure how a thread on hate based discrimination against same sex adoptive parents got so off target, but I'll take a shot at it. if you disagree with my opinion, please don't go ballistic on me :)

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I would never own one myself, but thats a matter of choice. I am, however, opposed to the NRA and their absolutist stance on any and all regulation of guns. Since the the first three words of the second amendment are "a well regulated", its hard for me to accept that gun ownership and use shouldn't be subject to regulation. Guns are the only consumer products that are lethal when used as intended, and are the only ones not governed by the Consumer Product Safety Comission. Every other product has to comply with some safety guidelines. If cars have to have doorlocks, I don't see a problem with requiring guns to have triggerlocks. If cars have to have license plates and VINs stamped into virtually every part on them, I don't see a problem with requiring guns and ammunition to be registered and traceable. We restrict sales and resales of cigarettes and alcohol and prescription drugs. So I also don't see a problem with limits on how many guns or how much ammunition a person can own, or sell.

Everyone always says guns don't kill people. People kill people. But they do so with guns. The cost of the freedom to bear arms should be absolute accountability on the part of the people who chose to exercise that right. The other well worn homily is that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But outlaws already do, and they get most of them by stealing them from lawful owners or buying them from people who buy them legally with the intent to sell them illegally. People should have to be accountable for their actions with their guns. Not just using them, but storing them and reselling them. When we outlaw the ways outlaws get guns, only outlaws won't have guns.

FK

"If cars have to have doorlocks, I don't see a problem with requiring guns to have triggerlocks"


It makes the gun to slow to engage in a life or death situation.....The newest generation of guns already have enough built in safety features to prevent the gun going off accidentally.

Personally, my gun only has a little safety flip switch and is single action. Speed is PARAMOUNT when engaging in gun combat.



"I don't see a problem with requiring guns and ammunition to be registered and traceable"

All handguns are already registered. Its impossible to trace ammunition because of deformation and ballistic damage to the round.....I use frangible rounds....How you gonna trace it?


"Everyone always says guns don't kill people. People kill people. But they do so with guns. The cost of the freedom to bear arms should be absolute accountability on the part of the people who chose to exercise that right"


People will always kill people....they were just killing them in different ways before the invention of guns.....Its just as easy to kill someone with sword as it is from a gun.....a gun just lets you do it from farther away. When we have personal plasma weapons thats what people will be using to kill each other in the future.



" When we outlaw the ways outlaws get guns, only outlaws won't have guns."

Umm....Outlaws dont care what YOU outlaw you know.....What you really mean is that only those that are wealthy or well connected will have guns then, and well have ourselves a nice little police state. Sorry FK, but that last statement was just dumb. A certain class of people will ALWAYS find a way to end-run the system.




"

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were living in the old west, where you had to have your six shooter strapped to your side, ready for the quick draw and hip shot. if your neighborhood is THAT bad, I'd suggest U-haul instead of an Uzzi. I'm guessing you have never had to fire your gun in anger. And probably never will. There are very few, if any instances where the few seconds it would take to deal with a trigger lock mean the difference between life and death, and many many more life and death tragedies that would be averted by one. Again, for every other consumer product there are some basic safety requirements. I'm sure there are instances where the time involved in dealing with child proof caps on medications might be a matter of life and death, but every drug sold has to have them.

A safety may prevent a gun from going off accidently, but it does nothing to stop it from going off negligently or carelessly. How many kids have to get shot by other kids at our schools before we do something to stop it from happening rather than punishing people afterwards?

As far as traceable ammunition goes, the technology exists. Its the 21st century, after all. The right to bear arms shouldn't include the right to use untraceable ammo, or copkiller bullets or any of the other extremes the NRA has expounded. I don't get to cover my license plate, skip my seatbelt, tint my windows, or use a radar jammer in my car, but I can't really complain that my right to travel is being unreasonably infringed. Gunowners don't really have a legitimate complaint here either

You either missed my last points, or chose to misconstrue them The NRA and politicians they support have refused to accept any limits on the number of guns anyone can own, or buy in a limited period. For self defense, I don't think you need more than one gun. If you want to have a pair of six shooters, I guess thats your choice but its more style than necessity . I don't even have a problem with people with gun collections. But people who buy 10-15-20 guns every week or month, as straw men for people who have no right to own guns should be stopped. . The same thing holds true for safely and securely storing guns. The NRA is opposed to requiring gun safes or other means of keeping guns from being stolen or misused. If I leave my keys in the car, and its stolen and involved in an accident, or if I don't lock my fence and a neighborhood child drowns in my pool, I'm responsible, so I don't think its unreasonble to impose those kinds of requirements and responsibilities on gunowners.

I'm talking limits, not elimination. There is nothing dumb about that. I may shoot my mouth off, but never with blanks :)

FK

Well I have been trying to avoid the political topics but I like this one.

I do own a few guns. Mostly for hunting ( I have a large plot of land, 1700 acres,that my family has been hunting on for years) and I have one hand gun.

I believe there is a middle ground here.

I do not believe that a citizen needs to have high powered automatic guns for protection or hunting. The NRA is wrong in their stance on this. We have a reasonable right to bear arms. I do understand that they are afraid that if they give in on this, then the next go around a few more types of guns will be unlawful.. and so forth.. But still thre are weapons that citizens should never have in their possession. Also I believe that certain ammunition should not be available for sale to the public... Like the Talons and other armor piercing rounds.

I keep all my hunting guns locked up in a safe so those are not an issue. I do keep my glock in my bedroom but it is in a safe in my night stand and the lock is by fingerprint ID. That is the only way it can be opened. the unlocking is Immediate, and very fast. This is a very expensive options but safety is a major concern.

FK you say seconds dont matter, but I beg to differ they do. If you have someone in your house, and you are asleep, and in panic mode, you do not want to be messing with trying to get a lock open.

I never carry a gun in public even though I do have a license to do so, but I have to say, if I was venturing to a part of town that is rough and I feel my safety was in question.. I would carry it.

I live in a very prominent neighborhood, and there were a string of violent rapes and abductions.. and I can assure you that if someone came into my house.. and was after my daughter....or son...I would not hesitate to defend them to the fullest and put one in their chest. You dont have to live in a bad neighborhood for bad things to happen... Crime finds us all.

Since this thread morphed into guns and gun control, here's something current...

U.S. House: Sex Offenders Need Their Guns

Josh Sugarmann 03/07/2006

How absolute is the House majority's fealty to the gun lobby? Strong enough that House leaders are now working to derail efforts to stop sex offenders from possessing guns.

Last fall, the House of Representatives passed the "The Children's Safety Act of 2005" ( H.R. 3132). The legislation, designed to strengthen federal registration requirements for sex offenders, included a provision that would prohibit gun possession by individuals convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses against minors (those convicted of felony sex offenses are already banned from owning guns under a general rule prohibiting felons from possessing firearms).


This provision -- modeled on the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, a federal law passed in 1996 prohibiting gun possession by persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses--was added to the sex offender registry bill as an amendment by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and passed on a voice vote. Apparently, going on the record in support of the principle that the "right" to keep and bear arms extends to those convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes against children makes even the "pro-gun House" trumpeted in 1999 by then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) a little bit squeamish.

Many states require sex offenders with misdemeanor convictions to register for their crimes. For example, New York requires registration by sex offenders convicted of misdemeanor crimes including sexual abuse in the third degree, forcible touching, and sexual misconduct. Illinois requires registration by sex offenders convicted of misdemeanor crimes of indecent solicitation of a child, sexual exploitation of a child, criminal sexual abuse, and any attempt to commit any of these offenses. Utah requires registration as a sex offender by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of lewdness involving a child or enticing a minor over the Internet.

But in this business-as-usual House, H.R. 3132 has morphed into H.R. 4472 and is scheduled to be considered under suspension of the rules -- meaning there will be no real debate and no opportunity for amendments -- this Wednesday, March 8th. Not only has the Nadler provision disappeared, but an amendment to create a federal anti-hate crime law that extends to crimes where victims are targeted because of their sexual orientation has also been removed. That amendment was offered by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) and passed 223-199, despite opposition from the Republican sponsor of H.R. 3132.

The Second Amendment "rights" of those who sexually violate children or gun control? The choice is simple for the U.S. House: Sex offenders by a mile.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s...r_b_16938.html

It looks like shrubya isn't doing enough to keep the jesus freaks happy....
:lol:
US evangelicals warn Republicans

By Jamie Coomarasamy
BBC News, Washington


Prominent leaders from the Christian right have warned Republicans they must do more to advance conservative values ahead of the US mid-term elections.

Their message to Congress, controlled by Republicans, is "must do better".

Support from about a quarter of Americans who describe themselves as evangelicals was a factor in President George W Bush's two election victories.

The Republicans will need to keep them onboard if they are to retain control of Congress in November.

BALANCE OF POWER -House

435 seats - all to be contested in mid-terms
Republicans hold 231 seats; Democrats 201; one independent; two seats vacant
Democrats need to win net 15 seats to win control of House


At a news conference in Washington, some of America's most influential conservative leaders said the current perception among evangelical Christians was that the Republican majority was not doing enough for them.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said that apart from confirming two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, "core values voters" did not feel that Congress was advancing their interests.

BALANCE OF POWER- Senate
100 seats - 33 to be contested in mid-terms
Republicans hold 55 seats; Democrats 44; one independent
Democrats need to win net six seats to win control of Senate

The leaders appear to be reflecting a growing sense of frustration among the Christian right, over what they see as a lack of legislative progress on issues such as banning same-sex marriages.

And while this was not quite a call to arms, it will cause concern in Republican circles in the run-up to the mid-terms.

Exit polls suggested that more than three-quarters of white evangelical Christians voted for President Bush in 2004.

But according to a recent opinion poll, the number of them who want Republicans to retain their Congressional majority is not much above 50%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4815912.stm

Rep. Debra Maggart, R-Hendersonville, said she believes homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children. because they may molest the children they adopt.
"We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted (sic)access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse,"
http://pageoneq.com/rssfeedstuff/index.php?id=6657

talk about unfettered hatred and prejudice

FK

thought i'd share a letter the editor of a ohio paper didn't print:

Recently the Ohio Democratic Senator Robert Hagan introduced an outrageous bill that would outlaw the adoption of children by Republican couples. “Credible research,” he claims shows that adopted children raised in Republican households “…are more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos,…” and “…an alarming lack of tolerance for others....”
I want to say up front, I’m normal; i.e. not a Republican. But I sincerely believe that what consenting adults do behind secure doors should be classified. Anyone who lies in bed at night obsessing over what those Republicans are doing in their secret dens is just being perverse. Get over it! The love between a Republican and her investment portfolio is just as strong a foundation for raising children as the love between two human beings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

Look at gun crime statistics in Europe and look at them in the USA.

Where does not banning them, help?

You want guns because you like guns - boys and toys, I'd be the first culprit on that one (see above photos) but as a society, it's a screw up. The US gun crime is sick and having access to those guns is a main part of that sickness.
seanchai

---

Didn't England and Scotland have a drastic upswing in Knife related assaults and killings?

Most Gun related crimes in the US are committed with weapons purchased or obtained illegaly.

However with great power should come great responsiblity and the US needs to grow up and know the difference between legal and illegal obtained weapons and develop laws to combat the real issue. then again the whole world could learn this lesson.

I own weapons many of them several guns and several bladed types but I am not a Criminal in fact I only have 2 speeding tickets (which are off the records now).

Archie Bunker said it best Seanchai...."would you feel better if they were pushed out of windows?
well would you?

A Religious Push Against Gay Unions


By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: April 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 23 — About 50 prominent religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half-dozen archbishops, have signed a petition in support of a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.

Archbishop John J. Myers said of the campaign, "We think the American people are on our side on this, and we want the Senate to know it."

Organizers of the petition said it was in part an effort to revive the groundswell of opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004. The signers include many influential evangelical Protestants, a few rabbis and an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But both the organizers and gay rights groups said what was striking about the petition was the direct involvement by high-ranking Roman Catholic officials, including 16 bishops. Although the church has long opposed same-sex unions, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had previously endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment banning such unions, it was evangelical Protestants who generally led the charge when the amendment was debated in 2004.

"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the Knights of Columbus, a lay Catholic group.

The Catholic bishops and many of the other religious leaders involved have pledged to distribute postcards for their congregants to send to their senators urging support for the amendment. The Knights of Columbus is distributing 10 million postcards to Catholic churches.

The petition drive was organized in part by Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton, a Catholic scholar with close ties to evangelical Protestant groups. Aides to three Republican senators — Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader; Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; and Sam Brownback of Kansas — were also involved, organizers said.

Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark said that at a meeting in Washington in February, the Senate aides recommended the idea of a postcard campaign, recalling the success of a similar effort that the bishops organized in support of a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion.

"We think the American people are on our side on this, and we want the Senate to know it," the archbishop said.

The campaign comes as many in the Republican Party are increasingly worried that their core supporters may stay away from the polls this year because they are demoralized by the war in Iraq and other matters. Senate Republican leaders have scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment in June, partly as a means of rallying conservatives.

No one expects the measure to pass this year. But drives to amend state constitutions to ban same sex-marriage proved powerful incentives to turning out conservative voters in Ohio and elsewhere in 2004. At least two states with contested Senate races — Tennessee and Pennsylvania, where Mr. Santorum is seeking re-election against a Democrat who also opposes abortion rights — are debating constitutional bans on same-sex marriage this year.

But Ohio and other pivotal states have already amended their constitutions, and at least one poll suggests that the public's negative response to the first same-sex marriages is cooling. A Pew Research poll in March found that 51 percent of the public opposed legalizing same-sex marriage, down from 63 percent in February 2004.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, said supporters of the amendment were out of touch. "We have a war raging in Iraq, we have a Gulf Coast that needs to be rebuilt, we have an economy barely hanging on," he said. "The last thing America wants is this Republican-controlled Congress spending time writing discrimination into the Constitution."

Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage, an umbrella group that supports the proposed amendment, said the religious leaders represented "huge numbers" of people. His group has set up a Web site, religiouscoalitionformarriage.org, which includes the petition, pew handouts and suggested notes for sermons.

Organizers said the petition had brought together cardinals from both the left and right sides of the United States bishops' conference, including the liberal Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles and the conservative Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, as well as Cardinals Edward M. Egan of New York, Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, William H. Keeler of Baltimore and Sean Patrick O'Malley of Boston.

The prominent conservative Protestant figures included leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination, as well as the president of conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and a handful of Episcopal bishops.

Other signers included James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family; the evangelist D. James Kennedy; Bishop Charles E. Blake of the historically black Church of God in Christ; the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr., president of the National Hispanic Association of Evangelicals; Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb of the Orthodox Union; and officials of the Orthodox Church in America.

A fantastic editorial on the whole GOP/Moral Majority bible banging bash... going all the way back to former chimp-in-chief Ronnie. If I believed in hell, I would like to think that Reagan is roasting on a spit there for all eternity, along with Nixon of course....

Bush's Trojan Christ

While virtually every other country in the Western world recognizes May 1st to be 'the International Day of The Worker,' we here in America studiously ignore it as anything other than just another day. That's training for ya.

Sure, the occasional rabid pundit like confessed drug addict Rush Limbaugh or classified info leaker Robert Novak might reach deep into their propaganda bag of tricks to remind us that May Day was officially ordained 'Law Day' by that friend of the working man, President Ronald Reagan, but in general the media does it's best to placate its owners and not give the uppity working man his due.


You remember Ronald Reagan, who's first official act as president (if you don't count negotiating with the Iranian government to keep their American hostages until after he defeated Carter), was breaking the strike of air traffic controllers, the first salvo in an assault on worker's rights that follows a direct line through NAFTA to our current abominations of pension theft and the elimination of minimum wage in New Orleans? A real man of the people.

It was under Reagan that the whole religious 'Great Awakening' began, which wasn't so much an embracing of religion as it was a repudiation of the social advances of the 60's, with Donald Wildmon and James Dobson peddling their pre-Focus on Family 'Promise Keepers,' (where men rule the household), Phyllis Schafly screaming equal rights for women undermines 'family values,' and Charles Schaar Murray declaring--with a straight face--blacks do worse in America simply because they're stupid. It was an awakening, all right.

Suddenly, the 'ostracized' religious right were 'rejoining' the national debate under the 'revolution' of faith---spearheaded by a president who rarely set foot in a church during his reign, lied regularly and outrageously to the public, and illegally funded nun-killing death-squads in Central America.

Or so the story goes, if you listen to Karl Rove, Robert Novak, Peggy Noonan and the other shit-spinners who learned their chops at the feet of Reagan/Bush PR wunderkind Lee Atwater, a vicious mudslinging thug who died young of a brain tumor and renounced his scurrilous tactics on his deathbed---tactics that have made Karl Rove a household name.

What the Reagan years really ushered in was the start of 'The Great Hypocrisy,' the GOP's twisting of religion to create a class of disgruntled zealots so blinded by hate they'd rush to vote into office the very thieves, liars and torturers who would not only screw them at every turn, but would decades later deliver George W. Bush to our doorstep with his Faith Based Everything.

And 'the national debate'---where is it? There is no debate, just ideologues screaming at each other to see whose one-dimensional faith-based sound byte can 'win'--nonsense like 'God Hates Fags' and Rick Santorum's equating homosexuality with bestiality.

It used to be that Christians were known to all by their good deeds, but after almost four decades of the GOP's cleaving the populace into warring sects to be manipulated at the polls, 'being Christian' is no longer defined by doing good deeds, it's defined by an arrogant mission to tell others how they must live---who they can marry, who they can adopt, what they can say in public, what they must teach in schools---all the way down to what kind of medicine they should have access to.

It was easy to look away from inconvenient historical facts of Christianity like the Inquisition, the Crusades, or the pedophilia of the priesthood when you could still see true people of faith marching for civil rights, working in soup kitchens, or bearing witness in Nicaragua as the Reagan-funded militias gunned down families of peasants.

But 'The Great Awakening' now brings us faith-based leaders promoting torture and war, who lie to us on a daily basis, and violate our constitutionally guaranteed rights. The 'national debate' about values is reduced to quippy bumper stickers like 'It's Okay To Pray' or 'One Man + One Woman = Marriage.' Our national conversation on ethics, morality, and faith has become a kind of WWF 'Religious Smackdown.'

The Great Awakening has also brought us, as reported in the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...dreds_of_laws/ , a president who claims the authority to disobey over 750 of our laws.
Maybe it's time to ask ourselves what exactly has really been awakened.

Is it a coincidence that our most pro-faith president is also our biggest law-breaking president, presiding over our most scandalized administration in history? You tell me.

Is it coincidence that our pro-faith vice president has a gay daughter he'd prevent from adopting a child or marrying her lover, a great Christian whose wife converts from writing lesbian romance novels to ethics primers for kids in the blink of a presidential campaign, a soldier of Christ who tells a senator on the Senate floor to go fuck himself? You tell me.

We have two million people incarcerated in federal prisons. If we're to believe the polls the Pat Robertsons and Bill O'Reillys constantly throw at us that 89% of our country are practicing Christians, that means our federal prisons are stuffed to the breaking point with about 1.8 million Bible-thumpers. Hmmm.

How come when we talk about religion in the great national debate, it's never fact s like these we discuss, instead of arguing over posting the Ten Commandments in City Hall?

What about Lynddie England, described as rarely leaving her barracks in Iraq except to go to church--and of course torture naked Iraqis by forcing them to simulate anal sex for snapshots taken by the father of her illegitimate child. If that 89% is correct, wouldn't that mean that the majority of Lynddie's co-torturers were, you know, Christians? When are we having that faith-based discussion?

And poor Clay Aiken, touting his Christianity to the blind, er, I mean, fans of American Idol, rumored to be caught in a gay relationship and seeking the love that dare not speak it's name on the Web, all the while recording an album of ---you guessed it---Christian songs. It's been reported some fans are so mad they want to sue RCA for false advertising. Why aren't we hearing any talk about the gullibility of a Christian audience in our national debate? Why is this kind of intelligent discussion avoided in favor of finger pointing and sneering? If Aiken were gay, his claim of devout Christianity gave him the power to fool--or at least encourage denial in--millions. Shouldn't we look into that power?

And what about the Duke lacrosse team? The entire debate is whether or not a rape occurred, not what were a room full of Christian boys from 'good homes' (two of them educated by Jesuits) doing ordering strippers to entertain them while threatening sodomy with a broomstick and taunting black women with racist jibes about their cotton-picking slave grandparents? Why don't we discuss Christianity in that context?

And of course there's Tom Delay, the great born-again purveyor of moral rectitude, the man with his hand in so many tills even Texas republicans had to cut him loose. The President salutes him as a great patriot who 'served his country well' and the Rove-minions repeat ad nauseum, 'the Dems don't have their poster-boy for corruption to kick around anymore.' What does that mean, exactly? Did he do it, or not? If he's innocent, then how could he possibly be a poster-boy for corruption? And if he's guilty, why is the president saluting his patriotism? And if he's a thief and a liar, what are we to think of his relentless touting of Christian values? Doesn't that mean he's a hypocrite, and that Christian values, in a political sense, are meaningless?

What all this tells us is claiming to be Christian, on it's own, signifies nothing. In fact, given the religious makeup of our populace, pedophiles, thieves, liars, hypocrites and torturers in America are more likely to be Christians than Jews, Buddhists, Muslims--or atheists. It's simple math.

This is why the Founding Fathers--God-fearing men all--were smart enough to keep religion out of government. They knew the power appealing to a people's spirituality could have, that faith could be invoked while hiding great violations of it's very tenets, encouraging otherwise docile people to do and say despicable things, to hate each other, to threaten the very fabric of a progressive, democratic, rational society.

Ironically, what Bush, Rove and the rest of the Fourth Reich have shown us is that putting more religion into government doesn't make it more moral; what it does is allow every cut-rate thief, liar and hypocrite to hide behind the cloak of morality while committing immoral acts around the globe and at home that would shame any real person of faith.

It's not a coincidence that the most 'faith-based' government we've had in over a century is also the most corrupt, secretive, murderous, lying, and law breaking in history. In the name of 'reawakening' Christianity in government, Bush, et al, have shown us why it should be locked out. As soon as a politician starts quoting the Bible and going on about his faith, we should run him out of town.

What the GOP has in fact done is mock and destroy Christianity, and that's a shame. Like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, Christianity and God are some of our greatest creations. By appealing to an ignorant fringe of assholes who codify their hatred behind a misuse of spirituality, the GOP is an embarrassment to not only truly devout Christians, but to the rational world at large.

But they've done us an odd--if unintentional---service by showing us in practice exactly what the Founding Fathers feared and tried to prevent; that religion strikes so deep and renders people who want to be 'good' so gullible to manipulation, that any absurdity can be pushed through, including nonsense like dinosaurs walked the earth only two thousand years ago, praying can stop cancer, and somebody else's marriage can threaten your own.

So if you're against abortion, don't have one. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry one. And if you're against illegal immigrants, don't hire one. Clean your own damn house and pick your own damn broccoli, and when you're unmarried daughter breaks her pledge and gets pregnant, face your own moral dilemma and search your own spirituality for answers--just don't force me to apply those answers to my daughter. I'll handle her, and my grandchild, on my own.

But if you want me to see the beauty and the power of your faith, lead by example, not by cramming it down my throat or voting for politicians who want to screw all of us so the rich can get richer. Christian values are feeding the hungry, helping the poor and aiding the sick---not cutting Medicare, veteran's benefits, environmental protections, school lunch programs or health care. Period.

Values are something you adhere to, not something you force someone else to adhere to; that's called fascism.

And don't stand there and tell me a smiling president who reserves the right to violate a Congressional ban on torture is a man of faith.

That's called stupidity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-gi...t_b_20289.html

Oops she did it again. Despite driving with her kid on her lap once, and with him facing in the wrong direction in his car seat later on, Britney is not only allowed to continue her parenting but also encouraged to spawn repeatedly. Yet kids would be damaged if they were place into stable homes with committed gay parents who manage to use child safety seats and high chairs without causing personal injury.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/68606.htm

FK

Now More Than Ever...No Child's Behind Left Alone.