counter statistics

Friday, September 26, 2003

Stupidity Virus and Ed Gillespie - response

Puh-leeeze. As usual, Eva Young is deperate to divert attention from what her party's leader, who speaks as the leader of that party and speaks officially for it, by frantically pointing at Walter Fauntroy, who for the record is a loudmouthed jackass in addition to being a bigot. The last time I checked, Fauntroy is a public embarrassment to the District of Columbia (where, obviously, public embarrassments in positions of power are so plentiful as to make a blivot like Fauntroy almost pass unnnoticed). He does not speak for the Democratic Party and for its members (including me), as Gillespies does for the Republican Party. Gillespie speak for all Republicans, and that includes Eva Young. He speaks for her as long as she remains a member of that party. If Fauntroy did speak for the Democratic Party, I would officially leave it, and would denounce D! emocrats for remaining part of it and supporting it, exactly as I do Eva Young as a Republican. Eva Young will not leave the Republican Party no matter how many bigots her party panders to, and her repeated protestions at the homophobes leading her party and the ones it all too clearly allied to is as hypocritical and timesome as Gingrich, Hyde, Burton, and Barr (I could go on, the list is a long one as we all know) blathering about morality, marriage and "family values." But then, why should she leave the Republican Party? After all, hypocrisy is the order of the day there.

Comment on FRC Bleating about Abstinence Only - Condoms Don't Work

from John Arravosis's newsletter - the List.....

Republicans Attacks AIDS Organizations, Again

Religious fundamentalist hate groups are boasting that the Bush Administration is again harassing US AIDS organizations, and cutting funds for AIDS prevention. According to the anti-gay Family Research Council (FRC), the Bush Administration has a "new policy aimed at stopping federal funds from supporting HIV prevention programs that are actually encouraging promiscuity among gay men." (Read: The Bush Administration wants AIDS groups to only preach abstinence.)

Well, now the other shoe drops. The Family Research Council informs us in their daily email newsletter that the Bush Administration has canceled an $8 million aid package to Brazil that would have funded groups that help distribute and sell condoms. The FRC says that the Administration is rightfully focusing its money instead on promoting abstinence in Brazil instead of condom use, and that "airlifting millions of condoms to these ravaged nations will achieve nothing more than false hope and worsening conditions."

The FRC also announced today that Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, assured them that "the White House does not support current attempts by liberal members of Congress to funnel the new $15 billion AIDS initiative to groups that rely on abortion and condoms. Rather, Mr. Rove reiterated what the President has previously said himself: in fighting AIDS, our nation must fund groups that promote abstinence and monogamy, the only methods that are 100 percent successful in preventing the spread of AIDS."

They want to fight AIDS in Africa by passing out Bibles and singing Cumbaya. Yet another reason to ask yourself why any self-respecting gay person or friend thereof would ever support this Administration.

Read more about this here:

EY: Yup, the Leviticus crowd continues to bleat..... Email the President with your thoughts at:

Kowtowing to Bigots

I sent the following email to the RNC:

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:37:01 -0500
To: "RNC Communications"
From: Eva Young
Subject: Re: Chairman Ed Gillespie TV Appearance

Hi - why is Ed G kowtowing to the bigots - and pushing a divisive Federal Marriage Amendment? The Catholic Church opposes the Death Penalty and the War in Iraq - is the Republican Party Chair going to push for planks on these issues also? How does any of this help fight the war on terrorism or make our country safer and create any jobs except for the professional anti-gay and gay activists?

Do you really want to have a knock down drag out floor fight about gays during the national convention? Do you think this fight - in New York City - will help President Bush win the 2004 election? I personally have no trouble going to the microphone and talking about these issues at Republican Conventions. I have done so in the past during Republican State Conventions in Minnesota.

Sure this is red meat to motivate the so-called base. But it says something pretty stinky, when the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt resorts to appealing to anti-gay bigotry to increase participation. And appealing to bigotry has it's downside. How many times does the party have to give the Democrats this issue?

Was it gay people who caused trouble in DOMA supporter President Bill Clinton's pathetic excuse for a marriage? I'm so sick of serial adulterers grandstanding about gays destroying the institution of marriage. Adultery, disertion and lack of commitment by heterosexuals in legal marriages do much more to damage the institution - gays are an easy scapegoat for difficult issues.

EY: One of the recipients of the email forwarded this to Gillespie's personal email.

Stupidity Virus Hits RNC Chair Ed Gillespie

Andrew Sullivan explains

And Gay Activist, John Aravosis leads off with this story in his "The List":

Republican Party Head Calls Gays Bigots
RNC head says gays are bigots, being gay is a "choice"
If you had any doubts about what the Republican party really thinks about gays, get over them now. They hate us. And spare me the emails about how Republicans really like us, but just need to bash the hell out of us publicly in order to save face. I'm over it. The latest salvo from the party comes from the head of the Republican party himself, Ed Gillespie.

And if you read this and still think this is your party, then God help you.

In a report issued this week, Gillespie said that homosexuality is a "choice," and accused gays of "religious bigotry" by asking society to grant us the same civil rights shared by heterosexual Americans. Then Gillespie dropped the real bombshell. He told the times that Republicans are prepared to put a plank in their party platform next year opposing gay marriage, and that the plank being considered would endorse an amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage.

25% of gays voted Republican in the last presidential election. It's time for gay Americans to show the Republican party that legislative gay-bashing comes at a cost. When the Republican leader of the entire US Senate endorses this constitutional amendment, and the head of the entire Republican party verges on doing the same, then it's time folks woke up and smelled the coffee. The Democrats may not be perfect on gay civil rights issues, but the Republicans are so bad it would take them twenty years to get to the point where the Democrats are today. Until Republicans stand up to the bigots running their party, then it's not the party for me, and shouldn't be for any self-respecting American, gay or straight.

EY: Gillespie gave this one to the Democrats. Now the Democrats will be able to use their usual strategy - give us your money, and blame the evil republicans.....

Stupidity Virus Hits the Independent Gay Forum

From Steven Miller's Culture Watch on the Independent Gay Forum Website

Biting the Hand that Feeds Them

A group of law schools, professors and students is suing the Department of Defense over the government's requirement that law schools receiving federal funding allow military recruiters on campus, the Washington Times reports. At issue is not only opposition to the military's ban on openly gay men and women in the armed services, but, I believe, a more general left-liberal hostility toward the armed forces. I'm 100% against the gay ban, which stupidly destroys what would otherwise be many fine military careers. But trying to stop military recruitment while we're fighting a war on terror is even stupider, as is the belief that institutions are somehow entitled to federal funding and, at the same time, to discriminate against the federal government.

EY: I think the Law Schools ought to be applauded for doing this. If Gays who support lifting the ban are going to trash allies who are trying to help pressure the military to do that, then there is no point for Law Schools to do this.

What's really stupid in the war on terror is firing a dozen linguists because they are gay.

The point is that this anti-gay policy in the Military undermines national security.

Sure there is a liberal-left hostility towards the military - among some in the left. But that's a separate issue from the government sponsored discrimination in the military - which is wrong, and dumb.

Wednesday, September 24, 2003

DNC uses Blogs to Organize

Unlike Howard Dean's blog, this blog allows for contributions by readers. It will be interesting to see how long this lasts.

I posted the following:

I get the following ad copy from the DNC office of Gay and Lesbian Outreach.

Dear Friend,

While George W. Bush continues to show a lack of "compassion" toward our community (calling us sinners) and Republicans focus their efforts on lobbying for proposals that would write discrimination against the GLBT community into the U.S. Constitution, Democrats are leading the way in support of all GLBT Americans.

Just last Friday, Gray Davis, the Democratic Governor of California, signed a sweeping domestic partnership bill. Earlier this month, in response to the domestic and global HIV/AIDS crisis, Senate Democrats called for increased funding for HIV/AIDS programs, while Minority Leader Pelosi and several House Democrats questioned the effectiveness of this Administration's current policies on HIV/AIDS.

What's Happening in GLBT Politics? Republican Senators Lobby for Passage of Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment

None of this shows up in the blog area. What is this - are gays in the closet in the mainstream areas of the site?

In Minnesota our "friends" the Labor Unions - AFSCME in particular was complicit in getting rid of the negotiated domestic partner benefits.

Eva Young

Someone from the staff responded.


DNC GLBT Outreach Director Eric Stern, who sent out that letter you received, will definitely be posting about GLBT issues on the blog. Keep your eyes peeled!

For those of you who would like to read the letter she's talking about, you can read it here.


I responded:

DNC GLBT Outreach Director Eric Stern, who sent out that letter you received, will definitely be posting about GLBT issues on the blog. Keep your eyes peeled!

EY: It's just odd that there's been no pouncing on RNC's Chair kowtowing to the bigots and pushing the idea of supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment in the GOP platform. Andrew Sullivan and the Independent Gay Forum have both been covering this issue.

I tend to be skeptical of any outreach that goes "under the radar" in the gay media, and doesn't get into the mainstream media.

It's always seemed to me that the DNC likes to treat the Gay Community as an atm machine (and Gays get very little return on investment).

Certainly the Republican Party has a loud and bleating Leviticus Crowd (as Cheney's former aid, Mary Matalin calls them) as part of the base. However, candidates from both parties appeal to anti-gay bigotry when it helps win elections. Liberal Walter Fauntroy (who helped organize the Martin Luther King commemorative march) after all is working hard promoting the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment.

I do appreciate that the Democratic Presidential Candidates have taken positions opposing this amendment. I also appreciate DOMA author Bob Barr taking the same position.

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Log Cabin Republicans Responds to RNC Chair Gillespie's call for the Republican Platform to include a plank supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment

Log Cabin Republicans Press Release
For immediate release: September 23, 2003

Contact: Mark Mead
202 347 5306 x112
mobile 202 297 5026
Log Cabin responds to RNC Chairman Gillespie

(Washington) Log Cabin Republicans today responded to suggestions from Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie that the Republican party platform next year might include a plank in favor of amending the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. The amendment as currently written could also deny civil tax fairness, benefits and responsibilities for gay and lesbian Americans. In a Washington Times story today RNC chairman Ed Gillespie indicated growing interest in a potential constitutional amendment.

"The last thing the GOP needs to do is to pattern the 2004 Republican Convention after the 1992 Houston Convention which started a culture war in America. Log Cabin exists today because of that debacle in Texas, led by Patrick J. Buchanan, which led to the defeat of President George H.W. Bush," said Log Cabin executive director Patrick Guerriero

"Log Cabin's message is clear; for our party to be a pro-family party we must value all American families. We should not marginalize gay families. And, to be true to our conservative roots we should not tinker with the sacred United States Constitution to score temporary political points" continued Guerriero. Conservatives including Bob Barr, author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Vice-President Cheney and many conservative members of the United State Congress have argued against an amendment.

"We win elections by addition not subtraction. With the electorate evenly divided, a small number of fair minded swing voters who embrace tolerance and inclusion will decide this election. They want our party to focus on jump-starting the
American economy and winning the war on terror not igniting the failed cultural wars of the past," Guerriero added.

Responding to concerns of religious freedom and tolerance and Catholic church teacings in the article, Guerriero, a Catholic, added, "The last time I checked the Catholic church was opposed to the war in Iraq and the death penalty. I doubt we will see those planks in our platform. The GOP platform and convention should be used to unite Republicans around the party's core principles of limited government, free trade, a strong national defense, and support for all American families."


Bob Graham attacks Internet Voting


For Immediate Release:
2003-09-12 Contact:Jamal Simmons, (404) 441-2576
Kristian Denny, (703) 216-4307
Mo Elleithee, (305) 328-5000

Graham statement on Internet voting in Michigan

Statement from Senator Bob Graham

(NY,NY) - Senator Graham issued the following statement responding to a story noting that the Michigan Democratic Party is planning to allow party members to vote for the party’s presidential nominee via the Internet, as well as by attending the Feb. 7 caucus or mailing in a ballot.

“Michigan’s decision to allow internet voting in its primary opens a Pandora’s box of issues surrounding the fundamental idea that every American can vote regardless of color, class, or geographic location. I worry that the push for internet voting further disenfranchises poor and minority groups that frequently don’t have access to computers. In fact, the Voting Integrity Project notes that poor and minority voters are less likely to be wired than their peers.

"And in an age of computer viruses, worms, and hackers, I fear that there is too much potential for elections to be manipulated by anyone from a computer hacker to a more sinister force. There are more issues here than meet the eye.

“Until we take steps to address the digital divide and allay fears of potential hackers and jammed lines, I urge Michigan to reject internet voting and assure that the primary is an accurate reflection of the public will.”


EY: Graham is right about this one. The potential for fraud is too high to do this.

Did the Wrath of God Fall on Pat Robertson's Hometown?

a posting from the usaqueers list.

This is just a little reminder about Pat Robertson's record with God...

Back a few years ago when the city of Orlando put up rainbow flags around the city for its Gay Pride celebration, Pat Robertson got on The 700 Club and was bitching & moaning about it and warning viewers that "flying those flags in God's face" was extremely offensive to Him and that doing so would incur God's wrath and cause Him to lay siege to the East coast with hurricanes, tornadoes, and all sorts of Biblical punishments.

None of that ever happened. Although now it looks like God is sending hurricane Isabel right down on top of them in Virginia Beach. But did he tell his viewers to prepare for it? Nope... on Monday night he told his viewers: "Before you worry about how much plywood to get, you need to pray"..."Lay hold of God and rebuke that thing in the name of Jesus" .

Then last night he told his viewers to pray for God to "turn the hurricane back around and make it head back out to sea".

Apparently they haven't done enough rebuking. In fact, looking at the satellite shot, it looks like God is putting the eye right on top of Pat Robertson's home base.

Seems to me that God does more the opposite of what Pat Robertson asks for.

Monday, September 22, 2003

CNS News Responds

Dear Eva --

I am in recepit of your correspondence equating conservative disagreement with homosexuality to bigotry.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Very sincerely,

Scott Hogenson
Executive Editor
Cybercast News Service -

Conservative is not synonomous with Bigot

I sent a letter to the editor at CNS News.

I believe your August 25th article: Conservatives Decry Homosexual 'Hijacking' of Civil Rights Movement has misused the term "Conservative". Your article states: In 1997, Alveda Celeste King, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece, was quoted by the Associated Press from a speech she had given at a rally on the U.S. Capitol steps - warning that the equation of homosexuality to race was a "death sentence" for the civil rights movement.

"No one is enslaving homosexuals... or making them sit in the back of the bus," Alveda King reportedly said. "Don't expect us or our children to approve of, promote or elevate sexual preference to civil rights status...What's next, civil rights on the basis of prostitution and pedophilia?"

"Conservative" is not synonomous with anti-gay or bigot. This statement from Miss King sounds like the bigoted rantings from Fred Phelps ( or Bob Enyart

I find it rather ironic when contacting "Black Conservatives" that you didn't think to get a comment from Ward Connerly, who has been a leader in opposing Affirmative Action? As a member of the University of California Board of Regents, Connerly supported Domestic Partner benefits for University of California staff. Connerly also opposed the anti-gay proposition 22 (which restricted marriage in California to being between a man and a woman.) Also, why didn't you get comments from prominent Gay Conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan, Dale Carpenter or Patrick Guerriero?

Since when do anti-gay activists such as Peter LaBarbara, Peter Sprigg have any standing in the Civil Rights movement? Your article quotes one black conservative, and uses a 1997 quote from Alveda King, Martin Luther King's niece. Why not discuss what is really happening in the Black community, which is that Black Conservatives and Black Liberals are divided over the issue of Gay marriage?

Eva Young
Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota

Anti-gay Activists Decry Homosexual 'Hijacking' of Civil Rights Movement

Townhall mistakenly titles this with the word "conservative" rather than "anti-gay activist". I have corrected the title. I have included the text of the article, correcting it when it uses the term conservative, when the more accurate term is anti-gay activist.

( - The invitation to homosexual activists to participate in ceremonies marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Junior's "I Have a Dream" speech, drew sharp criticism from a black anti-gay activist who said the struggle against racial discrimination should not be compared to the fight for homosexual acceptance.

EY: Why don't they get a quote from Ward Connerly? It's because Connerly won't give them the quote they want.

This year's events, held in Washington, D.C., where King delivered his famous speech in 1963, marked the first time in which the African American group sponsors invited homosexual organizations such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) to participate.

However, anti-gay activists charged that homosexual advocates were trying to hijack the civil rights movement led by King.

"It doesn't surprise me that they're trying to 'glom on' to Dr. King's civil rights movement," Council Nedd, advisory board member of Project 21 - an initiative of the National Center for Public Policy Research to promote the views of African Americans - told "They've been doing this progressively more and more for the last 30 years."

In King's speech, he referred to his dream of all people one day being "judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." However, according to Nedd, while a person cannot escape the color of their skin, a person can escape the nature of their sexuality.

"Say for instance if you're a white homosexual, if things get rough, you can always escape into the protective camouflage of your whiteness. I, as a black person, can't do that. I can't hide from my color. They can hide from their homosexuality easier. To equate the two, as an African American male, I have a problem with that."

While refusing to comment to, a spokesman for the NGLTF stated his group's enthusiasm over being included in the ceremonies commemorating King's speech.

"We are extremely honored to have been invited to be a co-convener of this historic event where we will begin, in unity with the larger civil rights community, the long process of renewing, repairing and restoring the vision of full equality for all," Matt Foreman, NGLTF communications director, stated in the release.

"The hard-won progress the nation has achieved in the 40 years since Dr. King's historic speech is in mortal danger. That progress is being undermined every day as our civil rights are being eroded and our gains in racial, social and economic justice are being dismantled," said Foreman.

EY: NGLTF should have returned CNS's calls.

Mandy Carter, executive director of Southerners on New Ground, added her own perspective in the same statement.

"As a black woman and a lesbian, I think it's important to not only emphasize equal civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as a whole, but specifically for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of color as well,"

Speaking at an NGLTF conference in November 2000, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s widow, Coretta Scott King, said she was sure her late husband would have welcomed homosexuals into the civil rights movement.

"We are all tied together in a single garment of inescapable network of mutuality... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," Mrs. King said. "Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

Yet some questioned Mrs. King's motives and sincerity.

"The only blacks who are big gay activists are the elites, and they are way out of touch with the rank and file African American. You don't see the average black person relishing the idea of their comparison with homosexuals as a racial minority," Peter LaBarbera, senior policy analyst with Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute, told "Shame on Coretta Scott King and the liberal black leadership for helping the gay lobby make these ridiculous comparisons."

EY: Why doesn't LaBarbera talk about Ward Connerly - who has always been very pro-gay? Isn't Walter Fauntroy a Black Liberal? Why doesn't LaBarbera mention that? And why doesn't the CNS News Service get a comment from Fauntroy.

Since when does Peter LaBarbara speak for all blacks?

In 1997, Alveda Celeste King, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece, was quoted by the Associated Press from a speech she had given at a rally on the U.S. Capitol steps - warning that the equation of homosexuality to race was a "death sentence" for the civil rights movement.

"No one is enslaving homosexuals... or making them sit in the back of the bus," Alveda King reportedly said. "Don't expect us or our children to approve of, promote or elevate sexual preference to civil rights status...What's next, civil rights on the basis of prostitution and pedophilia?"

EY: Oh gee, she sounds like Arlon Lindner or Bob Enyart.

Peter Sprigg, director of marriage and family studies for the Family Research Council, cited a July 28 USA Today/Gallup poll he said reveals "the African American community does not support the homosexual agenda." Their support fell from 58 percent in May to 36 percent in July, according to the poll.

"We think it's outrageous the way that pro-homosexual groups have tried to hijack the civil rights movement for their own purposes," Sprigg told

EY: And when has the FRC ever supported any Civil Rights initiative.

Dale Carpenter, a prominent Gay Conservative, asks the question: Why do some gay leaders want to give “our allies” in the civil rights establishment a pass on their failure to support marriage equality? It's what happens when championing a broad range of partisan and “progressive” causes takes precedence over fighting for our own fundamental rights.

Carpenter goes on:

But suppose a gay Republican stood before a Republican convention and gave the following speech:

“On behalf of an incredibly diverse gay community, I thank you for letting us walk with you on the road to low taxes, less regulation, and a strong defense. Sure, we disagree about some things. But we will set aside our differences with you because what we agree on far outweighs our differences. We all favor equality and oppose violence and think abortion is terrible. We will not let the left drive a wedge between you and us by discussing our differences or by trying to persuade you on them. It is critical right now that we think only of what we agree about and walk together proudly to defeat our common enemies. ”

He would be hooted out of the gay movement for that speech, and rightly so. He would be called a traitor to the gay-rights cause. He would be excoriated for presuming to speak “on behalf of the gay community” in such an obsequious way. Yet with a few changes in wording (among other things, substitute “jobs, peace, and freedom” for “lower taxes, less regulation, and a strong defense”), that is the speech Foreman gave. Foreman's omissions and obfuscations are even less forgivable than that gay Republican's would be since Foreman was speaking to our putative friends.

EY: Actually, I think NGLTF is getting some of the criticism that Gay Republicans have gotten from the Gay Left. I actually think Carpenter shouldn't be going after NGLTF - they have clearly taken a position in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. I do think there are a significant number of leftie gays, who are activists in other typical left causes - civil rights, gun control, labor - who will advise candidates that marriage and discrimination in the military aren't big priorities for gays. It's a kind of arrogance - just because some gays on the left want to get rid of the institution of marriage all together because it's a patriarchal institution or whatever else, doesn't mean they speak for all gays.

The Washington Blade reports on this internal debate within the gay community. From the article:

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, watched Foreman’s speech on television and thought it was a “strong call for support and alliance for full equality.”

“I thought his speech was absolutely appropriate. A well done [speech] and on an important occasion,” Wolfson said. “I felt he did address the issue [of gay marriage] very pointedly with his call for support which was intertwined in full and equal respect for our families and civil rights.”

Wolfson said it was wrong to “put a microscope on one’s speech” and said the more important question to gay leaders is “how effective have they been in reaching out to non-gay allies.”

EY: I agree with the importance of this. It's also important for Gay Conservatives to reach out to non-gay allies - such as the National Rifle Association.

more from the article:

Lynn Cothren, chair of the program committee for the 40th Anniversary of the March on Washington, said that Foreman is “not our enemy” and questioned the motivation of those criticizing Foreman.

“I didn’t tell Martin Luther King Jr. what to say on that day, and I didn’t tell Matt Foreman what to say,” said Cothren, who is gay and former head of Queer Nation’s Atlanta chapter. “Out of respect for our gay leadership, we have a history of picking fights with ourselves. Before we start attacking each other, we have to look at the people attacking and their motivations behind that.”

Cothren said most gays “find every issue facing their community a critical issue that must be addressed” and questioned whether gay marriage is “the be all-end-all issue.”

“I’m not sure if this [gay marriage] is an agenda that we are setting or is it being set for us,” Cothren said. “From what I understand, [lawmakers] aren’t necessarily pushing for anything, there’s no real sense that they are going to get support to get their legislation passed and signed by the president. [Gay marriage] doesn’t concern every gay and lesbian person. We are playing into making it an issue.”

This is perhaps the reason Martin Luther King III answered a question about Gay Marriage in this way.

In an Aug. 21 online forum sponsored by the Washington Post, Martin Luther King III dodged the issue [of Gay marriage]. He said, “I don’t know if I have an opinion on gay marriage yet because I don’t think there is a universal opinion, even in the gay community, on the subject. I do work with leaders in the gay and lesbian community and some of them have not formed an opinion on the issue of marriage. Until I clearly understand what the gay and lesbian community wants to have, I don’t think I would want to articulate any view at this point.”

The NGLTF’s Foreman continued the charade. Just a few months earlier, at a forum on “the gay agenda,” he had called the far right’s push for a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, “a blazing inferno” that threatens to race through Congress.

Yet, gazing out from the podium on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, with The Capitol Building at the center of his panoramic view of Washington, Foreman did not even allude to the issue of marriage in his speech.

EY: I think Wolfson got it right, he used the terms gay families in his speech. Foreman isn't the enemy. People like Fauntroy, and Altheda King need to be confronted. And it would be nice if one news organization would get a comment from Ward Connerly - who favors domestic partner benefits, and opposed the bigoted Proposition 22.

Bleating from the FRC

***Media Advisory***

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On August 23rd, groups from around the nation will gather at the Lincoln Memorial to mark the 40th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. The "March on Washington" event is co‑sponsored by a number of liberal organizations, and this year, it will incorporate homosexual activist organizations. The Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council strongly opposes the hijacking of the civil rights movement by homosexual activists, and believes that homosexual behavior cannot be equated with such innate characteristics as sex or race.

"Time and again, pro‑homosexual activists have attempted to forward their political agenda by associating themselves with the civil rights movement, much to the dismay of many African‑Americans, who fought long and hard for their rights," said Peter Sprigg, Director of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council.

"They are even extending these arguments to their demands for counterfeit marriage by saying that same‑sex couples are being discriminated against the same way inter‑racial couples had been years ago. This analogy is not valid at all. Marriages between members of different races and different religions do not change the fundamental design of the marriage relationship: that of one man and one woman. So-called "same-sex marriage," however, completely dismantles the marital union," Sprigg said.

Members of the media looking for reaction to the involvement of gay and lesbian organizations in this weekend's "March on Washington", please contact the FRC press office.

Walter Fauntroy is one of the organizers of this march - and also is a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Fauntroy used to be the Washington DC Delegate to Congress.

The theocrats are trying to recruit in minority communities. The Washington Times article about the press conference of the Alliance for Marriage states: Three Republican senators, flanked by several dozen community, religious and civil rights leaders, voiced their support yesterday for efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. If they are talking about civil rights leaders, they must mean Walter Fauntroy. It's a stretch that this amendment has anything to do with Civil Rights.

Santorum, Sessions and Sodomy - Oh My!

from the Washington Times.....

Three Republican senators, flanked by several dozen community, religious and civil rights leaders, voiced their support yesterday for efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
"I believe it would be eminently appropriate and wise and good if the American people would speak on this subject," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican.
He and other senators spoke at a Capitol Hill gathering organized by the Alliance for Marriage, a coalition that is promoting a federal marriage amendment. Speakers at the event included representatives of a Hispanic evangelical network and the African Methodist Episcopal Church, as well as an Orthodox rabbi and the executive director of the Islamic Society of North America.

Later the same day, Stonewall Democrats issued this.

NSD Criticizes Senate Republicans for Anti-Gay Lobby Campaign


Contact: John Marble
September 18, 2003

GOP Senators Hold Press Conference to Urge Passage of Anti-Gay Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC - National Stonewall Democrats today sharply criticized Senate Republicans for publicly calling for an anti-gay amendment that would write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. Standing on the steps of the Capitol building on Wednesday, Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) held a press conference in which they lobbied Senate colleagues to pass such an amendment. In addition, Republican Senator John Cornyn, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, wrote to colleagues and urged them to pass the amendment as well. The Senators were joined at the press conference by members of the Alliance for Marriage, the anti-gay group that first initiated the amendment drive.

"Republicans are promoting this amendment in order to divert attention from their domestic failures," said Dave Noble, NSD Executive Director. "Dividing Americans for political gain is not patriotic. Focus on fixing this economy and winning the war on terrorism, and do your job."

In July, National Stonewall Democrats announced that the organization will withhold electoral endorsements and financial support from any congressional Democrat who offers co-sponsorship to the anti-marriage amendment. While the amendment has not yet been introduced in the Senate, its counterpart, House Joint Resolution 56, has been introduced in the House of Representatives with significant Republican support.

The proposed anti-marriage amendment would force federal dictates on state governments. It would prohibit states and localities from granting civil recognition to same-sex relationships, and would require states that do recognize such relationships to amend their own constitutions. Although Republican congressional support for the amendment is growing, prominent conservatives, such as former Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) - who authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act - have argued that it would violate conservative principles of federalism. The amendment also does not enjoy the support of the Democratic leadership in Congress.

In order to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a resolution must first be passed by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress. It must then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures, who have up to seven years to approve any such amendment.
National Stonewall Democrats is the only national organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Democrats, with more than 70 local chapters across the nation. NSD is committed to working through the Democratic Party to advance the rights of all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

# # #

EY: It's fair enough to criticize these Senators. It doesn't help Republicans to get Santorum back into the spotlight.

Sunday, September 21, 2003

Will Shunning Gay Republicans Move the Ball Forward?

“I guess if you're gay but you're also rich, and you like to pollute, and you don't like black people, then you vote Republican. But it's not rational to think that voting Republican is the
best way to advance the gay agenda."

Barney Frank quoted in “A Log Cabin Divided” by Jake Tapper, Salon April 6,

“I can't in good conscience urge the rest of us to do what part of me really would like to do: slap them silly and throw them off the Washington Avenue Bridge.” Richard Osborne, “The Gay Agenda”, Lavender Magazine, December 12, 2002

“Gay Republicans make as much sense as … African American Klansmen”
Pete Wagner, Editorial Cartoon, Minnesota Daily, 4/18/2000

Statements like the ones above are rather typical of what many Gay Republicans face from other members of the Gay community. What is ironic about these statements is that we are frequently treated to lectures from the “progressive” left about the need to tolerance and inclusion. Statements like these show that tolerance and inclusion is only for those who hold the standard orthodox left political views.

Osborne’s article quotes anti-gay segments of the Minnesota Republican party platform, and suggests that by being active in the Republican Party, Gay Republicans are supporting these anti-gay elements in the party platform. Osborne’s solution is to socially shun Gay Republicans in order to bring them in line with liberal orthodoxy. What I don't understand is how shunning Gay Republicans is going to help the Gay community as a whole in our struggle for equal treatment under the law.

These statements and the editorial cartoon demonstrate a complete ignorance of the work Log Cabin Republicans are doing across the country -- educating Republican candidates, elected officials, party officials (at all levels) and gays/lesbians to both sides of complicated, politically charged issues that face us all as Americans.

LCR does what no other gay and lesbian organization or individual is strong enough to do: it puts a human and personal face in front of republican officials; it educates the "gay community" about Republicanism and our party's issues; and it boldly stands in the face of "politics as usual" to ensure that the two
party system works to guarantee equality for all Americans, specifically gay and lesbian Americans.

None of this is easy work. None of this work is rewarded by members of either side. In fact, in my experience that gay and lesbian Republicans get more punishment and grief from the far left in our own community than is placed on us by the far right. But, we are committed to stand in the face of those that ridicule us to change the Republican party and in the process, build a better America.

Do the nutcases in the GOP still have too much influence in the party? I'd certainly give an unqualified yes to that one. I just heard from a friend who managed a campaign for a candidate in the western suburbs (Lindner territory). My friend met with a GOP theocratic activist who is a major player over there -- and inspires great fear in candidates in that area because she is known as a kingmaker - and breaker. This woman asked my friend what church he went to (my friend is a catholic, but doesn't attend church regularly), then the this woman started going on in rather vivid detail about "gay bowel syndrom" and whatever else. My friend wasn't quite sure what this had to do with the campaign.

As gay and lesbian Americans, we should band together on those things that we can agree and make a stand to all elected officials in a unified voice for our issues. We need to recognize the validity of both parties in our legislative system. We need to know that our struggle can only advance when we work from within each of party to argue the validity of equality for our communities.

In this past election, the Republican party made significant gains in Minnesota, gaining seats in the state house, the Governor's mansion, and the US Senate race. Now that the election is over, as a community we need to figure out how most effectively to deal with this situation, and we also as a community need to start reaching out to our new Governor, Tim Pawlenty and Senator Norm Coleman.

There are certainly significant challenges on gay issues within the Republican Party. There is a segment of the Republican "base" that is motivated by anti-gay bigotry of the sort promoted by Pat Robertson, Alan Quist, Tom Prichard, Jerry Falwell and company. However, the one way to change that sort of thing among politicians is to challenge and expose it when it occurs, and to make sure that anti-gay messages cost politicians more than they are worth. It also means getting active with volunteer and financial support to GOP politicians who support us. Tim Pawlenty heard quite a bit from the anti-gay bigots when he voted in favor of the Human Rights Act in 1993. I have always wondered how many people wrote him to thank him for that vote.

I think it's promising that Charlie Weaver is the Pawlenty transition team leader. I would be
very concerned if the transition team leader was someone like Alan Quist. Recall that the Quisties were trying to use gay issues against Pawlenty at the Republican convention -- and that failed -- even at the GOP convention.

Gays being active in the Democratic party isn't going to do anything to counteract the excessive influence the anti-gay theocrats have in the Republican party. The only way to counteract the anti-gay influence in the GOP is by being active in the GOP, and by working with other people in the Republican party, who want to bring the party back to its historic roots as the party of Lincoln.