counter statistics

Saturday, November 22, 2003

Comment from a reader on GLBT in the GOP


I know that you are not only about GLBT issues, and that your choice of political party reflects your broader values. However, I must say I continue to be amazed at how you turn a blind eye to the blatant homophobic nature of your (the Republican) party.

I like how you ignore the fact that it is Bush, Ashcroft, Mit Romney, Arlen Lindner, Michelle Bachmann and Liz Holberg (all Republicans) that have taken hard anti-human rights positions on this (and every “gay” issue). But, you try to tie the GOP and DFL together through the Pawlenty and Rest.

The fact is, that if the Republican party was not in power, there would be NO chance of a marriage amendment. If the Republican party wasn’t so universally opposed to human rights, it is actually likely that the DFL could take a chance and advocate for GLBT rights (including a civil union or universal marriage bill). The problem is, that, because the Republican leadership is so consistently opposed to these rights and uses them as platforms in many races statewide, the DFL leadership must protect swing seats and cannot go vocal.

I must say, it is this apologizing for the vast majority of Republicans that helps keep these GOP leaders in office. I honestly do not know how you can remain in a party that is so blinded by false morality and outdated customs.

Letter to Worldnet Daily

Since Tom Swift is trying to raise the Culture and Family Institute Hit Piece Against me again, both in comments on this blog, in sodomlist, and on Mitch Berg's comments thread. I thought I'd post my response.

Letter to Worldnet Daily

Dear WorldNetDaily:

You recently published an article that suggested that Log Cabin Republicans is involved with groups that advocate violence:

Since much of this article focused on myself, Eva Young, and an e-group that both myself and Allyson Smith (the author of the Culture and Family
Institute, source for your article) participate in, Us_Queers, I wished to respond. The US Queers Egroup can be found here. The latest active version of the egroup is available here.

I encourage your readers to check out this group for themselves. There are a variety of perspectives on that group. My participation in that group, and my work with Log Cabin Republicans are separate things.

First of all, WorldNetDaily never contacted me for comment on this article. I am on many Web forums and e-groups. This doesn't mean I agree with others on the forums. Before this, I remember debating with Allan Ross on the Queerpolitics list, and I thought he was totally looney left. On the Queerpolitics list, I condemned the sentiments expressed on the Web page quoted in the WorldNetDaily article. I was especially critical of the use of former President Ronald Reagan's name on this page. Former President Reagan was never a gay hater. In 1978, Reagan publicly opposed Proposition 6 which would have banned gay teachers in the California Schools.

I just disagreed that the UsQueers site should be forced to be taken down. I've always been strongly in favor of freedom of speech, and have always disliked hate-speech codes and that sort of thing. I also have always been a vocal opponent of hate-crimes legislation. If you review the contents of my Weblog, this should be obvious.

Look at other stuff in the Culture and Family Institute piece. They mention that I work for the University of Minnesota, and the University of Minnesota Press published Judith Levine's book. Well, I don't work for the University of Minnesota Press and don't have anything to do with anything politically the university does, and don't have editorial control over what the University of Minnesota Press publishes or doesn't publish. It is a non-sequitor to say the university hired me and the University Press published Judith Levine's book - the two don't have anything to do with each other. I am employed by the University of Minnesota, but my political activities are independent of that. The piece mentions that Log Cabin Republicans should "fire" me. I am a local President of Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota, but this is a volunteer and not a paid position. I was elected to this position by LCR Minnesota Members at an annual membership meeting. It is up to the members of LCR Minnesota to choose the leadership for LCR Minnesota.

Also look at the end of the Allyson Smith piece on the C&F website:

Take action

Pray for Eva Young, Bruce Allan Ross, Rusty Morris, Patrick Guerrierro, and everyone associated with and Log Cabin Republicans to be delivered from homosexuality. Do what you can to inform Republican Party officials about Log Cabin Republicans' radical 'gay' activist affiliations.

The piece then gives the e-mails and phone numbers of the president of the U.S., the Republican National Committee and Log Cabin Republicans.

This pretty much sums up the Culture and Family Institute agenda: to try to get gay people who are perfectly comfortable with their sexuality to change to being straight. I still do not understand why it is the Culture and Family Institute's business to decide who I fall in love with. It seems to me an issue that is my business and between me and a partner. It is also my business if I chose to remain single, or whether to get romantically involved with a woman.

As far as Gary Morella goes, I wrote him and the Penn State spokesman to ask if Morella spoke for Penn State or for himself. I also wanted to know whether the things he was saying were related to his research at Penn, or just speaking for himself as an individual. The Penn State spokesman told me Morella didn't speak for Penn State.

And let's see guess who was the source of most of this: Kirk Zimpfer of Muncie Indiana - a guy who believes sodomy ought to be punished by the death penalty, and also a guy who posted really crude sexual messages to other gay men on both the UsQueers list (the one I was criticized for participating in) and Sodomlist. If you want to see some of those messages for yourself, simply go to Sodomlist messages and
search on "homosareperverse" which is Kirk Zimpfer's pen name on that list.

Kirk claims credit for this article on the e-group rushroom by posting the CWFA story with this title line: "You're famous Eva and I'm the one that started it all."

He also claims credit for the article on sodomlist:

"Well, well, well, Sodom List's fearless leader makes national news."

"I'm taking full credit for this one, Eva. I sent out several e-mails to conservative groups and to Allyson Smith noting your involvement with UsQueers. Let's just hope that the LCR has enough common sense to remove a radical like yourself."

A number of Republican Party of Minnesota district chairs participated in the Southwest Minnesota Politics list run by Ben Thompson. Ben Thompson's
been convicted of molesting two teen-age girls. Ben Thompson also had a leadership role in one of Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R Minnesota) campaigns? Does that mean the Republican Party of Minnesota or Rep. Mark Kennedy support that criminal act? Of course it doesn't. This is the logic that the C&F folks are trying to use against me and against Log Cabin Republicans.

Eva Young
Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota

The Horse vs the Hare

Erik Hare responds to Mr Ed's Julie Quist:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, MREdCo wrote:
To correct your statement about the EdWatch position on the evolution controversy in the science standards, our position is, and always has been, to teach the scientific controversy.

There IS no "scientific controversy" to teach. There is zero controversy concerning evolution among scientists.

Three IS a disagreement between people of science and people who follow a very narrow interpretation of traditional teachings. But to call such a dispute a "scientific controversy" is a pretty blatant lie on your part.

Frankly, telling these ridiculous lies is a major part of your strategy to indoctrinate children like mine in your bizarre interpretations of things doesn't help your cause one bit. You need to be a lot more honest about things before anyone has any syumpathy for you.

Erik Hare
Irvine Park, West End, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA, North America, Earth

Fine Amish furniture, cedar chests, and crafts

Busted! The Santorum Amendment Mr Ed discusses, isn't in the No Child Left Behind Act

Is Maple River Education Coalition/Edwatch Bearing False Witness?

Susan Rego explains:

The Santorum amendment in the No Child Left Behind Act won't help EdWatch if they hope it can be used to get Intelligent Design taught in Minnesota public schools, because according to my information, that amendment was stripped from the final version.

Both Commissioner Yecke and Sen. Michelle Bachmann have made statements in the press recently that indicate they believe that the Santorum amendment was included in Public Law 107-110 (The No Child Left Behind Act). It is true that Santorum inserted a version of his amendment in the explanation of the conference committee report, but that language is not part of the official Act which was signed into law by Pres. Bush.

Go here to read more about the stripped amendment.

Susan Rego
St. Michael

Friday, November 21, 2003

Julie Quist from Mr Ed/Edwatch responds


To correct your statement about the EdWatch position on the evolution controversy in the science standards, our position is, and always has been, to teach the scientific controversy. It is not, as you state, "to make sure Creationism (religious beliefs dressed up as Science) are included in the Science Standards."

Creationsim, by definition, is the Genesis account of Creation. We do not believe that should be part of the Minnesota Academic Science Standards.

As our press release of November 8th stated:

The Santorum amendment, a section of the No Child Left Behind conference report, clarifies Congressional intent that all sides of controversial subjects such as evolution be included. The amendment states: "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy [such as biological evolution], the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist and why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

Our position is the same as the Santorum amendment, passed overwhelmingly by Congress in No Child Left Behind.

Julie M. Quist

EY: The Edwatch alert mentions the Santorum Amendment. It also adds:

Unfortunately, flexibility in the classroom, if not reflected in the state science standards, is entirely meaningless. NCLB requires that state administer science tests, and that these tests be aligned with the state science standards.

If the Science Standards require that "students will...recognize that 3.5 billion years" are necessary to explain the origins of life, as the proposed standards presently require, then students will be tested on those standards. What teachers will teach other data that may interfere with a student's "correct" answer on a test -- a test which will classify the school as a failure or a success?

The tests determine what will be taught. No one argues that. The standards determine what will be on the test.

EY: Interesting..... Edwatch supports scientific controversies getting taught in the Science Standards, but wants "fact based standards" for social studies. After all, I'm sure Edwatch fully supports the standard that God is mentioned 4 times in the Declaration of Independence.

It was this type of thing that got the Kansas Board of Education to prohibit testing on evolution in the Science Standards there. That outraged parents - and the backlash booted out all the stealth creationist members of that state board.

Is a Threat not a Threat When its Couched in Bible Verses?

On the same list, I responded to Duane...

Thanks Duane for posting this. This doesn't seem to include the original email. Without the original email there is no context. Can you post the original email from Gaudian?

Is a threat not a threat when it's a violent bible verse? I've gotten many emails that criticise what I say - including many from the Leviticus Crowd. I have not gotten emails that use a violent bible verse to try to stress their point.

You can be passionate about your beliefs without making what appears to be veiled death threats - couched in bible verses for cover.

Kudos to the Science Standards Committee member who raised this issue - and forced Commissioner Yecke's hand to write a response. I'd also encourage the author of this letter to directly post here.

Possibly this guy was brought out of the woodwork by the Maple River Education Coalition/Ed Watch alert urging their followers to send comments to the Science Standards committee to make sure Creationism (religious beliefs dressed up as Science) are included in the Science Standards.

The report about this email reminds me a bit of Operation Rescue's Randall Terry's response to the Gay Marriage Ruling:

"If outraged citizens see one of these judges in a bar, they may be tempted to spit in their face, or beat them, or get a bunch of friends to tar and feather them."

Science Standards Committee Member Responds

Duane Quam from the Science Standards committee responded to my post. Interestingly enough, though Duane includes some of the correspondance, he leaves out the original threatening email from the Creationist and also the e-mail from the committee member to Commissioner Yecke complaining about the threat.

Duane writes:

I'm a member of the science standards committee, I chaired the 9-12 sub-committee, the nature and history of science sub-committee, and now chair the writing committee. I have the e-mail traffic on this topic and copies of the letters to and from the commissioner. Taken in the context of all of the communications, I did not see it as a personal threat. Mr. Gaudian, like many that commented to the committee, is very passionate. I did not wish to forward the e-mails, but Mr. Gaudian had stated his desire to set the record straight. He felt that the article did not include the full content, and since much of the content has already been made public, here is the last e-mail that he sent:

Dear Science Standards Committee:
I do not mean, whatsoever, to burden you with unwanted communications, nor weary you of my desire to contend for the truth of the Biblical account of creation. However, it has been brought to my attention that the Education Commissioner's e-mail rebuking me was copied to all of you, and therefore, I felt it was warranted that I let you see my response to her.

Please do not misconstrue my message that those who teach evolution are in grave danger as some sort of threat. Please follow the logic:
1. As a Christian, I believe God's Word in the Holy Scriptures.
2. His Word says that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
3. Therefore, God is a jealous God, He is worthy of all glory and honor because He is the Creator of all things.
4. The teaching of evolution undermines the truth of God's Word that He is our Creator.
5. Those who teach evolution can not be bringing glory and honor to God because they are rejecting Him as the one true living Creator of all things.
6. Therefore, they must not believe in Him or fear Him.
7. In the Book of Hebrews, it says that without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who would come to Him must believe that He exists.
8. Evolution is a totally naturalistic philosophy.
9. The Bible also says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
10. If one doesn't fear the Lord, how then can they even have a whisp of wisdom.
11. If you are teaching that time and chance and undirected processes are accountable for the existance of everything, then you are undermining the truth of Genesis 1:1 that says that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
13. If you are teaching evolution, then, you are undermining the truth of the Bible.
14. If you are undermining the truth of the Bible, then for Christian kids in your classes, you are potentially shipwrecking that childs faith who came into your class believing the Bible and that God created as He said He did in Genesis. For non Christian kids in your classes, you are further alienating them from their Creator.
15. Thus enters the verse I quoted from Matthew 18:6-7 which states, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea... woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"
16. It is only a very loving action on my part to warn those who would teach of their tremendous responsibility not to lead ipressionable young people astray from their Creator by suppressing the truth of creation and undermining their faith by teaching them that evolution is how they got here,
and that they are descendents of rodents and slime, and not created in the image of God. And so that was the subject of my last e-mail to you all to desperately try to get you all to stop and think of the ramifications of what you are proposing to do in your standards as it relates to origins. I am not issuing an idle threat, only sharing what God's Word is clear on, as He loves children and does not want them deceived or lead astray and will hold accountable those who do so and I can't imagine what could be worse than drowning in the depths of the sea, and I personally don't want to know!

Anyway, here is my letter back to Dr. Yecke:

Dear Dr. Yecke:
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my e-mail. I am just bewildered that it seems near impossible to reason with people, and that common sense does not prevail. It will be a tragic and very sad day if evolution remains in our schools after your office had the opportunity in this generation to remove it from our impressionable young people. I still have not even once from yourself or any one on your committee of 41 people had any one justify how it is that evolution can remain in the science curriculum given that it is a philosophy and not science. Evolution is not testable, repeatable, nor observable. It is the main tenet of humanism/atheism. It is scientifically impossible. If you or your committee would have read the articles I sent, you would clearly see this. As I also tried to communicate, Scripture is our source of truth and it is clear that God is our Creator. I did not desire to be harsh in my use of Scripture, but honest that teachers are under tremendous responsibility to not lead people astray with false teaching. Since evolution is a lie, and an affront to our Creator, and denies Scripture, then teachers teaching evolution have no wisdom, because they have no fear of God, and they are leading "little ones astray" and therefore, it is true that they are in dangerous standing before God based on His Word, not mine. In love, I shared this, because there may be some not aware of this truth.
Dr. Yecke, please read the articles I sent you, and the books, and watch the videos, and read your Bible, and then tell me that you can, with a clear conscience, allow evolution to be taught in our schools. I believe you must arrive at the answer that you can not. May you please do right by our students and their parents and our Lord. In Christ,

Bryce Gaudian

Yecke's email:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:28:13 -0600, Yecke, Cheri wrote
Dear Mr. Gaudian: It is obvious that your feelings on this issue are strong and sincere. I have been asked for special meetings by several committee members and others (such as yourself) who are concerned about the standards. However, to be consistent and maintain the integrity of the process, I have declined all such invitations. I have read the latest email that you have sent to committee members, and I find it to be inappropriate. To tell committee members that they should heed "scripture's stern warning of grave peril for your offence" is not in keeping with the civil tone that permeated all aspects of the debate during our many public hearings. While I appreciate the depth of your convictions, I am trusting that the committee members will take into account all of the input that was received. Thank you.

Cheri Pierson Yecke Commissioner of Education

Creationist Sends Threatening Email to Science Standards Committee

Originally posted on MN Politics Discuss....

The November 17 Strib has a story about a threatening email sent to the Science Standards committee.

The report says:

Some members of the committee working to develop Minnesota's science standards were unnerved recently by e-mails sent from an Albert Lea man who heads a creationist group.

Bryce Gaudian referred to a grim biblical reminder of what awaits them if they don't provide students with both sides of the evolution vs. creationism argument. The 40-member committee is deciding on the new academic science standards, which will guide instruction in Minnesota public school classrooms.

Each member received a packet from Gaudian containing two letters, three books, three videos, two pamphlets and 23 articles. Each member also received a couple of e-mails from him.

"All I really should have needed to send each of you would have been the book of Genesis," he wrote in one of the e-mails.

Later in that e-mail, the line that upset some committee members appeared.

He wrote that if members were willing to include only evolution in the science standards, "then I must reiterate to you all once again Scripture's stern warning of grave peril for your offense: 'But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea; woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Matthew
18:6-7).' "

EY: This does seem threatening. If this wasn't hiding behind being a bible quote, would the email have been taken more seriously.

The article continues:

Russanne Low, one of the committee members, was taken aback by the threatening language and wrote a letter to Cheri Pierson Yecke, the state's
education commissioner.

She said the packets were harmless, but when the e-mail with the biblical verse arrived it was hard to determine the exact meaning behind it.

Yecke sent an e-mail to Gaudian and the science standards' committee members, calling his e-mail "inappropriate." She applauded him for the courage of his convictions, but wrote that the biblical language he used "is not in keeping with the civil tone that permeated all aspects of the debate during our many public hearings."

EY: Does anyone here have a copy of the original email from the Creationist - or the response by Yecke. It would be interesting to post both of those.

The article continues:

Gaudian said he was disappointed by Yecke's response. He also said he's heard back from about seven committee members, thanking him for the material.

EY: Well some of these characters seem to know a few more verses to hurl around rather than just the usual Leviticus verses.

Thursday, November 20, 2003

Marginal Minnesota Legislators Propose State Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage

From the Pioneer Press....

In response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling permitting gays to marry, two Minnesota legislators announced Thursday they will try to amend the state constitution to ensure same-sex marriages continue to be barred.

Standing in front of the Minnesota Judicial Center, Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, told reporters that while state law makes it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman, a constitutional change is needed to put the issue "beyond the reach of our state judges."

Bachmann and Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, said they would ask the Legislature to put their proposed constitutional amendment on the 2004 election ballot.

"If the people of Minnesota want to change the definition of marriage, then let them decide that question at the ballot box," Bachmann said.

But Gov. Tim Pawlenty and House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, both said Wednesday they doubted such an amendment is needed. They said state's 1997 Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms that marriage is a privilege for heterosexuals only, most likely would withstand a legal challenge.

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, agreed. "There is no need to put one of our laws in the constitution," said Rest, who voted for the marriage-definition bill in 1997.


Free Republic Thread on the Gay Marriage Decision


Hotly debated.... Though predominantly anti-gay commentary. Ofcourse people who oppose this type of conservativism - like me, get booted from Free Republic.

Gay Marriage No Threat to Life, Liberty or Property

by Neal Boortz

Oh boy. Here I go setting myself up for another few days of incredibly vicious hate mail from self-proclaimed Christians out there. Nothing gets those folks more angry at me than when I indicate that I don't share their hatred and fear of homosexuals. That's OK though. I can handle it.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot discriminate against gay and lesbian couples in the recognition of marriages. The Massachusetts legislature now has 180 days to come up with a way to give homosexual couples the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy under Massachusetts law. So, to put it in the common vernacular, it looks like gay marriages will soon be legal in Massachusetts.

OK .. here we have a judicial action, soon to be a judicial action which is sure to be controversial. My first and really my only concern here is whether or not the action taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Court could lead somehow to a threat to my life, liberty or property, either through force or fraud. Try as hard as I might, I couldn't dream up the scenario where this would happen. Just which one of my rights is violated if, through the operation of law, the estate of a deceased gay man can pass to his gay partner? What do I lose if a lesbian can file a joint federal income tax return with her lesbian partner in marriage? Nothing .. that's what ... nothing. Not a thing.

So can someone tell me on just what basis I'm supposed to rant and rave against the idea of the law recognizing a committed relationship between two people who truly love each other but who happen to be of the same sex? Just what have I lost here? What am I going to lose if every state in the union steps forward and legalizes, as they say, 'gay marriage'? Every single right that I have under the law today I will have under the law after gays and lesbians get their state issued marriage licenses.

Some of you are going to tell me that this is an affront to your religious beliefs. I respect that. But those are religious beliefs and have no role in the operation of government. Your religious beliefs are between you, your God, your family and your church. They are not to be guidelines for the operation of your government. Our government was founded on a principle of equal treatment under the law. Your religion may not be comfortable with that concept. Fine. Live your own life in strict accordance with your religious principles if you wish, but don't try to use the police power of government to compel others to live by them also.

...There is a solution here. State governments could set up two distinct legal relationships between adults. There could be marriages and there could be civil unions. The laws of the state would grant certain privileges and rights to people who have formed state recognized civil unions. These would be the rights and privileges generally afforded to heterosexual couples today. As for marriages? Let the church's handle those. Create a system whereby governments recognize civil unions, and churches recognize marriages. If people want to be 'married' let them go to a church and have their civil union recognized and blessed by the church. Otherwise, you simple remain 'partners,' but with all of the legal rights and privileges that the government grants to those who's unions are recognized by a church.

In the meantime ... unless you can tell me how the Massachusetts decision is going to effect your rights under the law, it's my position that you have nothing to gripe about."

- Talk-show host Neal Boortz

More Restlessness from the Gay Dems

from the DNC blog....

How nice to see the DNC sending out a notice about the court ruling in Massachusetts, with lots of quoting and knocking of the Republicans, without a word about how the Democratic Party views this topic.

Oh wait, we know… Democrats don't support same-sex civil marriage either.

So glad that every major candidate for the nomination thinks that my boyfriend and I deserve less rights than they do or that our relationship should be accorded a second-class status to theirs.

Thanks Terry! I'll go grab my checkbook right now…

More Restlessness from Gay Democrats

Gays and lesbians contribute much more to this party than they get in return, just like every other minority who sticks with the democrats because the republicans stink. When will the democrats stop being wishy-washy and stand behind its supporters. As a lesbian, I'm extremely disappointed in the presidential candidates who said they opposed gay marriage but believes in equal rights for gays. Hello? Do I hear "separate but equal"? And didn't the Supreme Court already throw that argument out a long time ago?

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Brickbats from a Gay Democrat

Many people tend to have the impression that liberals are good on gay issues and conservatives are anti-gay. This is certainly not true.
Of course not, at least not to Eva Young, lesbian Republican. Eva is so deluded that she votes against her own self-interest by supporting a bigoted
political party (the Republicans) who are about 99% in favor of concentration camps for gays and lesbians, yet she continues to rail against liberals and Democrats who have a much smaller concentration of bigots -- probably about 15% would be a safe estimate. In Hitler's concentration camps there were Jewish traitors who were very much like Eva Young -- they were called "kapos." Same thing here. Eva's pathetic journey recently climaxed when she posted in the usaqueers Yahoo! group that homophobe minister Fred Phelps is a Democrat while ignoring the fact that Ted Bundy and child rapist David Westerfield are both Republicans. Bundy, in fact, committed many murders while officially on the road conducting Republican "business." Ah, but that's too difficult for self-hating lesbians to comprehend.

Take the Quiz

The Partner's Taskforce has a list of statements used to argue against interracial marriages. The arguments sound very similar to the arguments against same sex marriages.

Dean Gets Criticized for Waffling in his reaction to Gay Marriage

from the DNC blog

This will be my first election to vote in since Clinton/Bush Sr. I have been disturbed in recent years that the democrats have not offered a real alternative to the republicans. This year, I am not only voting in the election, but the democratic primary as well. I have "come around" because of my excitement over the candidacy of Governor Dean.

I am disturbed however by Governor Dean's backing away from gay marriage last night. I do realize that Vermont (his state) is considered very progressive on this issue because it allows "civil unions," but I just cannot understand why Dr. Dean refuses to state the obvious and say that the country should afford the same privileges to ALL of its citizens. Who would gay marriage hurt?!

I really feel that this is an example of Howard Dean worrying more about being elected than stating his convictions. What attracts me to Dean, however, is that he does not back away from his convictions. I hope that I am not seeing a shift in him in which he begins to say only what will help his campaign instead of what he truly believes.

Why can we not get a major candidate to state that the definition of "marriage" is "a mutually affirming, exclusive adult relationship committed to love, honor, and cherish until death do them part?"

Conservative Chuck Muth Weighs in on the Ruling

from Chuck Muth's News and Views

When Harry Married Gary

OK. OK. I know many of you are just champing at the bit to inveigh over the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling handed down on Tuesday regarding the state's restriction on an individual's right to marry the person of their choice. Indeed the sky-is-falling hysterics began almost immediately after the decision was released (with the requisite fundraising appeals right behind).

Randall Terry - considered a zealot by many, but a hero in some social conservative circles - issued a statement saying, "If outraged citizens see one of these judges in a bar, they may be tempted to spit in their face, or beat them, or get a bunch of friends to tar and feather them."

Nice, Randy. Very nice. So much for reasoned argument.

Gary Bauer's press release included a suggestion that "Perhaps it is time for another Boston Tea Party," though I fail to see how polluting Boston Harbor with little bags of Lipton has anything to do with the issue of gay marriage. It's not like the government is trying to tax heterosexuality. Or maybe Mr. Bauer just wants to protest England being ruled by a "queen."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was apoplectic. "This is THE wake-up call for both the American public and our elected officials," Perkins gushed in a news release. "If we do not amend the Massachusetts State Constitution so that it explicitly protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and if we do not amend the U.S. Constitution with a federal marriage amendment that will protect marriage on the federal level, we will lose marriage in this nation."

No we won't, Tony. Just because the Massachusetts Supreme Court said the state couldn't discriminate against gay couples seeking a marriage license doesn't mean men and women won't be allowed to marry any longer. We're not going to "lose marriage in this nation." How silly.

Anyway, I've given a cursory read to the opinion and to the dissents, and the opinion appears reasoned and rational while the dissents are unpersuasive. But that's just my first reading. I might change my mind after giving it more thorough scrutiny.

I'm sure many of you can't wait to tell me how wrong I am and how wrong the court was. That's fine. It's an important public policy issue. Far from being THE most important issue facing our nation today, but of significant concern to many Americans.

However, in arguing your point in emails to me, please do so on the merits of the decision itself. Quote me the law, not Leviticus. This is about the state Constitution, not the Bible.

And if you can't start every message with the words, "Dear Butthead, I have read the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, and." then don't waste your
time. Because I won't waste MY time arguing with someone who won't invest THEIR time to actually read what the justices wrote.

For those of you interested in a serious debate on the substance of this issue, not the hysterics, you can read the court's decision, as well as the dissents, by going to:

Log Cabin Republicans on Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling

Contact: Mark Mead
202 347 5306 x112
mobile 202 297 5026
Log Cabin applauds Massachusetts Supreme Court decision

(Washington) Log Cabin Republicans applaud the decision today of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that same and opposite sex couples must be given equal civil marriage rights under the state constitution.

"Log Cabin has always worked for equal, not special rights, clearly this historic decision addresses that. We call on the legislature and the Governor to follow the direction of the court and provide civil marriage benefits to committed couples in loving relationships," said Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.

Guerriero is a former Massachusetts legislator, mayor and has served as executive director of Log Cabin Republicans since January of this year.

"It is important to remember that this ruling in no way impacts religious organizations. No church, synagogue or mosque will be forced to recognize same sex relationships. This ruling is about the responsibilities and rights that only government can confer with civil recognition," added Guerriero.

The ruling will insure that same sex couples will have hospital visitation assured without question, file joint tax returns, and make health care decisions for their partner.


Log Cabin Republicans is the nation's largest gay Republican organization, with state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time Washington office and a federal political action committee

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

MFC Ambulance Chasing Comments

The city of mpls also passed a livable wage law which prohibited city monies from going to businesses who did not pay a livable wage, yet they dumped 50 million dollars at least towards the downtown target and the wage ordinance was waved. Was there any out cry by the gay community over this? If not, why not and why look to others to help your cause when your or rather the gay community did not support ordinary folks just trying to make a fair living.
Dain Lyngstad

EY: Short answer - the gay community is a politically diverse community. I'm sure there were some folks in the gay community who were upset about this livable wage law getting overturned for the target subsidy. Others probably opposed the livable wage law. My feeling: I think livable wage solutions are simplistic - to me the real problem is you want to get more people to get on a career track so they aren't stuck in low wage, dead end jobs. Also - when you look at some of the major "living wage" supporters in the Green Party - well the Green Party hires all their staff as independent contractors - and they do not make "living wages". When I brought this up to Elizabeth Dickenson a Green Party candidate for City Council in St Paul - she said - well the GP doesn't have any money. Well the same thing is true for small businesses trying to get started.

Neal Krasnoff quotes me:

Thanks to Ann DeGroot from Outfront Minnesota for the tip. Now that they no longer have the sodomy law to defend in the state legislature, they seem to need something else to do.
Anyway, from this, it looks like they are looking for plaintiffs to try to sue the Minneapolis "deep pocket".

The suit I'd really like to see? Single employees suing on the basis of inequitable compensation. To me that's the real inequity going on.

The city has no legitimate authority to force a social policy upon a contractor. This is a liberty and equal protection issue.

Go fight your culture war with someone else's money.

Neal Krasnoff
Loring Park

Then Eric Meininger responds to Neal:

Excuse me? Since when should the city with my tax dollars not advocate on my behalf that I and my neighbors should get the same compensation for my family that others get?

My tax dollars fund services and we should be able to decide to not hire contractors that have racist or bigoted employment policies.

By the way, bravo to Eva for keeping informed on what the far right is up to.

Eric Meininger
Lowry Hill East

Anti-Gay Minnesota Family Council Goes Ambulance-Chasing in Minneapolis

Thanks to Ann DeGroot from Outfront Minnesota for the tip. Now that they no longer have the sodomy law to defend in the state legislature, they seem to need something else to do.

What's interesting is you would think no Minneapolis pol worth his or her salt would be afraid of the Minnesota Family Council - or pay any attention to their bigoted nonsense. After all, how much of the email they generate about things like the recent repeal of the bathroom ordinance even comes from Minneapolis?

Anyway, from this, it looks like they are looking for plaintiffs to try to sue the Minneapolis "deep pocket".

Now I've got a question - would a business have tanding to sue if they weren't currently doing usiness with the city of Minneapolis? How are here any damages if the business has never done usiness with the city in the past?

The suit I'd really like to see? Single employees uing on the basis of inequitable compensation. To e that's the real inequity going on.

Eva Young
Near North

Dear Friend:

Can you help us? The city of Minneapolis has implemented a pro-homosexual marriage benefits ordinance that will negatively impact many businesses that provide goods and services to the city.

Effective January 1st many companies contracting with the city of Minneapolis to provide more than $100,000 in goods or services will be required to offer their private employees who have domestic partners the same benefits they provide employees who are married. Make no mistake about it. This ordinance is part of an effort to force private employers to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

Not only will this ordinance force many business owners to support behaviors they might oppose on moral or economic grounds, but we strongly believe this ordinance is illegal and will not stand up in a court challenge.

Here's how friends of MFC can help:

Are you or do you know a business owner who does or could potentially provide to the city of Minneapolis any of the goods or services listed below? (Possible candidates would include businesses that contract with other units of government to provide goods or services.) We would like to partner with you and/or other business owners to challenge the legality of this Minneapolis ordinance.

For more information or to see how you can help, contact MFC president Tom Prichard at or 612-789-8811, ext. 207

List of services/materials City of Minneapolis purchase on contract:

Auto Supply
Automobiles/heavy equipment
Banking Services
Cellular Phones
Equipment Rental
Facility Improvement
Fire Prevention
Golf Course material
Grounds keeping
HazMat Contractors
HDR Engineering
Heath Care
Human Services
Information Technology/ITS
Interior Design/Finishing Construction
Legal Services
Liquid Chlorine/Ferric Chloride
Mental Health/Counseling
Office Supplies
Paper Products/Office Supplies
Park Construction/Maintenance
Parking Ticket
Playground Equipment
Reflective Materials
Road Construction
Snow Plow
Social Services
Traffic Control Devices
Tree work
Water Utilities
Wetland Establishment
Wood recycling

DNC GLBT Outreach Email Today

totally leaves out comment on the Massachusetts marriage case. Seems they want to change the subject.

ABC News Poll on Gay Marriage and the FMA

According to Ted Kopel on Nightline:

55% oppose Gay Marriage
20% think the constitution needs to be amended.

Not good news for the FMA.

The Long Awaited Massachusette's Decision on Gay Marriage

Read the opinion here.

The usual suspects are already bleating and whining about how this will destroy civilization.

More Wackiness from the Federalist

August 8th Issue - as posted to Stop the Gay Agenda egroup.

...(watch for) H.J. Resolution 56, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage in the U.S. as a union exclusively between a man and a woman...

Lest you think the culture war's battle over coerced acceptance of homosexuality is overblown as a threat, the next fight in the political conquest to upend sexual morality is already in opening salvos. Meeting in San Francisco recently, members of the American Psychiatric Association entertained a serious discussion over removing pedophilia and other such sexual aberrations (including sadomasochism, exhibitionism, fetish-ism, transvestism, and voyeurism) from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Leading the argument to normalize these sexually aberrant paraphilias, Charles Moser and Peggy Kleinplatz admitted they follow the model of normalizing homosexuality: The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM.

Got that? Translation: Child abusers and sadists simply haven't yet had the lobbying savvy and clout of the homosexual agenda activists. Bottom line: Now that the mental-health professions have jettisoned the notion of moral disorders, mental disorders based in moral dysfunctions have to go, too...

In case you missed CNN's Headline News coverage on the Episcopal House of Bishops' deliberations on elevating Eugene Robinson to Bishop, here is what a
female CNN anchor had to say: He would become the first openly gay Episcopal bitch [slight pause] bishop. She said it, and we heard it, but in order to maintain journalistic integrity and accurately represent CNN's newfound ecumenicalism, we must report that our search for the words "gay Episcopal bitch" at returned no matches.

EY: I contacted the Federalist to find out if this was accurately posted. I received no response.

Monday, November 17, 2003

Whining from the Federalist


"Language has been an important weapon in the 'gay' movement's very swift advance. In the old days, there was 'sodomy': an act. In the late 19th century, the word 'homosexuality' was coined: a condition. A generation ago, the accepted term became 'gay': an identity. Each formulation raises the stakes: One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it's a fully fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than wholehearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot." --Mark Steyn

Well Mark - if the shoe fits, wear it.

The latest mailing I got from the Worried Women of America quoted Justice Scalia ranting about how since the sodomy law gets overturned, horror of
horrors - masturbation might also become legal - quoting Scalia: "State Laws against bigamy, same-sex-marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity....every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision [overturning sodomy laws]."

I didn't know masturbation was illegal in any state. Any one else know about that one?

And yes - despite promoting many things that were blatantly political, the Worried Women advertised donations as "tax deductable".

Sunday, November 16, 2003

Blogger Berg the Anti-Gay-Basher

Apparently Mitch Berg fights the Gay Bashers.....

No, Mr. Howe, I'm far from a bigot. I participated in a gay bashing once. On the side of the bashee, as luck would have it. And I may be the most pro-gay-rights conservative Republican you'll ever meet. I try not to let the activities of people like Eva Young and Terrell Brown color that.

EY: Not sure why he brought Terrell Brown into this.

Will the Ten Commandments Judge Moore run as a Taxpayer's Party Candidate?

Chuck Muth speculates:

"Moore or Less in Dixie"

November 16, 2003

“Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore...was stripped of his office (on Thursday) by a state judicial panel because of his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state courthouse rotunda,” reports the Washington Times.

“When a judicial body comes in and says since you acknowledge God you cannot hold office,” said Moore, “they are telling us what we must think.” The Rev. James Kennedy chimed in that “The ultimate issue at stake here is whether it is possible for a judge to refer to or mention God in a courtroom and these judges decided it was not.”

Seems to me Moore and Kennedy should double check those commandments about fibbing and bearing false witness.

No one told former-judge Moore what to “think” or prevented him from “acknowledging God.” Nor did the decision say a judge couldn’t “refer to or mention God in a courtroom.” It told him he couldn’t build a 5,280-pound granite shrine to a religious doctrine and put it into the rotunda of a public courthouse in defiance of a court decision which the Supreme Court of the United States refused to overturn.

Moore is really putting his fellow social conservatives in a pickle. He is, to say the least, a flawed messenger. A huge ego with a growing persecution complex to boot. And even folks who agree with him on the Ten Commandments issue can’t side with him in his defiance of the court order.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, sympathetic to Moore’s position on the Ten Commandments, nevertheless could not allow Moore to keep giving Lady Justice the finger.

“I did not prosecute the chief justice for the Ten Commandments,” Pryor told CNS News. “I prosecuted the chief justice because he refused to obey a court order from a federal district court that had been affirmed by the court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States had decided not to review."

The court decision itself makes the case against Moore crystal clear: “Any person who undertakes a solemn oath to carry out a public trust must act in a manner that demonstrates both respect for and compliance with established rules of law of the institution that person serves.”

“Indeed,” adds James Taranto of “This doesn't mean we agree with the federal court that ordered Moore to remove the monument, or with the body of law on which it was relying. But the law is the law.”

Mr. Pryor, by the way, is one of the President’s judicial nominations who is being tied up by the Democrats’ obstruction in the Senate because, primarily, of his staunch, vocal and public pro-life positions. Pryor is EXACTLY the kind of judge religious conservatives should WANT on the federal bench.

Alas, misguided Moore-ites (I will refrain from referring to them as Moore-ons) are now attacking Pryor with a Schumer-like vengeance for doing what Moore left him no choice but to do. So Pryor’s judicial nomination support is now fractured because of Moore’s ego trip.

The Moore-ites would rather kill the opportunity to put a committed pro-life judge on the bench than tell Moore his 15 minutes of fame, as well as his legal options, are up. Brilliant strategic thinking this is not, folks.

One last note: Rumors abound that Moore is displeased with not getting what he considers sufficient support for his quixotic effort from Republicans in Alabama, so he might challenge the GOP incumbent U.S. senator or governor in the next election.

But don’t be surprised if he instead decides to run for President against George Bush as the candidate of Howard Phillips’ U.S. Taxpayer’s Party.

Phillips’ son is leading the charge against Pryor. So social conservatives just might find that their beloved “Ten Commandments Judge” is going to attempt to “pull a Nader” and spoil the re-election of the guy who just signed the partial-birth abortion bill. Wow. Another brilliant strategic move.

And they say LIBERTARIANS are screwed up politically?

# # #

Chuck's hit the nail on the head on this one. Moore's opinion on a custody case with a Lesbian plaintiff was especially disgusting:

It included moving statements referring to homosexuality as "an inherent evil against which children must be protected." He also called homosexuality "abhorrent, immoral," and "detestable," as well as "an abominable sin." Moore also stated: "[t]he State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle."

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out, Judge Moore!