counter statistics

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Bloggers Suffer Burnout

I fully understand this.

Brownback's Gaffe

From Andrew Sullivan:

BROWNBACK'S GAFFE: Here's an interesting sentence in Senator Sam Brownback's piece in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment:

If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already vulnerable institution.


(My italics). It's a gaffe because Brownback let out of the bag what the FMA is really designed to do. Those FMA advocates who claim that they have no problem with civil unions but only draw the line at marriage are lying. The FMA will bar all civil unions, domestic partnerships and any civil arrangement that gives a modicum of dignity and security to gay citizens; and the religious right is as opposed to such arrangements as they are opposed to marriage rights for gays. Their goal is to strip gay couples of any and all civil protections. That is why they will never criticize the hideous law in Virginia which strips gay couples of even the right to set up private contracts to protect their relationships; that's why they refuse to say that they support civil unions of any kind. It's a fundamentally dishonest position, designed to cloak profound animus against gay couples under the rubric of "protecting" marriage. I guess I'm glad that Brownback has now admitted what's really going on.


Supporters of the Hate Amendment are telling the New York Times that the amendment would not prohibit same-sex civil unions allowed by state law. Clearly Brownback's article shows they are lying.

Did Gary Bauer write Bush's Radio Address?

Andrew Sullivan comments:

BUSH ON THE FMA: His radio talk this morning could have been written by Gary Bauer. No mention of the actual people affected by the amendment - gay couples merely trying to live lives of commitment and love. No understanding of the real Constitutional issues involved - just an hysterical screed against "activist" courts. No mention of the fact that 38 states have already banned equality for gays in marriage. No explanation of why the Defense of Marriage Act is obviously unconstitutional or why a court will soon strike it down. No mention of civil unions. And, again, no actual use of the words "gay", "lesbian" or "homosexual." This really is a revealing silence. Think what he could have said: let's keep marriage for heterosexuals, but let's find a way to protect the relationships of our gay and lesbian fellow-citizens. That would be a "uniter" not a "divider." But Bush is a tool of the fundamentalist right - a movement that seeks not simply to keep marriage for straights, but to strip gay people of dignity, rights, protections and equality. If he were to call us by name, he would violate the fundamentalists' belief: that gay people don't exist, that we're sick heterosexuals, that we need to be put in therapy or jail.

Bush Reverses Himself (and the RNC position) on Sodomy Laws

From the gay fixated Republican National Committee hit piece on Edwards:

Edwards doesn't share the priorities of American families

Edwards Believes In Right To Privacy When It Comes To State Sodomy Laws
EDWARDS: "I believe there is a fundamental right to privacy. I do not believe the government belongs in people's bedrooms. I think that applies to both gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples." (Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)


According to the New York Post, President Bush has stated publically he disagrees with his earlier position supporting the Texas Gay only sodomy law.

But he broke with those who say homosexuality is a sin, saying: "What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage."


Andrew Sullivan comments:
Yesterday, Bush decided to show he was a moderate by arguing that people should be allowed privacy in their own bedrooms (a policy he opposed when supporting Texas' disgusting gays-only sodomy law as governor). That's it. That's what he thinks the place of gay people is in society. We're lucky not to be arrested in our own homes.


Well that's progress.

Conceding Defeat on a Bad Idea

The FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment) will probably not get the necessary two-thirds vote required for a constitutional amendment to pass (in the Senate next week). In fact, there is a possibility that it may not even get a simple majority.

- Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, 7/9/04


Meanwhile President Bush spent his weekly radio address to enshrine discrimination against gays into the constitution.

More Whining from Leviticus Crowd about the Republican Convention Lineup

HRC has done good by that ad in Rollcall. It's getting lots of screeching and whining from the Leviticus Crowd. This latest screed is from Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation (who said earlier that it would be "good riddance" if all gay republicans left the GOP.) Lloydletta's earlier post was picked up by John Aravosis at Americablog.

Money quote in this:

It is one that the rank and file should not tolerate. If the President is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the Convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the President on Election Day.


Exactly, Bush is ashamed to be seen with the Leviticus Crowd, and their crying wolf is getting rather tiresome. Where do they have to go?


The Free Congress Commentary
Republican Convention Spotlights "Moderates"
By Paul M. Weyrich

There was an ad this week in the Capitol Hill Newspaper Roll Call. The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual organization, sponsored it. The ad featured the pictures of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York Governor George Pataki, former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain.

The ad asked how one could get a primetime slot at the Republican Convention next month in New York? The answer was by opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), the amendment to the Constitution about which debate in the U.S. Senate began late on Friday, July 9th.


Interesting how Weyrich is trying to re-brand the Federal Marriage Amendment as the MPA. I posted the ad and the FRC screeching about it here.

Apparently political stars get rewarded with a primetime Convention spot if they disagree with President Bush's position on the MPA, as well as (except for McCain) President Bush's position on the right to life. They can also disagree with the President's position on capital punishment, guns and a host of other issues. Mind you, the over-the-air networks are only carrying an hour or two a day of either Convention this year because there is no drama in either Party.

So these so-called "moderate Republicans", what in the bad old days we used to call Rockefeller Republicans, are most of what you will see in the four days of political coverage unless you are a C-SPAN junkie.

In fact, the only primetime speaker who agrees with the President on the MPA is Democrat Senator Zell Miller, (D-GA), who heads up Democrats for Bush.


I doubt there are many other members of Zell Miller's Democrats for Bush.

To make matters worse, three of the four "moderates" are what National Review's Kate O'Beirne calls "Kerry Catholics". These are so-called Catholics who do not subscribe to the Church's position on marriage or life.

As an Orthodox Christian I am outraged that men like this would be highlighted, yet people such as Senator Rick Santorum, (R-PA), a member of the Senate leadership; Senator Sam Brownback, (R-KS), who has selflessly given his time to help poor refugees in Africa; and Representative Henry Hyde, (R-IL), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee -- all traditional Catholics who accept Catholic positions -- are passed over.


If these people support the war in Iraq, ofcourse their positions are in opposition to the teachings of the Church. Ditto on the Death Penalty.

I understand the need for the President to attract swing independent voters
to the ticket. I understand that McCain and Giuliani are especially popular among independent voters and that Schwarzenegger is a big star who the White House is happy to have supporting the President. (By the way, Governor Arnold has said he will help the President so long as it doesn't diminish his own popularity. So much for true dedication.) But Pataki? Who needs him?


Well Pataki is Governor of New York - the state where the convention is being held.

Ken Mehlman, the Bush-Cheney campaign manager, is a bright fellow who says he understands the need to attract the Catholic vote. Indeed, the Catholic vote could be a problem for Kerry since about a third of the Catholic Bishops have taken the position that he should not present himself for Holy Communion given his position against key church teachings -- especially on marriage and life. A few other Bishops have gone further and said they would not give Kerry communion if he came to their diocese. St. Louis Archbishop Burke instructed all of his clergy to deny Kerry Communion if he came to church in his diocese, as did the bishops of Colorado Springs and Lincoln, Nebraska.


What about the traditional Catholic position on divorce? Weyrich doesn't seem to want to go there.

Does Mehlman think he is going to win over the Catholic vote by highlighting dissenting Catholics? Don't show me these polls that say that Catholics are no different than other voters when it comes abortion and marriage -- the Catholics in these polls do not necessarily attend Mass frequently. "Catholics", who give themselves the label are one thing; Catholics who take their Church seriously are another matter. If Bush gets the vast majority of votes from serious Catholics, he wins. To do that, a Henry Hyde or Rick Santorum would need to assure serious Catholics that Bush is where they are and Kerry is absolutely in the opposite camp. You won't get that from the presently constituted line-up at the Convention.

Putting that aside, what about the rest of the conservatives in the country? Mehlman evidently hasn't learned yet that not all conservatives are Republicans. We understand that not all Republicans are conservatives...so that crowd certainly will be well represented in the primetime line-up. Let's get some conservatives who will get the ordinary voters excited about the ticket! The left is highly motivated. I hate to say it but the conservatives, for the most part, are not excited about re-electing the President. They are supporting him reluctantly. Often I have become known as a cheerleader for Bush-Cheney only to be tamped down by the vast majority of people who are in touch with me by e-mail, phone or snail mail. I find this shocking.

I am willing to guess that the argument for this primetime line-up at the Convention is that the President and Vice President are conservatives so there is no need to present others. Maybe the Vice President will have some red meat for the troops (tepidly delivered), but the President cannot say what needs to be said. He is the President after all.

Senator Jon Kyl, (R-AZ), the Chairman of the GOP Policy Committee, or Rep. Roy Blunt, (R-MO), the House Majority Whip, surely could speak for conservatives. Senator Jim Talent, (R-MO), or Senator John Sununu, (R-NH), are also good choices. Or how about some of the new, young talent in Congress like Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI), or Mike Pence, (R-IN)?


Now Weyrich cuts to the chase:

For all their brilliance, Mehlman and Karl Rove (who no doubt vetted this line-up) have made a very serious mistake with this Convention's line-up. It is one that the rank and file should not tolerate. If the President is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the Convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the President on Election Day.


Clearly the Leviticus Crowd types - "man on dog" Santorum especially are an embarrassment to the party. Weyrich makes the mistake of referring to theocrats as conservatives. Barry Goldwater must be turning over in his grave.

Free Republic Picks Up on the Kerry/Edwards Romance Pictures

Here....

There's also a doctored video as reported here earlier.
Lloydletta was banned from commenting on Free Republic a long time ago.

Kerry and Edwards Had Better Vote Against the Hate Amendment

They raise oodles of mullah from the gay community. Now it's time to get some Return on Investment. Dale Carpenter explains.

Republican Party of Minnesota Gay Baits Kerry Edwards

It's so predictable, from the July 8 Republican Party of Minnesota Newsline:

From the Drudge Report, a photo gallery showing just how close John and John really are (not that there's anything wrong with that):


You can send comments to the Republican Party of Minnesota:

Questions, comments, and reactions can be forwarded to him at csm@mngop.com or to GOP Newsline co-author Jonathan Blake at jeb@mngop.com


Also, email the party chair at: chair@mngop.com

As I said, so predictable, now there's a video....

The video seems to have some doctored footage - with the Marvin Gaye tune "Let's Get it On" in the background.

Rich Lowri of the National Review gives this a plug:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_07_04_corner-archive.asp#035430

Jonah Golberg also jumps in mentioning this link at the Borowitz Report:

JOHN-JOHN JUJITSU [Jonah Goldberg]

From the Borowitz Report:

EDWARDS ASKS KERRY TO STOP GRABBING HIS ASS

Public Displays of Affection Distracting,Says Kerrys No. 2

After a mere two days on the campaign trail, the first signs of tension between John Kerry and running mate John Edwards emerged today as Sen. Edwards requested, firmly and unequivocally, that Mr. Kerry stop grabbing his ass.

"I think Sen. Kerry has made it very clear in our joint appearances that he is happy to have me on the ticket," Mr. Edwards told reporters. "He really doesn't have to prove it by repeatedly grabbing my ass."

At a campaign stop in Pennsylvania today, Mr. Edwards was in the middle of a speech when he emitted a high-pitched yelp, apparently in response to yet another unexpected display of affection from Sen. Kerry....[There's more]


And still more from Rich Lowri of the National Review:


OLD SCHOOL REPONSE TO TOUCHING [Rich Lowry]
E-mail:

"Rich,

Call me old fashioned, but I can think of only two circumstances in which this kind of 'guy-on-guy action' would be appropriate:

1) a congratulatory pat from the 1st base coach to a player who has just singled; and,

2) when it is necessary to bestow the "kiss of death" on some guy who has been designated for 'whacking.'
Posted at 05:14 PM

HELP--BLACKBERRY QUESTION [Rich Lowry]
A minute ago, in syncing my Blackberry with my desktop, I mistakenly accepted something I shouldn't have and it somehow erased all my old contacts and replaced them just with the ten or so new ones. I assume there I no way to recover them or reverse such a process? They seem to be gone from my Blackberry and desk-top. Can you hear my weeping and the gnashing of my teeth?
Posted at 05:01 PM

PREDICTION FOLLOW-UP [Rich Lowry]
E-mail:

"Guys, CONGRATS on the gay-baiting strategy to smear Kerry/Edwards. Way to go! Here is hoping it gets the reaction it deserves."
Posted at 04:40 PM

TOUCHING [Rich Lowry]
E-mail:

"I haven't watched the tapes enough to know for sure, but looking at the still on the Drudge Report, there may be some dominance games going on there. In particular, Kerry's touching of Edward's face is a very dominating move. Face caresses among primates are familial -- mates or parent/child interactions. An adult male touching another male's face asserts parental level seniority and dominance. Most of the pics on the Drudge site convey this sort of dominance message (to me, at least).

I saw in the Washington Times an article that claims this is a focus group generated maneuver to make Kerry seem warmer. If my read is correct, it won't work.... and it could have a negative subconscious impact on many male witnesses.

It also says something to me about Kerry's need to make it clear who the boss is. (I noticed, by the way, that Theresa reached across in one photo to full the youngest Edwards child's thumb out of his mouth, so this dynamic may already spread across the families.) My guess would be that all the family warmth they're trotting out right now will wear pretty thin for some of these folks before the campaign is over."

ME: This makes some sense to me. At times Kerry has seemed all but ready to pinch Edwards' cheeks--affectionate, but kind of demeaning.
Posted at 04:24 PM


Yes, I hope the media does start covering this aspect of the Republican strategy. Still more from Mr Lowri:

PREDICTION [Rich Lowry]
E-mail:

"I know it's just a matter of time before Republicans get accused of 'gay-baiting' for the Kerry-Edwards PDA send-ups. 'Mean-spirited', 'insensitive', and 'homophobic' are going to make their appearance - and more than one media organization will present those accusations as self-evident facts. Just you watch.
Posted at 04:29 PM


EY: Well see for yourself. What is this if not gay-baiting?

NPR had a good story about the Chamber of Commerce strongly opposing the Kerry Edwards ticket. You'd think the operatives over at National Review would focus on that - rather than going with the Drudge "they can't keep their hands off of each other" non-story.

And with heightened national security problems, we're going to spend all next week in the Senate on the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment?

Human Rights Campaign Rollcall Ad Opposing the anti-gay Bush Amendment infuriates the Leviticus Crowd

HRC ad in Roll Call newspaper which features pictures of Schwarzenegger, McCain, Pataki, and Giuliani and asks, 'Want to get a prime time spot at the Republican National Convention?' and answers: 'Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.'

From their Daily Bleating, the FRC is furious:

Homosexuals Applaud RNC Convention Line-Up


Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign ran a full page ad in Roll Call newspaper which features pictures of Schwarzenegger, McCain, Pataki, and Giuliani and asks, "Want to get a prime time spot at the Republican National Convention?" and answers: "Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment." We at FRC couldn't have said it better ourselves. Judging by the current list of invited speakers, the GOP must be planning to carry the HRC and Planned Parenthood vote, all the while ignoring those who support traditional marriage and pro-life views - the very constituency that makes up the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

The party seems poised to keep some of its most articulate spokesmen such as Senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum and Representatives Henry Hyde and Mike Pence and other leaders on life and family issues behind the scenes. By keeping them on the sidelines they have missed a chance to emphasize the real heart of the party and the sharp contrast between the Republican Party and Democratic Party. By treating the vast majority of the GOP faithful like "fly over" country, the convention organizers douse the enthusiasm of pro-family voters - meanwhile they may show up to vote, they may not bring two or three friends along with them to the polls. Note to Republican Party organizers: Find a primetime spot for a speaker who the pro-family community knows and trusts and who will speak to the issues that have driven so many voters to pull the lever for the GOP in the past.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Stonewall Democrats Misleading Press Release

Stonewall Democrats issued a release criticising (rightly) the RNC for putting out an anti-gay attack on John Edwards. Andrew Sullivan and Steve Miller of the Independent Gay Forum also criticized the RNC for this. [UPDATE: Miller critiicized the RNC on July 6, Stonewall put out their press release and blog entry on July 7. Added links to the RNC attack and Stonewall Press Release]

From TrailMix (Stonewall blog)

What did the Bush White House have to say when asked about the anti-gay attacks? They responded by stating that those attacks were "perfectly reasonable" and "perfectly legitimate."


Not accurate. Here's the relevant sections of the White House Press Conference (as posted on the Stonewall Democrats site).


Q Scott, on that point, the President has talked about changing the tone in Washington, to making the debate more civil. But the Republican National Committee put out this statement on Edwards, calling him "disingenuous and unaccomplished." The Bush-Cheney campaign put out talking points saying that Senator Edwards "delivers his pessimism with a southern drawl and a smile." Is that helpful?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, is there something in there you're disputing? (Laughter.) I think it's perfectly reasonable to talk about the differences on the issues and to talk about the record. And I think that's what you're seeing being discussed here by the campaign and by the RNC. The President believes that we should focus on the policy differences and focus on the leadership styles, and that's what he will continue to do as we move forward on this campaign.

Q So you're agreeing with those statements then, that he is disingenuous and unaccomplished?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, it's perfectly legitimate to talk about the issues and the differences on those issues, as well as to discuss the record. There are individuals in this race who have records, and those records are a reflection of how they would lead in office.

Q You don't seen this as personal attacks, you see this as policy --

MR. McCLELLAN: Suzanne, there are clear choices in this election, and the President wants the discussion to focus on the issues and the differences on those issues. There are clear choices and there are clear philosophical differences for the voters, come November. And the President will keep this focused on the issues and talking about his positive vision for the way forward for our country.

Q So you don't have a problem with the language and the tone?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, it's perfectly legitimate to talk about the issues and the differences and to talk about the record.


Very misleading. McClellan was not responding to a reference of RNC anti-gay attacks. It seems that Stonewall was intentionally misleading us on this one. I hope Reporters do follow up on the Stonewall release - and ask McClellan about the anti-gay attacks.

UPDATE: Followups to my comment on the Stonewall Blog are available here. (Yup the commenter mispelled my name).

Okay, I read both this and Lloydetta. I agree staunchly with TrailMix, but totally see Lloydetta's argument.

Here's the REAL QUESTION Y'ALL - where the hell is Log Cabin? They've done such great stuff this year. I wish they would jump on top of this too.

Posted by PRYOR at July 8, 2004 06:01 PM
I just read the whole thing. He responded to the sum of the attack piece --- including the anti-gay portion. It is perfectly correct what the Stonewall release said.

If I were to say it is "perfectly reasonable" to call your momma fat, ugly, uneducated, and a poor dresser - then it is accurate for you to say that I stated that it is "perfectly reasonable" to call your momma ugly.

The White House new of the anti-gay portion. They called it "perfectly reasonable."


Neither person here has refuted my point.

Update 2: Trailmix has responded:

LLOYDLETTA,

You reference our blog (but call it our press release). McClellan called the RNC attack "reasonable" and "legitimate." A large section of that attack is an anti-gay tirade against Edwards. Therefore, if the sum is "reasonable" then so are the parts that argue its premise.

McClellan never comments on whether it calling Edwards disingenuous and unaccomplished (which is what the reporter asks). Instead he calls the arguments in the attack (and again, the anti-gay argument is large) legitimate and reasonable.


Here's what the reporter asked:

I quoted your blog, but your press release also made the same points.

The question to the whitehouse was:

Q Scott, on that point, the President has talked about changing the tone in Washington, to making the debate more civil. But the Republican National Committee put out this statement on Edwards, calling him "disingenuous and unaccomplished." The Bush-Cheney campaign put out talking points saying that Senator Edwards "delivers his pessimism with a southern drawl and a smile." Is that helpful?


McClellan is Bush's spokesperson, and answers for what is going on at the Whitehouse. He does not answer for the Republican National Committee.

Stonewall and TrailMix are not attempting to mislead anyone on this. It just appears to be a difference of opinion and a premise that we firmly stand by.


I still stand by my post.

Perhaps we can agree on what cannot be argued - that TrailMix (geesh, is that the third time in this comment we've referred to ourselves in the third person?) loves reading LLOYDETTA.


Thanks, Trailmix. I appreciate that. It's spelled Lloydletta not Lloydetta... Glad you stopped by.

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Peter's Adventure's in Leatherland

Remember Peter LaBarbara? He used to work for the Culture and Family Institute at the Concerned Women for America. While there, Peter did "research" at Gay Days at Disney and San Francisco Gay Pride. When he got the gig as Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, I thought his paid field trips doing "research" were over. Seems like that's not quite true.

From the IFI website:

After reading the superficial interview by the Red Eye's Chris LaMorte (reprinted in full below), I decided to go down to Chicago on Memorial Day, the last day of IML, to gather evidence on this twisted event. As you can imagine, this idea didn't go over too well with my wife. Anyway, I arrived at the Hyatt Regency, and made my way down to where the IML vendors were set up in a vast "Leather Market," which was open to the public and mentioned in the Tribune's Red Eye story.

I paid my two-dollar entrance fee and passed by a femmy "leather" guy who was happily greeting visitors with the line, "Welcome to the WalMart of porn!" At the vendors' area, I found booth upon booth--there were over a hundred--selling whips, handcuffs, electric "torture" devices, leather "hoods," etc., a veritable cornucopia for the deviant. The man was right: there was also tons of the most disgusting pornography imaginable for sale at reduced prices, right there are at the glitzy Hyatt Regency!


More of Peter's Adventures in Leatherland in the most breathless of purple prose here.

Wonder if the Minnesota Family Council sponsors similar "field trips" for Tom "Phone Sex" Prichard.

Call the MFC and ask if MFC staff positions include Research opportunties like this one:

Minnesota Family Council / Minnesota Family Institute
2855 Anthony Lane South, Minneapolis MN, 55418-3265
Phone 612.789.8811, FAX 612.789.8858, www.mfc.org

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

4 years ago, the AFA (which puts out Agape Press), after Kolbe was chosen to speak at the GOP convention, they put out a press release calling for the arrest of Kolbe for breaking Arizona's sodomy laws. Seems like his opponent is stupidly trying to use Kolbe being gay against him in the primary.

From Agape Press

...An Arizona state representative seeking to unseat long-time congressman Jim Kolbe says there are people in the district who are concerned about the ten-term lawmaker's homosexual lifestyle. But his challenger doesn't want to make it an issue. Randy Graf knows he faces an uphill battle to defeat Kolbe in the September 7 GOP primary. The Arizona legislator says while he is not making Kolbe's lifestyle an issue in the campaign, he knows there are many people in the 8th Congressional District who are concerned that the congressman is the only openly homosexual Republican in Congress. Many people have expressed that to me," Graf says. "I want to make this campaign on the issues; and as we discuss the issues, I'm not trying to make this a referendum on his lifestyle. But as we get out and talk, there are many people that certainly don't agree with his lifestyle -- and those are some of the emotional issues that certainly make people vote one way or another." Graf says Kolbe's lifestyle obviously influences his thoughts on various social issues, including his lack of support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. For his part, Graf says he is not willing to allow the nation's courts to redefine marriage. [Chad Groening]


EY: Pretty pathetic.

Monday, July 05, 2004

No Outcry for the anti-gay Bush Amendment

Despite an intense lobbying effort last week by advocates of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, several senators locked in close reelection contests say they have yet to feel pressure from constituents to support the amendment.

Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) — one of 24 "high priority" senators targeted for a pressure campaign by a coalition of conservative groups — spent the July 4 weekend campaigning across South Dakota.

But although the coalition sent out updates on where Daschle and other senators it considers to be on the fence on the issue would be appearing, Daschle campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said gay marriage was not on the minds of the crowds.

The constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman "didn't come up once," Pfeiffer said. "We’ve heard from almost no one."

As of Friday, Daschle’s Washington office also had not fielded phone calls on the proposed amendment, Daschle spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said.


From the Hill....

It always irritates me to see the media refer to the Crowd pushing this nonsense as "conservative."

Sunday, July 04, 2004

Columbus, Ohio Pride tries to Boot Pink Pistols for Legally Gun Carrying

Pink Pistols Press Release and Discussion here.... The press release is titled: Ohio Pink Pistols Threatened by Club-Wielding "Official" and Horde of Stormtroopers at Pride Festival, Ordered to Surrender Firearms...

Other blog entries, here and here.

CNS News picked this one up - mostly from the CCRKBA press release. This is the first time I've seen them cover a gay story positively - probably because it goes after the gay left.

Nothing like this happened with Pink Pistols at Twin Cities Gay Pride.

Speaker Steve Sviggum on the Bachmann Amendment

I got this in my email this morning:

I had a lot of e-mail correspondence with legislators this spring re: the marriage issue. I kept a few of the responses.

As I've gotten fund-raising solicitations in the mail for this fall's campaign, there have been instances where I have used the return envelope to request being removed from the list, telling them why, and enclosing a copy of the pertinent e-mail as support for my decision.

About a month ago I got mail from the House Republican re-election committee, with Speaker Sviggum's name all over it. I had saved an exchange with the speaker, and sent it back with a hand-written note about not having any interest in this.

Today I get a hand-written note from Speaker Sviggum, warning me that being a single-issue voter is 'dangerous', and asking that I write an open letter to 5 million Minnesotans, telling them the reason to support Democrats is same-sex marriage. His P.S. said 'I do not support discrimination of any kind'.

I had no idea my potential modest donation ($50?) was so important to him. Anyway, I'm attaching my response to the Speaker.

It's sad, because I agree with him and respect his work in most
areas. But this is the climate we're in.......


Here's the letter this person sent to Speaker Sviggum:

Mr. Speaker,

Thank you for taking the time to send a hand-written note in response to my refusal to financially support the re-election of House Republicans this fall. Considering the thousands of pieces of correspondence I suspect you see, it is remarkable and a little puzzling that a potential $50 donation would be of such interest.

Regarding your suggestion about an open letter, I’m not doing that. I was responding to one of many requests sent to my home to open my wallet and financially support House Republicans in this fall’s campaigns. My refusal is my business. You could be grateful I provided a reason, vs. no response at all. Senator Bachmann, the Minnesota Family Council and many others have been rigorously vocal and active (as is their right and privilege) in soliciting support and money on this single issue. I don’t see how my refusal to participate (with either political party) is any worse than their activity.

For the record, I have made public comment on this issue. On March 26th (the same week as the big rally) the Star Tribune published my letter to the editor:

'Trouble, Trouble, Trouble'

Thanks to Sen. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, Tom Prichard, Gov. Tim Pawlenty and a host of others for creating 'mass-steria' over the possibility of gay marriage.

I can't wait for the band instruments to arrive.

I live in a beautiful Minneapolis neighborhood that happens to be represented by two of the most liberal people in the Legislature - Rep. Kahn and Sen. Pogemiller. As a Republican in the fiscal sense, be assured I offer consistent input on the very important issues of taxation and smaller government.

While we have a disagreement on this one issue, let me express my gratitude for your dedication and service to the citizens of Minnesota. As we celebrate Independence Day, I’m grateful we live in a country where difficult issues can be freely discussed. I appreciate your articulate and passionate leadership in the Minnesota House.

I hope you’re enjoying a wonderful Minnesota summer with your family.


This is pretty disturbing..... Here's the letter Sviggum wrote earlier this year to this person.

Thanks for your letter regarding your opposition to the bill to define marriage as being a union between one man and one woman. I do appreciate and respect your message, although I disagree with your direction. When the bill was before the House of Representatives, I did vote in favor of the marriage definition as "one man, one woman."

Discrimination should not take place in the workforce, jobs, housing, etc. My support will be there for equal treatment in those settings. However, marriage is a completely different question and an institution, and it is in no way discriminatory to prohibit same-sex marriage in a union never meant for two people of the same sex.

I thank you for your message. Hope all is well.

Take care,

Steve Sviggum
Speaker of the House


This was in response to an email to Sviggum asking him to oppose this constitutional amendment.