Monthly Archives: August 2010

Being Gay in the GOP…

From The Raw Story today

Mary Cheney, the openly gay first daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, gave hundreds of dollars in campaign contributions to a Senate candidate who opposes same-sex marriage, records show.

This is not the first time Mary Cheney, who lives with her partner Heather Poe and their two children, has supported a candidate that vehemently opposes her lifestyle.

Last August, Raw Story reported that Cheney gave $1,000 to Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman, who as a congressman voted to ban gay marriage and deny same-sex couples the right to adopt children.

How much can one person hate themselves? I cannot for the life of me imagine a party-ideology worthy enough to make me support that party when they want nothing more than to deny me basic humans right that even the lowest form of scum in this country is entitled to. Crackheads and whores can marry. Murderers,rapists and child molesters can marry. But two adults who are kind,loving, and law abiding are deemed too unnatural to wed because they love the same sex?

Here in Florida, our great gubernatorial candidate Attorney General Bill McCollum thinks gay (foster) parents should be outlawed

Florida AG Bill McCollum Wants Gay Foster Parents Outlawed: ‘I do not think we should have homosexuals guiding our children’

McCollum says about changing the law in Florida to outlaw gays from becoming foster parents…

I think that it would be advisable. I really do not think that we should have homosexuals guiding our children. I think that it’s a lifestyle that I don’t agree with. I realize a lot of people do. It’s my personal faith, religious faith, that I don’t believe that the people who do this should be raising our children. It’s not a natural thing. You need a mother and a father. You need a man and a woman. That’s what God intended.

BEVERLY HILLS, CA - JUNE 16:  Anti-gay religio...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

How does anyone who is gay support a party that thinks they are incapable of raising children? How can Ms. Cheney hate herself so much that she would contribute to the campaign of people who call her raising of children ‘unnatural’ and against God and outlaw it?

I won’t even touch on Dick and Liz’s role in this. While they haven’t come out against gays in this way, they haven’t really endorsed their rights either. Liz feels states should decide, but she won’t say whether she supports gay marriage. Dick Cheney says that he also thinks it should be decided on a ‘state’ level. I guess that means they support the idea that their daughter can be married in 2 states, but that marriage wouldn’t be recognized in any other if no other state allowed gay marriage? I guess they support that Mary would be a criminal in states that want to criminalize her way of life because it was decided by the state? But they would not support the Federal Government protecting her from this madness?


I cannot understand this. I cannot understand this at all. How does Mr.Cheney stand amongst a crowd that cheers when their candidate says his daughter should be outlawed from having (foster) children while his grandchildren looking on? How does Liz Cheney stand amongst a crowd that cheers when their candidate calls her sister unnatural? How do they (Mary included) look Heather Poe, Mary’s partner, and those children in the eye and tell them.. This is the party we support. This is the party we campaign for and donate to? These are the ideals we may not fully believe in, but we will elect people to office who do. We will elect them and when they enact their arcane,homophobic laws into place that would not just outlaw Mary and Heather’s right to foster children, but who like the Taliban, would criminalize what their acts of love, we will give additional money and support to keep them elected because that is the party we support.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand this.

Here’s my question, if gays are outlawed from raising foster children because they are unnatural, their love is deemed criminal, and they are unable to ‘guide’ children… how long before biological children are outlawed to gay couples? How long before biological children are taken from homes where criminals acts such as gay-love and  ‘sins’ such as homosexuality are taking place each day? We allow crackheads,whores,murders,rapists and child molesters to loose their rights of biological parenthood because they too are deemed criminals and unfit for parenthood, so how long before ‘gay’ is included in a valid reason to remove children from  their home regardless of blood-ties? Mary Cheney has nothing to worry about, her kids would just go to her father or her sister so she can be assured they’ll be raised by the same values that removed them from her care in the 1st place, but what about all the others who don’t believe in this type of corporal mortification?What about the homosexuals who do not hate themselves and  feel like they are criminals and know they are able to not only love, but guide children to be just as well-adjusted and successful as non-gay parents?

I guess they can decide for themselves what matters more to them, their rights as humans.. or their political party. I will just have to remain oblivious to  how the ones that chose the latter are able to stand erect with that much disgust towards themselves and their fellow sexually orientated brethren, weighing them down.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The mosque pit

From Jon Stewart to Sarah Palin there is the lingering question… What does President Obama really think about the mislabelled “Ground Zero Mosque”.

On Friday, the President said Muslims…

“have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country … That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

That’s  easy enough for even the simplest mind to understand, and she did, but the next day when the President said

My intention was to simply let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally, in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there.

I was commenting very specificly on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country’s about. And I think its very important that as difficult as some of these issues are, that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about

Simple minds like Palin’s imploded. If it was just hers and Fox Nation who all of a sudden had the look of a hog reading a wristwatch, I wouldn’t have said a word. I don’t expect them to understand any multi-syllabic response that doesn’t include waving some kind of pitch-fork at a new minority group they hate. But, it wasn’t just those of a simpler intellect that somehow got confused with the two comments, David Morey vice chairman of the Core Strategy Group, who provided communications advice to Obama’s 2008 campaign, said “The danger here is an incoherent presidency,”. The Daily Show ran a skit on it. Politico had an article titled “Obama, the one-term president” that said

Honest to goodness, the man just does not get it. He might be forced to pull a Palin and resign before his first term is over. He could go off and write his memoirs and build his presidential library. (Both would be half-size, of course.)

Really? This is his ‘Palin sees Russia from her house’ moment?


To borrow a line from Aliens… Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

President Obama looked around all last week and saw the country he is the leader of having apoplectic fits over a misnamed “Mosque” being built near ‘Ground Zero’. He looked around and saw GOP right wingers calling for an end of building permits, not just around New York city, but around the entire country. The President looked around and saw other states weighing in on banning mosques from being built, and my own states ‘burn the koran’ day and he said ENOUGH ALREADY!

Thank God he did, because the week leading up to his comment the narrative was ‘let’s ban a religion from being able to build their house of worship’. The right-wing-uber-fucks were chanting and spewing how this extremist can’t build his terrorist recruiting center mosque, and a candidate is even running on a promise to stop this mosque from being built if he gets elected. Their narrative was simple, we are strict constitutionalists only when it suits us, when it comes to brown people we want them to have separate rights and laws. Repeal the 14th amendment and only allow ‘our’ churches and ban ‘theirs’. That’s the road this country was headed down until President Obama weighed in on the matter.

There is no ‘message problem’ like it’s been implied here. The message is simple and easy. It’s not anyone this high in government’s place to say whether a church should or should not be built. It could be seen as influencing an outcome. Harry Reid was wrong to offer his opinion on the matter the way he did. The only answer to expect from this President or anyone else in government is simply this. Our constitution allows it’s citizens the freedom of religion, the freedom to pray to the God of their choosing. It allows houses of worship to be built without interference from the government. If you want to build a church worshiping space aliens, our constitution allows that. If you want to build a mosque to worship Allah, our constitution allows that. Unless we are going to stop allowing catholic churches to be built next to schools, then we really have no right to stop a mosque from being built in the same zip code as the 9/11 attacks. The President’s message was crystal clear, it’s not up to him to say whether or not it should be built, it’s only his job to say that it can be built, and until he made that distinction the narrative out there was demanding that the 1st amendment be nullified when it comes to Muslims and their rights. If you don’t get what the President was saying and why? Then maybe you should look at the idiocy in yourself instead of blaming him for your confusion. For him to weigh in on the ‘should/shouldn’t’ question, puts him on a ‘false’ side. Just ask Harry Reid, now that he weighed in and said it’s lawful to build but they shouldn’t, he’s considered in the crowd that opposes the mosque. Nice work Harry, you’ve joined the ranks of  the political opportunist Newt Gingrich who considers all Muslims the same like all Nazi’s are the same. Who equates the building of a mosque to the holocaust! Yes, brilliant move on your part.

and to Sister Sarah, who said

“Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement”

Darling, it’s not his job to say whether or not he thinks a house of worship should be built, it’s only his job to remind those who wish to impede on the religious freedom of this country. The opinions of whether it should be built or not, are left to the idiots commentators who couldn’t make it in politics. See, when you become President, you can’t just ‘tweet’ your responses and opinions on every subject and you can’t just claim the media twisted your words when the curtain of your idiocy is pulled back to reveal an empty mini-skirt.When you become President, every utterance from your lips is chewed and re-chewed down to a microscopic level, so you learn to give generalized answers on most non-essential issues. Because if you were to weigh in and give a personal answer like, I don’t know, you thought the police acted stupidly on some random matter, then the same people screaming at you now for giving a generalized and non-partsian answer will have seizures because you gave a direct personal opinion on an issue.

The failure here isn’t Obama’s ability to communicate, it’s your ability to understand.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Drudge's best headline so far..

I rag Drudge as much as the next liberal blogger. His head lines and ‘scary Obama’ stories are stuff of legends, but today he gets a reprieve. Today, the best headline I’ve ever read is right there on Drudge’s page..

Disabled veteran 'banned' after service dog poops in aisles...

God I wish he had used the lights and sirens for it.

Thank You Matt Drudge, for putting ‘poop’ in a headline on your site!

By the way, the story is pretty funny as well. Ok, take away the disable veteran part and it’s pretty funny. Especially this part

D’Amour-Daley disputes Mucha’s version of the story, saying Ivy was not anywhere near her owner, was not on a leash and defecated on the floor several times, including once in an area near where Big Y employees were making sandwiches for customers.

I imagine being at my grocer, having one of their delicious subs made fresh for me… looking over, seeing a dog and watching that dog crap in the aisle.

I don’t care who you are, that visual is hilarious.

Enhanced by Zemanta