Religious right hate groups say Obama probably gay

As Right Wing Watch notes, this nut is cited by AFA, FRC and all the rest of their ilk:

Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute is an “expert” cited by groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association, among others in the Religious Right. While his claims have been consistently discredited, Cameron is still a favorite of opponents of gay rights and appeared last week on Crosstalk with Jim Schneider of VCY America (Voice of Christian Youth).

Cameron suggested that President Obama, who recently announced his support for marriage equality, might be gay. He later maintained that “the long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try,” warning that children might be “forced to at least once experience homosexual acts.”

Read the rest of this post...

Wash Post continues canard that marriage hasn't changed since the beginning of time

Marriage via Shutterstock

A guest writer, Matthew Franck, writes in the Washington Post today about marriage equality.  And of course, he begins with the canard that marriage hasn't been redefined since the beginning of time. Franck refers to:

"the only meaning of marriage ever known in human history."

Really, Matt?  The "only meaning" ever known?  Really?

Tell that to Mitt Romney's great-grandfather's five wives.

Tell that to the inter-racial couple that had to sue in the 1960s to overturn anti-miscegenation laws.

Tell that to married women who up until only recently were not permitted to inherit any property.

Tell that to most of our grandparents and great grandparents and beyond who had arranged marriages.

Today's version of marriage is the "only meaning of marriage ever known in human history," if you don't know human history.

Franck continues:

Here I will content myself with observing that every one of these wrongheaded criticisms is exactly on point as a criticism of President Obama and all other supporters of same-sex marriage who rely in any way on their faith, as they understand it, to justify their support. If the people of California can be faulted for “imposing their religion” on their fellow citizens by passing Proposition 8, then it is equally true that President Obama is “imposing his religion” on his fellow Americans when he says, as he did last week, that laws preventing same-sex marriage are unjust to gay couples desiring to get married. If he is not imposing his religion on anyone, neither is anyone else.

I think “you’re imposing your religion” is an incredibly bad argument against President Obama’s view. But then I have always thought it was an incredibly bad argument against the defenders of the conjugal tradition. Will those now praising the president because of his faith-based view now renounce this bogus argument when it is aimed at the other side, as it has been for years? I hope so, but I’m not holding my breath.

Cute. A few problems:

1. General opinions, like the President's, don't impose religion on anyone. Opinions that call for legislation suited to only one religion - like Matthew Franck's - do.

2. It's also cute how Franck fails to understand the logical fallacy of his own argument.

When you tell me how to live my life, based on your religion, then you are in fact imposing your religion on me.

It's what Mormons routinely do in state after state, for example - spend millions trying to force everyone in the state to live under Mormon law.  And it's what Franck is calling for in the article - the only religious freedom, apparently, is freedom for Franck to restrict our right to marry per his religious views.  Apparently, Matthew Franck now has a religious right to not be offended.  And if that's the case, I don't recall ever giving Matthew Franck my blessing to get married how he likes, lest I be offended.

Why do I need his blessing when I don't get to pick and choose the way he marries?

When I ask for the law to let you live by your religion and me by mine, then the law is religiously neutral because neither of us is being forced to live according to the other's religion. It's the height of hubris for Franck to claim that we're imposing our religion on him by permitting us to marry as we like.  What possible business is it of Franck's, religious or otherwise, what faith, or lack thereof, I marry into?  And if that's the way it works, when do I get to tell Franck what kind of marriage I think he should (or shouldn't) be permitted to have, according to my religious views?

Is it also imposing my religion on Matthew Franck that I go to communion in a Greek Orthodox church at Easter?

Franck seems to be implying in his argument that to permit a plurality of religious beliefs and actions somehow offends his conservative religious sensibilities. So why isn't any practice of any religion, other than Matthew Franck's, simply outlawed in America, so that Christians like Matthew Franck don't have to be offended by the stench of Orthodox Christians, Methodist, and other unsavory Christians?

The bottom line is that while anti-gays like Matthew Franck might not like to watch gay couples practicing their own faith (which sometimes is no faith at all), it's not an imposition on Franck's religion. Unless of course Franck's "religion" is predicated on telling other people of other faiths how to live, which far too many mainstream religions in fact are. Read the rest of this post...

Slave state Virginia says gays can't serve as judges

Virginia is more developed economically than Alabama and Mississippi, but intellectually you're dealing with the same crowd.  (It's no coincidence that the famous Supreme Court case that struck down inter-racial marriage bans is called Loving v. Virginia.)

It's a pretty state, but that's about all it's got going for it.  Avoid Virginia like the plague if you're ever looking for a job, school, or a place to live.  And make sure your friends know as well.

Washington Poste editorial:

But the judicial nomination of Mr. Thorne-Begland, a former Navy fighter pilot who is gay, was sabotaged by an ugly campaign of homophobic bigotry led by Virginia Republicans. In a vote at 1 a.m. Tuesday, the GOP-dominated House of Delegates, with an avowed homophobe leading the charge, killed his candidacy, thereby ensuring that Virginia state courts remain free of openly gay judges.

No matter how they dressed it up, the Republicans’ opposition boiled down to old-fashioned prejudice. Even by voting at 1 a.m., they couldn’t hide the fact that bigotry and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is alive and well in the state of Virginia.

Virginia is for haters. Read the rest of this post...

Video: 1951 fashion show

Those two guys sure seemed to like those swimsuits :)

Read the rest of this post...

Video: Evolved

The Political Carnival is the source of all these Blunt videos. More at the site. As you can see, anyone can contribute; just click here. Read the rest of this post...

GOP kills civil unions bill in Colorado

More evidence that the Republican party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the far right. Read the rest of this post...

How gay marriage may just get Obama re-elected

Obama via Shutterstock

From a piece I penned for the Daily Beast this morning. In this part of the piece I'm talking about liberal frustration with the President the first few years when it seemed he was almost afraid of change.

The turning point for many progressives was the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in December 2010. While the repeal was obviously a big deal to those of us in the gay community, I was surprised by how many of my straight friends on the left shared our sense of victory and elation, and by those in the media who characterized the repeal as a necessary first step toward Obama’s winning back the left in 2012.

In that moment, the conventional wisdom shifted.

LGBT civil rights stopped being a ghettoized issue important only to a small (but noisy) Democratic constituency and started being seen as a core Democratic value.

The Obama campaign now regularly cites DADT among its top first-term achievements—and not just when speaking to gay voters and donors but to the public at large. Gay rights switched from being perceived as an albatross around the necks of national Democrats to an issue that could galvanize the party’s base and, just as important, showcase the president’s courage.

And that’s the second important change that began with the repeal of DADT and was cemented with Obama’s embrace of marriage equality. Barack Obama became a leader in the eyes of a number of doubting Democrats and independents (57 percent of whom back gay marriage).

The president who seemed almost afraid of change became an agent of change. The man we voted for was finally back.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama endorsement of gay marriage likely to woo young voters, women

Vote photo via Shutterstock

Boston Globe:

President Obama’s endorsement of legal same-sex marriage is likely to resonate with young voters and women, two blocs where Obama is already strong, a new Gallup poll indicates.

Gallup on Monday published more detailed results of its annual Values and Beliefs survey, which last week showed 50 percent of Americans believe gay marriage should be legal. Support among voters between the ages of 18 and 34 is at 66 percent -- 19 points higher than in the 35 to 54 age group.

The gap between men and women is 14 points, with 56 percent of female voters saying they support legal same-sex marriage.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP, religious right scared about backlash on marriage debate

It's fascinating when both the lead religious right hate group and the head of the Republican party play nice on same-sex marriage. LA Times:

Sen. Rand Paul, who said he wasn't sure President Obama's views on marriage "could get any gayer," was rebuked by an influential evangelical leader Sunday.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, appearing onCBS' "Face the Nation," strongly disagreed with the Kentucky Republican's choice of words.

"I don't think this is something we should joke about," Perkins said. "We are talking about individuals who feel very strongly one way or the other, and I think we should be civil, respectful, allowing all sides to have the debate.... I think this is not something to laugh about. It's not something to poke fun at other people about. This is a very serious issue."

The head of the RNC concurred.

I've been noticing a lot of Republicans (at the national level at least) getting awfully squirmy on this issue, in contrast to the usual fire and brimstone they used to throw out.  Clearly they're worried that the country "is" increasingly embracing gay rights, and that too strong an opposition will be seen as intolerant.

That doesn't mean they'll stop being bigots.  It simply means they're now couching their language in kinder and gentler tones, such as this guy I debated on CNN yesterday.  Note how he went to lengths to explain how opposition to marriage equality is not based in bigotry.  It's only based on a love of traditional marriage (yeah, the same way racist southerns loved "traditional marriage" between whites only). Read the rest of this post...