Gay Rights

Here's a July 4 history lesson we should print on the back of the American Flag: If you hate long enough and hard enough, you can go to the very top of the Washington garbage heap.

Jesse Helms died today, 25 years too late, but the stench of his rotten career will always linger in the Senate, and over the South.

He was a hero to bigots and the cigarette corporations, a menace to the poor and downtrodden, and a mean little troll whose heart was so wrecked by wickedness that doctors had to patch it up with coronary valves from a pig.

New proposed amendment to the constitution:

S. J. RES. 43

110th CONGRESS 2d Session

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JUNE 25, 2008

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. SHELBY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE"

Section 1. This article may be cited as the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

The Democratic Party's lapdog, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a leading LGBT federal lobbying group, is attacking John McCain and helping him secure his political base as Obama's base remains fractured and disillusioned.

The attack video released by HRC is a boring 2 minute narration of HRC's spin on John McCain's record on this particular special interest group's agenda.

Two major developments in New York and California have thrust the issue of same-sex marriage back into the political spotlight. First, California's Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, saying it violated the California Constitution. Second, yesterday, New York's governor directed all of his state's agencies to begin recognizing same-sex marriages performed in places, like California, where the practice is legal.

While California's court decision will be tested in November with a ballot initiative to amend the state's constitution so as to outlaw gay marriage, new polls indicate that the public may have turned the page on the issue and be ready to afford gays and lesbians the legal rights of state sanctioned matrimony. Indeed, California's R.I.N.O. Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the court ruling and opposes any initiative to alter the constitution to exclude gays from getting married.

So does this action from two of our nation's three most populous states signal and end to the culture war, or have these blue states played right into the hands of their red state counterparts?

John McCain appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres show today, and things got a little bit awkward when the subject of gay marriage came up. From Huffpo:

"We are all the same people, all of us. You're no different than I am. Our love is the same," she said. "When someone says, 'You can have a contract, and you'll still have insurance, and you'll get all that,' it sounds to me like saying, 'Well, you can sit there, you just can't sit there.'

"It feels like we are not, you know, we aren't owed the same things and the same wording," DeGeneres said.

McCain said he's heard her "articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness."

..."So, you'll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you're saying?" she asked.

"Touche," McCain said.

Huffpo also has the video of this exchange. This raises a few questions for me, the first 2 of which I have put to the McCain campaign. Will McCain walk her down the aisle? Or does "Touche" really acknowledge that his wish for her happiness is rendered hollow by his opposition to it? Is McCain qualified to be "Commander-in-Chief" of the Marriage Protectors' Corps?

John McCormack in the Weekly Standard has a thesis that last week's California Supreme Court ruling may give McCain an outside chance at taking California. And with it, of course, the nomination, as there is no Democratic Party path to victory without those electoral votes:

A voter initiative on marriage in California--to amend the state constitution with wording identical to the 2000 measure--appears to have enough signatures to make it onto this November's ballot. Such an amendment would trump last week's decision. Prior to the ruling, the state of California already provided virtually the same tangible benefits and legal rights for same-sex domestic partners as for husbands and wives, so the debate in California may focus on the threat that the court's decision poses to religious liberty.

A strong enough voter backlash in California has a chance of putting the state's electoral votes in play: A Rasmussen poll in April showed McCain trailing Obama by 7 percentage points. The issue could also bolster McCain's support in Florida--the only other state with a marriage amendment on the ballot this year--where a RealClearPolitics average of polls shows McCain leading Obama by nine points.

It's a sucker's bet, and therefore I expect John McCain to spend a lot of time and money in a futile attempt to win California. But the media and pundits will egg him on and point out that California has a high minority population that frowns on same-sex marriage, and McCain's stance on illegal immigration may encourage them to cross over and vote for him instead of Obama.

This will end up being a lose-lose situation. McCain will end up spending more time chasing votes in a state that is nearly a lost cause and by going after Latino-Americans will further anger core Republican voters in red states, who may just stay home.

The silver lining? California liberals worried about protecting the Supreme Court ruling may finally get tough on immigrants voting illegally...

When I did a story about John McCain's release of his tax returns a few weeks ago, I somehow missed out on the glaring fact that Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain has a prenuptial agreement with second wife Cindy McCain. Well, at least she let him keep his maiden name.

From Tfitz on DailyKos:

It seems that when his totally hot, totally rich, second wife Cindy said yes to his 'big question', she also let him know that his job wasn't finished until the paperwork was done. This tough bride, whose financials are none of your damn business thank you very much, made Big John sign a prenuptial agreement. How's that again? A possible POTUS with a pre-nup?

The article goes on to talk about the implications of the pre-nup:

If marriage is sanctioned by God and valid until death does part you cute kids, why go into it with a financial escape clause; a 'golden parachute' of love? Well, the reasons for doing so are obvious and can be fully expressed in two points. Point A: 'This thing may not last and I'll be damned if I'm going to be broken hearted and broke' and Point B: 'I don't really trust this son of a bitch'. In other words, it is all about trust. In other, other words; Cindy McCain doesn't.

When I saw this story, aside from the usual guy-talk ribbing, I couldn't really see much of a point to it. I've never cared much for stories of an embarrassing, personal nature. I almost felt a little bad for McCain. But, then, while researching yesterday's story, I realized that McCain had it coming.

Well, duh! It's no fun with your mouth closed!

The American Family Association, founded by Rev. Don Wildmon, posted the video below with the headline, "Procter & Gamble promotes explicit open-mouth homosexual kissing." AFA's website ran a story urging members to contact P&G:

(AFA President Tim) Wildmon encourages people to contact P&G and let them know they do not support such blatant promotion of the homosexual agenda. And while P&G officials say they want to treat everyone equally, the AFA president argues the company is alienating its core base.

The delicious irony here is that the "As the World Turns" clip that they posted is the #1 video on Youtube today, bringing the soapy gay content to a whole new audience that's probably in school when the show airs.

I'll take "Things I said on my way to GITMO" for $500, Alex. The above quote is from a story on MSNBC's First Read, detailing Chelsea Clinton's sampling of Philadelphia's gay nightlife this weekend:

Chelsea Clinton stopped traffic Friday night as she wandered the streets of Philadelphia on a gay bar crawl, winning rave reviews for both her politics and her appearance.

Led around the neighborhood by Gov. Ed Rendell, Chelsea was mobbed by local gays and lesbians, as she walked from one club to the next. They ran up to hug her, posed for pictures and certainly invaded her personal space.

"I grabbed her ass," one young woman exclaimed to her friends after snapping a picture with her arm around the former first daughter.

"Chelsea, the gays love you!" one fan exclaimed, as she took the microphone at Bump, a restaurant and bar that was her first stop. "Oh, gosh, I don't know if everybody loves me," she responded.

Now, the idea that a young woman who I must assume, in the absence of photos, bears a close resemblance to Kiera Knightly made mano-a-booty contact with Chelsea Clinton is interesting (especially if you block Ed Rendell out of the story), but is it news? I don't know, does everything have to be news?

I thought long and hard about this question, and eventually, the thought that occurred to me was, "Do 'the gays' matter again all of a sudden?" When I reviewed all of the candidates' platforms in January, John Edwards was the only one of the "Big 3" who had a plank on LGBTQ issues. More on this after the jump.

Hope everyone out there had a fun and safe, holiday.

Now, you know me, always the cynic. Here's a couple of fun, foot-in-their-mouths quotes I've found from our 2008 presidential candidates.

Now these will be sure to zap whatever warm fuzzies you still had in your heart from earlier this week.

Time to get your guess on.

Round One:

"Unless Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain to tell us something different, we need to keep that understanding of marriage."

Round Two:

"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."