Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Obama Endorses Gay Marriage, Attacks DOMA and States Rights
Gee, didn't see this one coming. I guess Obama is trying to break Dubya's approval rating record.
What is predictable is the coverage. Sure, there's coverage on websites like the Huffington Post and other blogs, but nothing from the MSM sites. Way to go, state-run media!
What is predictable is the coverage. Sure, there's coverage on websites like the Huffington Post and other blogs, but nothing from the MSM sites. Way to go, state-run media!
Labels: DOMA, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, President Obama
Friday, May 15, 2009
APA: Being Gay Not a Matter of Genetics
Those on the Left have hammered away at society for the past few decades, and, slowly, a great deal of the population has come to accept that being a homosexual is something that you're "born into." Not wishing to argue the science of the human genome and instead arguing the human nature of scientists and the Left, I have found it persuasive to ask those who have come to believe the argument put forth by the Left that if they believed that there was a "gay gene" and that there were scientists mapping human DNA for markers for decades on everything from eye color to colon cancer, wouldn't the Left be trumpeting the discovery of the "gay gene?" Basically, if it was there, don't you think we'd know about it?
There's proof now that even academics are accepting that there is no "gay gene."
Unlikely that this will undo decades of brainwashing by Hollywood, the media, and other Leftist tools, but it's a start.
There's proof now that even academics are accepting that there is no "gay gene."
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
Unlikely that this will undo decades of brainwashing by Hollywood, the media, and other Leftist tools, but it's a start.
Labels: Homosexuality, Science
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Study: Same-sex Parents Twice as Likely to Live in Poverty
From the USA Today:
Interesting results, for sure. Why would sexual orientation lead to a life of poverty?
I admit that I have no way to explain these results. Perhaps Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation was right when he called the study, a product of UCLA, "garbage." It certainly wouldn't be the first time an academic study related to homosexuality belonged in the landfill.
"Lesbian couples are more likely to be poor than married heterosexuals,
and children of same-sex parents are twice as likely to live in poverty as those
of traditional married couples, a new report shows."
Interesting results, for sure. Why would sexual orientation lead to a life of poverty?
I admit that I have no way to explain these results. Perhaps Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation was right when he called the study, a product of UCLA, "garbage." It certainly wouldn't be the first time an academic study related to homosexuality belonged in the landfill.
Labels: Economy, Homosexuality
Monday, February 16, 2009
College Basketball Player Booted for Not Being Gay
Brooke Heike, a former basketball player for Central Michigan University, was kicked off of the basketball team for CMU and stripped of her scholarship. Why? It wasn't for her on-court performance. It wasn't for failing to live up to the academic expectations of a student athlete. According to accounts, it was for being a heterosexual.
This story isn't getting much press. Can you imagine the press coverage if the shoe was on the other foot, if, say, Florida Head Coach Billy Donovan told one of his players that he was off the team and was having his scholarship revoked because he was gay?
I hope CMU has a deep endowment, because I bet it's about to take a bit of a financial hit.
This story isn't getting much press. Can you imagine the press coverage if the shoe was on the other foot, if, say, Florida Head Coach Billy Donovan told one of his players that he was off the team and was having his scholarship revoked because he was gay?
I hope CMU has a deep endowment, because I bet it's about to take a bit of a financial hit.
Labels: Colleges, Homosexuality, Lawsuit
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Prosecutors Boycotting Judge
I found this interesting story out of the state of Washington where county prosecutors are refusing to try cases before a newly-elected judge. Their reason? It appears that the judge has been actively involved in homosexual prostitution.
This is an interesting situation. Personally, I have never witnessed a District Attorney pull all of his attorneys out of a courtroom, and I wonder if such a thing could even be possible in Tennessee.
This is an interesting situation. Personally, I have never witnessed a District Attorney pull all of his attorneys out of a courtroom, and I wonder if such a thing could even be possible in Tennessee.
Labels: Homosexuality, Judiciary
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
White House Website Gets Liberal
Is this the change that Obama keeps talking about?
Yikes.
MORE: Looking at Obama's homosexual agenda by Fred Jackson of OneNewsNow.com.
Yikes.
MORE: Looking at Obama's homosexual agenda by Fred Jackson of OneNewsNow.com.
Labels: Homosexuality, President Obama
Friday, January 16, 2009
New Report: Obama Favors Same-Sex Marriage
Of course, this comes out now...
The Windy City Times has the complete story.
MORE: Family Research Council picked up on the story, although I haven't seen much from the mainstream media thus far.
"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
- Barack Obama in a 1996 questionnaire for Outlines newspaper. This was a typed, signed statement.
The Windy City Times has the complete story.
MORE: Family Research Council picked up on the story, although I haven't seen much from the mainstream media thus far.
Labels: Homosexuality, Marriage, President Obama
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Interesting Statistic Regarding Voting and Gay Marriage
From Gallup.com:
Politically, it seems that the anti-gay marriage faction has the advantage, benefiting from much greater intensity of feeling on the part of its supporters. One in four of those who are opposed to legal recognition of same-sex marriages (26%) say they will vote only for candidates for major office who share their view on the issue. By contrast, only 2% of those who favor making same-sex marriage legal define themselves as one- issue voters on the subject.
Labels: Homosexuality, Marriage
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Hypocrite of the Week: Tennessee Rep. Jean Richardson
Read why below, courtesy of Family Action Council of Tennessee:
Last week the House Health and Human Resources Committee considered a bill that would allow those who have had a sex change operation to change their birth certificate to reflect their "new" sex. Of course, adding and removing body parts does not change genetics and chromosomes - women still have two "x" chromosomes and men still have an "x" chromosome and a "y" chromosome . And, no doubt that is why Rep. Jason Mumpower (R-Bristol) made a motion to amend the bill to require that the new birth certificate reflect the existence of a sex change.
It was then, right there in a public meeting where government policy is being made, that Rep. Jean Richardson (D-Memphis) conveniently vaulted over the "wall of separation of church and state" constructed and revered by liberals and dropped the "J-word." Yes, that's right, she brought up "Jesus." Rep. Richardson, in response to Rep. Mumpower's physiologically correct amendment, chided him for his lack of compassion with a bizarre question to support her position, "What would Jesus do?"
Rep. Mumpower gave a fine response, but the extreme irony of her question is found in the fact that several weeks ago she voted against SJR 127, the resolution that would amend our state constitution and pave the way for partial-birth abortion being banned in Tennessee.
Yes, you read correctly. There is no enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion in Tennessee! And there won't be one without the passage of SJR 127. In what is nothing short of a political bomb shell, our state Attorney General recently stated that even the same ban on partial-birth abortion the United States Supreme Court upheld would not be enforceable under Tennessee's Constitution. (In Tennessee, an Attorney General opinion nearly carries the weight of law, particularly among legislators and the governor's administration). According to our state Supreme Court, even partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right in Tennessee. That is, unless we amend our Constitution to say otherwise.
We wonder what Jesus would do about birth certificates for those who have changed their physical appearance, but we don't ask that question when it comes to protecting unborn children in the third trimester from having their skulls pierced or crushed and their brains removed. Call me crude and insensitive, but those are the words the U.S. Supreme Court used when it said that partial-birth abortion could be banned. When we use these "nice" but sanitized descriptions for abortion procedures, too many do not know what we are really talking about. People need to know the cruelty of the procedure that was protected by Rep. Richardson's vote against SJR 127. Protecting partial-birth abortion is not very compassionate.
Which raises another point. Jesus was never asked about birth certificates. So he never spoke to the issue directly. But he did say that whoever would cause one of these "little ones to stumble," it "would be better for that man to have a millstone tied around his neck and that he be cast in the sea." When the House of Representatives sits by and makes it possible for even one partial-birth abortion to be performed and a whole state does not rise up to demand their elected officials act to change this, you have to wonder if there are enough millstones in Tennessee to go around.
Lastly, the press, as best we can tell, did not jump all over Rep. Richardson for bringing religion into the consideration of public policy, let alone the fact that it was Christianity. I have no doubt that had I asked that same question of my fellow legislators when I was sponsoring SJR 127, I would have been crucified by the press and political liberals. Maybe I should have asked and suffered the consequences. After all, we know what Jesus would do when it comes to being crucified for doing the right thing.
Last week the House Health and Human Resources Committee considered a bill that would allow those who have had a sex change operation to change their birth certificate to reflect their "new" sex. Of course, adding and removing body parts does not change genetics and chromosomes - women still have two "x" chromosomes and men still have an "x" chromosome and a "y" chromosome . And, no doubt that is why Rep. Jason Mumpower (R-Bristol) made a motion to amend the bill to require that the new birth certificate reflect the existence of a sex change.
It was then, right there in a public meeting where government policy is being made, that Rep. Jean Richardson (D-Memphis) conveniently vaulted over the "wall of separation of church and state" constructed and revered by liberals and dropped the "J-word." Yes, that's right, she brought up "Jesus." Rep. Richardson, in response to Rep. Mumpower's physiologically correct amendment, chided him for his lack of compassion with a bizarre question to support her position, "What would Jesus do?"
Rep. Mumpower gave a fine response, but the extreme irony of her question is found in the fact that several weeks ago she voted against SJR 127, the resolution that would amend our state constitution and pave the way for partial-birth abortion being banned in Tennessee.
Yes, you read correctly. There is no enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion in Tennessee! And there won't be one without the passage of SJR 127. In what is nothing short of a political bomb shell, our state Attorney General recently stated that even the same ban on partial-birth abortion the United States Supreme Court upheld would not be enforceable under Tennessee's Constitution. (In Tennessee, an Attorney General opinion nearly carries the weight of law, particularly among legislators and the governor's administration). According to our state Supreme Court, even partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right in Tennessee. That is, unless we amend our Constitution to say otherwise.
We wonder what Jesus would do about birth certificates for those who have changed their physical appearance, but we don't ask that question when it comes to protecting unborn children in the third trimester from having their skulls pierced or crushed and their brains removed. Call me crude and insensitive, but those are the words the U.S. Supreme Court used when it said that partial-birth abortion could be banned. When we use these "nice" but sanitized descriptions for abortion procedures, too many do not know what we are really talking about. People need to know the cruelty of the procedure that was protected by Rep. Richardson's vote against SJR 127. Protecting partial-birth abortion is not very compassionate.
Which raises another point. Jesus was never asked about birth certificates. So he never spoke to the issue directly. But he did say that whoever would cause one of these "little ones to stumble," it "would be better for that man to have a millstone tied around his neck and that he be cast in the sea." When the House of Representatives sits by and makes it possible for even one partial-birth abortion to be performed and a whole state does not rise up to demand their elected officials act to change this, you have to wonder if there are enough millstones in Tennessee to go around.
Lastly, the press, as best we can tell, did not jump all over Rep. Richardson for bringing religion into the consideration of public policy, let alone the fact that it was Christianity. I have no doubt that had I asked that same question of my fellow legislators when I was sponsoring SJR 127, I would have been crucified by the press and political liberals. Maybe I should have asked and suffered the consequences. After all, we know what Jesus would do when it comes to being crucified for doing the right thing.
Labels: Abortion, General Assembly, Homosexuality
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Banning Gender-Specific Terms and One-Gender Bathrooms
From the minds of communists comes this story from California:
'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'
"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
I suppose that it's worth noting that this bill was the creation of the Democrats in California and their homosexual supporters and not Schwarzenegger's idea. That is not an excuse, mind you. I'm merely giving infamous credit where infamous credit is due.
'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'
"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
I suppose that it's worth noting that this bill was the creation of the Democrats in California and their homosexual supporters and not Schwarzenegger's idea. That is not an excuse, mind you. I'm merely giving infamous credit where infamous credit is due.
Labels: Homosexuality
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Is Mitt Romney a Homosexualist?
I am linking to this column by Alan Stang for future reference. Yes, there are a few tidbits of knowledge contained within it, particularly with reference to the connections between Mitt Romney and the Log Cabin Republicans, as well as Romney's anti-Boy Scout stance.
However, the real reason that I am linking to this column is as a counterpoint to my own writings. The next time that a Tennessee Republican refers to me as "mean-spirited" or "over the top," I am going to refer back to Stang's column as a frame of reference.
MORE: As for my view of the whole Senator Larry Craig debacle, it can pretty much be summed up in Dale Carpenter's piece over on Volokh.
However, the real reason that I am linking to this column is as a counterpoint to my own writings. The next time that a Tennessee Republican refers to me as "mean-spirited" or "over the top," I am going to refer back to Stang's column as a frame of reference.
MORE: As for my view of the whole Senator Larry Craig debacle, it can pretty much be summed up in Dale Carpenter's piece over on Volokh.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Homosexuality
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Jacoby: Lawful Incest May Be On the Way
Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote an interesting column in the May 2nd edition of the Globe entitled "Lawful incest may be on its way."
The column vindicates the reactions of former Senator Rick Santorum and Justice Antonin Scalia to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down American sodomy laws. In part, Jacoby writes:
Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be "Ugh, gross." But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. "Should Incest Be Legal?" Time asks. Expect more and more people to answer yes.
It's an interesting read, and it goes to prove that the slippery slopes that conservatives speak of and that draw laughter from the liberals do exist when logic and deductive reasoning are extended.
The column vindicates the reactions of former Senator Rick Santorum and Justice Antonin Scalia to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down American sodomy laws. In part, Jacoby writes:
Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be "Ugh, gross." But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. "Should Incest Be Legal?" Time asks. Expect more and more people to answer yes.
It's an interesting read, and it goes to prove that the slippery slopes that conservatives speak of and that draw laughter from the liberals do exist when logic and deductive reasoning are extended.
Labels: Homosexuality
Monday, March 19, 2007
Interesting Views on Gay Marriage
"I'm not condemning homosexuality. I'm not condemning committed gay relationships," he says. But "the best institutional friend that children have is marriage, and if grownups make a mess of it, the children are going to suffer."
He may sound like a conservative Christian, but Blankenhorn says he's a liberal Democrat.
***
Check out the story on David Blankenhorn, founder of the liberal think tank Institute for American Values, in last week's USA Today.
Labels: Homosexuality
Monday, February 26, 2007
Democratic Values Shining Through
Republicans in D.C. (and really only there because of the lack of credible coverage being delivered to Americans through their media) are aghast at some of the measures being enacted by Democrats in Congress this year. I guess they shouldn't have been after the Democrats' first action in the House was to do away with the supermajority needed to enact taxes, instead now requiring a simple majority.
Then Sunday came this story off of the AP wire, telling of a series of bills that would protect homosexuals as a class in the way greater than the protections afforded actual genetic classifications, such as race and gender. In this case, we are talking about "anti-gay bias," which I suppose could lead to suits against corporations by people passed over for promotions who suddenly will be gay for purpose of the suit. Also in the crosshairs of Congressional Democrats is the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Also Sunday, I received this alert from the NRA regarding another Democratic pet issue - their continued assault on your Second Amendment rights:
THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")
. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."
. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")
. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!
***
Gee, I wonder if they'll have anything to talk about at CPAC this week...
Then Sunday came this story off of the AP wire, telling of a series of bills that would protect homosexuals as a class in the way greater than the protections afforded actual genetic classifications, such as race and gender. In this case, we are talking about "anti-gay bias," which I suppose could lead to suits against corporations by people passed over for promotions who suddenly will be gay for purpose of the suit. Also in the crosshairs of Congressional Democrats is the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Also Sunday, I received this alert from the NRA regarding another Democratic pet issue - their continued assault on your Second Amendment rights:
THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")
. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."
. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")
. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!
***
Gee, I wonder if they'll have anything to talk about at CPAC this week...
Labels: Homosexuality, Second Amendment
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Should we care about Mary's baby?
Some Christian conservatives are opining about Mary Cheney's baby. I think they should show restraint in doing so.
This all comes down to the central rule of political conflict - knowing when to expand conflict and knowing when to let it die its natural death.
Mary Cheney's baby could be the equivalent of Terri Schiavo, so why not let this one go right now?
MORE: Roger Abramson (no friend of mine, of course) invoked the name of Carol Gilligan against Dr. Dobson, who is one of those Christian conservatives that feels obliged to opine on Mary Cheney. Abramson's right on this one - I don't see how Gilligan can be cited by a conservative in good conscience.
Did I just write that Abramson was right about something? Egads. It must be the Christmas spirit...
This all comes down to the central rule of political conflict - knowing when to expand conflict and knowing when to let it die its natural death.
Mary Cheney's baby could be the equivalent of Terri Schiavo, so why not let this one go right now?
MORE: Roger Abramson (no friend of mine, of course) invoked the name of Carol Gilligan against Dr. Dobson, who is one of those Christian conservatives that feels obliged to opine on Mary Cheney. Abramson's right on this one - I don't see how Gilligan can be cited by a conservative in good conscience.
Did I just write that Abramson was right about something? Egads. It must be the Christmas spirit...
Labels: Homosexuality, Political Strategy
