Two steps back?

The thing that bothers me the most about the possibility of Romney winning is that social conservatives are sure to point out that the first president in our history to publicly support same-sex marriage lost the election – even though it will probably have little or nothing to do with it, since this election is apparently more about style than substance.

It seems in the LGBT community that we must continually take one step forward and two steps backward. It’s disheartening, especially when the years of our lives seem to slip away much faster than the progression of our cause. I remember telling Honey when we met that we would probably have the federal right to same-sex marriage within five years. That was almost 8 years ago.

Stephen Colbert on evangelicals voting for Romney

I don’t understand someone who believes that the Bible is inerrant, and every word is straight from the mouth of God would then vote for somebody who believes that after Jesus rose from the dead, he took a hard left and went to America. Because that’s not our tradition, that’s not in the truth of our book.

- Stephen Colbert

Dealing with the consequences

A few months ago, I made the mistake of joining in on an online conversation about Mitt Romney. He had been tossing the word “conservative” around quite a bit around that time, and the media had pointed out how he seemed to be doing so mainly because the other candidates on the Republican side were considered more appealing to conservative voters. When I pointed out that Romney’s use of the word was probably more about being socially conservative than fiscally conservative, I opened a can of worms. Two women commenced to attacking me personally over my sexuality. While I tried to keep my responses as cordial and impersonal as possible, they did the opposite. As other users joined in the discussion and began getting nasty with the women, I bowed out.

Last night, for some unknown reason, one of these women resurrected the thread by posting the following:

Brian… YOU are a pig using such language online and TO a WOMAN… YOU can go straight to hell MAN using the F word w. and about me. Stuff your immorality up where the sun doesn’t shine. ROMNEY 2012… OBAMA SUCKS and NEEDS TO BE OUT In NOV!

Keep in mind that I never used any foul language in my comments. Another user did, but apparently the gay guy had to suffer the consequences. When the other woman jumped back in to congratulate her for her comment, she continued.

Good on YOU ANA… NO reason we have to take the filth Brian and all of his SICK and IMMORAL LIFESTYLE, virtureless (sic) lifestyle.

The second woman accused gays of causing wars, corrupting the entertainment industry, and worshiping false gods. Neither woman seemed to feel the least bit conflicted by being so hateful while claiming to be Christian.

I spent the better part of today trying to figure out how to respond to this outrageous behavior. I posted a response out of anger, but quickly deleted it before either of them responded. I posted a sarcastic response in hopes they wouldn’t think I cared what they said, but deleted it as well. Of course I cared. I finally just gave up and blocked them from being able to see my comments or profile page.

The thing that bothers me so much is that I am 38 years old and still encountering people who can bully me into silence with their pathetic, ignorant words. I “turn the other cheek” because it’s just who I am. I don’t like to hurt people’s feelings, even when they are hurting mine.

The lady who was particularly vicious had photos of her family on her profile page. Although part of me wanted to tell her where to go and what to do, I couldn’t help thinking that is someone’s grandmother. How would I feel if someone said something terrible to my mother online? But what if my mother attacked another person like that just because they are gay? Wouldn’t she deserve it?

I know, for the rest of my life, I will continue to come across people who feel it’s their responsibility to show me the error of my ways. I guess that’s just one of the consequences of living my life openly. It hurts, but hiding my true self would hurt so much more.

UK’s The Guardian posts scathing analysis of NDAA

Jonathan Turley has published a rather troubling article about the NDAA bill Obama signed into law on New Year’s Eve.

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

Read the full article here.

Obama signs NDAA into law

Well, Pres. Obama waited until yesterday to sign NDAA into law. He knew the news outlets would be focused on New Year’s celebrations instead of the fact that he just put his stamp-of-approval on a bill that effectively destroys the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Oh, and did I mention that it also violates international law? America is supposed to set the example for the rest of the world, and we have just drastically lowered the bar.

Also, when you read headlines on the web to the effect of “Obama signs NDAA bill with reservations” make sure you read the fine print. He didn’t have reservations about holding you indefinitely or not respecting the Bill of Rights. Obama is upset because he feels the bill doesn’t give him enough power. Yeah, he wants to be personally able to determine who gets held indefinitely and where.

He did issue a meaningless statement yesterday to appease everyone saying “my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” but what about future administrations? What if, God forbid, someone like Newt Gingrich were to become president? Can you imagine a certified crazy ass like that having virtually unlimited power to arrest American citizens and hold them without trial?

This might be a bit melodramatic, but I think we just doomed ourselves. Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent guy and he knows exactly what he is doing.

Michele Bachmann is the devil

I try not to get too involved with politics anymore, but sometimes I read a story or overhear something that I just can’t ignore. I have spent the better part of today seething over the latest brouhaha surrounding GOP candidate Michele Bachmann. I thought Sarah Palin was bad, but she’s like a fluffy kitten compared to this witch.

It seems Bachmann and her husband started a Christian counseling clinic that believes in reparative therapy for homosexuals. Marcus Bachmann didn’t even try to hide his contempt for homosexuality when interviewed last year.

In an interview last year with the “Point of View” talk radio program, Bachmann was asked how parents should deal with a teenager who thinks he or she is gay.

“I think you clearly say ‘what is the understanding of God’s word on homosexuality,’” Bachmann said. “We have to understand barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined and just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean we’re supposed to go down that road,” he continued.

Audio recently surfaced of Michele Bachmann speaking at the National Education Leadership Conference in 2004, where she offered the following:

“I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgendered. We need to have profound compassion for the people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life, and sexual identity disorders. This is a very real issue. It’s not funny, it’s sad. Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle—we have a member of our family that is. This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It’s anything but gay.”

And since being called a satanic barbarian just isn’t harsh enough, last week Michele felt the need to sign a document put forth by an evangelical group that implies homosexuality is a choice, that gays have shorter lifespans, compares gay marriage to polygamy, and supports banning pornography. But what really got her in hot water is a little statement that suggests black children born under slavery had an advantage because they had two parents.

‎”Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

I can’t help but wonder where this white, straight woman gets off thinking she can say anything about homosexuality or slavery and be taken seriously. I also wonder why the Republican party wants to identify as Christian/moral/family-oriented when they are almost always the ones who are spreading hatred and dissent among the citizens in this country.

How can Republicans with any semblance of intelligence not be embarrassed by the fact that Bachmann is the current front-runner in GOP polling? I’m embarrassed for them.

Source | Source | Source