Box Turtle Bulletin

The curse of the anti-gay pledge

There is something truly delightful in watching the Family Leader’s anti-gay pledge – which was supposed to pressure Republican candidates into a commitment to fight the civil equality promised by the Fourteenth Amendment – go up in flames.

After it was discovered that Bob Vander Plaats had thrown in a statement that suggested that African-Americans were better off when white people owned them and after Michelle Bachmann was put in the unenviable position of having to explain to the media that, yes, she does think slavery is a bad thing, no one else wants to have anything to do with this pledge.

Mitt Romney rejected the pledge, calling it “undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign”, Newt Gingrich found too many unspecified problems (divorce, perhaps?), and even those who are slogging hardest to get the theocrat vote, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain, couldn’t distance themselves fast enough.

And as for Bachmann, this error combined with her husband’s wacky ex-gay counseling may prove just too much even for social conservatives who have a very high tolerance for crazy.

Gov. Johnson slams anti-gay pledge

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has a bit of an unusual position in the candidacy for Republican presidential nominee. Although as a two term governor he is probably the most qualified candidate, he is not as well known as some of his more colorful opponents.

At this point, I do not have high hopes for Johnson’s chances. Were the Tea Party people to actually base their support on fiscal matters, as they tell the media (and themselves), Johnson, known as Governor Veto for his fiscal efforts, would be a shoo-in. But as we’ve come to see, few Republicans and fewer Tea Partiers are actually willing to put their social agenda secondary and Johnson’s relatively supportive position on gay issues combined with his opposition to the costly and counterproductive War on Drugs makes him unacceptable to those who drive the primary season (oh how I hope I’m wrong).

Nevertheless, it is of immense value to have Gov. Johnson respond to the blatantly and unapologetically homophobic “marriage pledge” proposed by anti-gay activist group Family Leader. (Johnson’s campaign site)

“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.

The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country. If we nominate such a candidate, we will never capture the White House in 2012. If candidates who sign this pledge somehow think they are scoring some points with some core constituency of the Republican Party, they are doing so at the peril of writing off the vast majority of Americans who want no part of this ‘pledge’ and its offensive language.

I’m impressed. This goes far beyond “i don’t sign pledges” or even “this might be offensive to some”. He even uses the b-word.

(hat tip to Kristie)

Frum on New York Marriage

David Frum is a conservative Republican.

He served in the George W Bush White House, was a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, and wrote for the National Review. Although he has been, in more recent years, harshly critical of the Republican Party and some of their less intellectually competent political candidates, there is no questioning that Frum is a conservative Republican.

And Frum has been a vocal opponent of marriage equality. Noting the growing instability of the family and the associated social problems that statistically increase with divorce, single parenting, and out-of-wedlock parenting, Frum viewed same-sex marriage as but one aspect of a culture that had generally devalued marriage. And in 1997 he engaged in an on-line debate with Andrew Sullivan on the subject.

But those of us who oppose gay marriage, and we remain the majority at least for now, believe that these new values are not changing the family–they are destroying it, and harming those within it. As such beliefs become more widespread, so do divorce and illegitimacy. The proponents of gay marriage can only get what they want by weakening Americans’ attachment to the traditional family even more than it has already been weakened. And as such, these proponents are hastening a process of social dissolution that has already brought misery to untold millions of people, with children suffering most grievously of all.

So one might expect Frum to be furious – or at least saddened – by New York’s marriage equality bill. One would be wrong.

Writing in CNN today, Frum said

Yet I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state’s vote to authorize same-sex marriage — a vote that probably signals that most of “blue” states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don’t think I’m alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm — if not outright approval — to New York’s dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

The sky didn’t fall. As same-sex marriage gained recognition in a handful of states, the family structure didn’t continue to spiral into disarray. In fact, there have been no known negative social ramifications that can be directly linked to expanding the marriage institution to include same-sex families.

And so Frum did what an honorable person should do, he admitted his error.

In the heat of debate, it can sometimes be difficult to see our opponents as admirable. It’s much simpler to see them as vile bigots who are motivated by hate and religious extremism. And some are.

But there are also a good many people who oppose marriage equality out of a legitimate concern for the future of the family structure. They fear that same-sex marriage is another challenge to their efforts at restoring respect for the institution and the social contract that it entails.

They are wrong.

But while they are wrong, they are not bigots. And we will see a great many more who, like Frum, have publicly fought us but are honest enough to recognize – and admit – that they were wrong.

Let’s be gracious in welcoming them to our side.

Huntsman on Hannity

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has announced his entry into the race for Republican Presidential nominee. And, unlike many in the race, his is a serious candidacy. Also unlike the others in the race, Huntsman is taking a decidedly different approach to “the gay issue”.

This is in part due to his own personal beliefs and history on the subject. While governor, Huntsman used that office to support the Common Ground Initiative, a panel of (unsuccessfully) basic gay rights bills, which was considered admirable considering the tenor of Utah politics.

But his support for civil unions caught most people by surprise. And a number of commentators wondered if it could be seen as a strategic positioning for a 2012 run, including Box Turtle Bulletin:

However, Jon Huntsman may be playing to a bigger audience than his neighbors. As a successful and popular governor, Huntsman is considered as a potential Republican Presidential nominee in 2012.

If this is part of Governor Huntsman’s strategy to craft his image for Nominee Huntsman, it tells us something interesting about what a conservative Republican in a conservative state predicts American attitudes towards gay couples will be in four years. But whatever his motivation, Huntsman’s support is very welcome.

It remains welcome. As one of the few credible candidates on the Republican ticket, Huntsman’s positions help define the debate. In terms of national perception, the presumption is that civil unions (at least) are the consensus with the President “evolving” and a leading opponent “not open to redefining marriage”, but accepting of states that do.

Huntsman is making a gamble that the Republican Party is ready to drop it mandatory hostility towards gay people. And this is a big gamble – one that John McCain was too fearful (or too foolish) to take.

Long part of the Three G’s that matter to “the base” (guns, gays, and God), gay rights has been an issue on which posturing has been more important than policy. No real problems arose from appointing gay people (even to the head of the RNC) as long as you spoke a good game. A close look at administration over the past several presidencies will reveal that rhetoric was in much greater abundance than significant change in either direction. A cynic might even note that while George W. Bush is known for his nasty 2004 campaign based on supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment, his advocacy for that cause seemed to magically disappear on the day he was reelected.

Huntsman is now challenging that presumption. He is publicly positioning himself as gay-friendly, and it is not an accidental or incidental position. One of the first campaign actions was a glowing endorsement letter sent out from Charles Moran, the President of Log Cabin Los Angeles, on the night before Huntsman’s announcement.

In fact, his lack of hostility towards gays may be the very first thing that sets him apart from the field and makes him recognizable to many Republican primary voters. Taking his message to the heart of “the base”, Huntsman gave his first interview to Fox’s far-right talking head, Sean Hannity.

Hannity: What about some of these areas where… obviously conservative voters are a big part of the voting block in the primary. Your support of climate change which includes cap and taxes and sort of you went along with Arnold Schwarzenegger on that. Civil unions, your support for gays and lesbians, and the right of children of illegal immigrants to go to school. Those are not conservative positions. Uh, you stand by them today?

Huntsman: Cap and Trade, I do not. Cap and Trade is something that every governor looked at, every governor consulted CEOs and the experts on, many years ago. In today’s economic environment, there’s no way that we should be promoting anything that stands in the way of economic and business recovery. And that would.

In terms of civil unions, I am where I am on civil unions. Some will like it, some won’t. I’m traditionalist when it comes to marriage, but I think subordinate to marriage we have not done an adequate job in terms of equality and fairness when it comes to reciprocal beneficiary rights.

Hannity: What about gay marriage?

Huntsman: No I’m not for gay marriage. I’m for ..

Hannity: … gay civil unions.

Huntsman: That’s right.

Hannity: Okay. As you take this to conservative states, early primary states, the Iowa caucuses, South Carolina, um, those probably are not going to be popular positions. Have you thought that through?

Huntsman: Well, we’ve been in many of these states. We’re not competing in Iowa. We’re competing very aggressively in New Hampshire and South Carolina and well in Florida. And I talk about my record. Anyone who wants come up and challenge me on it, I tell them what it is and try to explain it to the best of my ability. You’re not going to win over 100%, nobody ever does, but I think being true to yourself is also very important.

As the campaign season progresses, we’ll see it Republican primary voters are ready to embrace a nominee that is unapologetic about supporting civil unions. And we’ll also see where Huntsman comes down on a number of other issues involving our community.

But regardless of whether one eventually supports or rejects Huntsman, we are witnessing a test of the politisphere. Should Huntsman fare well in this pursuit of the nomination, we may never again see a presidential campaign that features anti-gay positions or policies as a selling point.

Michele Bachmann isn’t insane

I mean, not as in literally incapable of perceiving reality. She’s not actually mentally challenged.

Right?

I mean, surely it would be obvious. Surely someone in the Republican leadership would say, “hey, she’s not just opinionated, she’s actually certifiably nuts!”

Right?

But I just have no other way of explaining this story:

In April 2005, Pamela Arnold wanted to talk to her state senator, Michele Bachmann, who was then running for Congress. A 46-year-old who worked at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Arnold lived with her partner, the famed Arctic explorer Ann Bancroft, on a farm in Scandia, Minnesota. Bachmann was then leading the fight against gay marriage in the state. She’d recently been in the news for hiding in the bushes to observe a gay-rights rally at the Capitol. So when members of the Scandia gay community decided to attend one of Bachmann’s constituent forums, Arnold, wanting to make herself visible to her representative, joined them.

A few dozen people showed up at the town hall for the April 9 event, and Bachmann greeted them warmly. But when, during the question and answer session, the topic turned to same-sex marriage, Bachmann ended the meeting 20 minutes early and rushed to the bathroom. Hoping to speak to her, Arnold and another middle-aged woman, a former nun, followed her. As Bachmann washed her hands and Arnold looked on, the ex-nun tried to talk to her about theology. Suddenly, after less than a minute, Bachmann let out a shriek. “Help!” she screamed. “Help! I’m being held against my will!”

Arnold, who is just over 5 feet tall, was stunned, and hurried to open the door. Bachmann bolted out and fled, crying, to an SUV outside. Then she called the police, saying, according to the police report, that she was “absolutely terrified and has never been that terrorized before as she had no idea what those two women were going to do to her.” The Washington County attorney, however, declined to press charges, writing in a memo, “It seems clear from the statements given by both women that they simply wanted to discuss certain issues further with Ms. Bachmann.”

Ya know, you can be a little eccentric and still be elected to Congress. It might even help. And you can be, shall we say, less than fully informed about the minutia of American History (okay, you may not have the faintest clue about much of anything including where Russia is located and what Paul Revere’s ride was all about) and still have many Americans give you the benefit of the doubt.

But while we like Aww Shucks home folk and Good ‘ol People like us, Americans aren’t so fond of crazy. And we really don’t like it when you demonstrate irrational fears of little ol’ nuns (or killer rabbits). We want our presidents to have irrational bravery instead. We expect our presidents to take a bullet and walk to the hospital. We want them to stare into the cameras and demand that African presidents resign. We like them best when they take on the Challenges of The Day in a bigger, grander, and definitely braver way than we would. It’s gravitas.

So if Michele Bachmann hopes to win the Republican nomination for 2012 Loser to Obama, she’d best be reeling in the crazy, especially the paranoid fear of tiny women. It just doesn’t seem… presidential.

(Read the entire Daily Beast article here. Go on. Read it.)

New Hope for NY Marriage

The man who tells you that he can predict what Albany will do is either a fool or a liar. However, there is some very promising last-minute news out of New York. First, the NYTimes tells us that the last Democratic Senator holdouts (other than Sen. Diaz) have pledged support:

The three Democratic senators — Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. and Shirley L. Huntley of Queens and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn — all voted against the measure in 2009, when it failed by a wide margin. Their switch to the yes column leaves all but one Senate Democrat supporting same-sex marriage — and the fate of the legislation in the hands of the Republican majority in the chamber.

This brings the total support count among Democrats to 29. The bill needs the support of at least 3 Republicans to reach the 32 majority. But the New York Post reports that this may be more than possible.

Seven or more Senate Republicans have signaled Gov. Cuomo that they’re ready to legalize same-sex marriage, more than enough to put the controversial and historic measure over the top this week, The Post has learned.

A highly knowledgeable Senate insider said yesterday that “far more of the [GOP] members are in play than anyone realizes, including some surprising names from conservative upstate areas.”

Among the unexpected potential Senate Republican “yes” votes, insiders say, are Kemp Hannon of Nassau County, Charles Fuscillo of Suffolk County, Betty Little of Glens Falls, Andrew Lanza of Staten Island, Greg Ball of Putnam County, James Alesi of Rochester, and Roy McDonald of Rensselaer County — all of whom helped defeat gay marriage when the vote was held in December 2009.

Of course, all of that can change in a heartbeat.

UPDATE: Republican Senator James Alesi has confirmed that he will vote for marriage

“I am doing this on my own initiative. I really am not down here because I have been guaranteed that we will have enough votes to pass this. It is my hope, not just here in New York State, but all across the nation that if a Republican senator can stand before his constituents and say that he supports marriage equality, that he supports equality for all Americans without regard for their gender or their sexual preference that we can start here in New York State and look at it as is a national initiative that America is for Freedom and equality.”

Marriage’s final frontier

In what has been, to me, a surprisingly short period of time, the fertile, tamed gay-supportive territory has come to support marriage equality. Democrats overwhelmingly are supportive, and independents have joined them to the extent that now a majority of Americans favor legalized same-sex marriages.

But Republicans – especially conservative evangelical Republicans – have held to their opposition with little exception. The red state, red meat, tea partying folk have not been receptive in any manner to talk about Teh Gheys being real people with real rights, especially the right to marry the person of their choosing.

Until recently. Very very recently.

Perhaps it took the high-profile support over unquestionably-conservative Ted Olson to make it possible for conservative Republican support to be considered. Perhaps the hopeless – but fascinating and visible – presidential campaign of Fred Karger introduced the possibility. Maybe it was Meghan McCain, Barbara Bush, or other young Republicans willing to talk back to their elders. But whatever allowed it, change has begun.

Marriage equality has finally set foot in this wild frontier, planted a flag, and claimed its place. In, of all places, Iowa’s activist Republican community. Today, Jeff Angelo, a former State Senator from Ames has launched a new group: Iowa Republicans for Freedom.

Angelo is a heterosexual father of three who identifies as an evangelical Christian. He regularly attends the Ames Evangelical Free Church. While he still considers himself “very much an activist Republican,” Angelo said he, and other Republicans, are recognizing banning same-sex marriage violates the widely-held conservative belief of personal freedoms.

But don’t assume that Angelo is just some “squishy moderate” who has let his liberal side take over. Angelo’s anti-gay credentials couldn’t be stronger. (DMRegister)

Angelo, who formerly lived in Creston, had opposed gay marriage while serving in the Iowa Senate and was co-sponsor of the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act in the late 1990s. In 2006, he was the lead sponsor of a proposed state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He said he gradually came to a realization after leaving the legislature that his stance on same-sex marriage was wrong and hurtful.

Like many, he had believed the lies he told himself. Especially the old “my gay friends” fiction. (Iowa Independent)

“I previously bought into the notion that I could tell my gay friends how much I loved them, that I just disapproved of their lifestyle and they would be OK with that,” Angelo admitted. “But they told me that I made them feel lesser in my eyes or that I made them feel like a second-class citizen. I labored under delusion for some time that [what my friends said] wasn’t true, that they really believed I loved them and that I was their friend.”

And he found that once he questioned his presumptions, it turned out that this new respect for his fellow man fit better with his ideals than had his prejudices. So he’s now sharing that message.

“Far too often, the conversation on marriage can get lost in rhetoric,” Angelo said. “But this debate really centers around one idea: whether government has the right to say whom a person should love and marry. As a proud conservative, I believe in smaller, limited government, and that government should have no more of a right to say whom I can marry than they should be able to tell my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters whom they can marry.”
…
“It is time for conservatives to get back to their roots,” Angelo said. “Through Iowa Republicans for Freedom, we will begin a conversation about whether our party and our state will stand for true conservative values, or whether we will allow ourselves to get lost in senseless debates that do nothing but demean our neighbors and threaten the rights of our fellow Iowans.”

Jeff Angelo is a very welcome advocate. His voice can reach those who simply cannot hear what our community is trying to say. I truly wish him well.

Minnesota’s marriage ban amendment moves to House floor

From the timesunion.com

The Rules Committee of the Minnesota House has narrowly approved a floor vote on the constitutional gay marriage amendment.

The committee voted 13-12 Wednesday to put the issue before the full House. The committee’s Republican majority voted in favor, with one defection from Rep. Tim Kelly of Red Wing. All 11 committee Democrats opposed the measure to put the definition of marriage in Minnesota’s Constitution to a statewide vote in 2012.

The vote is likely to be held tomorrow. While there is a Republican majority, there is still a chance that this could fail. Kelly is the second Republican to express opposition to the amendment and if only three or four more find their conscience (or predict the future cost of this vote) then a protracted battle in the media might be avoided.

And there is a potential bright lining to this cloud. Should this go to the voters, polls suggest that we may well win.

And I also believe that the Republican Party in Minnesota is taking a huge gamble. They ran on the economy but now are pushing a social agenda that is increasingly being perceived as punitive, cruel, and bigoted. I believe that in the next election cycle this vote will be featured in television ads that portray these Republicans as out of touch with their constituents and as beholding to theocrats and special interest groups.

Bloomberg’s single issue advocacy

Mayor Bloomberg flew to Albany today to lobby Republican New York State Senators to vote for marriage equality. The New York Times wrote about his trip.

I just got goose bumps.

The visit by Mr. Bloomberg, who has been among the biggest donors to Senate Republicans in recent years, came as lawmakers and same-sex marriage advocates begin a monthlong push to muster the small number of Republican votes needed to win approval of same-sex marriage in the Republican-controlled Senate.
…
In pledging to support senators who back same-sex marriage — “no matter where they stand on any other issue,” the mayor said — Mr. Bloomberg is dangling a potent political carrot: his money and muscle in the next election.

I can’t recall a straight politician of Bloomberg’s stature – in any party – ever basing the allocation of their considerable financial support and influence solely on a pro-gay position. Ever.

House gives gay Congressmen special rights

One of the ironies of anti-gay antagonism is that it sometimes results in gay people being removed from provisions that are designed to eliminate abuse. Sometimes anti-gays are so determined to deny that gay people have real lives and real relationships that they are willing to allow gay couples (which don’t really exist, you see) to get away with behavior that would otherwise be banned.

From Roll Call

The House Ethics Committee has overhauled its instruction manual for completing annual Congressional financial disclosure forms, sidestepping a proposed provision that would have for the first time requested the spousal information of same-sex couples.
…
Under the heading “Same-Sex Marriages,” the draft version stated that “In 2009, there were a total of four states which issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. (New Hampshire and the District of Columbia began issuing such licenses effective in 2010). If you and your spouse were issued a marriage license by any of these states and were subsequently legally married in that state, you must disclose all required spousal information on your Financial Disclosure Statement.” The new instruction manual deleted this section entirely.

Members of Congress and certain staffers are required by federal law to report income, investments and liabilities. The source of spousal earned income — though not the amount — is requested on the annual disclosure form, and assets owned by the spouse must also be disclosed.

So legally married same-sex couples have special rights in Congress, the right to ignore disclosure laws.

Ironically, back in 2008 conservative Republicans were screaming their heads off about how Barney Frank’s relationship with a Fannie May executive was a conflict of interest. And they were right.

But now that it comes to applying the rules that Frank must comply with, they’re back to saying that his relationships are inconsequential and should not be treated like real heterosexual relationships.

Make up your mind, boys, you can’t have it both ways.

Bob Barr on conservatism

During his eight years (1995 – 2003) in the House of Representatives, Bob Barr (R-GA) was best know for his partisanship and conservative advocacy. Long an advocate of Second Amendment rights and suspicious of governmental spending – which he saw in terms of governmental encroachment on a free people – Barr seemingly found no inconsistency in toeing Republican Party positions which supported governmental encroachment on a number of social issues.

In addition to being a strong advocate for the Federal Government’s “war on drugs”, Barr took a leading role in opposing rights for gay people. In 1996, he was the author and chief supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act.

But the bombing of the World Trade center in 2001, coupled with the federal government’s crack down on civil freedoms, woke Barr up. His libertarianism ceased to be (as it is for many Republicans) a platitude around which exceptions are the norm and he began to question whether many of the positions he had one time championed were not actually in direct violation to the principles which he espoused.

Barr’s turn around has been dramatic. In 2006 he left the Republican Party and registered as Libertarian, serving as that party’s presidential candidate two years later. And he has also advocated for the legalization of marijuana.

But perhaps the most unexpected of Barr’s reversals has been his public repudiation of his most notable action in Congress, DOMA. Interestingly, this is not, I suspect, based out of some newfound appreciation for gay people; rather, it seems to flow from a newfound respect for freedom, individual autonomy, and constitutional equality.

Consequently, Barr speaks very differently from other advocates for the reversal of anti-gay governmental discrimination. His is not an advocacy that rails as “the bigots” but rather speaks to the ideals that permeate the writing, if not the thinking, of the Republican Party and it’s leaders.

Speaking over the weekend at the Log Cabin Republicans National Convention, Barr spoke specifically of marriage and the government’s role.

A federal law that burdens a fundamental right is – should – be deemed in violation of the principle of equal protection. When viewed as a fundamental personal decision on the right to associate, it clearly falls within the ambit of the XIV Amendment’s notion of “privileges or immunities.” Prohibitions against same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause by placing more than a burden on this right – an outright prohibition for one group of individuals to exercise that right legally and to have their contracts enforced by the courts.

This is interesting language in that it brings up a point that our community can sometimes overlook. We tend to talk in terms of what marriage means to us: rights, responsibilities, community, recognition, and equality. Yes, marriage restriction does infringe on hospital visitation and inheritance tax. But those are not particularly strong arguments to those who may see changing visitation rules and tax codes as a solution.

Barr focuses instead on what we, as a people, have the right to expect and demand from our government.

As Linda Harvey flippantly says (and entirely misunderstands) we already can marry, and – contrary to Harvey’s assumptions – we can marry the person we love. And we may marry in every state, in every nation, anywhere we may find ourselves.

Marriage is a contract, a social, emotional, and financial agreement based on terms, conditions, and promises. These vows we may pledge, be it in front of an alter with family, friends and God as witness, or privately and quietly.

We can marry; that isn’t really our issue. Our issue is whether the state will recognize and enforce this contract.

And we have the right to demand that it do so. And opponents who argue that we can have wills, and powers of attorney, and ‘designated funeral-planning agent’ forms to provide “many of the same benefits” should be made to explain why it is that the state may enforce those contracts, but not the one we have already made.

But it is not specific issues, such as gay marriage or gay military service, that should be the focus for conservatives. Such thinking puts the emphasis on the who, not the what.

Barr believes, as do I, that in our approach to policy, we ought not start with the impact some law may have on gay people, but rather on whether any people should be subjected to some arbitrary control over their lives, regardless of their demographic. And it is that argument that can appeal to the principles of some who may never come to see us as morally equal but who can, nevertheless, see us as civilly and legally equal.

What many so-called conservatives fail to realize also is that defending traditional notions of morality (if consistency is to be a component also of our political philosophy) ought to include keeping the government as much out of our personal lives as possible and limiting its power as much as possible. And, speaking of morality, using the collective power of the state to do what individuals cannot do – impose the will of one group of people on another set of people – is truly immoral. We each were endowed by our Creator with one life and we should be free to live it as we see fit, so long as we do not harm another.

Click here to read the red of Barr’s eloquent and thought provoking speech

GOP State Sen.: Why Not Civil Liberties For Everyone?

Maryland State Sen. Allan H. Kittleman

The Log Cabin Republican’s national convention got underway in Dallas Thursday evening, with the Friday sessions featuring several GOP politicos challenging the Republican Party to change its stance toward LGBT people or face the prospect of “los(ing) every Republican young person … if we don’t get on board.”

Maryland state Senator Allan Kittleman, a straight ally and the lone Republican to vote in favor of an unsuccessful marriage equality bill during this year’s session, issued that warning to the Republican Party. His support for marriage equality came at a great political cost, when he voluntarily stepped down as Senate minority leader. His position also led colleagues to ask whether he was himself secretly gay or had a gay family member. Kittleman’s response:

I said, ‘Well, why can’t it just be that he’s for civil liberties for everyone?'” Kittleman recalled. “For someone to say you can’t be a real Republican if you support gay rights, that’s just a bunch of bull.”

…Kittleman choked back tears as he recalled his response to a reporter who asked why he voted for marriage equality considering the potential political consequences. “What I told them was that 20 years from now, when my grandchildren want to ask me what I did to support civil rights, that was more important to me than the next election.”

Fred Karger

Also speaking at the convention was Fred Karger, who is running for the GOP nomination as the nation’s first openly gay presidential candidate. Karger announced to the group that he has qualified for a GOP presidential debate to be held next week in South Carolina. However, Fox News, which is organizing the debate, has not yet confirmed that Karger will be allowed to join Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Herman Cain for the face-off — even though not all of them met all of Fox News’ entry criteria either.

Alan Simpson: “We Have Homophobes In Our Party”

Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) calls out his fellow Republicans:

We have homophobes on our party. That’s disgusting to me. We’re all human beings. We’re all God’s children. Now if they’re going to get off on that stuff—Santorum has said some cruel things—cruel, cruel things—about homosexuals. Ask him about it; see if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago. Foul. Now if that’s the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket, you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, you know, ‘Stick with your folks.’ But, I’m not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, moral values—while you’re diddling your secretary while you’re giving a speech on moral values? Come on, get off of it.

GOP Names Focus Officer to Debate Committee

Tom Minnery, director of Focus On the Family’s CitizenLink has been selected to serve on the GOP’s committee to determine what role the Republican National Committee will play in primary Presidential debates. Says Minnery:

They wanted someone who represents social conservatives, who is not a member of the (Republican National) Committee,” he said, “and that’s why they asked me.

“The party wants the candidate forums to be driven by party activists and grassroots representatives, and less by the national media that televise these events. The idea is that the party ought to be able to have some say over who poses questions to the candidates running for the party’s nomination for president.”

Kinda explains the GOP’s sudden shift back toward social issues, doesn’t it?

RNC Attacks Obama Over Gay Issues

President Barack Obama officially announced today that he would seek a second term in 2012. The Republican National committee responded with a web site, “Hope Isn’t Hiring,” where we ‘mo’s made three of the GOP’s top ten social issues:

1. Despite It Being The Law Of The Land, Obama Refused To Continue To Defend The Defense Of Marriage Act In Court.

2. Obama Repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell While U.S. Troops Are Still On The Battlefield.

… 6. Obama Opposed California’s Prop 8 And Has Expanded Government Recognition Of Same-Sex Couples.

Also, writing in sentence case is so elitist.