Taking Justice and Peace Out of 'Justice of the Peace'

If anyone began to somehow doubt that a reservoir of bigotry and stupidity still exists, Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell proves that it is alive and well.

The Justice of the Peace (who obviously hasn't received the 42 year old memo on the Supreme Court ruling of Loving Vs. the state of Virginia that ruled states must recognize interracial marriage) is refusing to give a marriage license to a black and white couple, saying he is concerned about any future children that the couple might have and their well being. Actually judging from Bardwell's belief, if he is a father I would be much more concerned about his children.

Bardwell, and here's a kicker emphatically states he is not racist, saying he issues licenses to black couples and white couples all the time, just thinks that interracial marriages just don't work out.

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Someone needs to inform this racist boorish idiot that this is the 21st century and that Dixie died a long time ago. Then they need to fire him. Its amazing that people would admit to this outdated ideology that has no place in a modern civilized society, and given that he is no doubt breaking the law it is even more disgraceful that any state, county, parish, or community in America would have such a man as a public servant.

Meanwhile the couple in question is consulting with the U.S Justice Department Civil Rights division to see what they can do.

Illinois Teacher Uses term "Black Fags" says he didn't mean to offend anyone.

In other racist and homophobia related news,Illinois High School teacher Dave Burke was teaching a economics related class when according to one openly gay High School Senior in the class Burke posed a question to the class.

"How would you feel about your tax dollars going to pay some black fag in New York to take pictures of other black fags?"

As glaring in its homophobia and racism as this statement is, Burke's attorney wanted to make it clear, that if by some off chance anyone was offended that it was not his intention to offend anybody.

Hunter said during a lecture on tax dollars on Oct. 5, Geneva High consumer education teacher Dave Burk started talking about the National Endowment for the Arts, asking his students, "'How would you feel about your tax dollars going to pay some black fag in New York to take pictures of other black fags?'"

Burk's attorney, D.J. Tegeler, said Monday he was not personally aware of the terms Burk used to his classes, but that Burk apologizes for any offense.

"Mr. Burk is cooperating fully with both the principal, the dean of students and the School Board," Tegeler said. "Mr. Burk's biggest problem is he does not want to intentionally offend anybody and if he did, he apologizes."

No Mr Burk, the biggest problem is that you have a poorly developed mind and a pre-civil war mentality at least in your statements. Burke was later issued a warning by the school.That's accountability for you.

As one person later said, a bigger waste of the people's tax dollars then the National Endowment for the Arts is this guys salary.

Boehner headed Response

House Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH)has voiced opposition to legislation that would broaden hate crimes laws that would make crimes committed based on a victim's sexual orientation a federal offense. Boehner though says he supports current hate crimes laws that do just that for crimes motivated by a victim's ethnicity, race, or religion.

An aide in the Minority leader's office, said in an e-mail to CBS that this is because race, ethnicity, and religion are what he classifies as "immutable characteristics" or something that a person can't change, while sexual orientation by his estimate is.

First off, it would be interesting to know that if sexual orientation is a conscious choice that can be made and changed, at what point did Boehner sit down and consciously decide to be straight, and also people can't change their religion? Really? So all those Muslims, Jews, or atheists, who convert to Christianity or Catholicism just didn't get the memo in Boehner world that they can't really convert? So what about all those people who Pat Robertson and his 700 Club who end up up finding religion in times of hardship are what delusional? Making it all up? You may want to tell Newt Gingrich and others that. Evidently they didn't get the memo.

This Date in History - The Stone Wall Riots

This date in 1969, the Stone Wall Riots occurred.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Whoever?

Raw story reports that "Don't ask, Don't Tell" is not just used for gays in the millitary anymore, but also possibly for Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists?

New Hampshire Governor Signs Legislation Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Governor John Lynch (D-NH) has signed legislation legalizing gay marriage in the granite state today. The legislation comes after it was passed by both chambers of the state legislature last month.

It was initially uncertain rather Lynch would sign the legislation. However a compromise that would ensure religious institutions and faiths opposed to the concept of same sex marriage would not be forced to perform ceremonies officiating the marriages.

New Hampshire is now the sixth state in the nation to legalize same sex marriage. Rhode Island is now officially the only New England state not to yet legalize gay marriage.

Traditionally conservative New Hampshire today became the sixth state in the nation -- and the fifth state in New England -- where same-sex couples will be allowed to marry.

"Today we're standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect under New Hampshire law," Governor John Lynch said before signing the legislation in a State House ceremony at about 5:20 p.m.

Lynch said it was a New Hampshire tradition "to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections, and that tradition continues today." The room, filled by scores of the bill's supporters, resounded with applause as he signed.

Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, praised the move by Lynch and the state of New Hampshire.

“With Gov. Lynch signing legislation passed by the state Senate and House, New Hampshire has become the latest state to recognize that loving, committed couples, and their families, should receive equal dignity and respect under the law,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “No religious institution will have to recognize any marriage under this law, as the language proposed by Gov. Lynch and agreed to by the legislature made abundantly clear.”

Despite the religious protections inserted in the legislation, the move didn't happen without protest from some voices. Some people still persist in getting their kicks from bashing gays and invoking God in thier defense.

After the House vote, Barbara Haines, 54, of Manchester, whispered, "Repent, repent," to people passing by her in the State House halls. Haines said God meant marriage to be reserved for a man and woman. "The basis of marriage is in God, and he created the male and female to be married and have a family -- and these people are deceived," she said.

Foxx says Crime Bill Named after Murder Victim is "a hoax"

U.S Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC,5) is facing criticism for remarks she made yesterday regarding legislation passed yesterday that would broaden the definition of hate crimes to include crimes where the victim is targeted because of their sexual orientation.

What is known as the Matthew Sheppard Act, named after a gay college student who in 1998 was picked up by two men who robbed him, before taking him out to a prairie, tying him to a fence and beating him to death; passed the U.S House. In the past it has been proposed by was defeated by conservative Republicans, Christian conservative activists, and clergy who believe that their opposition and denunciation of homosexuality could be interpreted as a hate crime and thereby infringe upon their first amendment rights.

Republicans reacted negatively to the passage of the bill. House Minority leader Rep. John Boenher (R-OH) said in an interview with the Washington Times that the legislation made him "want to throw-up", though a spokesperson for Boehner later said he was expressing disgust with the broader Democratic legislative priorities. But it is the remarks of Foxx that are receiving the most attention and are the most shocking.

Glenn Thrush:

North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx is questioning whether the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old gay University of Wyoming student, was a bias attack motivated by his sexual orientation.

Shepard's mother Judy was in the gallery at the time, according to a senior Democratic aide.

The socially conservative Foxx, arguing against a new Democratic hate crimes bill that includes new protections for gays and lesbians, described the description of Shepard's murder as a anti-homosexual attack a "hoax" -- and questioned whether prior bias crime legislation should have been named after him.

“I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay."

She added: "This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

Disgusting and completely false! A statement by Foxx's office later claimed that her statement as "a poor choice of words". But it doesn't seem by calling the heinous death of someone a"Hoax" to the face of that victim's mother is beyond heartless. Its not a better choice of words she needs. But a scintilla of humanity and a conscience.

Its sentiment and cruelty like this that has diminished the Republican party to the husk of the organization that it is today. Not just gays, but their families, young voters, and nearly everyone with any type of heart is offended by and rightfully so. If talk like this and others. This rhetoric is a disgusting maneuver either motivated by at best sick political desires to tap the hate of a small minority or worse yet the blind hate of someone who forgets she is a Representative in esteemed elected office. If this keeps up, the Republican Party will be in the wilderness in perpetuity, which if they keep espousing such rhetoric will be the status they deserve.

Gay Marriage and the Seperation of Church and State

Rod Dreher reacts predictably to the vote by the state legislature in Vermont to legalize same sex marriage.

It is increasingly obvious that the US Supreme Court is going to have to rule on this matter soon. It is an untenable situation for a same-sex couple to be married in Vermont and Massachusetts and Iowa, but not in Texas, Nevada and Montana. I believe SCOTUS will constitutionalize gay marriage, and that being the case, it might be better for my side if it gets done sooner rather than later. If done sooner, there might still be enough backlash left in the American people to get a constitutional amendment passed erecting a high barrier or protection around religious institutions. Thoughts?

Thoughts? Well here Dreher means one of two things. The first could mean that the entire fate of civilization and Christianity itself rests soley on prohibiting two people of the same gender from getting married. The other is Dreher is unconsciously advocating for the separation of church and state without really knowing it.

A barrier of protection around religious institutions? Sounds like the separation of Church and state to me. The concept of the separation of church and state is often forgotten by religious conservatives in that it not only protects the government from the forces of religion but also religion from the excesses and management of religious institutions. Both need to be protected from one another at times. I myself compare it to the relationship between my best friend and my girlfriend. I honor both and want them to be harmonious in their relationship and even craft a friendship of sorts. But I don't want the two to sleep together. That same co-existence and tolerance, yet distance between the affairs of government and those of state is just as necessary.

Marriage though can be a challenging one, since Marriage for many has both a religious and legal component. When a marriage certificate is sought and given that is the legal function of marriage thus the government. When at a wedding a religious figure such as a priest presides over a ceremony codifying that union in God's eyes that is the religious function. Gays don't seem so much as asking for the religious community to perform such marriages (although i would imagine they would like to be accepted or at least tolerated). Rather they seek the legal benefits and protections that come with that marriage certificate.

Rod Dreher: Afraid Gays Could Force Christians into the Closet

The Iowa state decision to legalize Same Sex Marriage by the Iowa State Supreme Courtcourt was of course reached with mixed reaction. Gay Rights groups predictably applauded the move, while those opposed like the always inflammatory Congressman Steve King (R-IA) raised the possibility that the state could become "a gay marriage mecca".

But one of the most histrionic reactions was by blogger Rod Dreher who tried to paint Christians as the victims in this matter, by saying that if gays are accepted it could force Christians to be silenced. So he is basically afraid that Gays having full civil rights and legal protections would result in Christians being treated the way that many of those same Christians treated gays. Forcing them to be silenced and scorned by society.

One blogger reacts by telling Dreher to stop his whining, and that acceptance and tolerance of gays is not the toughest challenge Christians have had to pay.

Rod Dreher, commenting on the Iowa State Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, notes that the anti-gay marriage position is being likened to racism and complains that as this mindset takes hold "it will be very hard to be a public Christian".

For heaven's sake. Harder than it was for Christ himself, whose crucifixion we will be commemorating shortly? Harder than for the early Christians who were tossed to lions, not just served with a harrassment summons from the HR Department?

Or harder than it is for Christians in China today? C'mon, you give witness and take your lumps.

Well. Worrying whether the United States will tolerate Christians - I am giving Mr. Dreher HUGE points for creativity.

Now as a straight man, I am sorry but I just don't see how allowing two people of the same gender who have a genuine love for each other to legally codify that love in the covenant of marriage is a threat. Furthermore I don't see why anyone with a life should care. I mean this affects your relationship and marriage how? Are you worried that at the first sight of a gay couple, your lover and you might suddenly be overcome by the urge to be gay like it is a contagious disease? That a couple might break up at the sight of a same sex couple? All I can say is that if a same sex couple is a threat to your marriage or relationship, you are probably gay yourself or your relationship was in critical condition already.

Besides, what is with these people who seem to think that being a Christian is all about denouncing gays, Muslims, and opposing abortion? What about helping the poor and tending to the sick? Those are no doubt referenced in the Bible more times then Jesus denouncing gays.

CA Court Rules; Christian Schools can Expel students Who are Percieved as Gay

Watch out girls who hold hands or guys who share the occasional manly hug, if you "seem" gay and go to a Christian Private school you could be expelled. Don't people like this have anything better to do then fan the flames of sexual witch hunts? Who cares who loves who as long as they don't hurt anybody. And is there really a way short of an admission by a person themselves or catching them in an overtly sexual act that proves someone is gay? Note to everyone Religion is about more than just sex and asking ourselves "Who would Jesus sleep with?"

If some Christians who are constantly bloviating about sex, invested just half the energy speaking out against racism, invading other countries, tending to the ill, mending broken spirits, and helping the impoverished; the world would be a better place. I know not all Christians subscribe to this narrow minded drivel, but there are many loud voices who do.

A California appeals court ruled Monday that a Christian high school can expel students perceived to be lesbians, upholding a 2008 lower court ruling that there were "no triable" elements to the case.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside on Monday upheld California Lutheran High School's right as a private, religious organization to exclude students based on sexual orientation. The ruling was released late Tuesday.

The two 16-year-old girls sued the school for expelling them on the basis of a "bond of intimacy" "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," under a California discrimination law.

H/T: Raw Story

U.S and Middle Eastern Countries Against Decriminalizing HomoSexuality

A sad reminder of just how far the U.S has fallen and how much of its image as a stalwart leader of truth and justice for all people's has fallen.

The Bush/Cheney administration, the Christian right, and the Middle East theocratic governments they now condemn and brand as evil for denying many of their citizens equal rights stand together in this instance. The U.S now is the only western country standing against a United Nations declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality.

Now in the United States homosexuality is not illegal. But there are still parts of the nation where an employer can terminate the employment or refuse to hire a homosexual, where hate crimes against people of that sexual persuasion are committed, couples are denied the benefits that would be afforded to heterosexuals, and are barred from so much as speaking freely about their sexuality if they are in the U.S Military.

But even worse in many non western countries, especially some in the Middle East where it is acceptable to execute homosexuals. Yet the United States which positions itself as the island of tolerance, justice , and freedom between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is now in affect tolerating that, by standing with such countries in opposition to this resolution. So much for compassionate conservatism.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

Now the U.S in the United Nations says they are opposed to this because it could make the Federal government impede on some functions normally reserved for the states. Funny, Marriage is usually a legal function reserved for states and municipalities, yet Bush/Cheney and their social conservative allies seem not to hesitate to do just that when the issue comes to banning marriage between gays.

Obama Draws Fire For Inviting Rick Warren to Do Invocation

There is little need for me to inform you over the blitzkrieg of criticism President-Elect Obama has encured from many gay rights activists, liberals, bloggers, and Democrats over his choice of Pastor and best selling author Rick Warren as his choice to deliver the traditional invocation at his approaching inauguration in January.

Critics of that decision are infuriated pointing to his fervent opposition to abortion, his efforts backing Proposition 8 in California which barred Gay Marriage, and his agreement that would should assassinate foreign leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Amadenijad.

Sarah Posner has a piece in the Nation stating that Rick Warren is basically James Dobson or Pat Robertson with facial hair, Hawaiian shirts, and what Warren himself says is a difference in tone, with those titular heads of the Christian Right.

There was no doubt that Obama, like every president before him, would pick a Christian minister to perform this sacred duty. But Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Warren has done a masterful job at marketing himself as a "new" kind of evangelical with a "broader agenda" than just fighting abortion rights and gay marriage. He dispatches members of his congregation to Africa to perform AIDS relief and has positioned himself as a great crusader for bringing his "purpose-driven" pabulum to the world.

Faith in Public Life, a nonprofit cultivated by the Center for American Progress, was so wowed by Warren that it co-sponsored a presidential forum in August at Warren's Saddleback Church. There, his "broader agenda" included asking Obama whether he believed that life began at conception (which Warren believes, he says, based on the Bible, not science) and to ruminate on the nature of evil. (As for Pastor Rick, he believes the Bible dictates that the US government "punish evildoers," as in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Beneath the sheep's clothing lurks a culture warrior wolf. After the Saddleback forum, he told the Wall Street Journal that the only difference between him and James Dobson was that of "tone." After insisting that his agenda was "broad," and holding himself out as an impartial arbiter of the forum, he declared that voting for a "Holocaust denier" (i.e., someone who is pro-choice) is a "deal-breaker" for many evangelicals. Obama was pressured to talk about "abortion reduction," but Warren likens such rhetoric likening it to Schindler's List: an attempt to save some lives but not end a "holocaust."

In the world of the "broader agenda" evangelicals, when liberals advocate for gay marriage, they're stoking the culture wars; when a "broader agenda" evangelical crusades against it, he's merely upholding biblical standards. In that tradition, Warren in October implored his followers to vote for Proposition 8 because "there are about 2 percent of Americans are homosexual, gay, lesbian people. We should not let 2 percent of the population...change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years." Warren called opposition to gay marriage a "humanitarian issue" because "God created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation."

President-elect Obama in response insists that he has always been a stalwart advocate for Gay Rights and that he is merely trying to be inclusive.

To some degree Warren defenders are right. He has taken actions to reduce HIV/AIDS and combat poverty. And unlike many in the Pat Robertson mold he has given at least lip service to fighting global climate change, being bi-partisan, and expressed at least token opposition to the use of torture or as it is called by its critics "harsh interrogation techniques".

Myself, I am conflicted about this. On one hand some of Warren's views I don't just disagree with but think of as backwards such as Gay Marriage, comparing abortion to the holocaust. Even his opposition to torture while he should get credit for breaking with the Bush loyal Christian right, he has failed to do much to speak out about it, while investing much of his energy in opposing the twin evils of many cultural temporants, two gays who love each other getting married and a woman making reproductive health decisions.

But the number of Ministers in America who support Choice and/or gay rights is sparse in number. My feeling I guess is somewhat of a compromise on the issue. Warren should at least be invited to the inauguration maybe even allowed to speak as other ministers will. But another figure less vocal and less politicized should take the reigns and give the invocation. I don't know like I said I am still a bit conflicted on this one.

Young Conservative Quits Republican Group After Racist Obama Remarks.

Between the offensive remark by a commentator from the conservative Media Research Center about Liberal talk show host and MSNBC commentator Rachael Meadow, as that " Lesbian Air American host" and the slew of hate that has been spouted by conservatives about Obama and the African American Community, it is stomach turning to hear these activists.

Tragically it even seems to be trickling down to some conservative far right college activists, including the leader of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans. The millennial generation largely is abhorred and doesn't subscribe to this kind of narrow and primitive thinking. But it does seem to rear its hideous head occasionally even with college age youth. Its shameful and embarrassing.

Yahoo News:

ALLENTOWN, Pa. - The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans has been forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on the Internet.

Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July that Obama has "a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)"

Fortuanatly, the organization had the decency to force this idiot to resign, but he has dabbled in what one could call "racial insensitivity" at best and stocking the flames of racism at worst before. Look what he called Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.

LaDuca, who previously had called Martin Luther King Jr. a "pariah" and a "fraud," also wrote: "And man, if sayin' someone has large lips is a racial slur, then we're ALL in trouble."

He also held one of those conservative anti-affirmative action bake sales that make white people think they are the ones now victims of racism.

LaDuca is a senior at Kutztown University. Two years ago, Kutztown's College Republicans chapter was heavily criticized for holding a "bake sale" to protest affirmative action in which whites were charged more for cookies than blacks. LaDuca, then the group's spokesman, made a public apology on the group's behalf.

Are these the future leaders of conservatism? It sounds a lot less like Edmund Burke and alot more like Rush Limbaugh. They may want to take a page from their hero Ronald Reagan (or at least this clip of him in this 1951 obscure number about the Ku-Klux Klan, (although according to the Youtube description the movie contained neither victims of color nor did it take place in the south.)

Gay Marriages Now Become Legal in California

Phylis Lyon, 83 and Del Martin,87 have been together for 55 years and have finally wed, as California legalizes same sex marriage.

Couples of the same gender can now legally wed in the state of California, as of Monday. The new victory for gay couples seeking to wed comes after a ruling this past spring that as of June 16, couples of the same gender must have access to equal rights under marriage, just as couples of differing genders do, in all counties throughout the states. This despite a constitutional amendment to the state's constitution passed in 2000, that inserted language limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

According to reports hundreds of same sex couples are seeking to be legally married including a couple who have been in a relationship for over half a century.

Meanwhile, a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to one man and one woman is once again being pushed by conservative and gay marriage opponents to be placed on a statewide election ballot. California has become the second state in the nation to legally allow couples of the same gender to marry, as New York has recently also made overtures to do.

MY TAKE: I am from Massachusetts and the whole world has not gone to hell since gay marriage became legal in the state and I am fairly sure that God doesn't hate us.

Now I think those who raise concerns or discomfort about how this decision was reached by a handful of state Supreme Court Judges and not by the legislature or the people, is a somewhat valid point. I would much rather that the people and the legislature reach this conclusion on their own and implement a policy that would grant couples access to marriage, or a union similar to marriage, as well as the legal and financial benefits that accompany marriage.

But the Courts in one sense were also doing their job, which is to interpret the constitution in a modern context and how the rights enshrined in it pertain to all citizens.

Also I have never quite understood the argument that gay marriage destroys marriage. We heterosexuals have done a great job of demolishing marriage on our own with such blunt instruments as divorce (which you won't hear conservative activists and the horrors of domestic violence. Besides if a gay couple who has been together for 55 years will destroy your marriage, your marriage was likely already in its 'last throes' (sorry for the use of that term Dick Cheney).

Seriously any couple, Gay or straight, who have been together for 55 years (most marriages these days probably don't even last that long), deserve to have that relationship solidified in the union of marriage.

Because as we all Know, other People's Beliefs take a Back Seat to His

A High School principal in South Carolina, announced that he will resign effective next year, after he was forced by the School District to allow some students to form a Gay Straight Alliance club.

The principal said in a written statement that the decision not to allow a club in the school (which also has abstinence only sex education), was based on his own professional beliefs and religious convictions. Because, like those pious pharmacists who won't allow an adult to purchase birth control because its against thier own personal beliefs, everything is supposed to be about him and conform with his personal beliefs and not anybody else's needs or convictions.

Commentary: Gay Bashing Fundamentalists Have No respect for the Living or The Dead

Some conservatives such as right wing Texas motor mouth and Fox News co-host John Gibson have made jokes about Heath Ledger's death. Boy does his show need writers, and does he ever need a soul.

Anyway homophobe and so-called "Christian" fundamentalist "Reverend"Fred Phelps and the small but hate filled cadre of followers he calls a "church", state they will protest at memorials in the U.S for Ledger, saying he is burning in hell for playing a gay cowboy in the movie Brokeback Mountain. If you don't know Phelps earlier work, they are the ones who protest at the funerals of Iraq War veterans, saying they deserve to die for America's Tolerance of Homosexuality.

They give religion a bad name, just as many white supremacist distorted Christianity to spout their racist pro-segregation vitriol.

Anyway here is a segment from "The West Wing" that shows how you deal with hate spouting and gay bashing religious fundamentalists.

August 14 Archieves: Church refuses to bury man Cause he Is Gay

"What Would Jesus Do"? Well apparently, he would renege on an offer to host a funeral and tribute to a Gulf War Navy veteran because he was gay. Well that is at least what they apparently believe at The High Point nondenominational church in Arlington, Texas.

When the brother of a janitor at the church had died on August 6 at the age 46 from an infection after he endured a medical operation before possibly undergoing a heart transplant. Cecil Sinclair was his name and he had been a Navy veteran of Operation Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), where he courageously and selflessly helped rescue pilots shot down in the burning desert amidst the chaos of battle, from danger, harm, and death.

Following his death the church offered Lee Sinclair, the brother of the deceased and a janitor at the church and the Sinclair family to host the funeral, provide the food for the ceremony for about one or two hundred grieving relatives and friends, and compose a photo montage of the late Mr Sinclair to be displayed during the ceremony.

But last Wednesday night, as the ceremony was to be held the next day, the church changed its mind. Why? You guessed it because he is gay. This is what the Rev Gary Simons who heads the Church said:

"Some of these photos had had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," he said. " My ministry associates were taken aback."

To me this disgusting incident is reminiscent of an old episode of the classic sitcom "All in the Family", when the notoriously prejudice and racist Archie Bunker is hospitalized over night. With a curtain between them and their beds, blocking their view of one another, Archie and another man strike up a jovial conversation finding they have much in common. They even agree to finally meet each other face to face when they get out of the hospital. Then Archie rises out of his hospital bed, walks over, and pushes aside the curtain to hand his roommate and fellow patient something, when to his horror, Archie discovers that this man he had struck up a conversation and friendship with, was really a black man. he is taken aback and is more well reluctant to be friends. Like with Archie Bunker, the Reverend and members of the church had heard that the brother of the church's janitor was having serious heart troubles six years ago and they started praying for him. But after his death when a curtain was pushed aside, a silly prejudice got in the way of what could have been an extremely kind gesture. And in the end Reverend Simons, like Archie Bunker come off as both backwards minded and silly.

Simons later goes on to deem homosexuality a sin, and even comparing it to real sins like murder.

The pastor said he could imagine a similar situation involving a different sin. Perhaps a mother loses a son who is a thief or murderer, Mr Simmons said. The church would surely volunteer to hold a service, he said.

"But I don't think the Mother would submit photos of him murdering someone," he said. "That's a red light going off."

It's outrageous and totally insensitive to the memory of a man as well as his loved ones grieving his death. According to the Christian religion (whichever flavor of Christianity one may adhere to), God teaches man to love his brother, not to love his brother unless he happens to be gay. This man was a human being, a brother of a church employee, and a war hero who rescued those pilots in great danger, something I think Jesus certainly would have approved. This obsession with gays and sex, is clouding the judgement and compassion of many well meaning Christians. How necessarily, does turning one's back on a family deep in mourning and casting aspersions on a man for the way he loved his fellow brethren, make one a better Christian and a more virtuous soul?

It is incidents like this that drive people away from religion. If church's and steeples of worship concentrated on God's teachings of love and curing social ills such as poverty, disease, an unjust war, and being good stewards of God's Earthly creation; (you know, like what Jesus actually did), they would receive more respect, worshippers, and understanding.

No, i don't think this is a call to sport the torches and pitch forks and begin a persecution of Christianity and churches. There are many loving understanding Christians such as my grandparents, who genuinely care about their religion and would never let some trivial aspect of one's life cloud their compassion for someone. But what I am saying it is time to forge ahead and move beyond a private and myopic aspect of one's broader life, such as what goes on between consenting adults in their hearts and in the solitude of their own bedrooms and homes. Again, how does breaking a promise, insulting a dead man, and turning their collective backs on this man and his family, make someone a better Christian?

Archieved August 6: Bob's Big Adventure

"Once recieved title of "Legislator of the year"

In Florida a state legislator and co-chair of the GOP presidential campaign of Senator John McCain in Florida, who brands himself as a "family values" proponent, who once was a strong supporter of legislation in 2001 to ban the adoption of children by gay couples in the state and even sponsored a piece of legislation that would increase the penalties against those who commit lewd and lascivious acts, is facing charges for having done just that on July 11 at a park in the sunshine state.

Bob Allen, a Republican who represents the district of Merrit Island in Florida, has even once been named legislator of the year, has gone from lawmaker to lawbreaker when he solicited oral sex from an undercover policeman in a public bathroom. For twenty dollars he asked an undercover officer to go across a nearby bridge and have sex with him.

However when caught by police, Allen conjured up an interesting and racist defense. He did so cause he is afraid of black men and the undercover officer was a blackman.

"This was a pretty stocky black guy and there was nothing but other black guys in the park,'Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he ' was about to become another statistic,' and would have said anything to get away."

Allen has pled not gulity and has said he will not resign from his legislative seat where he back's Florida's 32nd state district. He could face a fine of about to $500 and one year in prison. Not to mention the public humilation and the chrous of laughter from the public at large that will probably echo in the head of this homophobe and racist. This is a the most inanne defense and will likely fall flat on its face, I would hate to be the attorney that will be defending him in this case.

This just another example of a politician who legislates and preeches the gospel of sexual temperance and demonizing people who even lawful participate in sexual activities in thier own home, going out and not just doing what he preeches against but commiting a crime while doing it. When you run for office or place yourself on the anti-sex pulpit, you better carry through on those.

As for his defense, its sad enough we have people in society demonizing people for thier sexual orientation, but his defense is ridiculous, sad, and if it weren't so racist it would be funny. How any constituency could want some hatemonger hypocritical lawbraker like this representing them is beyond me. So if anyone from his district just so happens to read this (which is next to impossible) take my advice and the advice of every other civilized human being and tell this bigot he doesn't represent you. Give him the message that he must resign and let the people be served by someone of honor.

Just a prediction but if this guy happens to actually run for office again after a year in jail, I could be wrong but I have a hunch that he won't be getting a large portion of the black vote.