Freedom Bird

I've found a new and better photo of Senator John Kerry's Boeing 757 "freedom bird" plane.

Of course, John Kerry will soon be flying around in this other Boeing model

:

I know I have to wait until Thursday, January 20, 2005...but I don't want to.

"Photo Op" Homeland Security

Senator John Kerry characterized the Bush administration Homeland Security policy as "a photo opportunity and the rhetoric of a campaign." Hmmm, I wonder how accurate that statement is...

Ok, so maybe Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge's "photo op" with the first U.S.-VISIT screen (thats U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology for long...The Bush Administration's real talent seems to be naming things) is not that accurate...maybe Bush and his minions are working above the political fray...

It was optimistic, until I read Fox News today:

International Association of Fire Fighters president Harold Schaitberger said it is suspicious that the administration reportedly knew about these threats [the "credible" intelligence from "multiple" sources that al-Qaida is determined to "hit the United States hard" in the coming months in a strike that could be linked to events such as a coming international economic summit and the summer political conventions] for more than a month but only chose to publicize them now, as Bush's approval ratings have been sinking.

"I find the reports in this press conference to be politically convenient at best," said Schaitberger.

International Brotherhood of Police Officers President David Holway criticized the administration for "sitting on this information" instead of sharing it immediately with police.

"The timing on this is very suspect," Holway said. "We want to make sure that when this information does come out, it comes out in a timely manner."

So do we all, now if the President could get off his bike. *wink*

Freedom Bird

It's no Air Force One, but it will do nicely until January...

John Kerry used his new Boeing 757-200 for the first time today when he flew from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to PDX (Portland, Oregon International Airport). Kerry joked, "in the event of an emergency, my hair can be used as a flotation device."

The plane has two conference tables, eight phone lines, a copy machine, a printer and a standup bar for socializing. It has sections for campaign staff, the media and Secret Service. Each of its 94 seats has a power outlet for laptops, cell phones and other electronic devices.

Some 72 seats are reserved for the media.

"That means we have about 23, 24 parachutes on board. We're going to hand them out according to good stories, bad stories," Kerry joked.

Launching the plane, which has his name and "President" emblazoned on its side, Kerry reminisced about watching airplanes ferrying U.S. troops during the Vietnam War.

"We looked at those planes, and they gained a nickname. They were called freedom birds, and everybody counted the days until we got to get on our freedom bird," he said.

"This is my freedom bird."

It's a bug's life...

President Bush was chased by a cicada as he left Air Force One today.

It's amazing what some politicians will do to court the "once-every-seventeen-year insect" vote. I wonder how much compassion the President has for cicadas?

It's only art...

Restorers in Italy just completed a restoration of Michelangelo's "David" for its 500th Anniversary. Looks pretty good, right?

Of course, if "David" was in America, Attorney General John Ashcroft would try to spend $8,000 to cover up his "nether regions." Onward Christian Soldiers...Cover up for Christ or the evil doers win!

Compassionate Conservatives Strike Again

The North Carolinian Branch of the Log Cabin Republicans, a Gay Republican group (which I've mentioned on the 3rd Cent), has been bared from attending the North Carolina Republican Party Convention this weekend because "homosexuality is not normal" and their agenda is "counterproductive to the Republican agenda." Compassion indeed.

Bill Peaslee, a spokesman for the state Republican Party, said its leaders rescinded their offer to grant the Log Cabin Republicans a table at the convention because "in our opinion, they're not really a Republican organization. Their political agenda is different than our political agenda" and "while they call themselves loyal Republicans, they spend more time and more resources pointing out what's wrong with the party than what's right."

You've got to give it to the Republicans...what they lack in tolerance, compassion, acceptance, love, kindness, support and understanding they make up for with "loyalty" to their "political agenda." Brings a tear to my eye...how about you?

Oh, just as a FYI, the political agenda of the North Carolina Republican Party when it comes to homosexuality is as follows:

the North Carolina Republicans' platform states that homosexuality "is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle either in public education or in public policy. We also stand united with private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, who defend moral decency and freedom according to their own long-held and well-established traditions and beliefs."

As I’ve said before: nice. Thank God we have the North Carolina Republicans to defend moral decency for the rest of us...

Taking the "training wheels" off...

President Bush says Iraq is ready to "take the training wheels off" and assume "some" political sovereignty...Hmmm...

I'm not so sure...I'm thinking President Bush will take the "training wheels" off and the Iraqis will "ride their bike into the mail box" of fundamentalism. Time will tell.

SEXUALLY EXPLICIT - Pelosi on Bush Attire

I included "SEXUALLY EXPLICIT" in the title as homage to the Federal Trade Commission's new rule for unwarranted e-mail spam. Starting today, all spam which has "sexually explicit" content must have "SECUALLY EXPLICIT" in the subject line (how creative). For me, I just like saying "sexually explicit." heh...

Now, United States House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of San Francisco, California, criticized President Bush's job performance on Iraq and other issues. She said, "The results of his action are what undermine his leadership, not my statements. The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?"

Tough words. I was wondering what the Republican response would be...then Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said if all Pelosi could offer is taunting U.S. troops “by saying they are dying needlessly and are risking their lives on a shallow mission, then she should just go back to her pastel-colored condo in San Francisco and keep her views to herself.”

Tough words. An "A+" to everyone for the civil discourse...

"Abstinence Only" at work...

I saw this yesterday and had to share:

A German couple looking for fertility treatment were told that they would be better off trying sex first.

The pair visited the University Clinic of Lubek in order to investigate why it was that they had not had a child despite eight years of marriage, Ananova reports.

But after extensive tests, the clinic were left bemused by why such an apparently fertile couple were still childless, until they asked about the frequency of their sexual activity.

It emerged that the 30-year-old woman and 36-year-old man had never consummated their marriage - apparently unaware of the importance of sex in the process of conception.

"When we asked them how often they had had sex, they looked blank, and asked us what we meant," a clinic spokesman said.

"The couple were brought up in a religious environment and were simply unaware, after eight years of marriage, of the physical requirements necessary to procreate."

The pair are now undergoing sex therapy sessions in order to aid them in their bid to have a child.

At least the author of My 2 Cents knows where children come from... (even if he's uncomfortable discussing "O" faces)

God Save the Queen

Fun in the British House of Commons today...








It was a balloon filled with purple coloured (the "u" is going out to all you Britons out there) flour thrown by a protester in the gallery. Be sure to watch Prime Minister's Questions this Sunday to see the complete scene on C-SPAN, or you can just watch it online as soon as it's posted.

A Brief Lesson in Equality

How about a look at Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Everyone, try to keep this Amendment in mind when discussing the rights of individuals to wed other individuals...

"I now pronounce you married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

Today marked the first day in American history that gay and lesbian couples could get married legally. My takes is: ABOUT DAMN TIME! Congratulations go out to all the new couples in Massachusetts...enjoy your day!

How about a Marlboro to clean out the lungs...

The much criticized ban on smoking in New York City public areas, including restaurants and bars, as well as the city's criticized tax increase on tobacco appears to be paying off. Here is a story from MSNBC.com: Number of smokers in NYC declines

How about that. Mark one for civic mindedness and public health. Programs and policies like those in New York City are vital to curb the 400,000 deaths and 23 million health problems caused by tobacco each year in the United States (all of which are preventable). Congratulations to New York City, and keep up the good work!

Nothing quite like a "good spanking"...

An Open Letter

Dear "Normal" Human Beings who possess "hallowed" blogs:

I don't know where to begin...Ah. You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, Byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystrophic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, abrasive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.

Oh, and you argue like a five-year-old. To quote you: "you know you've been beat. I'm right and you are wrong. But you can't admit it." Intelligent...

Oh, and if you think I support NAMBLA because I support their right to free speech and expression because "guilt by association," your common sense forgot to tell you that makes you guilty by association when it comes to the hateful and incredibly un-Christian beliefs and positions of the Center for Reclaiming America. And you have the nerve to accuse me of double talk. I hope that wasn't to much psycho-babble for your common sense mind to absorb.

Warmest Regards,

Slingshizzle
Liberal Nutjob

and now for some double talk and liberal psycho-babble...

My 2 Cents...free speech does not include only what you believe is "acceptable."

I agree with the ACLU when they say "the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive."

I agree with the ACLU when they say "those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not."

I agree with the ACLU when they say "the case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet."

And I agree with the ACLU when they say "in representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children."

I don't consider this double talk, or psycho-babble...it couldn't be more clear. I support the ACLU's position that ANYONE has the right to FREE SPEECH, even if what they say is disgusting, disturbing and "vile" (to quote the ACLU itself).

My 2 Cents, if you actually looked into the issue (as I did), and did not just take the word of the Center for Reclaiming America, you might have known that no pornographic issues were involved. Next time, do some research...your cause depends on you being believable...

And no, I'm not mentally ill...however, I know some people who, if the Center for Reclaiming America got it's way, would be considered mentally ill.

Finally, I don't support the scum of the earth...I defend the scum of the earth's right to free speech, free expression, free assembly, free practice of religion and right to due process.

The Center for Reclaiming America...Part II

Unlike the author of My 2 Cents who doesn't support the "entire mission" of the Center for Reclaiming America, I do support the American Civil Liberties Union 100%. I do not, nor should any reasoned-minded individual, cringe when he brings up NAMBLA and child porn. Let's read the ACLU's press release about the case My 2 Cents brings up:

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
August 31, 2000

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

I agree with the ACLU position completely.

The difference between the author of My 2 Cents and me is that: I base my opinions on a critical and reason-driven examination of an entire issue before I reach those opinions; and My 2 Cents bases his opinions on a fire n' brimstone, "repent evil-doers," lying liar, narrow minded and hateful view from a minority of fanatical right-wing evangelicals (like the Center for Reclaiming America).

I'm in no way embarrassed by the organizations I use to support my positions, nor do I only support those organizations when they agree with me and oppose them when I don't.

Maybe that's the largest difference between conservatives and liberals: conservatives are willing to be friendly...but only when you agree with them...and only until they've used all that they could of yours.

The Center for Relcaiming America...

The author of My 2 Cents, instead of discussing his position on the right of homosexuals to adopt, chose instead (as I predicted) to attach the American Civil Liberties Union. The source he used to "discredit" the ACLU was the Center for Reclaiming America.

For those of you who don't know, the Center for Reclaiming America's mission is "to inform, equip, motivate, and support Christians; enabling them to defend and implement the Biblical principles on which our country was founded." In actuality, the mission of the Center for Reclaiming America is to spread hate and bigotry.

HateWatch.org places the Center for Reclaiming America in league with GodHatesFags.com and Stop Promoting Homosexuality International...good company if your last name rhymes with "Gitler."

Just a brief scan of the Center for Reclaiming America's web site makes you want to cringe in disgust.

Since my post was on Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual/Transgender rights, let's examine the Center for Reclaiming America's stance on homosexuality:

▪The Center believes that homosexuality should be reclassified as a "mental illness" by the American Psychiatric Association, and that someone's homosexuality is "quite changeable" and "is curable."

▪They are concerned that 86% of reporters and other media employees believe "homosexuals have the right to teach in public schools."

▪Apparently, since I've bought Nike clothes, drank Coors beer, ridden in Ford vehicles and contributed to the United Way, I've supported the "homosexual movement" through the Human Rights Campaign. Man, if there was ever and organization to oppose, it would be one supporting human rights.

If the Center for Reclaiming America, and the author of My 2 Cents, want to "reclaim America for Christ," they can do it without me. The Christ I believe in is love, not hate...is compassion, not bigotry...is hope, not fear...

My 2 Cents, how dare you use such a discriminate and bigoted source to defend one of your positions. Ever hear of "guilty by association?"

So say the Conservatives: "Equal Rights for All Individuals...unless you happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender"

It makes me absolutely crazy when conservatives, who claim to believe in "equal rights for all individuals," oppose gay and lesbians adopting children. What drives me the most crazy are the reasons they give for their narrow-minded belief.

Here is the truth about homosexual parenting:

▪There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents.

▪Home environments with homosexual parents are as likely to successfully support a child's development as those with heterosexual parents.

▪Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to create a loving and nurturing home; an ability that does not depend on whether a parent is gay or straight.

▪There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents.

▪The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up just as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents.

So taking that into account, why do the conservatives continue to push their discriminatory position? Here are some "Conservative Positions" and the truth about those positions:

Conservative Position: The only acceptable home for a child is one with a mother and father who are married to each other.

Truth: Children without homes do not have the option of choosing between a married mother and father or some other type of parent(s). These children have neither a mother nor a father, married or unmarried. There simply are not enough married mothers and fathers who are interested in adoption and foster care. Last year only 20,000 of the 100,000 foster children in need of adoption were adopted, including children adopted by single people as well as married couples. Our adoption and foster care policies must deal with reality, or these children will never have stable and loving homes.

Conservative Position: Children need a mother and a father to have proper male and female role models.

Truth: Children without homes have neither a mother nor a father as role models. And children get their role models from many places besides their parents. These include grandparents, aunts and uncles, teachers, friends, and neighbors. In a case-by-case evaluation, trained professionals can ensure that the child to be adopted or placed in foster care is moving into an environment with adequate role models of all types.

Conservative Position: Gays and lesbians don't have stable relationships and don't know how to be good parents.

Truth: Like other adults in this country, the majority of lesbians and gay men are in stable committed relationships. Of course some of these relationships have problems, as do some heterosexual relationships. The adoption and foster care screening process is very rigorous, including extensive home visits and interviews of prospective parents. It is designed to screen out those individuals who are not qualified to adopt or be foster parents, for whatever reason. All of the evidence shows that lesbians and gay men can and do make good parents. The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." That is why the Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest children's advocacy organization, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children say that gays and lesbians seeking to adopt should be evaluated just like other adoptive applicants.

Conservative Position: Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are more likely to grow up gay themselves.

Truth: All of the available evidence demonstrates that the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on the sexual orientation of their children and that children of lesbian and gay parents are no more likely than any other child to grow up to be gay. There is some evidence that children of gays and lesbians are more tolerant of diversity, but this is certainly not a disadvantage. Of course, some children of lesbians and gay men will grow up to be gay, as will some children of heterosexual parents. These children will have the added advantage of being raised by parents who are supportive and accepting in a world that can sometimes be hostile.

Conservative Position: Children who are raised by lesbian or gay parents will be subjected to harassment and will be rejected by their peers.

Truth: Children make fun of other children for all kinds of reasons: for being too short or too tall, for being too thin or too fat, for being of a different race or religion or speaking a different language. Children show remarkable resiliency, especially if they are provided with a stable and loving home environment. Children in foster care can face tremendous abuse from their peers for being parentless. These children often internalize that abuse, and often feel unwanted. Unfortunately, they do not have the emotional support of a loving permanent family to help them through these difficult times.

Conservative Position: Lesbians and gay men are more likely to molest children.

Truth: There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. All of the legitimate scientific evidence shows that. Sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is an adult sexual attraction to others. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is an adult sexual attraction to children. Ninety percent of child abuse is committed by heterosexual men. In one study of 269 cases of child sexual abuse, only two offenders were gay or lesbian. Of the cases studied involving molestation of a boy by a man, 74% of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boy's mother or another female relative. The study concluded that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual."

Conservative Position: Children raised by lesbians and gay men will be brought up in an "immoral" environment.

Truth: There are all kinds of disagreements in this country about what is moral and what is immoral. Some people may think raising children without religion is immoral, yet atheists are allowed to adopt and be foster parents. Some people think drinking and gambling are immoral, but these things don't disqualify someone from being evaluated as an adoptive or foster parent. If we eliminated all of the people who could possibly be considered "immoral," we would have almost no parents left to adopt and provide foster care. That can't be the right solution. What we can probably all agree on is that it is immoral to leave children without homes when there are qualified parents waiting to raise them. And that is what many gays and lesbians can do.

These examples were taken from the "Athiest Cult of Liberals United."

When you consider the crisis facing adoption in the United States, how can we, as a society, reject loving and willing parents based on their sexual orientations? Answer me that...

"The FDA is siding with our nation's teens & their health" ...YEAH RIGHT

Yet another "What the F***!" moment has occured, this time with the Food and Drug Administration. Yesterday, the FDA rejected the proposal to allow the "morning-after" contraceptive pill to be sold over the counter without a perscription. This decision in the face of an overwhelming vote of the FDA's medical examininers to the contrary.

In the reasoning behind the decision, the FDA leadership stated: "there was no evidence teens younger than 16 could safely use the pills without a doctor’s guidance." In an internal FDA memo, which was attained by the Associated Press, it was explained that the medical reviewers (doctors) within the FDA, but was overruled by senior FDA officials. "Some staff have expressed the concern that this decision is based on non-medical implications of teen sexual behavior, or judgments about the propriety of this activity,” said the memo, written by FDA acting drug chief Dr. Steven Galson. “These issues are beyond the scope of our drug approval process, and I have not considered them in this decision.”

Damn right they are beyond the approval process of the FDA. Conservatives have been pressuring the FDA on the morning-after pill for months, and it appears that the FDA cracked under that pressure. So instead of basing a medical decision on medicine and the advice of doctors, the FDA is basing a medical decision on "moral objections" and the conservative belief that the morning-after pill encourages teen sexual activity.

The statement made in this post's title was made by conservative Representative Dave Weldon, Republican of Florida and is an example of the conservatives' position...a position based on their personal moral objections to sex and not medical evidence.

This issue is similar to the needle exchange post I wrote on April 5th. The issue concerning the availability of morning-after contraceptives is not a moral one, but a public safety and health one. At the point we place individual and biased "moral objections" on a public health issue, it's the beginning of the end.

I seriously hope the FDA will reconsider their decision and allow morning-after contraceptive pills to be purchased without a prescription. You can learn more about this issue by visiting Planned Parenthood.

Have a good weekend, a good Mother's Day, see ya all next week.

President Bush: Showing us what compassion is all about

In preparation for my upcoming post on gay parenting/adoption, and other equal rights posts I plan to make, take a gander at President Bush's record on equal rights for Americans with minority sexual preferences. From John Kerry.com:

President Bush...

Opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
During the second presidential debate in 2000, Bush said he did not support ENDA because he opposed "special rights.” On a 1998 survey, Bush stated that he opposed anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation. Bush has maintained that opposition since taking office. [New York Times, 10/12/00; Project Votes Smart, 1998 NPAT, http://www.vote-smart.org; The New Republic, 4/29/02; National Review, 7/28/03]

Opposes Sex Education Programs that Stress Safe Sexual Practices
Bush’s new budget provides $136 million in additional funding for unproven abstinence-only sex education, bringing the federal total to over $250 million a year. Abstinence-only education marginalizes LGBT youth, telling them they should to have sex until marriage-which is prohibited by law. Recipients of abstinence-only funding must agree not to provide any information inconsistent with abstinence-till-marriage message meaning that safe sex, HIV and AIDS, and LGBT issues are often excluded. [NARAL, President Bush Budget Proposal; FY ’05; Lambda Legal, 9/5/02, http://www.lambdalega.org/]

Nominated Jerry Thacker to Presidential HIV/AIDS Advisory Council, a Man Who Called AIDS a “Gay Plague” and Homosexuality a “Death-Style”
The panel is co-chaired by Tom Coburn who told the Family Research Council that “no one stands harder against homosexuality than I do,” and Louis Sullivan who, as Secretary of Health and Human Services in 1989, buried a report on suicide among gay teens.[Washington Post, 2/5/03; The New Republic, 4/29/02]

Has Nominated Anti-Gay Individuals to the Federal Courts
Bush has appointed Claude Allen to the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Allen, a former aide to Jesse Helms stated that a Helms opponent was vulnerable due to his ties “with the queers.” Bush also used a recess appointment in January 2004 to install Charles Pickering Sr. who decried the degradation of values by homosexuality, pornography and divorce. Bush has also appointed Bill Pryor, who as Alabama attorney general filed a brief with the Supreme Court that likened homosexuality with incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution and adultery. [NARAL, http://www.naral.org/; HRC, 1/16/04, http://www.hrc.org/; HRC, 6/10/03, http://www.hrc.org/]

Supports “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
During the 2000 campaign Bush said he was a “don’t ask, don’t tell man” and would not “appoint someone to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who openly advocated allowing gays to serve in the military.” After he took office, the Pentagon fired a record 1,273 men and women based on sexual orientation. [New York Times, 1/7/00; Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network]

Supports a Federal Marriage Amendment, a Measure that Would Deny States the Right of Grant Same-Sex Couples The Rights Enjoyed by Straight Couples
“Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife.” [President Bush Statement, 2/24/04, www.whitehouse.gov]

Promoted Major Robert T. Clark to Lieutenant General, Despite Clark’s Ignorance of the Anti-Gay Climate at Fort Campbell—Base Where Barry Winchell was Killed Because He Was Thought To Be Gay
The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Clark’s promotion November 18, 2003. [SLDN, 11/18/03]

Opposes Hate Crimes Legislation That Would Protect LGBT Americans From Violent Crimes and Assist the Prosecution of Anti-Gay Hate Crimes
As Governor of Texas, Bush sabotaged hate crimes legislation, with spokesperson Scott McClellan stating Bush “does not support special rights based on sexual orientation.” Bush has maintained this position throughout the 2000 campaign and since he has taken office. [Dallas Morning News, 4/26/99; Houston Chronicle, 11/17/03; National Review, 7/28/03]

Opposes Gay Adoption
Bush took a hard line against gay adoption during the 2000 campaign has maintained it. According to The Advocate, “George W. Bush has privately told friends that his fondest hope is to find a way to ban adoptions by gays.” [Houston Chronicle, 11/17/03; Progressive, Jan. 2004; The Advocate, 10/14/03]

Refuses to Issue an Official Proclamation Declaring June “Gay Pride Month”
Bush has refused for three years to issue a public proclamation of Pride Month. The Department of Justice used this to initially deny LGBT employees the right to hold a Pride ceremony and then demanded that they pay for it themselves. [Washington Times, 10/8/03; The New Republic, 6/23/03]

I know My 2 Cents and other conservatives who oppose my beliefs will use my source for this information as their primary weapon against the information. Let them keep in mind that Senator Kerry's campaign did not make this information us (note the citations). I wish I could say the same for some allegations made by several of my conservative colleagues...

Nothing like Northern Idaho: -22° in the winter, 105° in the summer

Just for everyone’s information, I will be staying and working in beautiful Hog Heaven, Idaho (a.k.a. Moscow) this summer, and will continue updating the 3rd cent as well. I cannot guarantee the frequency of those updates, but they will occur. Just to relieve My 2 Cents' apprehension, don't expect a flip-flop on that statement.

Where ever you go, there you are...

No policy post today. Dead week and my recent participation in several university committees have me swamped. For the more astute of you out there, you might have noticed a new link to the right of this post. The ASUI reporter for the University of Idaho Argonaut, Sam Taylor, has started his own blog. If you want some good, quality My 2 Cents bashing, check it out here.

Later.

At issue in Idaho: should a parent's sexual orientation be a factor in determining child custody rights?

It's been a couple days since my last post with dead week and all. Well, I'm coming back swinging today...or to quote Matt Foley, 'a snortin' and a fussin'."

I was reading the Idaho Statesman this morning, and I read about a case presently before the Idaho Supreme Court. Apparently, a Magistrate Judge in Idaho Falls ruled a couple years ago that a father could be limited custody of his children for being gay, and having a live-in boyfriend.

Just as race, sex, age and religion do not apply and cannot be used for child custody cases, so should sexual orientation. The only barometer that should be used is fitness as a parent and guardian.

I don't know enough about this specific case or the mother and father in it, but I have seen enough reasoning behind the lower court decisions to know fitness as a parent was secondary to gay-bashing in those decisions. The reasoning of the lower court was that the mother "testified that her primary reason for bringing the custody action was because she was concerned how their children were being told of their father's homosexuality and his new relationship." Also, the court-appointed custody evaluator said that "the father's sexual orientation and his live-in partner needed to be addressed." Finally, the Judge said that the father "had not been acting in the best interests of the children by not cooperating with his ex-wife in jointly explaining his lifestyle to them."

Yet the mother, her lawyer, and the Magistrate Judge said the cases and rulings were not based on the father's homosexuality. As I've said many a time...what that f***!

I'm glad to see that several justices picked up on this "inconsistency." The mother's attorney at one point said "This is not a gay rights case, it's a child custody case." The attorney went on to say the crux of the case revolved around issues of trust and how to talk to the children their dad's new lifestyle.

Fortunately, some of the justices questioned that line of reasoning: Justice Wayne Kidwell replied to the lawyer saying, "Counsel before I leave this, you say it's not a gay rights issue, and I can't help but go back to the original petition to modify the decreed divorce. And the only thing I can find in here is several allegations with regard to: the intimate relationship with the person of the same sex, a homosexual relationship and homosexuality...that's all this petition was based upon"

Even if the Idaho Supreme Court rules that the mother should keep sole custody of her children, I hope they will let the people, lawmakers and judges of Idaho know that a parents' sexual orientation is not and should not be a factor in custody disputes, nor as a parents ability to be a good parent.

I will be back later this week with another post on gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender parenting and adoption.