Don’t Protect Children – This Isn’t a Fairy Tale

One may think that if you’re going to take a stand against equality, you may want to get creative in your rhetoric as to why LGBT citizens should not be covered under the same protections historically provided to other minorities. You may want to come up with solid disputes as to why it’s detrimental to society as a whole to prevent LGBT people being equal.

Now, when it comes to children, one may think regardless of color, gender, sexual orientation, weight, height, learning or physical ability, that because they are children…they should always be protected…right?

The way I see it, this country owes it to our children to do everything we can to make sure that discrimination is eliminated from our schools, but, just as during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s, children unfortunately are not off limits to hate and bigotry.

According to a post on the Unfair and Unbalanced FOX Faux News:

A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could stifle free speech and even lead to “homosexual indoctrination” in the nation’s classrooms.

The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA), or H.R. 4530, was introduced late last month by Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, with 60 co-sponsors. Polis, the first openly gay man elected to the House as a nonincumbent, said the legislation will put lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students on “equal footing” with their peers, much as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did for minorities and Title IX did for women.

But some critics say the bill, if passed, could lead to murky definitions of harassment and provide a universal approach to the nation’s public schools despite regional differences on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues.

“The real danger is how this will be interpreted,” said Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank. “The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal.”

So Mr. McCluskey, exactly what is a “totally legitimate opinion?  Key word…OPINION!  Opinion is not fact.  What would be a “legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior”? Is telling a child they are an abomination legit? Is telling a child they’re going to burn in hell for being gay legit? Is beating a child for being gay legit? Is murdering a man, woman or child OK as long as you have a “legitimate opinion”? According to your version of the Bible it is…but Mr. McCluskey, you are not everyone, and not everyone bases their religious ideology around hate, and if you were uncertain Mr. McCluskey, let me reassure you that not all children, or their parents, subscribe to your chosen religion. So, why should you be able to use your religion against children who don’t choose their sexual orientation? Mr. McCluskey, I would remind you that federal civil rights statutes explicitly address discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, disability and national origin. Yes RELIGION Mr. McCluskey. That means that if you tell someone you think fags are going to hell because that’s what your religion tells you, then you are protected. That means if someone beats the living hell out of your for carrying a bible, they are going to be punished…yet a gay child shouldn’t receive that protection…because your Bible and your beliefs think being gay is wrong? Mr. McCluskey, why are you better than anyone else? What gives you the right to determine who should or should not be bullied? Are you advocating for bullying against LGBT youth Mr. McCluskey? It certainly sounds that way to me!

And he continues:

“That’s a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this — not because they’re ‘haters’ but because you’re now trying to balance different rights.”

So, Mr. McClusky, the white children who wanted to express opposition to allowing children of color from attending their all white schools in Alabama and Mississippi back in the 1960’s were justified in doing so? The white children who bullied, beat and even murdered children of color in the South prior to and during the Civil Rights Movement were justified in doing so because their white Baptist preacher was telling them segregation was God’s command and used the Bible as the base of their bigotry? So those white people who abused people of color weren’t ‘haters’? Weren’t the white people simply “expressing opposition” to desegregation?

And still worried about being able to say he hates fags, Mr. McCluskey adds:

“If this is passed,it’s going to almost certainly in some places be interpreted far too broadly, and free-speech rights will be trampled.”

You’re right Mr. McCluskey…this bill most certainly changes the U.S. Constitution and eliminates the First Amendment. You will no longer be able to say anything…to anyone…ever! Mr. McCluskey, I’m having a difficult time believing you’re really that stupid!

Of course, then we have those who believe were all out to recruit…and make the whole world gay.

The post continues:

Other critics, meanwhile, say the bill will be used to push what they say is a homosexual agenda in public schools.

“It seems pretty consistent with Kevin Jennings being appointed in the Obama administration,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit public interest law firm, referring to the controversial founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network who now serves as the assistant deputy secretary for the Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

“When [Jennings] founded GLSEN, his idea of a safe school was one that pushed a radical homosexual agenda by even encouraging first and second-graders to engage in homosexual activity,” Staver said. “So I think that’s the impetus behind this bill. We have an administration that wants to push a radical social agenda.”

Yes Mr. Starver…you’re right! Gay people are lurking outside of every second grade classroom just waiting for the right time to tell the students to have same-sex relationships and even provide them with “how-to” pamphlets. And yes Mr. Starver, you’ve finally figured it out…the “radical social agenda” of the gay community is to turn the world gay…it has nothing to do with equality. Mr. Starver…we are out to turn you gay! Be careful where you roam Mr. Starver…we’re watching you…lying in wait…ready to sprinkle that fairy dust on your head so you magically wake up gay tomorrow!

But wait, there’s more!

Staver, of the Liberty Council, said the legislation is intolerant of any “opposing or traditional” views and called on Congress to be more focused on the country’s economic woes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism. “Those are serious matter that I think American people are concerned with,” he said. He said he doesn’t think the bill, which has bipartisan support, will pass, saying it’s “completely contrary” to American values.

Mr. Starver. Fact: over 85% of LGBT children experience harassment at school due to their sexual orientation. Is that an “American Value”? Is protecting our children…who are our future…not just as important as bombing Iraq and Afghanistan? I have an idea Mr. Starver, perhaps we should lift the ban on gays serving in the military, reduce the age for those who enlist in the military to 5 years of age if the child is gay, then send those gay children to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill those children. Just think, no more Gay, Iraqi or Afghanistani Children. They’re all dead. We could rid of the world of the anti-Christian plague, and all would be perfect.

So there you have it. The ultimate plan to eradicate the problem of protecting gay children, and insure your right to say you hate people different than you. Now THAT, is a new song and dance…but pardon me if I sit this one out.

Of course, this isn’t the only story about our youth I bring to you today.  It looks as though yet another Bible beating lawmaker, this time from Virginia, has something to say about our youth…but perhaps not gay youth, that is unless perhaps you consider being gay a disability.

According to a post on Seattle PI:

Disabled children are the Lord’s punishment for women who “abort the first born,” a Republican state legislator from Virginia has argued in calling on state officials to eliminate state money going to Planned Parenthood.

State Delegate Bob Marshall, from the Washington, D.C., suburb of Manassas, told Planned Parenthood foes:

The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.

In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.

The News-Leader newspaper reported that about 20 people, “mostly Christian pastors and clergy” heard Marshall’s remarks at the General Assembly Building in Richmond.

And this…is an elected government official that decides what is, or is not, law!

Will the Pendulum Swing?

There is a powerful piece on the Atlantic by Mickey Edwards, who chaired CPAC for five years and served in Congress for 16 years, which explains why he was not in attendance at CPAC this year. To sum it up, he strongly feels the right wing has been taken over by…well, nuts!

Below is an excerpt from that post:

Today there are few things that set a “conservative’s” teeth on edge more than a defense of “civil liberties;” yet that is what American conservatism was all about—protecting the liberties of the people. It was a system designed to protect the people from an over-reaching government, not to protect the government from the people. American constitutionalism was a historical high-point in recognizing individual worth. Stop at CPAC today and you will find rooms full of ardent, zealous, fervent young men and women who believe the government should be allowed to torture (we condemned people at Nuremberg for doing that), who believe the government should be able to lock people up without charges and hold them indefinitely (something Henry VIII agreed was a proper exercise of government authority). Who believe the government should be able to read a citizen’s mail and listen in on a citizen’s phone calls, all without a warrant (the Constitution of course prohibits searches without a warrant, but nobody cares less about the Constitution than some of today’s ersatz conservatives).

I’m not at CPAC because I believe in America. I believe in liberty. I believe that governments should be held in check. I believe people matter. I believe in the flag not because of its shape or color but because of the principles it stands for—the principles in the Constitution, the principles repeated and underlined and highlighted and boldfaced and italicized in the Bill of Rights. The George W. whose presidency and precedents I admire was the first president, not the 43d. It is James Madison I admire, not John Yoo. Thomas Paine, not Glenn Beck. Jefferson, not Limbaugh.

My guess…This is a trend. For the past year there have been many, who have made a great deal of money by bashing President Obama, Gay Rights (which are realistically nothing more than equal rights for all citizens), health insurance reform, and so on. The problem is, the “tea-baggers” fail to realize they are a fringe group, and unlike their adversarial LGBT activist, they haven’t been denied anything. They haven’t been told they aren’t equal and that lack of inequality hasn’t been reinforced by laws that prevent them from being equal. As I’ve mentioned several times, the tea-baggers claim they want to take back America, yet who are they taking it back from? What have they lost? Nothing. I firmly believe that this fringe group went off the rails, and with every other train wreck, it’s in the news everyday. It’s all people talk about…for a relatively short period of time that is, then as with every other tragedy, it’s becomes lost in the archives. After all, we do live in the United States of Amnesia.

I can’t help but to believe this whole tea-party nonsense is nothing more than a really bad fad…worse than bell-bottoms or curly perms. But as with all fads, people jump on board quickly, but fall off just as quick. Yes, it’s been quite popular for kings and queens of the right wing nutery to spew their hateful rhetoric, and get people all fired up over a man of color being in the Oval Office…and giving recognition to minority groups at that. But, when the dust settles, people are still without jobs, people are still doing without health care and there are people in this country still legally being discriminated against. That is NOT the American way. People still recognize that there is an element of brokenness in this country, and people also recognize the efforts wasted on thwarting President Obama are exactly that, wasted efforts and wasted time. I firmly believe the pendulum is swinging, and the lack of tolerance, soon will be geared towards those who up to this point have refused to tolerate.

Somehow, during the years of the G W Bush regime, the crazy right wing lunatic fringe gained freedoms unrealized by everyday Americans. They were on top of the hill and no one could reach them. That’s where and when the deficit, corporate corruption, oppression and discrimination triumphed. It was easy to for the extreme right to bully their way into every facet of government, as George W held the door open for them. But now there’s a new king of the mountain and they are struggling to maintain their high positions. It’s never easy to be pushed down that hill, but they’re sliding on their own, and fortunately we have a president who is sending the message, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

I believe that Americans are starting to see, and admit, the right, in many instances is wrong. As much as I dislike Michele Bachmann, I still believe in her right as an American to live and speak freely, even if that means hiding in the bushes at LBGT rallies. The problem, Bachmann, and others like her on the right, don’t believe everyone should have those same freedoms. They feel they are part of exclusive American country club. One that doesn’t accept members who think different, look different, worship different or love different. But see, American is not a country club. American is a public course, where if you live here, you too get to play, regardless of race, color, religion, creed, gender and eventually sexual orientation.

I believe in America. I believe in the people as a whole. I believe eventually and gradually (taking from history here) Americans will accept and take in those of us who have been standing outside, just as America, eventually and gradually, accepted others who at one time where on the outside looking in. I believe those who have worked so fervently to exclude will become the excluded.  Just as with woman’s suffrage and Civil Rights for people of color, what’s right will prevail over those who stand far to the right. Perhaps it will take more government intervention to provide the catalyst of change (again taking from history) but it will, and one day, in the not too distant future, the tea-baggers and right wingers with their brand of intolerance and hate, will again be recognized for what they are…a minority on the far right…not the majority.  I believe in America and I think that people will come to see and understand the tea-baggers are nothing more than a detriment to the progress we all want and need.  I believe one day, the pendulum will swing, and “tea-baggers” will be a part of our American past.

Don’t Ask, Do Tell Them What to Do

There’s a post on Air Force Times that addresses, and disputes the thought some have that a lengthy (11 month) study is needed to determine that lifting the ban on gays openly serving in the military is nothing more than a waste of time.

According to the post:

Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow for the Palm Center, said lifting such bans in the five foreign militaries studied — Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Israel — actually improved the command climate, decreased harassment, helped retain critical personnel and enhanced rather than degraded respect for privacy.

“American military performance would not decline,” Frank concludes.

Opponents argue just the opposite — that congressional repeal of the ban on open service by gays would negatively affect unit cohesion, readiness and related issues. A leading opponent, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, argues that none of the 25 nations that now allow gays to serve openly in the military “bear burdens and responsibilities comparable to ours,” making comparisons irrelevant.

Frank counters that while the U.S. military is different from those studied, “such distinctions have not prevented the U.S. military from comparing itself to and learning from foreign armed forces.”

And given the experience of the five countries studied, Frank said that “a quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success.”

As such, Frank argues that the longer-term 11-month study — of service member attitudes, potential changes to Pentagon regulations and policies, and the potential impact of repeal on military effectiveness — announced Feb. 2 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates is unnecessary.

“There is no operational justification for another year of study,” Frank said in a Monday telephone interview. “We’ve been studying this for 50 years.”

President Obama has been under constant fire from the LGBT community since taking office for not simply repealing the ban through executive order. I’ve often disagreed with those who are critical of the President’s actions, or lack there of, mainly because I believe a mandate would only strengthen the right wing’s attempt to portray him as a socialist or a dictator. A move like that would be another strike against the administration as it has accumulated an insurmountable grief from those who believe their right to vote and other rights and liberties are being taken away from them by the Obama administration. I feel safe to say, those who have criticized President Obama for not yet repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell have done so out of impatience and greed. They’ve been able to increase traffic to their blogs and let out some pent up residual anger from the 8 years of the Bush regime. Most of those who have been critical haven’t really the slightest clue about what they’re criticizing, yet they know they gain attention from the criticism. However, there is another interesting aspect of this post, which is the strongest, and really only point yet for an executive order, and it has nothing to do with blog swarming or jumping on the bandwagon of angry, and often times misinformed and immature LGBT’s.

As pointed out on the post:

Frank said that the delay period will serve as “a tactic for people who are making political calculations or actually want to stonewall this until it doesn’t happen.”

He said that is what happened in 1993 when President Clinton proposed an end to the ban on open service by gays. He called a six-month delay period that opponents exploited, resulting in the “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” compromise policy still in effect, Franks said.

“That’s when his efforts were derailed,” Frank said. “It created a lot more fuss and a lot more headache and heartache than would have been the case if he had issued an executive order from Day One, or if he had continued to stand up to the military chiefs when he knew that it was right.”

So as much as I believe in handling situations by following proper and just protocol, which in an ideal situation would not include an executive order, this is by far the strongest, and only reasonable argument I’ve heard to date as to why an executive order is in order.  I also must admit, that since Joe “Lie”berman has decided to introduce legislation that would repeal the ban, I am starting to think Obama should act, and not let someone who supported John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign get the satisfaction.

Given that, I’m not sure it will happen, but if and executive order to repeal DADT is issued, I feel certain there will be fall out, and the LGBT’s who have criticized Obama will not be the one’s hit by it…but the Obama administration will be the recipients. Regardless, I do see the point that Frank has made, and think it leaves only one path to follow, and hopefully, by the end of his first term as President, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by executive order would be water under the bridge, not ammunition used against him.

The White House Hunting Easter Eggs with ‘Glee’

According to Entertainment Weekly:

First Lady Michelle Obama has invited the cast of Glee to perform at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday, April 5 — and, barring any last-minute glitches, they’re gonna do it!

Rumor has it Mrs. O and her daughters are big fans of the show. And since a White House gig is an offer that’s pretty darn hard to refuse, Glee’s producers did some lickety-split schedule rejiggering in order to honor the request.

More here!

Cheney Has ‘Em On Their Feet

CPAC — the Conservative Political Action Conference — opened its annual event this morning in Washington, in a mood far different from last year’s meeting.

Back in February 2009, President Obama had skyrocketing polling numbers, Democrats had just added to their majorities, and Republicans were down in the dumps. Whatever energy conservatives had was hard to find.

No longer. Tea Parties have sprouted up all over the country, Republicans scored big in recent elections, the Obama numbers are falling, and the Right has been heartened by Dem departures in the Senate.

And the change in mood is like night and day at CPAC. For conservatives, on the defensive during the latter years of the Bush administration and a bit dispirited after the Obama victory, 2012 can’t come soon enough.

One thing conservatives may be ignoring, however, is polls show that the only ones with worse numbers than the Democrats are … the Republicans.

But CPAC is not about Republicans; it’s about conservatives. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) made that clear this morning when he said he would rather have 30 Marco Rubios in the Senate than 60 Arlen Specters. Now, I think that’s a line that probably would have made more sense when Specter was a Republican. But his point was clear: many on the Right would rather have fewer Republicans in the Senate with strong conservative values — like Rubio, who is running in Florida — than having 60 Republicans who are less committed to conservative positions. And when he mentioned the name of Charlie Crist, the governor of Florida who is the GOP establishment candidate in that Senate race, the result was loud boos.

More at: NPR!

Next Page »