That said, I can’t tell you how many times I heard and read during the primary that people were, “not opposed to a woman President, just not THAT one.”

I can’t tell you how many disparaging, sexist, misogynistic, hateful, violent, horrific, insulting attacks I heard and read about Hillary Clinton, during the primary.

Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That’s approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

There were threats of violence towards her, and a belittling of her accomplishments, and insulting comments on her looks. And these were just the ones from the media!

Some of the attacks I heard:

She only got to where she is because of her husband.
She is too old, too ugly.
She cried. She’s a whiner.
She didn’t shed enough tears. She’s cold hearted.
She was racist.
She didn’t have any experience, she just hosted tea parties.
She was a liar.

The attacks went on and on.

So, now what? Now we have a female candidate, who, for all intense and purposes, is the complete opposite of Hillary Clinton. And we find ourselves right back where we were during the primary.

Sarah Palin is the victim of disparaging, sexist, misogynistic, hateful, violent, horrific, insulting attacks. There are threats of violence towards her, a belittling of her accomplishments, and insulting attacks on her looks.

Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor’s attention.

But, she did not get where she is on the back of her husband. She is self made. She worked hard, and got where she is on her own. (As did Hillary, in my opinion.)
She is not old, and she is not ugly. (and neither is Hillary)
She has shown an emotional side, and she is tough as nails (with polish) (as has Hillary)
She is a working mother, with a large family, and a loving husband. (well…Hillary and Bill are loving partners with issues, and they have raised an outstanding daughter)

They differ on party, issues, age, accomplishments, successes, family life, personality and looks. They both have major accomplishments, and they are both intelligent. I don’t think either of these women would be where they are now, if they were not smart as whips.

They have different styles, and they have had different paths. They have had different educations, and different life experiences.

But the thing that these two have in common, above anything, is that they are both women. Women who have chosen to serve the people. Women who have dedicate their lives, to serving others.

They are both women, who have been the victims of disparaging, sexist, misogynistic, hateful, violent, horrific, insulting, personal, personal, personal attacks. Attacks coming from both men and women.

Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It’s estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

Why? We can disagree on policy, but this is not what these attacks are about.

What links these two women is that they are both smart, successful women, who have managed to maintain a family and career, and have chosen to serve the public, through political office. Long story short - they are women.

So, when Hillary haters claimed, *it is not that they are opposed to a woman, not just THAT woman*, they were really saying - *I am opposed to a woman*.

So, I ask, if not now, when? If not Geraldine, or Hillary, or Sarah, then who?

As I see it, if we don’t put a stop to these attacks, if women don’t stop attacking each other, and until women are treated with respect and equality, we will never get passed this. Women will never *overcome* if they are treated this way, and if they attack this way.

Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they saw violence. Children who have witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults.

And the attacks are not just aimed at Clinton or Palin. They are aimed at women who support them. The ugly attacks that are left on blogs are beyond the pale. Absolutely disgusting.

I am not a psychiatrist, or socialigist, or expert in any way, but I do see a direct correlation in the way women are treated publically, to how they are treated behind closed doors. And, until something changes, we will keep digging those graves. Four women a day.

“Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said. “That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country.”

“Morisette acknowledged to FOX 11 news that had he depicted Barack Obama in the same scene, it would not have gone over as well, because the history of a hanged black man in America is a lot more intense than a hanged white woman.”

A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages.

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.

“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

Oh dear - I sure hope Donna Brazile doesn’t get word of this. We all know how she feels about equating GLBT rights with Civil Rights - she doesn’t (remember that? How she didn’t want to allow any of the Civil Rights slots to the Convention to be used for LGBT people? Because Gay Rights are not Civil Rights, she claimed, and it “was an affront to the whole Civil Rights Movement.” Yeah. She said it. Charming.). But hey - people smarter than her (is that hard to be?) can see that Civil Rights are Human Rights, and not relegated to one group of people. Oh, wait - that sounds like something Senator Clinton would say. Ahem.

The article continues:

The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions.

The Connecticut decision, which elicited strong dissenting opinions from three justices, also opened the door to marriage a bit wider for gay couples in New York, where state laws do not provide for same-sex marriages or civil unions, although Gov. David A. Paterson recently issued an executive order requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The opinion in Connecticut was hailed by jubilant gay couples and their advocates as a fulfillment of years of hopes and dreams. Hugs, kisses and cheers greeted eight same-sex couples as they entered the ballroom at the Hartford Hilton, where four years ago they had announced they would file a lawsuit seeking marriage licenses.

Naturally, this decision does not affect just Connecticut:

The case was watched far beyond Hartford. Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey all have civil union statutes, while Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that allow same-sex couples many of the same rights granted to those in civil unions. Advocates for same-sex couples have long argued that civil unions and domestic partnerships denied them the financial, social and emotional benefits accorded in a marriage.

The legal underpinnings for gay marriages, civil unions and statutory partnerships have all come in legislative actions and decisions in lawsuits. Next month, however, voters in California will decide whether the state Constitution should permit same-sex marriage. (More on California below.)

So what were the issues in this case? According to the article, it was this:

Arguments in the case centered on whether civil unions and marriages conferred equal rights, and on whether same-sex couples should be treated as what the court called a “suspect class” or “quasi-suspect class” — a group, like blacks or women, that has experienced a history of discrimination and was thus entitled to increased scrutiny and protection by the state in the promulgation of its laws.

Among the criteria for inclusion as a suspect class, the court said, were whether gay people could “control” their sexual orientation, whether they were “politically powerless” and whether being gay had a bearing on one’s ability to contribute to society.

Huh. I sure would have liked to be a fly on the wall when they discussed whether or not gay people “contributed to society,” wouldn’t you? I wonder how they came to that decision? Did their hairdressers come testify? Their interior designers? (And yes - I am being intentionally snarky.) Evidently, decide they did in the affirmative (ah, gee, thanks! I appreciate that you think GLBT people actually might contribute to society! If nothing else, we pay TAXES, never mind the numerous contributions we make on a daily basis. But hey - thanks for noticing!). And they went on to clarify why they decided as they did:

“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Lubbie Harper. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not.”

The court said it was aware that many people held deep-seated religious, moral and ethical convictions about marriage and homosexuality, and that others believed gays should be treated no differently than heterosexuals. But it said such views did not bear on the questions before the court.

“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage,” the court said. “Ultimately, the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.”

But all was not happy among the justices:

In one dissenting opinion, Justice David M. Bordon contended that there was no conclusive evidence that civil unions are inferior to marriages, and he argued that gay people have “unique and extraordinary” political power that does not warrant heightened constitutional protections.

Justice Peter T. Zarella, in another dissent, argued that the state marriage laws dealt with procreation, which was not a factor in gay relationships. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.

Um, is he really not aware that lesbian and gay couples often have children? Heck, lesbian (or bisexual) couples can have twice as many kids at the same time as heterosexual couples if you think about it! Probably not what this guy was thinking, though, I’m betting. Anywho…

There are some other folks who aren’t all that happy besides these three justices, as this article opponents to this ruling highlights:

Still, local opponents of same-sex marriage blasted the ruling, saying their only chance to stop it would be to push for passage of a ballot question next month that asks voters if they want the state to convene the first constitutional convention in 40 years, potentially launching a years-long process of weighing a ban on same-sex marriage and sending it to voters for ratification.

“The decision is an outrage,” said Peter J. Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes same-sex marriage. “It is essentially a handful of judges acting as if they were rogue masters usurping the democratic process in Connecticut and radically redefining marriage by judicial fiat.”

Leaders of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, which represents the state’s Catholic bishops, issued a statement saying they were “extremely disappointed” by the ruling, which they called, “a terribly regrettable exercise in judicial activism.”

“The real battle in this court case was not about rights, since civil unions provide a vast number of legal rights to same-sex couples, but about conferring and enforcing social acceptance of a particular lifestyle, a lifestyle many people of faith and advocates of the natural law refuse to accept,” the statement said.

There appeared, however, to be little appetite in the capitol to oppose the ruling. Governor M. Jodi Rell, an opponent of same-sex marriage, said she would abide by the decision even though she disagrees with it.

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success.”

Along with opponents in CT, opponents of Same Sex Marriage in California seem to be making strides (as I mentioned above), unfortunately (IMHO, that is). In the following article, New Poll Suggests Support for Proposition 8 in Wake of Ad Campaign, things are not looking good for defeating the ballot initiative. I guess Obama’s good buddy, Doug Kmiec, is making some strides in convincing people to not support equality. And since he is Obama’s choice for his Faith Tour, I am sure he is dancing a little dance, and yelling “halle-damn-lujah!” There are three weeks left to go before Election Day. I wonder if Ellen and Portia will still be married AFTER Election Day is past? I surely do hope so. I mean, they already got the toaster and all…

Meanwhile, Matthew Shepard’s mother is in the news as the tenth anniversary of Matthew Shepard’s brutal death is upon us. Wow - that was ten years ago. Hard to believe, I have to say. My heart goes out to the Shepard Family as they deal with the anniversary of the death of their beloved son…

And even as they deal with this sad reminder of how far we have yet to come, they are not just focusing on themselves - not at all. They are speaking out for the entire community. In this article, Mrs. Shepard is decrying the lack of progress in passing hate crimes legislation, and lack of decline in anti-gay violence:

“Ten years have gone by and not that much has changed, and I think that’s just really disappointing,” said Shepard, who with her husband formed the Matthew Shepard Foundation to promote equality for the gay community.

“We passed up a golden opportunity to set things in motion and make a change and set an example and let it go,” she said.

In a case that outraged gay activists and their advocates around the country, Matthew Shepard died October 12, 1998, five days after he was kidnapped, robbed and pistol-whipped by two men he met in a bar. Both men are serving life in prison for the murder, which police said was partly motivated by the fact that Matthew was gay.

Matthew’s death after he was left in the cold — bloodied with severe head injuries — for 18 hours has produced an outpouring of films, books and plays, but it hasn’t seemed to budge the rate of anti-gay violence.

FBI statistics show hate crimes motivated by anti-gay bias have remained at a stable level since Matthew’s death. Both in 1998 and in 2006, the latest year for which data is available, roughly 1,200 such crimes were reported — about 16 percent of all reported hate crimes.

She is also disappointed in the lack of progress across the country for same sex marriage. I’m right there with her. It seems like it is one step forward, one step backward. Things look good for a minute, then vanish, or have the very real potential to do so. Other countries keep moving forward - the entire country, not one little area at a time, which may or may not stay that way, and here we are with our fits and starts. Dear goddess, when will there be real, SUSTAINED forward movement on this?

I have to say it, even though I am painfully aware of the reality, had Hillary Clinton been the Nominee, and gotten into the White House, I would have had much more faith that something POSITIVE would be in store for the GLBT community. With either McCain or Obama, I do not have that kind of HOPE (ahem). Neither one of them has the kind of commitment to the community that Senator Clinton does, thus when we can achieve full equality seems further off still. Dammit.

But for the moment, for THIS moment, I rejoice in the decision of the four justices in Connecticut. I hope, and pray, that the people of California will be as level headed come November 4th.

I leave you with this tribute to Matthew Shepard (don’t let the typos at the end diminish this piece). Again, my heart goes out to his family and friends. To his parents, thank you for your continued work for, and continued dedication to, our community.

Sarah Palin has become my new hero. While I don’t agree with some of her political positions, I love that she is unapologetically herself. And she is a REAL feminist, representing many of us who don’t toe the line of some definition of what that is. The so-called “progressives,” men and women alike, don’t approve of anyone diverging from their definitions. Like me, Palin could care less what they think. From her interview with Curic:

I’m a feminist who believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed and to try to do it all anyways…[A feminist is] someone who would not stand for oppression against women.

I like that definition. I like it because I am a lifetime radical feminist who believes that real feminism is not about receiving the approval from a misogynist like Andrew Sullivan, but rather about women living full and free and authentic lives. I may disagree with Palin on some matters of policy, but I agree with her that feminism is about the existential choices women make for themselves. It’s all about freedom: women can stay home or work, get married or have a partner, take their husband’s name or keep their own, have children or not, run for office or run corporations, be a Democrat or a Republican. Feminism is freedom and it dovetails perfectly with American freedom.

I love listening to Palin calling out the Poster Boy of Male Privilege, Obama, for his lies and omissions, and she does it with relish. WaPo quotes Palin:

Okay, so, Florida, you know that you’re going to have to hang on to your hats, because from now until Election Day, it may get kind of rough.

And while the Democrats and the main stream media attack her for everything from her mothering to her idiomatic, “Joe six pack” speech, The Barracuda flexes her muscles and says:

“For me, the heels are on, the gloves are off”

Sharpening her attacks against Obama’s lack of support for our troops, she has the audacity to speak the truth:

Obama doesn’t like American soldiers. He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, ‘air-raiding villages and killing civilians’

Palin continues to hammer home Obama’s close association with unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers:

Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers’s living room, and they’ve worked together on various projects in Chicago. These are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes — remember that’s what Joe Biden had said. “And I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I’m afraid this is someone who sees America as ‘imperfect enough’ to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.

You can see this speech in a post by SusanUnPc, which also includes Paul Villareal’s videos.

I love Sarah because she’s one of us. As Truthteller documented, like us, she’s been accused of racism for daring to criticize Dear Leader. She’s been accused of being a hick, a barbie, a pig with lipstick, and in Ani’s post about the misogyny that has welcomed her onto the national stage, Palin has even been called “disabled.” The insults range from the horrendous to the ridiculous, as in NewHampster’s post about the extreme closeup designed to expose Palin’s wrinkles. The list goes on and on.

In a brilliant post, feminist writer Dr. Violet Socks suggests that the attacks on Palin from women are sycophantic acts to gain favor with the “liberal,” male power structure:

Whenever women in a patriarchal society buck male opinion, there’s hell to pay and they know it. Women in America really went out on a limb this year by backing Hillary in the face of withering derision from men (and from young women attempting to curry favor with men, consciously or not). Now they’re making amends by piling on Palin.

Ridiculing Sarah Palin as a moron — which she clearly is not — is de rigueur for everybody now in the Obama camp. It’s their preferred sport. It’s true that Palin is verbally awkward in interviews, but then, Obama himself is a man whose unscripted remarks are so confused they defy belief. A teleprompter-deprived Obama thinks there are 57 states in the Union, believes Oregon is in the Great Lakes region, doesn’t know which states border his own state of Illinois, and has no idea which Senate committees he’s on.

But still: people always make fun of their political opponents, and they’re rarely fair about it. What interests me about the Palin attacks is their vigor. To a large extent, it’s a continuation of the misogyny that is such an integral part of the Obama movement: from the campaign itself, from the media collaborators, from the male supporters, from the self-loathing young female supporters.

Typical of liberal sexism, PBS’s program NOW has a poll asking if Palin is qualified to serve as vice president, although Palin has more executive experience than any of the three male candidates, their names are conspicuously absent. Why the question is not asked of Obama, a man who was in the senate for 143 days prior to running for president (and before that a part-time state senator) just shows the incredible bias against women who seek power. Vote in the poll here.

The sexists attacks on Palin are the same sexists attacks on Hillary, and from the same sordid cast of characters: Obama, Sullivan, MoDo, Josh Marshall, Chris Matthews, et al. An Obama victory will codify sexism in the media and Democratic Party for a generation. That’s why I can disagree with Palin and oppose Obama.

When asked in an interview what attacks on her REALLY get to her–which ones wake her up at night–Palin just laughed and said something like, none, that it comes with the territory. But then she paused and looking deadly serious for an instant and said that the attacks against her children got to her and brought out her “mama bear.”

Pit Bulls can do serious damage, but if you get between a mama bear and her cubs, you’re lunch.

(You can watch the two-part interview at the Patriot Room linked here.)

How about this?

Oh, and we cannot forget this one - I know it was a hit with the Catholics in the crowd (right Divine?):

O, ye people of faith - wait until you hear THIS! Hot off the presses! Exclusive: Obama Campaign Faith Tour Starts Next Week Halle-freaking-lujah!

An official with Barack Obama’s campaign tells The Brody File that beginning next week the campaign will start an official faith tour in key battleground states called “Barack Obama: Faith, Family and Values Tour”. The subheading of the tour is as follows: “Voting ALL Our Values”

The Brody File is told that top faith surrogates will hit the trail for Obama. Some of those high profile figures include Former Indiana Congressman and pro-life Democrat Tim Roemer, Catholic legal scholar Doug Kmiec, and author Donald Miller. You can also expect a soon to be named Evangelical North Carolina (red state) Congressman to travel the country as well. All of these surrogates are well versed and comfortable talking faith and politics. This is clearly a sign by the Obama campaign that they plan to target red state and swing state moderates.

Remember this name: Doug Kmiec. I’ll be telling you more about him farther along.

Wait - it gets even better:

A campaign official tells me the tour is designed to feature the “strong faith and values” of both Barack Obama and running mate Joe Biden. Issues will range from healthcare to poverty to the economy to climate change to yes, even abortion. The campaign understands tough questions may come their way but they’re ready with an answer of how they can reduce abortions.

Hold the phone - they are going to feature the “strong faith and values” of Barack Obama? Really? Does that mean Rev. Jeremiah Wright will also be going on this tour, illuminating Obama’s “rich white people” are to blame for all your ills beliefs? Funny - I don’t remember seeing his name listed above! Now THAT I would turn out to see, with a big ol’ bag of popcorn - wouldn’t you?

Maybe they’ll want to include Obama’s good buddy, IL State Senator The Rev. James Meeks, on this tour, educating us on the evils of *GASP* homosexuality! And the “Slave Masters,” aka MAYORS (by the way - that was the nicer choice of words he used) controlling their lives. Holy Moly - that would be something!

You know that this is just another way to get his Word out to those who may not have heard how he cares for them, yearns for them to know the truth and to be set free. Or it could be this:

While conservative Evangelicals have flocked to Palin, the Obama campaign is targeting voters from so many of the other faith traditions. The Brody File has been told that even with Palin now in the race, the Obama campaign’s internal faith polling shows them to be doing better than expected with other denominations besides conservative Evangelicals.

For example, they have their sites on places like Ohio which is home to roughly 500,000 United Methodists alone.

Oh, goody - they are going for the bitterly clingy churchy gun-toters. Brilliant!

Thankfully for those of us who are apparently going straight to Hell:

This tour will last about a month or so and will be in a town hall format where these speakers and others will give their talks in community centers and gyms and then take questions afterwards.

I don’t think I could take hearing about it any longer than that. (Shoot, I don’t know I’ll last a day, and with the Yankees out of the Playoffs, I have no idea how I will be able to ignore this.)

Just in case you are wondering, and want to be on the receiving end of a lovely button or bumper sticker, check to see if your state is listed here:

Among the states on the list are Colorado Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. Remember, the Obama campaign believes the White Catholic vote is very much in play especially in places like Pennsylvania. Plus, while conservative Evangelicals are not going to head Obama’s way, the campaign believes they can win over those moderate and liberal Evangelicals, Catholics and even some conservative mainline Protestants.

Oh, it’s a veritable cornucopia of states AND denominations on which the Faith Train will be focusing. Whohoo - y’all will be having SOME prayer meetings!
Look, getting conservative Evangelicals was alw

Okay, just because the end of this article buys into Obama’s schtick, I have to share it will you:

(It is) a tough sell for the Obama campaign and it became much tougher after the Palin pick. But the Obama campaign understands that most people in this country consider their faith integral to their lives. The values and religion talk resonates not just with conservative Evangelicals but a whole range of people out there. It means different things to different people. Obama wants to tap into that and also stay true to the fact that his faith has been central to his life.

Well, I sure agree - it does mean different things to different people. I’m guessing this writer (Brody) doesn’t understand just what Obama’s faith IS, but hey, I’m sure all will become known in time…

Okey dokie. A slight change of gears, but not much. Recently, I had a post based on an article in the NY Times (Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Tied to Obama Factor.) on Same Sex Marriage in CA that has the potential to be overturned on Nov. 4th. The article said Obama bringing out the AA vote might not bode well for California keeping same sex marriage legal since many in the AA community are quite conservative on this issue. As you no doubt know (despite what your Obamatron family/friends may say), Obama DOES NOT support same sex marriage. He supports civil unions, and thinks it is up to the individual states to decide. But, he claims in this article that he does not want to write discrimination into the CA Constitution. Well, guess who does? If you guessed Doug Kmiec, the man mentioned above, you would be RIGHT!! Yes, the one Obama has mentioned prominently to lead off the Faith Train to bring all you folk into the fold is a big ol’ homophobe. Hmmm - maybe he and Donnie McClurkin can be roomies as they make their way around the country spreading their joy and sunshine - for straight people only, that is. Ahem.

It Seems dear ol’ Doug wrote an editorial to the San Francisco newspaper back in June. Because I care, I will allow for Mr. Kmiec’s entire loving, compassionate concern for his fellow citizens to appear below, though I think his title gives it away:

On Same-Sex Marriage
Should California amend its Constitution?
Say ‘no’ to the Brave New World

The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state Supreme Court’s judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense. The initiative will restore to the people what was wrongfully taken from them: the right of self-governance and respect for the marital institution.

The initiative is simple: adding to the state Constitution the traditional man/woman definition of marriage that exists in virtually every state - and that the people approved in statutory form by more than 61 percent in 2000.

Because an affirmative vote is obviously intended to reverse the recent 4-3 opinion that wrongly overruled the people, the supporting ballot explanation should retain this simplicity. To avoid litigation, however, that explanation should explicitly indicate the effect of passage as reversing both the decision and reasoning of the court. Were the initiative to be narrowly portrayed in the ballot pamphlet as only denying that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, the overly litigious would be tempted to argue that the court’s additional holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class was untouched by the balloting, leaving an avenue to block the people’s will yet again. The state Attorney General and Secretary of State should not allow this judicially active mischief.

Voting to overturn the court’s ruling should not be misunderstood. Gay and lesbian individuals are within the humanity acknowledged to be created equal and worthy of respect in the Declaration of Independence, but that responsible reaffirmation of equality of citizenship does not deprive the community of making a necessary and reasoned distinction for its own survival.

Beyond correcting the court’s disregard of the separation of powers, insisting upon preserving the link between marriage and procreation: 1) promotes the orderly continuation of the species; 2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing); and 3) takes respectful account of the difficulties of accommodating religious freedom that arise subsequent to the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. Oddly, and incompletely, the California Supreme Court managed to ignore these important issues in its 170-plus page opinion.

The proponents of same-sex marriage insist that inventing gay and lesbian marriage harms no one, but the above concerns suggest otherwise. Moreover, it overlooks the national and global decline in fertility, which threatens the economies of Europe and contributes to the weakness of our own. To say, as its advocates do, that the availability of same-sex marriage is not the principal cause of this decline in terms of absolute numbers is a fair point, but giving state approval to non-procreative marriage cannot be denied as a contributing cause to the decline of families with natural children.

Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature - a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth - claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

In a depopulating world, the claim that there is a universal right to marry regardless of gender becomes a frightening ally of a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children. People should reject this claim by returning traditional marriage to its rightful place.

What a swell guy. In case you were wondering, here are his credentials:

Douglas W. Kmiec is chairman and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University and the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

I guess returning the country to George H.W. Bush’s foreign policies isn’t the only thing Obama wants of Bush’s - he wants his former legal counsel to reach out to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Community, as well. Oops - wrong. I mean, he wants him to shower the people with love, love, exceedingly conditional, narrow-minded, repressive love by someone who is not a minister, but a lawyer, spreading the good news of his particular brand of Christianity. It makes me wonder why in the world Obama picked him - and this was apparently AFTER he came out with his stance against same-sex marriage. Why him? Really - a lawyer who worked for Reagan and Bush. To go out and spread the Word about Obama and the Gospel. Yeah, sure, okay. (Hey! I have an idea - maybe I should start teaching law classes or taking legal cases. Why not? How hard could it be? I mean, really, if this guy thinks he can do MY job with no training - and believe you me, my job required a LOT of training, including an M.Div. that takes longer to get than a JD, so why not? I’ve seen legal shows! I watch movies! I know I could do it - I am sure the Spirit will move me to do the right thing in the class/courtroom, right? Ahem.) Just one more associate of Obama’s whose stands go against who Obama claims himself to be, and whose participation seems a bit out of place, except for his stand against same-sex marriage. Maybe HE’s the one who came up with the “Pro-Family (as long as everyone involved is heterosexual)” button. Just a thought.

How many passes is this guy going to get?!? Heaven knows, he has gotten more than he deserves, and more than anyone else in his position would. Just leaves me scratching my head.

And now it is time for someone to please tell me again why anyone thinks that Barack Obama will do one damn thing for the GLBT community? I mean, one POSITIVE thing?? I don’t see it, and I sure don’t buy it. And, scratching my head that his supporters keep making these claims about Obama based on, well, nothing! No, actually, making claims despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary! So here’s you a sign - make that three of them - that Obama is a master manipulator who will say whatever to whomever whenever it suits him.

Sounds like he could use a visit from the Faith Train his own self, don’t you think? Maybe they can pray that lying demon right out of him. I’d like to see that, yes, I surely would. Maybe he’d be convicted in his spirit, and would finally admit that he is way out of his depth, and is only doing this for the power, concede, and get the hell out of the rac alreadye. Hey, I can dream, can’t I? Have a little faith - it could happen!

Which all leads me to this. Obama has backtracked on yet another one of his promises. I think the title of this article pretty much gives it away: Obama Says He Won’t Try to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask’ on His Own. Yep. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Here’s more of the article:

Democrat Barack Obama said if elected president he would not try to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about homosexuality on his own.

Obama said in an interview to run in gay publications Thursday that he wants to work with military leaders to build a consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members in the armed forces.

He said that would not be accomplished by attaching a signing statement to a military spending bill, a process that President George W. Bush has used to set other military policies.

Uh huh. Because it has not been made ABUNDANTLY clear what bad law this is. Because other countries have not shown, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transsexuals can serve OPENLY in the military with no problems. Unless, of course, you are saying their military personnel are better than ours. Is that what you are saying, Backtrack?? Maybe you need to take a little listen to this man:

I might add, it is not like the Service members Legal Defense Network has not done a ton of research on this issue, or that General Wesley Clark, the former SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t work. Hey, maybe THAT’S why Obama threw him under the bus - because he believes that GLBT people should be able to serve their country proudly and openly.

Obama continued:

“I want to make sure that when we revert ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ it’s gone through a process and we’ve built a consensus or at least a clarity of what my expectations are so that it works. My first obligation as the president is to make sure that I keep the American people safe and that our military is functioning effectively,” Obama said. “Although I have consistently said I would repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be.” (Emphasis Mine.)

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In 1993, President Bill Clinton implemented the policy, a compromise after he was unable to make good on his campaign pledge to open the military to gays.

Well, what the hell do you mean by that, Obama (bold parts)?? Safety? Effectiveness? Functioning properly? What the hell does that mean??? That if you let gay people serve their country openly, that those things might be in jeopardy??

By the way, there was a consensus with all of the Democrats running this year - “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” DOES NOT WORK. It is offensive. Congresspeople have been working on this for SOME time. They have been speaking out on it for some time. Rep. Susan Davis of San Diego (big military base there, by the way), has been a very outspoken critic of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Or how about Rep. Patrick Murphy, a veteran, maybe what HE has to say will help you:

This Congressman, an Iraqi War veteran, is saying it it WRONG, and it diminishes our military for people to claim it cannot function if LGBT people serve openly, Obama, you mealy mouthed, backtracking, spineless jerk!

Oh, but wait. There’s MORE! Don’t think this is just limited to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Oh, no. How about the Defense of Marriage Act?

Obama also declined to commit to have his attorney general support a lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gives states the right to refuse to recognize such marriages. Obama said he’s not sure the 1996 law would be overturned by the courts and he prefers a legislative solution.

Now, to all of you who keep trying to convince me what a great guy Obama is, and how he will do SO much for my community, SCREW YOU. Screw you for not looking more closely at his associates, for blowing it off when he toured all around SC with Donnie McClurkin, the “CURED” homosexual. Screw you for not paying attention when Obama asked Gavin Newsome to throw a fundraiser for him, but REFUSED to allow Newsome to have a photo taken with him because of Newsome’s support of Gay Marriage. Never mind that Newsome himself is STRAIGHT. SCREW YOU for ignoring Obama’s CLOSE relationship with IL State Senator, The Rev. James Meeks, an actively anti-gay minister, the one to whom Obama went the day after he won his Senate Seat. SCREW YOU for brushing off his CONSTANT refusal to talk to our press organizations. It was only at the VERY end of the primary that the Advocate finally got him to sit down with him, and only then because HILLARY CLINTON had come out saying she would grant us FULL FEDERAL BENEFITS. SCREW YOU for treating like shit the person who CONSISTENTLY met with our press, who marched in our parades (Obama has never marched in ONE), who assured us she would not just meet with us when she was a candidate, but when she was PRESIDENT. SCREW YOU. And SCREW YOU, Philadelphia Gay News, for saying shit like this in your interview with Obama:

You are the most LGBT-friendly candidate running for president in history. Are you concerned that John McCain and the Republicans might use this as a divisive issue as they did in 2004?

Especially after you had REAMED him for NOT speaking to the Gay Press!! What total BULLSHIT!!! What total and COMPLETE hypocrites!!!

Screw YOU, Meliisa Etheridge, for singing at the Democratic Convention and validating this invalid candidate - since when do we celebrate SELECTING a nominee instead of ELECTING one?? Screw YOU, Jodie Foster, for going to that ridiculous Hollywood fundraiser for Obama the other night - you finally start to admit you are a lesbian, and THIS is what you do?? Great. Just freakin’ great. I guess it was the “cool” thing to do, so there you go…

SCREW YOU PEOPLE who voted against your OWN SELF-INTEREST AGAIN for what - the “trendy” guy with no legislative record, and nothing but “words” for our community, and who has demonstrated by his ACTIONS that he doesn’t GIVE a shit about us! What the HELL were you thinking, Human Rights Campaign, for not endorsing the woman YOU said was LIGHT YEARS ahead of YOUR OWN THINKING on our issues for OBAMA?

If you don’t think this is a clear indication of HOW LITTLE Obama will do for our community, you are a fool. If he reneged on his other major stances, what the HELL makes you think he won’t throw US under the bus already? He has already started. Actually, he started long ago. Thanks SHITLOADS for being so incredibly naive, and supporting HIM over the one person who really WOULD have kept her promises to us. Another four years before we will have the chance again to get someone who WILL care because you SCREWED IT UP for this year, and for all of us.

And while I am at it, SCREW YOU OBAMABOTS who keep claiming those of us who won’t vote for this sham of a candidate are going to be setting back women, and Roe. v. Wade. If you had GIVEN A SHIT about women, really given a damn, or about Roe v. Wade, you would have supported the person in the race with a CLEAR and CONSISTENT record on women, and choice. But you didn’t. So, SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY.

This picture was sent to me earlier this year by a friend that is a buddhist monk. We are both of the faith typically called “Tibetan” Buddhism. As such, we’re pretty much automatically labelled enemies of the Chinese People. I wanted to share this picture with you because of several things going on right now concerning His Holiness the Dali Lama, the candidates for President, and the upcoming Beijing Olympics.

This picture demonstrates the real force being the so-called rioting monks and the violence last April in Tibet. It was posed so China could justify the disappearance of over 10,000 Buddhist monks and nuns. You are seeing this correctly. It is a group of Chinese soldiers holding monk garb. This was taken by a friend of ours right after some of the riots. I think you can figure out the rest for yourself.

I decided to re-open this issue since I was also speaking to my Lama today. A lama is a spiritual teacher along the lines of a Rabbi in Judaism. His wife, Ang Dawa, is an activist for the Sherpa peoples. They both are from Nepal but were born in a section where the line between Nepal and China is more relevant to countries than native peoples. The Sherpas are the natives people that live in the Himalaya Mountains and you all probably know them best for their incredible mountaineering skills. Ang Dawa has just been elected to the new Nepali parliament and has been an activist/journalist for the UN for many years for Human and Women’s Rights. She just wrote an article in the local newspaper stating that there are basic human rights and they include being able to practice religion as you see fit, including becoming monks and nuns. It was a very generic article on human rights and mentioned no countries by name. However, there are over 10,000 tibetan buddhist monks and nun–many of which are Sherpa–unaccounted for after the april/may so-called uprisings. This includes some of the senior most and most respected rinpoches. They have simply disappeared.

While I am not surprised the President George W. Bush has decided to attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, I had held out some hope. This week there have been several headlines out there concerning both the Olympics and the struggles of the Tibetan people to maintain their cultural identity and practice their religion. There have also been some activities on the parts of presidential candidates. I argue, both activities are essential windows into their approaches to Human Rights.

The first was this picture of John McCain and his Holiness the Dali Lama. The New York Times in its story stated this:

“But other Republicans — the so-called foreign policy pragmatists, many of whom have come to view the Iraq war as a mistake — say the administration’s policy shifts highlight the more confrontational nature of Mr. McCain’s foreign policy, particularly in his approach toward Russia and his embrace on Friday of the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese regard as the fomenter of a rebellion in Tibet. They say the meeting will only antagonize China before the Summer Olympics, and at a moment when the United States is seeking its cooperation on economic issues and negotiations with North Korea.”

source: New York Times

At the same time, we see this move from the Obama Campaign.

As reported by Advertising Age, it appears that the Obama campaign is going to be a major TV sponsor of the Beijing Olympics.

“It’s official. Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal’s Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads. According to NBC’s political file, the campaign had initially requested information about 500,000, $2 million and $4 million package of Olympics spots. The network also offered the candidate a $10 million package.”

So, let me ask you a question. Aren’t the progressives supposed to be the ones concerned with Human Rights and standing up for them regardless of the economic consequences? Is it way too cynical of me to see this move by the Obama campaign as finding a way to profit and gain votes from an event that highlights a country that mistreats its peoples? This is Communist China folks! Monks and Nuns disappear there. Google and MIcrosoft have had to build limits into their software to suppress free speech in this country.

Oh, btw, after the Chinese government protested the publication of Ang Dawa’s statement of basic human rights, there were threats issued to the publisher of that paper in Nepal. The editor was assassinated shortly thereafter.

Is this the type of thing the Obama campaign should be sponsoring with campaign dollars?

__________

From my blog, “Sky Dancing in a Man’s World.”