Thank you for checking out my blog. To submit comments, click on "COMMENTS" at the end of each post. To email a post to a friend, click the white envelope also at the end of each post. Contact Me

TO ADD YOUR BLOG HERE - Click the "Follow This Blog" on the right.

TO SUBSCRIBE - Click a subscription option on the right.

TO READ PAST POSTINGS - Scroll down to my "Blog Archives" on the right or enter a search word or phrase in the search box above.

June 6, 2008

"Religious" Right Advocates Murdering Gays!

The so called "religious" right is clearly getting very desperate. So desperate that one of their leaders would publicly suggest shooting gays. This guy not only SHOULD have lost his rediculous lawsuit but, in my mind, should be in jail for attempting to incite violence. The following is the article posted on 365gay.com but The Advocate also ran the story. You can get their take on it by clicking the link at the bottom.

Wisc. Supreme Court Calls Lawsuit Against Gay Rights Group Frivolous
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: June 5, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Madison, Wisconsin) The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ordered a conservative pastor to pay $87,000 in legal fees to a gay rights group he accused of defaming him.

Grant Storms of the Reformer Ministries in Marrero, La., claimed in the lawsuit that Action Wisconsin defamed him by saying remarks he made at a 2003 anti-gay conference in Milwaukee advocated the murder of gays.

Storms was one of several speakers at the "International Conference on Homo-Fascism," a gathering of people who railed against gays.

Action Wisconsin obtained an audio recording of the conference and publicized remarks that the group said incited violence and hatred.

In his speech, Storms said gay rights' opponents should
"start taking it to the streets." He mimicked gun fire: "Boom, boom, boom, boom. There's twenty! Ca-ching," according to a transcript.

After Action Wisconsin widely distributed the tape Storms sued the group claiming it had defamed him by suggesting he was advocating murdering gays.

In 2006 Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Patricia McMahon said the group's interpretation of the remarks was reasonable and the lawsuit lacked merit from the day it was filed. McMahon awarded Action Wisconsin $87,000 in legal fees.

Following the verdict called the judge "liberal" and "insane," and filed an immediate appeal.

The appeals court reversed the ruling and Action Wisconsin took the case to the state Supreme Court.

In a 4-3 ruling the high court overturned the appellate ruling, allowing the original decision to stand.

In the majority decision the court said that Storms should have known the lawsuit was frivolous.

What's even more disturbing to me is that the Wisconsin Appeals Court actually overturned the original ruling even after hearing the taped comments. Not only that but the State Supreme Court, in ruling to overturn the Appellate Court's ruling, did so by JUST ONE SINGLE VOTE!

If you're gay and you think your vote, especially in local elections, doesn't matter --- WAKE UP!!!!

The Advocate also ran this story. Click their name to read their take.

June 5, 2008

Poll Shows 63% Say Gay Marriage Is "A Strickly Private Decision"

From a post on Advocate.com
June 05, 2008

"A USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 63% of adults say same-sex marriage is "strictly a private decision" between two people; 33% believe the government has the right "to prohibit or allow" such marriages, while 4% had no opinion.

The greatest support for no government intervention regarding same-sex marriages was in the East (71%), followed by the West (64%), Midwest (63%), and South (56%).

The percentage of participants who believe that same-sex marriage is “strictly a private” matter decreased as the age of the respondents increased: 79% of 18- to 29-year-olds, 65% of 30- to 49-year-olds, 62% of 50- to 64-year-olds, and 44% of those 65 and older.

The strongest support for government regulation of same-sex marriage came from people who say they attend religious services weekly (56%), are Republicans (56%), or are politically conservative (54%)."

Clearly, acceptance of same-sex marriage is now mostly a matter of attrition. And, since many of the most virulent anti-gay religious leaders have either died or been discredited by their own, personal sex scandals, and since there is a whole new, younger, more tolerant generation set to grab the reins from their cold, dead or severely emasculated hands, I'm sure that things will begin to change at a much more accelerated rate. BUT --- because the faster things change in our favor, the more frustrated and violent our remaining opponents actions will become. So, of course, still be visible, but also be vigilant and be careful!! Always know where you are, who's around you and what you'll do should a situation become threatening. You don't need to be paranoid because the odds are strongly against anything happening to you. You just need to be aware.

As a supportive addendum to this change is a recent statement by aging, former senator Sam Nunn. He now believes that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that he so cold-heartedly helped create and ram through the congress and senate should now be reexamined. Maybe even the older demagogs are beginning to see the writing on the wall. They were wrong. Period.

Both Stories At: Advocate.com.

June 3, 2008

Quick Update

A few hours ago the Clinton campaign said that the AP story about her conceding tonight was wrong.

If you check out the third paragraph of my previous post, I point out that she wasn't giving up her campaign until she negotiated a few things with Obama. I stand by that earlier post. Besides, it's more than a little obvious that that IS the eventual inevitability.

I hope they can work things out quickly.


According to a Associated Press Story by Beth Fouhy, Barack Obama will be THE FIRST BLACK CANDIDATE IN HISTORY to run for the presidency of the United States of America! He only needs to garner 30% of the vote in South Dakota and Montana today. And that looks very likely.

On NBC's "Today Show," Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."

Other Clinton campaign advisers, speaking anonymously because they weren't authorized to divulge her plans, said Clinton has made a strategic decision to not formally end her campaign, giving her leverage to negotiate with Obama on various matters including a possible vice presidential nomination for her. She also wants to press him on issues he should focus on in the fall, such as health care.

Clinton is enormously popular and has succeeded in getting millions (approximately 17 to 18 million) of votes from demographics that Obama wasn't quite able to attract. And, given the fact that she is eminently qualified and would bring a level of experience to the administration that Barack lacks, I believe that she would be THE BEST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE FOR VICE PRESIDENT.

I voted for Barack in the Arizona primaries even though I had some serious misgivings about his lack of experience. Even given those misgivings I am very excited about his potential to bring very real and very lasting change to a country that desperately needs it. I would be even more excited if he chooses Hillary as his running mate. I think the two of them together would be able to defeat ANY republican candidate and could very likely bring (on their proverbial coat tails) a substantial and also very much needed change to the congressional make up as well. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. And "we the people" are hoping that the democrats can come together long enough to make that happen!

Full AP Story On Yahoos News

June 2, 2008

New Hampshire Reverses Position on CA Marriage Decision

The following is a news item from BoxTurtleBulletin.com. I love it! The Attorney General had to be told of her own state's law!!

One State Reverses Position on CA Marriage Decision Stay
Timothy Kincaid
June 2nd, 2008
Last week the Attorneys General of ten states united to request that the Supreme Court of California stay its decision to treat all citizens equal under the law until November: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. They claimed that if California allowed gay couples to marry that this would create havoc and confusion for the court systems in their own states.
Immediately one state stood out from the others.
Although not all of these states have anti-gay marriage clauses in their constitution, only one state, New Hampshire, has taken efforts to offer recognition to same-sex relationships. And New Hampshire already had taken legislative steps to direct how out-of-state gay marriages would be treated - as civil unions.
Now it seems that the havoc and confusion caused by gay marriage in New Hampsire has been cleared up. Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, has now been appraised of the law in her state.
The Boston Globe reports
[O]n Saturday, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte announced that New Hampshire was withdrawing from the request because the state addresses the recognition issue in its civil union law.
She said under the law, New Hampshire will recognize a legal gay marriage from California as a civil union.

It's great when the bigoted homophobes get tangled up in their own webs!

June 1, 2008

You have to read this...

Following is a partial post from Seacoastonline.com. The author is a straight, married man which is made clear in the last paragraph in the full opinion. I couldn't have said it better myself. His published opinion is one of the main reasons that his prediction will come true. People are taking another look at the religious extremist rhetoric and are beginning to see it for what it is - an attempt to turn the laws of our land and the very constitution itself into specific religious doctrines. Can you say Taliban? This is well worth reading by everyone so, please, pass it along to a friend or two or more.

By D. Allan Kerr
June 01, 2008 6:00 AM


A great advantage to being as open-minded as I claim to be is that I can usually understand the rationale behind opposing arguments — even the side with which I disagree.

I recognize the desire of some to save the polar bears and preserve the environment, but also sympathize with others who see these efforts as an impediment to progress. I appreciate the reluctance of some individuals to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, but know why there are those who see this as a way to counter high oil prices and foreign dependence.

I salute the people who want to divert some of the billions spent on national defense for the benefit of citizens struggling here at home, but also support the people who want to keep our military strong. I have a hard time, however, understanding why there's a segment of the population obsessed with preventing homosexuals from enjoying equal treatment here in the land of the free.

I hadn't thought about the issue for a while until the recent California court decision legalizing gay marriage. Now, apparently, there may be a push for a referendum in November banning such unions — echoing the push by some for a constitutional amendment to achieve the same goal. Think about that for a moment — there are people who want an amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensuring that other people will not be allowed the same privileges most Americans enjoy. Why doesn't this concept absolutely creep out every fair-minded citizen of this great land?

Full Opinion At: Seacoastonline.com