Unlikely Support From A Black Conservative Republican

Ward Connerly is a black conservative republican who is not exactly the kind of political conservative most of us in the GLBT community would applaud.

In fact, according to a July 6th article in The Arizona Republic, Mr Connerly "...has made a name for himself - and some would say a lucrative career in the process - as a Black man at the forefront of the battle to end racial and gender preference in the workplace and on campus."

Now most of us usually equate conservative opposition to Affirmative Action to anti-gay everything positions as well. And, unfortunately, that has all to often proven to be the case. But wait --- there seems to be much more to Mr Connerly than a superficial glance would show.

Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with his argument against continuing Affirmative Action (see the whole article), what he says later in the interview definitely caught my attention.

When Mr. Connerly was asked by Viewpoints Editor Joe Garcia, "You've been a proponent of domestic partnerships for gay couples, which puts you at odds with a core element of the Republican Party. How do you marry the two stances, if you will - anti-affirmative action but in favor of gay rights or domestic partnerships?"

Mr. Connerly replied:

"Very, very easily. I don't want the government making decisions about people's personal lives or making decisions about treating people differently on the basis of their identities. So, to me, it's a natural fit. . . .

The government shouldn't be making distinctions about people on the basis of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And those within my party that try to inject the government into that, they're not the conservative, I'm the conservative. I'm saying, keep government small, keep government out of people's personal lives. If you're going to give benefits to people who happen to be straight, give the same benefits to people who are gay. That to me was a very easy call.

I took a lot of heat from "strong conservatives" who said that I was eroding the concept of marriage. I'm not "eroding the concept of marriage." If marriage is that fragile, that giving people who are gay equal benefit (would cause harm), then we're in big trouble. I believe in the institution of marriage, but I also believe in freedom. I believe in treating people equally. . . .

I grew up in a time when I was forbidden from marrying people who were not of my race. In 1962, when my wife and I got married, in some parts of the country, we would have been breaking the law. It wasn't until 1967, when the Supreme Court in the Loving (vs. Virginia) case said that that's unconstitutional. So, I feel very strongly that the government shouldn't be treating people differently just because they are gay."

Now that's the kind of statement I can easily applaud him for. What really ruffles my feathers though is if a man like Connerly gets it so easily then why can't others see the same simple logic? Of course, I have my opinions about that but that's for another post addressing the paranoid, or even avaricious, meddlings of most of the church institutions. That, in my opinion, is the main engine driving much of the homophobia throughout the world today. That and politics of convenience.

To read the whole article/interview, go to: Arizona Republic PDF File

American Family Association Once Again In Hot Water

Yesterday, SentinelSource.com, which is the online edition of New Hampshire's The Keene Sentinel, posted a story about the embarrassing ineffectiveness of American Family Association's (AFA) boycotts. I've written about the AFA in several of my own postings and I'm really happy to see such a prestigious publication (the country's fifth oldest continuously published newspaper since March, 1799) take this absurdly fanatic group to task.

The article says, in part:

The American Family Association of Tupelo, Mississippi, is always up to something. Usually something related to sex. Often it involves a boycott.

Time was when the AFA seemed most incensed about nudity, pornography, suggestive clothing and the like. We remember a decade or so ago when it mailed news organizations still photographs of what might have been a bare breast flashing by in a CBS promotional film. People in newsrooms around the country no doubt studied that mailing very carefully.

The AFA still objects to nudity. Its Web site features a complaint that the Department of Defense is allowing Playboy publications to be sold on military bases. It’s promoting a House bill that would end that practice. But in recent years, homosexuality has become the AFA’s greatest preoccupation. Currently, it’s urging people to stay away from McDonald’s because, it says, the company promotes “the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.” To which a McDonald’s official replied: “We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share our belief that every person has the right to live and work in their community free of discrimination.”

The AFA’s effectiveness is in some doubt. McDonald’s stock is up more than 10 percent during the past year, and sales are steady. Earlier AFA boycotts did not go well either, including those against Procter & Gamble, Disney, CBS and Kraft Foods. The AFA claims it did better with its Ford boycott, but the energy crisis may have had something to do with any success in that arena. The AFA corporate Hall of Shame (also called “the dirty dozen”) lists other companies that seem to be doing okay: Microsoft, Anheuser-Busch, Comcast, Johnson & Johnson, Viacom. The dirty details are at www.afa.net.

The AFA has recently made bigger waves with a software program it developed that automatically replaces the word “gay” on its news Web site with the word “homosexual.” The idea is that “gay” leaves a more positive impression than “homosexual.” (see my July 2nd posting "Christian News Group Embarrasses Itself With It's Own Homophobia")

Hooray for reason and logic. When I lived in New York I used to go to Vermont and New Hampshire a lot! It's an absolutely beautiful area with really great skiing and picture-perfect little towns. It's well worth visiting.

If you'd like to read the whole article (which was published both in print and online) go to: SentinelSource.com

Is Scientogogy Just A Harmless Group Of Funny Fanatics?

If you think that Scientology is a harmless, even comical (Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch) group of fanatics, you need to watch this video.

The video was made by a Canadian group called Anonymous Toronto and was taped in front of the Scientology building during Toronto's Gay Pride celebrations last March.

I pretty much knew about Scientology's horrendous treatment of their own members. And I even heard about the violence that was perpetrated against anyone who tried to leave the organization or challenge it from within. What I didn't know was that these intimidation tactics, including death threats, are also used against ANYONE who tries to expose the truth about who they really are.

To give you an idea of how extreme their teachings can be, in a sequel titled "Science of Survival" by their now-deceased founder, L. Ron Hubbard you'll find an explanation of their "Tone Scale" that classifies people and their behavior ranging from -3 to +4. LGBT people are classified at 1.1 and Hubbard recommends the following very disturbing solutions for people below 2.2. He says:

"The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow."

I wonder if Oprah knows about this.

If you want to know more about Anonymous Toronto go to: anonymoustoronto.org

I discovered the story and video at: religiousleft.us