From The Plume Line: "That seems to be one of the core political questions in the wake of the overturning of Proposition 8. How can the president continue opposing gay marriage while supporting the decision to strike down Prop 8, on the grounds that it's "discriminatory," as the White House said in a statement last night?
Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?
This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:
"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."
But as John Aravosis says, everything has changed.
Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.
But as Michael Shear notes, his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.
Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.
"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.
The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constiuency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.
They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."
By Greg Sargent | August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Showing posts with label Obama on gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama on gay rights. Show all posts
Friday, August 06, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Obama Can't Shake Gay Rights Fight
From Politico.com:
By: Josh Gerstein
July 10, 2010 07:03 AM EDT
When President Barack Obama agreed to back legislation in May that could eventually repeal the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, the resolution seemed to offer twin benefits for the White House:
Quell the anger of gay activists who accused Obama of foot-dragging on the issue, and allow the question of gays in the military to cool for a while, perhaps until after the November election.
That didn’t last long.
The issue leapt back into the news this week after the Pentagon sent a survey to 400,000 troops to assess their attitudes on whether openly gay soldiers should be allowed to serve — with questions being criticized by gay rights advocates as inaccurate, inflammatory and biased.
Next week, a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans is going to trial in California — and Obama’s Justice Department is in the uncomfortable position of trying to prevent the "don't ask, don't tell" policy from being overturned as discharged veterans testify about its dramatic impact on their careers.
Some gay rights activists who were cheered by Obama’s decision in May now say they’re frustrated by what feels like a two steps forward, one step back approach to the issue — especially in light of Obama’s delay in seeking to repeal of the policy in the first place.
“This has got to be a nightmare for the White House political office, especially as Organizing for America ramps up efforts to rebuild a coalition for the midterms which includes gays,” said Richard Socarides, a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. “I want the Democrats to keep both houses of Congress more than most. It’s very important that we do that if gay rights are important to you. So I can’t understand why the president’s senior advisers permit the Justice Department to defend this case. … It’s incomprehensible.”
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House declined to comment for this story. However, officials have said that Justice is obligated to defend any law Congress passes as long as there is a plausible legal basis to do so, even if the current administration disagrees with the statute.
Some lawyers in the gay rights movement scoff at that. They note that from time to time, Justice has refused to stand behind laws under challenge as unconstitutional. For instance, in 2005, the Justice Department declined to defend a law barring the D.C. Metro transit system from accepting ads that promote legalizing marijuana.
For the attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division assigned to handle the Log Cabin case, it’s essentially a Catch-22. If they get tough or confrontational with the ex-service-members or experts called to testify, the government lawyers risk being accused of insensitivity.
If they hold back, Republicans and social conservatives could accuse the administration of taking a dive in a case it never really wanted to win.
“This is a pincer” for the government’s lawyers, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. However, he didn’t have much sympathy. “It comes with the territory,” he said.
Even ahead of the Log Cabin case, conservative Republicans have been attacking Obama on gay rights as well, insisting that the Justice Department isn’t really trying very hard to defend the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested that the Justice Department wasn’t going all-out to fight lawsuits against the gays-in-the-military policy, and over a law denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Kagan denied the charge. “I have acted in the solicitor general's office consistently with the responsibility, which I agree with you very much that I have, to vigorously defend all statutes, including the statute that embodies the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy,” Kagan said.
A federal judge’s rulings Thursday holding part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional triggered a round of complaints from conservatives that the Obama administration was making a politically correct and less-than-forceful defense of that law.
“The Justice Department’s half-hearted defense in this case — exemplified by DOJ’s own attorney asserting that President Obama opposes DOMA — is unacceptable. The president’s personal views have nothing to do with the defense of a law passed by Congress,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Gillers said, though, that government attorneys were not obliged to rip apart the opposition the way a private litigator might. “Because you’re a government lawyer, you’re not given the same deference to be a junkyard dog for that client,” he said. “A government lawyer has a broader mandate.”
Written briefs in gay-rights-related cases have already landed the Justice Department in hot water with the Obama White House after gay activists complained the filings compared same-sex marriage to forms of incest and marriages involving minors. Sources say some filings in such cases are now coordinated with White House lawyers.
But the give-and-take of live courtroom testimony is even more treacherous and can’t be vetted so easily from Washington. The lead lawyer for the Log Cabin group, Dan Woods of White & Case in Los Angeles, said he expects the trial to stretch for two weeks and involve testimony by seven expert witnesses and as many as six former service members. Justice Department lawyers have said they plan to call no witnesses at the bench trial to be held before Judge Virginia Phillips, without a jury, Woods said.
With the new Pentagon survey under fire for its questions about open-bay showers and even its use of the term “homosexual,” it is almost certain that Justice Department lawyers handling the Log Cabin case will be accused of asking insensitive or homophobic questions as they cross-examine witnesses.
On the other side of the political spectrum, social conservatives say they’ll be watching closely to see whether DOJ is going easy. “We hope the administration’s politically motivated position against 'don’t ask, don’t tell' will not be a factor in defending the regulations,” said Daniel Blomberg of the Alliance Defense Fund.
The political minefield the trial presents may be one reason the Justice Department has tried mightily to head it off.
Last month, government lawyers asked Phillips to put the case on hold indefinitely because of the steps Congress took in May toward a repeal of the "don’t ask" statute passed in 1993. On May 27, the House voted, 234-194, in favor of a measure that would repeal "don’t ask" next year if top military leaders certify the repeal can be carried out without impacting force readiness and unit cohesion. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted, 16-12, for the same language.
However, the judge noted that the bills involved have not cleared Congress and that the repeal depends on several actions by the military and Obama that may or may not happen. “Given the many contingencies involved — including the threshold contingency of congressional approval — and the lack of clear timelines, any ultimate repeal that may result from this legislation is at this point remote, if not wholly speculative,” Phillips wrote Tuesday as she ordered the trial to go forward.
Government lawyers also have asked Phillips to deny a trial as unnecessary, to exclude all of the expert witnesses and most of the other witnesses. Phillips, a Clinton appointee, denied all the motions.
Woods pointed to one specific episode that he said highlighted the contradictions in the government’s case. He said the plaintiffs asked the government to admit that Obama said last year that "don’t ask" weakens national security and that the statement is true. The government admitted Obama made the comment but declined to say whether it was true. After a judge required the government to answer, it denied Obama’s assertion.
“They keep saying they have no choice but to defend the law because it is the law and that’s their job at the Justice Department, but the hypocrisy of this emerges all the time,” Woods said. “They are in a very awkward position.”
There are a few breaks for the administration in the trial set to start this week. The location in Riverside, Calif., far from Washington’s political press, should diminish coverage. And the ban on cameras in federal trial courts means TV coverage will have to rely on courtroom sketches.
But the gay Republicans who filed the case back in 2004 are doing their best to keep the legal and public pressure on the Obama administration. The Log Cabin group said Friday that Woods plans a daily press availability after the trial session, that principals in the case will be readily available to the media, and that the group plans a daily bulletin on trial developments.
By: Josh Gerstein
July 10, 2010 07:03 AM EDT
When President Barack Obama agreed to back legislation in May that could eventually repeal the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, the resolution seemed to offer twin benefits for the White House:
Quell the anger of gay activists who accused Obama of foot-dragging on the issue, and allow the question of gays in the military to cool for a while, perhaps until after the November election.
That didn’t last long.
The issue leapt back into the news this week after the Pentagon sent a survey to 400,000 troops to assess their attitudes on whether openly gay soldiers should be allowed to serve — with questions being criticized by gay rights advocates as inaccurate, inflammatory and biased.
Next week, a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans is going to trial in California — and Obama’s Justice Department is in the uncomfortable position of trying to prevent the "don't ask, don't tell" policy from being overturned as discharged veterans testify about its dramatic impact on their careers.
Some gay rights activists who were cheered by Obama’s decision in May now say they’re frustrated by what feels like a two steps forward, one step back approach to the issue — especially in light of Obama’s delay in seeking to repeal of the policy in the first place.
“This has got to be a nightmare for the White House political office, especially as Organizing for America ramps up efforts to rebuild a coalition for the midterms which includes gays,” said Richard Socarides, a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. “I want the Democrats to keep both houses of Congress more than most. It’s very important that we do that if gay rights are important to you. So I can’t understand why the president’s senior advisers permit the Justice Department to defend this case. … It’s incomprehensible.”
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House declined to comment for this story. However, officials have said that Justice is obligated to defend any law Congress passes as long as there is a plausible legal basis to do so, even if the current administration disagrees with the statute.
Some lawyers in the gay rights movement scoff at that. They note that from time to time, Justice has refused to stand behind laws under challenge as unconstitutional. For instance, in 2005, the Justice Department declined to defend a law barring the D.C. Metro transit system from accepting ads that promote legalizing marijuana.
For the attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division assigned to handle the Log Cabin case, it’s essentially a Catch-22. If they get tough or confrontational with the ex-service-members or experts called to testify, the government lawyers risk being accused of insensitivity.
If they hold back, Republicans and social conservatives could accuse the administration of taking a dive in a case it never really wanted to win.
“This is a pincer” for the government’s lawyers, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. However, he didn’t have much sympathy. “It comes with the territory,” he said.
Even ahead of the Log Cabin case, conservative Republicans have been attacking Obama on gay rights as well, insisting that the Justice Department isn’t really trying very hard to defend the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested that the Justice Department wasn’t going all-out to fight lawsuits against the gays-in-the-military policy, and over a law denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Kagan denied the charge. “I have acted in the solicitor general's office consistently with the responsibility, which I agree with you very much that I have, to vigorously defend all statutes, including the statute that embodies the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy,” Kagan said.
A federal judge’s rulings Thursday holding part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional triggered a round of complaints from conservatives that the Obama administration was making a politically correct and less-than-forceful defense of that law.
“The Justice Department’s half-hearted defense in this case — exemplified by DOJ’s own attorney asserting that President Obama opposes DOMA — is unacceptable. The president’s personal views have nothing to do with the defense of a law passed by Congress,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Gillers said, though, that government attorneys were not obliged to rip apart the opposition the way a private litigator might. “Because you’re a government lawyer, you’re not given the same deference to be a junkyard dog for that client,” he said. “A government lawyer has a broader mandate.”
Written briefs in gay-rights-related cases have already landed the Justice Department in hot water with the Obama White House after gay activists complained the filings compared same-sex marriage to forms of incest and marriages involving minors. Sources say some filings in such cases are now coordinated with White House lawyers.
But the give-and-take of live courtroom testimony is even more treacherous and can’t be vetted so easily from Washington. The lead lawyer for the Log Cabin group, Dan Woods of White & Case in Los Angeles, said he expects the trial to stretch for two weeks and involve testimony by seven expert witnesses and as many as six former service members. Justice Department lawyers have said they plan to call no witnesses at the bench trial to be held before Judge Virginia Phillips, without a jury, Woods said.
With the new Pentagon survey under fire for its questions about open-bay showers and even its use of the term “homosexual,” it is almost certain that Justice Department lawyers handling the Log Cabin case will be accused of asking insensitive or homophobic questions as they cross-examine witnesses.
On the other side of the political spectrum, social conservatives say they’ll be watching closely to see whether DOJ is going easy. “We hope the administration’s politically motivated position against 'don’t ask, don’t tell' will not be a factor in defending the regulations,” said Daniel Blomberg of the Alliance Defense Fund.
The political minefield the trial presents may be one reason the Justice Department has tried mightily to head it off.
Last month, government lawyers asked Phillips to put the case on hold indefinitely because of the steps Congress took in May toward a repeal of the "don’t ask" statute passed in 1993. On May 27, the House voted, 234-194, in favor of a measure that would repeal "don’t ask" next year if top military leaders certify the repeal can be carried out without impacting force readiness and unit cohesion. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted, 16-12, for the same language.
However, the judge noted that the bills involved have not cleared Congress and that the repeal depends on several actions by the military and Obama that may or may not happen. “Given the many contingencies involved — including the threshold contingency of congressional approval — and the lack of clear timelines, any ultimate repeal that may result from this legislation is at this point remote, if not wholly speculative,” Phillips wrote Tuesday as she ordered the trial to go forward.
Government lawyers also have asked Phillips to deny a trial as unnecessary, to exclude all of the expert witnesses and most of the other witnesses. Phillips, a Clinton appointee, denied all the motions.
Woods pointed to one specific episode that he said highlighted the contradictions in the government’s case. He said the plaintiffs asked the government to admit that Obama said last year that "don’t ask" weakens national security and that the statement is true. The government admitted Obama made the comment but declined to say whether it was true. After a judge required the government to answer, it denied Obama’s assertion.
“They keep saying they have no choice but to defend the law because it is the law and that’s their job at the Justice Department, but the hypocrisy of this emerges all the time,” Woods said. “They are in a very awkward position.”
There are a few breaks for the administration in the trial set to start this week. The location in Riverside, Calif., far from Washington’s political press, should diminish coverage. And the ban on cameras in federal trial courts means TV coverage will have to rely on courtroom sketches.
But the gay Republicans who filed the case back in 2004 are doing their best to keep the legal and public pressure on the Obama administration. The Log Cabin group said Friday that Woods plans a daily press availability after the trial session, that principals in the case will be readily available to the media, and that the group plans a daily bulletin on trial developments.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Homophobic Obama Appointee Ousted
From Metroweekly.com:
"by Chris Geidner
Published on May 17, 2010, 10:04pm | 20 Comments, 28 Tweets
Jonathan I. Katz, a professor of astrophysics at Washington University in St. Louis, ''will no longer be involved in the [Energy] Department's efforts'' at addressing the oil spill continuing to spread in the Gulf of Mexico, a Department spokeswoman relayed on Monday night, May 17.
The news came after what the spokesperson, Stephanie Mueller, termed ''controversial writings'' – which included a ''defense of homophobia'' – spread out over the web on Monday, writings of which she said the Department was unaware when it sought his assistance.
On May 12, Energy Secretary Steven Chu ''assembled a group of top scientific experts from inside and outside of government to join in today's discussions in Houston about possible solutions,'' according to a Department news release. Katz was one of five outside scientists noted in the release. Bloomberg News reported about the group of scientists on May 14, reporting Chu ''signaled his lack of confidence in the industry experts trying to control BP Plc's leaking oil well by hand-picking a team of scientists with reputations for creative problem solving.''
Once news of the team spread, some of Katz's writings were discovered at his university website, including one titled, ''In Defense of Homophobia.'' In the essay, dated May 13, 1999, he wrote about the ''rationalist'' and the religious person's views of homosexuality.
''The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet,'' Katz wrote. ''It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.''
More than 10 years later, Energy Department spokesperson Stephanie Mueller was announcing on Monday night – less than a week after being described as ''our best scientific minds'' by Chu – that ''[s]ome of Professor Katz's controversial writings have become a distraction from the critical work of addressing the oil spill.''
Writing that Chu ''has spoken with dozens of scientists and engineers as part of his work to help find solutions to stop the oil spill,'' she referenced the writings and stated, ''Professor Katz will no longer be involved in the Department's efforts.''
In response to an inquiry from Metro Weekly about whether Chu or the Energy Department was aware of Katz's additional writings before he was selected to help with the oil spill, Mueller responded, ''No, the Secretary was not aware and disagrees with them. The Department wasn't aware either.''
Another essay pointed to by Katz's critics – ''Cold Thoughts on Global Warming'' – has been cited to as proof that he is a ''climate change denialist.'' Despite that, Katz actually states, ''The conclusion that anthropogenic emissions [those derived from human activities] of these gases will likely warm the climate has been generally accepted for a century. It is a consensus, but it is not emerging or new. It has been there all along. Only a panicky fear of the consequences is new.''
"by Chris Geidner
Published on May 17, 2010, 10:04pm | 20 Comments, 28 Tweets
Jonathan I. Katz, a professor of astrophysics at Washington University in St. Louis, ''will no longer be involved in the [Energy] Department's efforts'' at addressing the oil spill continuing to spread in the Gulf of Mexico, a Department spokeswoman relayed on Monday night, May 17.
The news came after what the spokesperson, Stephanie Mueller, termed ''controversial writings'' – which included a ''defense of homophobia'' – spread out over the web on Monday, writings of which she said the Department was unaware when it sought his assistance.
On May 12, Energy Secretary Steven Chu ''assembled a group of top scientific experts from inside and outside of government to join in today's discussions in Houston about possible solutions,'' according to a Department news release. Katz was one of five outside scientists noted in the release. Bloomberg News reported about the group of scientists on May 14, reporting Chu ''signaled his lack of confidence in the industry experts trying to control BP Plc's leaking oil well by hand-picking a team of scientists with reputations for creative problem solving.''
Once news of the team spread, some of Katz's writings were discovered at his university website, including one titled, ''In Defense of Homophobia.'' In the essay, dated May 13, 1999, he wrote about the ''rationalist'' and the religious person's views of homosexuality.
''The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet,'' Katz wrote. ''It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.''
More than 10 years later, Energy Department spokesperson Stephanie Mueller was announcing on Monday night – less than a week after being described as ''our best scientific minds'' by Chu – that ''[s]ome of Professor Katz's controversial writings have become a distraction from the critical work of addressing the oil spill.''
Writing that Chu ''has spoken with dozens of scientists and engineers as part of his work to help find solutions to stop the oil spill,'' she referenced the writings and stated, ''Professor Katz will no longer be involved in the Department's efforts.''
In response to an inquiry from Metro Weekly about whether Chu or the Energy Department was aware of Katz's additional writings before he was selected to help with the oil spill, Mueller responded, ''No, the Secretary was not aware and disagrees with them. The Department wasn't aware either.''
Another essay pointed to by Katz's critics – ''Cold Thoughts on Global Warming'' – has been cited to as proof that he is a ''climate change denialist.'' Despite that, Katz actually states, ''The conclusion that anthropogenic emissions [those derived from human activities] of these gases will likely warm the climate has been generally accepted for a century. It is a consensus, but it is not emerging or new. It has been there all along. Only a panicky fear of the consequences is new.''
Monday, May 17, 2010
Obama Appoints Homophobe to Help Stop Gulf Oil Leak
From Americablog.com: " Please sign our public letter to the President urging that this homophobe be fired immediately.__________________________________
UPDATE: He's a climate change denialist as well:
Who is stoking the alarm about global warming? There is Al Gore, an over-the-hill politician who wants to remain in the public eye. His house uses 20 times as much electricity as the average American house and he flies private jets. Obviously, he does not believe what he preaches; it must be an act. Conservation is for the little people. I'll think about reducing my emissions after he reduces his by 95%. Then there is Jim Hansen, would-be dictator who wants to throw in jail anyone who disagrees with him or burns coal. He may wish himself another Mussolini (or worse), but people just laugh at him. And finally John Holdren, who in his younger days was prophesying disaster from the ice age then just beginning (so he said). Fictitious crises are a demogogue's route to power.
Fortunately, global warming is probably good for humanity. Sit back, relax, and watch it happen.
Nice guy for the Obama administration to be calling one of our best scientific minds - a climate change denying kook. I'm sure the oil companies are thrilled that the President is elevating this man in the public eye.
________________
New Obama appointee Jonathan I. Katz on the "innocent victims" of AIDS:
"These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves."
Jonathan I. Katz. was recently appointed by the Obama administration, along with four other scientists, to an elite panel of "our best scientific minds" to help BP cut off the oil spill.
Jonathan I. Katz is also a "proud homophobe," by his own admission. He's even written an article, published on his personal Web site at the Washington University physics department, titled "In Defense of Homophobia." And what a defense it is.
Here are a few snippets from one of our best scientific minds about how the homos killed lots of innocent people with their AIDS:
The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet. It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.
Unfortunately, the victims are not only those whose reckless behavior brought death on themselves. There are many completely innocent victims, too: hemophiliacs (a substantial fraction died as a result of contaminated clotting factor), recipients of contaminated transfusions, and their spouses and children, for AIDS can be transmitted heterosexually (in America, only infrequently) and congenitally. The icy road was lined with unsuspecting innocents, who never chose to ride a motorcycle. Guilt for their deaths is on the hands of the homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers who poisoned the blood supply. These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves.
What of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress these desires? Yes, but this is hardly a unique fate. Almost everyone has desires which must be suppressed. Most men and women think adulterous thoughts fairly often, and find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. Morality requires them to suppress these desires, and most do not commit adultery, though they feel lust in their hearts. Almost everyone, at one time or another, covets another's property. They do not steal. Many people feel great anger or intense hatred at some time in their lives. They do not kill.
I am a homophobe, and proud. (emphasis added)
President Obama promised us change. He promised to be our fierce advocate. Appointing avowed bigots to elite panels, and lauding them as the best minds of our nation, is offensive the millions of LGBT Americans who voted en masse for this President. It is difficult to believe that the Obama administration couldn't find anyone else to help deal with this crisis. We all want the government to do everything it can to stop the oil spill, but elevating an avowed homophobe, and giving him the imprimatur, and the stamp of legitimacy, of the Obama administration, is simply wrong.
Please sign on to our public letter urging the President to fire Jonathan I. Katz.
No more Rick Warrens
UPDATE: He's a climate change denialist as well:
Who is stoking the alarm about global warming? There is Al Gore, an over-the-hill politician who wants to remain in the public eye. His house uses 20 times as much electricity as the average American house and he flies private jets. Obviously, he does not believe what he preaches; it must be an act. Conservation is for the little people. I'll think about reducing my emissions after he reduces his by 95%. Then there is Jim Hansen, would-be dictator who wants to throw in jail anyone who disagrees with him or burns coal. He may wish himself another Mussolini (or worse), but people just laugh at him. And finally John Holdren, who in his younger days was prophesying disaster from the ice age then just beginning (so he said). Fictitious crises are a demogogue's route to power.
Fortunately, global warming is probably good for humanity. Sit back, relax, and watch it happen.
Nice guy for the Obama administration to be calling one of our best scientific minds - a climate change denying kook. I'm sure the oil companies are thrilled that the President is elevating this man in the public eye.
________________
New Obama appointee Jonathan I. Katz on the "innocent victims" of AIDS:
"These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves."
Jonathan I. Katz. was recently appointed by the Obama administration, along with four other scientists, to an elite panel of "our best scientific minds" to help BP cut off the oil spill.
Jonathan I. Katz is also a "proud homophobe," by his own admission. He's even written an article, published on his personal Web site at the Washington University physics department, titled "In Defense of Homophobia." And what a defense it is.
Here are a few snippets from one of our best scientific minds about how the homos killed lots of innocent people with their AIDS:
The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet. It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.
Unfortunately, the victims are not only those whose reckless behavior brought death on themselves. There are many completely innocent victims, too: hemophiliacs (a substantial fraction died as a result of contaminated clotting factor), recipients of contaminated transfusions, and their spouses and children, for AIDS can be transmitted heterosexually (in America, only infrequently) and congenitally. The icy road was lined with unsuspecting innocents, who never chose to ride a motorcycle. Guilt for their deaths is on the hands of the homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers who poisoned the blood supply. These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves.
What of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress these desires? Yes, but this is hardly a unique fate. Almost everyone has desires which must be suppressed. Most men and women think adulterous thoughts fairly often, and find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. Morality requires them to suppress these desires, and most do not commit adultery, though they feel lust in their hearts. Almost everyone, at one time or another, covets another's property. They do not steal. Many people feel great anger or intense hatred at some time in their lives. They do not kill.
I am a homophobe, and proud. (emphasis added)
President Obama promised us change. He promised to be our fierce advocate. Appointing avowed bigots to elite panels, and lauding them as the best minds of our nation, is offensive the millions of LGBT Americans who voted en masse for this President. It is difficult to believe that the Obama administration couldn't find anyone else to help deal with this crisis. We all want the government to do everything it can to stop the oil spill, but elevating an avowed homophobe, and giving him the imprimatur, and the stamp of legitimacy, of the Obama administration, is simply wrong.
Please sign on to our public letter urging the President to fire Jonathan I. Katz.
No more Rick Warrens
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Court orders father of slain soldier to pay anti-gay protesters legal fees
From RawStory.com and AP: The father of a Marine killed in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters was ordered to pay the protesters' appeal costs, his lawyers said Monday.
On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case as to whether the protesters are entitled to free speech at the funeral. Phelps conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.
The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.
Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.
The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
Phelps and his congregation regularly demonstrate at military funerals, carrying inflammatory signs to draw attention to their anti-gay message.
The religious group protest at the funerals of soldiers, regardless of the sexuality of the deceased military personnel, and use the events to bring publicity to their campaign.
The preacher and six relatives arrived at Snyder's funeral carrying signs that read "America is doomed," "Matt in hell" and "Semper Fi fags," in reference to the Marine motto "Semper Fi."
After the funeral was over, Phelps continued to deride and criticize Snyder on his website, prompting the dead Marine's family to sue the preacher before a Maryland court.
Snyder's father Albert claimed Phelps had intruded on a private event and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the bereaved family and won an initial award of five million dollars.
But the award was overturned on appeal, where a court ruled that Westburo protesters were simply exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case as to whether the protesters are entitled to free speech at the funeral. Phelps conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.
The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.
Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.
The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
Phelps and his congregation regularly demonstrate at military funerals, carrying inflammatory signs to draw attention to their anti-gay message.
The religious group protest at the funerals of soldiers, regardless of the sexuality of the deceased military personnel, and use the events to bring publicity to their campaign.
The preacher and six relatives arrived at Snyder's funeral carrying signs that read "America is doomed," "Matt in hell" and "Semper Fi fags," in reference to the Marine motto "Semper Fi."
After the funeral was over, Phelps continued to deride and criticize Snyder on his website, prompting the dead Marine's family to sue the preacher before a Maryland court.
Snyder's father Albert claimed Phelps had intruded on a private event and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the bereaved family and won an initial award of five million dollars.
But the award was overturned on appeal, where a court ruled that Westburo protesters were simply exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Obama & Sec. Clinton Publicly Condemn Uganda’s Anti-Gay Legislation
From ThinkProgress.org on February 4 2010:
"Uganda’s parliament is currently considering an anti-homosexuality bill that would impose the death penalty or life imprisonment for some homosexual acts, require people to report every LGBT individual they know, and criminalize renting property to gay men and women.
The measure has been widely condemned around the world, from UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to federal lawmakers of both parties in the United States. The Obama administration has issued statements condemning the legislation and was working privately with Ugandan officials, but the President himself has not yet commented. In December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referenced the Ugandan legislation, saying, “We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide.” She has also personally spoken to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni about the bill.
Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, both Clinton and Obama condemned the Ugandan legislation:
– CLINTON: And I recently called President Museveni, whom I have known through the Prayer Breakfast, and expressed the strongest concerns about a law being considered in the parliament of Uganda.
– OBAMA: We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it’s here in the United States or as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
Making these pronouncements today was significant because the Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, the controversial group also known as “The Family.” As author Jeff Sharlet has detailed, The Family has ties to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality legislation. The author of the bill is Ugandan Parliamentarian David Bahati, who organizes the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and has been embraced by the far right in the United States. Watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on C-SPAN and government officials to turn their backs on today’s event.
Yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a resolution condemning Uganda’s anti-gay bill. “The proposed Ugandan bill not only threatens human rights, it also reverses so many of the gains that Uganda has made in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” said Berman. The bill has 38 co-sponsors, but only one — Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) — is a Republican."
"Uganda’s parliament is currently considering an anti-homosexuality bill that would impose the death penalty or life imprisonment for some homosexual acts, require people to report every LGBT individual they know, and criminalize renting property to gay men and women.
The measure has been widely condemned around the world, from UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to federal lawmakers of both parties in the United States. The Obama administration has issued statements condemning the legislation and was working privately with Ugandan officials, but the President himself has not yet commented. In December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referenced the Ugandan legislation, saying, “We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide.” She has also personally spoken to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni about the bill.
Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, both Clinton and Obama condemned the Ugandan legislation:
– CLINTON: And I recently called President Museveni, whom I have known through the Prayer Breakfast, and expressed the strongest concerns about a law being considered in the parliament of Uganda.
– OBAMA: We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it’s here in the United States or as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
Making these pronouncements today was significant because the Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, the controversial group also known as “The Family.” As author Jeff Sharlet has detailed, The Family has ties to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality legislation. The author of the bill is Ugandan Parliamentarian David Bahati, who organizes the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and has been embraced by the far right in the United States. Watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on C-SPAN and government officials to turn their backs on today’s event.
Yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a resolution condemning Uganda’s anti-gay bill. “The proposed Ugandan bill not only threatens human rights, it also reverses so many of the gains that Uganda has made in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” said Berman. The bill has 38 co-sponsors, but only one — Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) — is a Republican."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)