Thursday, September 27, 2007
General Pace was quoted as saying "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts...So the 'don't ask, don't tell' (policy) allows an individual to serve the country...if we know of immoral acts, regardless of committed by who, then we have a responsibility." He went on to compare homosexuality to adultery.
"So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity," he added.
General Pace, who is set to retire next week, had an opportunity yesterday to clarify his statements during a Senate hearing. He hardly budged on the topic by saying "I would be very willing and able and supportive" of a change in military policy "to continue to allow the homosexual community to contribute to the nation without condoning what I believe to be activity - whether it be heterosexual or homosexual - that in my upbringing is not right".
Someone, please tell me why anyone's personal beliefs should dictate U.S. military policy. And why should his, or anyone else's, personal beliefs trump mine? By allowing him to make that judgment, we are basically saying that his personal beliefs are superior to mine. Who exactly is in charge of determining that, and why?
What really needs to be determined is, is it in the military's best interest to allow homosexuals to serve openly? Actually this should be a non-issue. Anyone who is willing to die for our country should be able to sleep with whomever one wants. Why is it anyone's business? As a country we shouldn't allow self-appointed moral "leaders" to dictate any U.S. policy. The overall rights of an individual American should not be trumped by any one person's individual beliefs. Remember, we are all Americans first, without regard to religious beliefs or sexual orientation.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
I promised to keep my devoted blog fan(s), I think I have one or two, updated on the beloved Senator; and, I didn't want to disappoint, so here it is.
The judge, deciding on whether to throw out Senator Craig's guilty plea of disorderly conduct in an airport bathroom sex sting, said he won't rule on the case until late next week. In turn, Senator Craig released a statement today, announcing that he won't resign on Sept. 30th as originally planned, but will now wait until the judge makes his ruling.
Isn't this rich? A Republican sex scandal that just won't go away. Too bad it couldn't hang-on until the November 2008 election. But I have hope; I'm sure with the lucky streak the Republicans are having, they are sure to encounter more scandals between now and then. Until then, stay tuned because this story is definitely going to be continued . . .
Supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment, in Florida, are attempting to get a measure on the November 2008 ballot. According to FloridaToday.com, supporters of this amendment include the Florida Republican Party, Florida Baptist Convention, Florida Catholic Conference and fundamentalist Christian groups. Big surprise!
Many Christian groups have adopted the motto of "hate the sin, love the sinner". I guess it's alright to love the "sinner", in this case, as long as his legal rights are denied in the process. That way of thinking is a little contradictory, don't you think?
On September 13, 2007, the Daytona Beach News Journal reported, in an editorial, that the group behind this proposed amendment will likely get its issue on next year's ballot. They have raised more than $500,000 and should have the required number of signatures by February 1, 2008.
The wording for the proposed amendment is: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
If this group gets its way, it will not only ban same-sex marriage, but will also ruin any chance of providing domestic partnership protection for any couple, in the future. It's bad enough to deny the gay community its legal rights, but the wording of this amendment can also impact others (gay or straight alike). As an example, unmarried straight senior citizens living together, for financial reasons, would also be denied the benefit of legal protection.
If this doesn't sit well with you, then you are not alone. There is something you can do to counteract these attempts at writing discrimination into the Florida State Constitution. If you are a registered voter in the state of Florida, please vote "NO", on the proposed amendment if it makes its way onto the November 2008 ballot. Otherwise, you can make a donation to an organization, tirelessly fighting against this measure. Fairness for All Families can be reached by clicking on the following link. Their website takes donations (the minimum is only $1).
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Senator Craig so desperately wants to clear his name, and I can't say that I blame him. His long career in politics is pretty much over; and, his own Republican party really just wants him to go away. The Republicans have had one immoral scandal after another lately. That combined with an extremely unpopular President has them all trying to distance themselves from Craig as much as possible. Poor guy! If he weren't so selfish and hypocritical, I'd almost feel sorry for him.
But what about his wife and his grown adopted children? They have been relentless in their support and continue to stand by their man. Remember the flack Hillary Clinton got for being accused of doing the same? But I digress.
Getting back to the topic at hand, Senator Craig has put his plans to resign on "hold", until it is determined if he can withdraw his guilty plea. The senator has petitioned the court to do just that. He claims that he panicked into admitting to a crime he did not commit in the hope that it would just go away. But it didn't.
Now the prosecutor in the case has filed papers of his own. Airport prosecutor, Christopher Renz wrote that Craig "had hoped that he could plead guilty and that the plea would not be discovered by the media or public. The defendant chose to plead guilty and consciously took that risk. The defendant’s current pursuit of withdrawal of his guilty plea is reactionary, calculated and political."
Renz also warned the court that if Craig is successful in withdrawing his plea, it could lead to a "deluge" of other defendants seeking to do the same.
Many legal analysts, have "weighed in", on the subject and the conclusions are pretty much identical: He doesn't stand a chance. But Senator Craig selfishly pushes onward, in spite of the embarrassment to his family and the pressure from the Republican Party to resign.
A judge is scheduled to hear the case tomorrow, Wednesday Sept. 26th. Check back here to see if Senator Craig's ship will go down, and to see if he brings the Republican Party with him.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Brace yourselves. If you haven't already heard, in a new tell-all autobiography Maureen McCormick, better known as Marcia Brady, is rumored to reveal that not only did she have a crush on Eve Plumb (a.k.a. Jan Brady), but they had also once fooled around. Harper Collins will be publishing the memoirs, tentatively titled Here’s the Story, in 2008. The book will detail Maureen’s life as a child actress, her bout with drug addiction, as well as her struggle with an eating disorder and depression.
At this point, Harper Collins is denying the rumor about the sexual liaison between Maureen and Eve. But stay tuned ladies and gentlemen. The Brady’s never seem to disappoint us with their revealing stories from yesteryear. And for some reason they still seem to fascinate America even after being off of the air for more than 30 years.
As a side note: I found this great video on http://www.youtube.com/ of Maureen McCormick saying, "Vagina, Vagina, Vagina . . .". It's hilarious and completely timely, but you know technology -- sometimes it doesn't cooperate. The owner of the video won't allow anyone to embed it on another website. So if you want to see this very brief video, do a search on youtube with the words (spelled as): Marsha Brady. It's worth it.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
For decades religion has had a presence in Washington, D.C. Most faiths are represented, including: Catholics, Southern Baptists, United Methodists, Reform Jews and Quakers, just to name a few. Some of these lobbyist groups serve as the voice for individual denominations, while others represent a larger body of associations. Religious lobbyist groups concern themselves with issues ranging from loosening immigration policy, to anti-abortion measures and of course, working against gay rights.
Many of the religious lobbyists have exerted their power to help push the passage of positive and important legislation, such as civil rights in the 1960s, ending the Vietnam War in the 1970s, and the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. However, over the last decade or so, there has been an enormous uprising against the gay community by many of these organizations. We have also seen the emergence of groups like The Christian Coalition, The Family Research Council, and the American Family Association all of which work to decry anything they deem to be “immoral”, including or especially, homosexuality.
The groups working to “save the institution of marriage” are not only attempting to claim the word, marriage, as their own, but are also attempting to deny the gay community their basic legal rights, as Americans. Not all of the religious lobbying groups are anti-gay. Episcopalians and The United Methodists, for instance, are known to be gay-friendly.
The fight in the gay community isn’t about faith, or religious belief; it’s about having legal and equal protection under the law. Let me be clear, it’s about legal rights, not religious beliefs! This is very important. In the larger picture, one truly has nothing to do with the other. The only binding force between the two is the word, “marriage”.
By denying legal and equal protection to the gay community, the law is denying hospital visitation, inheritance rights of property, and adoption of children to long-term same-sex couples.
So if as an example, I were to be on my death-bed at the hospital and my doctor told everyone to leave the room except my family, my partner of more than nine years would have to leave. He would legally be denied the right to hold my hand and comfort me through my final hours. Then after my death, my half of the home we both share (financially, domestically and spiritually) would be inherited by my next of kin. If my kin wanted to liquidate their share, then they could force my partner to sell his own house.
Granted, there are ways to legally protect property through the terms in a will, as well as the terms on a property deed. However, paying to protect one’s self through a legal contract does not guarantee that the legal contract won’t be contested in a court of law (and many have been). Also, drawing-up legal contracts is costly, often ranging into the thousands of dollars; whereas, if one were able to marry his/her same-sex partner these protections would simply be afforded to them like any other married heterosexual couple. It would be automatic protection, under the law.
Remember, these powerful religious lobbying organizations operate tax-free under the federal law. So, before the next time you or your church-going loved ones tithe, ask questions and do some light investigative work because your money could very well be going to deny yourself, or your family and friends their legal rights.
Below is an example of how giving money in church funnels its way to work against the gay community. Please understand that this example IS an accurate path that church money takes; however in all fairness, the Southern Baptist Convention is NOT THE ONLY group to lobby against gay rights. Click on the chart below to enlarge it.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Back in 2000, California voted on and ultimately passed proposition 22, a state measure defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Now several California cities are bringing a legal brief before the state’s Supreme Court, asking to have the ban on same-sex marriage overturned.
Recently the city of San Diego voted on whether or not to join with the other California cities on this legal brief. Up until yesterday, San Diego's Mayor, Jerry Sanders, had pledged to veto the city council's decision, if they were to agree to join in on the action. Repeatedly he voiced his support for civil unions only.
On Tuesday, the city council voted to support the legal brief and in a surprising "about face", the Mayor announced that he would not veto the action as previously promised. In his emotional speech he explained why, in good consciousness, he would no longer be able to veto the decision. He cited not being able to tell an entire group that they were less important, less worthy, or less deserving because of their sexual orientation. While fighting back tears, he said that his decision came down to “doing the right thing” and took into account his lesbian daughter and members of his staff who are gay.
Now the measure will move forward with the support of San Diego.
If you haven’t already watched the footage of this unedited video, take a minute to see this emotional speech. It brought tears to my eyes knowing that good people want me and my community to be treated fairly, under the law. Inch-by-inch things are slowly beginning to change. It only takes a few good-hearted people, like the Mayor of San Diego, to take a stand against discrimination. I hope you’ll talk openly with your family and friends and encourage them to support legal rights for the gay community everywhere.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't withdraw from Iraq. Premier Bush has gotten the United States of America into quite a quagmire. I guess that's nothing new to most of us. And, for as long as I've tried to avoid writing about our current President, I find that I can't ignore this lose-lose situation any longer.
From the beginning of President Bush's tenure (long before September 11th 2001), he had been pushing his own agenda. That agenda included doing away with Saddam Hussein and gaining access to the one of the most oil rich countries in the world; although, Bush would never admit that. Instead he has used many other reasons to justify the invasion of Iraq. It's just that as each excuse was proven invalid, he was forced to create another one.
The original justification to engage Iraq, we were told, was that they had weapons of mass-destruction. Then the American people were told that Iraq was involved in the September 11th attacks and was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda. When it was proven that neither of these reasons were accurate, the excuse morphed into America must save the Iraqi people from a crazed dictator; and, President Bush then tried to convince America that Iraqis were starved for democracy (this is still very much debatable).
Yes, Saddam was a bad guy and he was terrible to many of his own people; however, President Bush didn't count on the inevitable civil war or the actual welcome-mat Iraq's loose borders would provide for Al-Qaeda once Saddam was removed. Now that Saddam is gone, and Iraq's borders are no longer protected from insurgents, Al-Qaeda has long since set-up shop. Instability and chaos rule in Iraq and oil is still not flowing freely from the country.
So I sit here and often think, why are we there? Whatever the real reason, it's just not good enough. I want the war to be over with just as much as most other Americans do. And, I want our troops to start coming home. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it? But it's not.
Another factor in this mess of a war, is Iran. Many think that if we pull out of Iraq, Iran will move in and take over, thus controlling more of the region and the oil that goes along with it. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), with close ties to The White House, has been pushing its own agenda. At a recent panel discussion, the AEI and many close to the think-tank, were promoting Iran as the existential enemy out to destroy the world.
James Woolsey, former CIA director, also present, was concerned about Iran obtaining nuclear capability and said, "If our survival is at stake and they [Iranians] are readying themselves to attack us, we will bomb them".
Remember, Iran is rumored to be in the process of obtaining atomic weapons. But then again, so was Iraq. So I can't say for certain what the Iranian government is up to. Are they really waiting for America and our allies to leave Iraq so they can step in and make life more difficult for us? Are we safe to withdraw our troops or will we have to have a presence in Iraq indefinitely? Whatever the answers, one thing is for sure, President Bush has created quite a problem for the next President of the United States.
As we wait and see what happens next, keep these sobering statistics in mind: the average monthly cost of the Iraq war is $6 billion; as of today 3,787 American soldiers have died in Iraq and 27,848 American soldiers have been wounded; now compare that to the 2,819 victims killed during the Sept. 11th attacks and then remember that Osama Bin Laden is still on the run somewhere in Pakistan.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Okay anyone who knows me well, knows that I am not a fan of rap. Not only do I dislike rap, but I can't relate to it. And admittedly, I'm really not too knowledgeable about the rap world or Ja Rule, for that matter. However, I have to say in light of my post (below) regarding Ja Rule's homophobic comments in Complex magazine, I secretly enjoy his song Always on Time, featuring Ashanti. It's a finger snapping pleasure. Quite possibly, I might enjoy Ashanti's soulful voice than anything else in the song. But in the spirit of full disclosure, I have posted Ja Rule's video of Always on Time.
If the truth really should be known, then I'm really just showing-off my ability to include video in my blog -- LOL! If so inclined, after viewing Ja Rule's brief video, please see the post below for my serious take on his hurtful words.
You've got to wonder about those who are irrationally outspoken against homosexuality. If one is truly at peace and comfortable with his own beliefs and sexuality, then why pick a public platform to voice such combative passion? It makes me wonder what the "real" fight is all about. It reminds me of the Shakespearean quote, "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks". This famous line has come to mean that those who protest too much have something to hide. And, although Ja Rule (the thug-like rap star) is reportedly married with children, his latest tirade in Complex magazine, makes me question what his fuss is really all about.
Ja Rule recently went on record in an interview with the magazine accusing the gay community of "fucking up America". He said, "Let's talk about all these fucking shows that they have on MTV that is promoting homosexuality, that my kids can't watch this shit". He went on to say, "Dating shows that's showing two guys or two girls in mid-afternoon. Let's talk about shit like that! If that's not fucking up America, I don't know what is."
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is calling for media outlets to ban his press coverage because of his hateful remarks. A statement posted on GLAAD's website reads, "No fair-minded person can look at Ja Rule's interview with Complex magazine and believe for one second that his children could be more harmed by what they might see on television than by the vulgarity and prejudice that comes out of their father's mouth."
I agree, in part, with GLAAD. Ja Rule's words are very hurtful and filled with venomous anger. And, I believe that words (in general) are not only filled with important meaning, but are also filled with energy that can change the world for good or for bad. Simply put, his words have a life of their own and are dangerous to the young people who are exposed to them.
I however think that a media ban, a.k.a. censorship, is not the answer. To practice what I preach, I must say that this is America and Ja Rule should be free to express his thoughts. Instead of a media ban, I think Ja Rule should be educated on diversity and on the power his words have to make a positive difference. Well respected community leaders, such as Rev. Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton, should step up to the plate and offer Ja Rule their guidance and counseling.
Whether his motivation, or close-minded bigotry, comes from latent homosexuality, hatred, or just miseducation, I am hopeful that Ja Rule will see the err of his ways and soon rise to a healthier dialog. He has a basic responsibility and owes it to himself, to his impressionable audience and to the world.
For more information on GLAAD, follow this link to their website: http://www.glaad.org/
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Can you imagine getting fired from your job because of your sexual orientation? Well, that is exactly what happens, legally, in 31 states across America every year. This situation should not be taken lightly. Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgendered (GLBT) people can lose their jobs because of who they are. This means that these people can lose their ability to pay their rent, to buy health insurance, and to put food on their tables. How can our country allow this?
If Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; and Christopher Shays, R-Conn. have their way, then this outrageous practice will come to an end. These legislators are working to pass a bi-partisan bill known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. Put quite simply, ENDA would make it illegal for an employer to fire someone because of their sexual orientation, in all of the 50 states.
Getting ENDA passed is not a simple task. It requires enough support from other U.S. legislators to get the votes needed to become a law. It only takes a few minutes to encourage your state representative to vote for this important legislation.
The link below will take you to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) website. Once in the HRC website, you might already see a link for ENDA, if so, just follow it. If you don't see the link for ENDA, then click on the "Take Action" button, on the left. From there, scroll down and click on the "End Workplace Discrimination" link and fill out the form. A pre-written letter, that can be modified if you wish, will be sent to your U.S. representative.
If enough of us make it known to our representatives that we support ENDA, then it will have a chance to pass and become law. Please take just a few minutes and let your support be known.
Please click here for HRC: http://www.hrc.org/
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The good news is, Kathy Griffin finally won an Emmy award for her Bravo network reality show, My Life on the D-List. The bad news is, her acceptance speech will be censored when the award show is aired this weekend. It will not be censored for her incessant use of profanity, but instead censored for her choice of words used to mock Christianity. In her speech, Griffin said that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus." She then made a derogatory comment about Christ and proclaimed, "This award is my god now."
When listening to Kathy Griffin speak, on any topic, one must put her words into perspective and into the context of which it was said. After all, she is a comedian and makes her living off of making people squirm from her, often, politically incorrect act. And although it is an act, she is obviously opinionated on the subject of Christianity and the way some groups practice their faith. Offended or not by her remarks, let me remind you that she is free to express her beliefs just like any other American.
I just happened to agree with her, at least, about Christ not having anything to do with winning an award. I am, frankly, tired of artists thanking Jesus for helping them win awards in their line of work. Does anyone honestly believe that Jesus wants to bother "fixing" an awards show to pat someone on the back for a job well done, but chooses not to prevent catastrophes like September 11th, the countless suicide bombings in Iraq, or even the sinking of the Titanic, for that matter? Some proclaim that death and war is simply God's will and this is why the Almighty allows tragedy to happen. This explanation is just blind rhetoric to justify the unjustifiable, to explain the unexplainable.
Can't people just win awards because they are good at what they do? Does the Lord above have to have a hand in everything? I mean, what's the point in life if Jesus were to control everything? I find it hard to believe that we are just puppets playing out our role as He has written it. As many good Christians understand, He gave us free will to choose. Shouldn't we also understand that sometimes that same free will could have won us awards on our own?
The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has made it clear that if some one's opinion differs from mainstream beliefs then it should not be heard. This is the real tragedy. Why are they so afraid to let Kathy Griffin be heard? This is America, founded on free speech. Let her speak, oh, and they should get a sense of humor while they're at it.
Keep up with Kathy at her official website: http://www.kathygriffin.net/
Friday, September 7, 2007
U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R), from Wisconsin, is a very lucky man. He is a lottery winner several times over. His first win of $250,000 was from a 1997 District of Columbia lottery. Since then, he also won a $1,000 prize from Wisconsin last spring and another $1,000 last week.
Oh, and did I mention he comes from a family of privilege? That's right, he is a member of the family that helped build Kimberly-Clark Corp., the maker of Kleenex tissue and Scott paper towels. His net worth was recently reported as $11.6 million.
I'm not sure if he has made any charitable contributions yet, but if he hasn't, I have a few suggestions. One charity he might consider, Families of Spinal Muscular Atrophy. They sure could use the money and it would be a great tax write-off.
Families of Spinal Muscular Atrophy can be linked to by clicking here: http://www.fsma.org/
To encourage Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner to donate his money, he can be reached in Washington, D.C. at (202) 225-5101. To reach your U.S. Representative click here: http://www.house.gov/
The same judge who over-turned the ban on same-sex marriage, quickly stayed his decision until the Iowa State Supreme Court could decide if they would hear an appeal on his ruling.
The lucky couple, Timothy McQuillan and Sean Fritz, are at least for now, married in the state of Iowa.
The only on other state to allow same-sex marriage is Massachusetts. New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont have legalized same-sex civil unions, offering most of the same privileges and responsibilities as marriage. California offers civil partnerships.
The court's decision in Iowa is a significant advancement in the gay rights movement; however, many opponents of gay marriage are continuing their call for a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage. “This is the misguided decision of one person,” Chris Stovall, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said of the judge's ruling. “I don’t think it represents at all what Iowa thinks. People across America and certainly in Iowa, in the heartland, understand that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.”
The fight is hardly over, on the contrary, it really has only just begun. Many of us will be waiting very patiently to find out how the Iowa State Supreme Court will handle this request for an appeal and the outcome of that decision. Until then, I will hold back my tears of joy and very cautiously celebrate each tiny step forward.
For more information on this case or to make a contribution to Lambda Legal, please use the following link: http://www.lambdalegal.org/
Thursday, September 6, 2007
There just aren't enough words to express how saddened I was to hear that Sgt. Lovejoy, a Phoenix police officer, had left his police dog in his patrol car, for more than 13 hours, ultimately leading to the dog's death. The outside temperatures, that day, had reached 109 degrees Fahrenheit while the officer ran errands, took a nap and ate out with his wife. I have no idea how high the temperature had reached inside his patrol car, but it must have been hot enough to literally bake his dog to death.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
My good friend, Jorge, told me about a really fun animated series that's all the rage on the Internet, called Planet Unicorn. As simplistic as it is, it's also hilarious and very addictive.
Creators, Mike Rose and Tyler Spiers, please give us more!
Check it out at:
Britain is voting today on whether to permit using animal eggs to create human stem cells for research purposes. The process if permitted, would involve using a cow or rabbit egg, with most of it's own DNA removed, and injecting it with human genetic material. The modified egg would be induced to divide and become an early embryo from which to extract stem cells in the hopes of finding treatments or cures for many genetic diseases (such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Spinal Muscular Atrophy). This process is being considered because of the limited supply of human eggs and, if approved, each project would be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Scientists ensure that the resulting egg would only serve as a house for the human embryo, with only minute amounts of the animal's genes remaining.
Dr. David King, the director of the independent watchdog group Human Genetics Alert, said allowing such research to go forward would be the first step toward producing genetically modified babies.
I have to admit that the description of the process does conjure up some weird images and kind of gave me the creeps at first. But as an advocate for human embryonic stem cell research, and as someone who has a personal stake in this science, I say let Britain give it a try.
This science is closely monitored and exists solely for the purpose of doing good, finding treatments or possible cures for many crippling diseases.
I have a genetic disease, Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), Type III. Basically SMA, Type III is a motor-neuron disease which causes the motor-neurons of voluntary muscles to misfire or even die off. The result is a body full of atrophied muscles not able to function properly.
I am still able to walk (with the assistance of a cane, as of Oct. 2006). Unfortunately for me, it is becoming increasingly harder to walk or even rise from a seated position. I am aware that there are many more people in the US, or even throughout the world that are worse off than I am. Admittedly, and very selfishly, I'd like to see a cure or even a treatment for SMA in my life-time (especially while I am still able to walk). Time is of the essence for me, and many more people like me. Unfortunately strides in this research have been slow going, in large part to the reluctance of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
Please urge your own legislators, here in the US, to think out of the box and allow expanded federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
To find out more information on SMA and/or to contact your senator please use the links below:
Families of Spinal Muscular Atrophy http://www.fsma.org/
United States Senate http://www.senate.gov/
Come on Senator Craig, give it up! When Senator Larry Craig (R), from Idaho, was arrested in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, he first said he would not resign. Then soon after, he announced that he would step down. Now once again, his camp is saying he'll reconsider.
Please indulge me for a brief second while I recap this Senator's voting record on gay-rights issues. Senator Craig has voted against gay marriage, job discrimination based on sexual orientation, gays serving openly in the military, and hate crimes legislation. Now, do I have to point out the obvious or can everyone see the hypocrisy in this situation?
Senator Craig still has the support of his family, including his three adopted children. "Our conclusion was there was no wrongdoing there," his son, Jay Craig said. "He was a victim of circumstance, in the wrong place at the wrong time when this sting operation was going on."
Wow, what a coincidence. I find it kind of odd that someone who has been such an out-spoken critic of gay-rights just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it was a coincidence, then I guess his karma was finally just catching up with him.
But I'm a little more cynical than that. I mean, he did plead guilty -- right? There is no misunderstanding of what happened. It seems to me that those who protest too much, have some deep rooted issues. And, I don't think Senator Craig is any different.
His gay-rights voting record combined with his guilty plea is maddening. Please Senator Craig, do us all a favor (especially for your own political party) and step aside.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
It's great he was so fast to try to make things right, but you can't take that word back. The word he used is hurtful and has a lasting impact.