Answering a Question

In a letter to the Enquirer:

Federal marriage amendment needed

Supporters of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman have been called bigots. This proposed amendment is identical to the Defense of Marriage Act passed by 427 members of Congress and signed into law by former President Clinton. Are they bigots, too? The ultimate goal of homosexual marriage isn't the relationship of any two people. It is to change national policy to say that gender, especially in raising children, doesn't matter, even though history and research show children do best when raised by a married mother and father. For the sake of our children, a federal amendment protecting traditional marriage is necessary.

Pete Shockey, Taylor Mill

To answer your question Mr. Shockey "are they bigots, too?" Yes, yes they are. I will say you too are a bigot Mr. Shockey. Which should not be a surprise, or shock, to you. I at least give you a little bit of credited for at least putting your objections out in the open. You fear gender equality. You fear individuals you don't like having children. I fear that too, like I fear if you have any children, but I don't seek to make it illegal or place legal hurdles trying to prevent it. Mr. Shockey, if you want to be a an anti-homosexual bigot, fine, I don't care. If you want to institutionalize your bigotry, then I care. There are plenty of single parent households out there. I happen to be the son of a father raised by a single mother. This was during the 40's and 50's when being a boy from a broken home was a black mark on you. Guess what Mr. Shockey. My father went to college, as had my Grandmother, raised three kids, was a public educator for 35 years and now lives with my mother and mostly plays golf while battling Parkinson's disease. I would say single parents do just fine. If they are gay or not it does not matter. If there are two parents there, all the better, where they are the same sex or not. You can take your uncited studies made by unnamed people and frankly, shove it.

Took the Bait

Marcus Carey, chairman of the Republican Party in Kentucky's 4th congressional district, is frankly, a fool. He is all in bother over last week's George Clooney column where George threw down the gauntlet and said don't attack my dad (Nick) by attacking me, it wont work. Well for some stupid reason, Carey does just that. I have to wonder why Carey bothers? It will not work. People love Nick Clooney and think he is a nice guy. I bet their are plenty of people who don't even know that George is his son. More over, if they do or now know, they do not care. It is funny how Carey tries, after cherry picking on George, makes references to Nick's alleged opinions saying he said this or said that, but makes no reference to when or where or exactly what Nick said on the issues. He does not even quote him, just says he said these things, like claiming "any American who would own a gun is a barbarian." It would have been nice to read a real quote of that, instead of a claim with no support.

On Carey's attempt at humor, I would just point out that George's also did mention that a GOP take over of the 4th district seat would be a Return of the Killer Tomatoes.

Theocrats

Michael at Rantophilia feels I have "gone too far" in referring to those who advocate mixing religion and government as theocrats. I could have gone much further, but I don't. What Michael appears to be criticizing me on is that I either don't name names (which religious sects) or that I am painting anyone who wants more religion in government as theocratic.

I can name names. It is clear that most conservative Christian denominations that put out spokes people want a theocracy. The problem here is that Michael may not understand what I mean by theocracy and my reference to Iran. That also plays into my "generalization" about those who want any religion in government.

If you want religion into government then I am guessing (or you could say generalizing) that 95% of those people want their religion into government, not any religion. They don't want Wicca or Islam or Hindu beliefs or the belief that the Grand Canyon is the ruler of the Universe put equally into government. Most want Christianity because most people in the country are Christian and most of those pushing for mixing government and religion on any level are advocates or repeating what they heard in churches that advocate a "Christian Nation."

Now, do I believe most people who answered yes to putting more government want a Iranian style theocracy? No, I doubt they even now what a theocracy is. I do think that those same people would care if we did outlaw certain religious beliefs or mandated certain religious practices in the country, like saying oaths where one pledges allegiance to a Christian "God."

I don't honestly fear we are going to end up like Iran. I think their enough people out there who like porn, beer, swearing, and watching football on Sundays to keep freedom alive. What I do fear is a continuation of a society where atheists are often considered either communists or devil worshipers, therefore considered subhuman or outright criminal. This idea is manifest mostly plainly in the fact that no openly atheist person could be elected to any significant public office in the country.

There are many groups that make me fear theocracy. I think if one reads some of their beliefs you might share my fears. One of biggest and most troublesome is that of the Texas Republican Party. Their 2002 party platform (pdf) is filled with the following gems:

We believe that human life is sacred because each person is created in the image of God, that life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the point of natural death, and that all innocent human life must be protected.

[...]

“God Bless Texas!”

[...]

Christian Nation – The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian nation,
which was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible. We also affirm the right of each individual to worship in the religion of his or her choice.
Religion – The Party acknowledges that the church is a God–ordained institution with a sphere of authority separate from that of civil government; thus, churches, synagogues and other places of worship, including home Bible study groups, should not be regulated, controlled, or taxed by any level of civil government, including the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. We reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government property, and freedom from governmental interference.


[...]

Free Exercise of Religion – The Party believes all Americans have the right to practice their religious faith free of persecution, intimidation, and violence. We call on Congress to sanction any country that is guilty of persecuting its citizens because of their religious beliefs. Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State. We support the right of individuals and state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments on public property subject to their control.

Now, with ideas like these in the state platform of the Home State of sitting President, you really my fears are totally unfounded? The GOP leadership in Texas is advocating a theocracy. It is one where as long as you accept that the majority religion is the real one, you can do as you want, with the understanding that you will be social outcasts left out of society. They won't kill you for being atheist, but life would be easier if you just complied with the majority and accepted the state religion. That is not Iran, but is "starting to sound" like it.

Matt Maupin Held Hostage in Iraq

Information on Army Reservist and now Hostage can be found at WCPO, Post, Enquirer, WLWT.

I hope the national press can leave the family alone and not stake out his house, but if you were to drive over there, which I do NOT sugguest you actually do, you would likely find national journalists holding vigil. I wonder if they are all staying at the Holiday Inn at Eastgate.

More Red Herrings, More Hypocrisy, Just a Typical Day for Peter Bronson

I should have seen this coming from Bronson. Who else but Peter Bronson would seize upon a chance to blame Bill Clinton for something? It would be refreshing if one Republican would take responsibility for something, instead of blaming someone else for not doing what they could have done.

Bronson needs to rethink what he is saying. He claims the media is not covering the story he wants to hear. Well, guess what Peter, the media is covering it. You are writing about it, and if you listen to talk radio or watch FOX News, that is about all you heard about during the 9/11 hearings. What is funny here is that Peter blames the Media for doing the bidding of the Democrats and he does that by quoting local Republican Congressmen. Peter, did you get their press releases by fax or email? Classic hypocrisy there Pete. Do what I say, not what I do?

Bronson’s attempt to tar Gorelick, pronounced "gor-ell-ick", not "Gore Lick” which is what I hope Bronson was not joking about in his opening, is a classic red herring ploy. She is getting death threats by the way, likely from talk radio type cranks. Everything in politics these days is a red herring ploy, but this is a bit different. Critics have had going on 2 years to bring this up. Ashcroft had the knowledge, as did Bush and his leadership, that Gorelick wrote the memo getting people like Bronson in such a tizzy. WHY didn’t Ashcroft object to her being appointed in the beginning? If she had such a damning conflict of interest, why not mention that before they started things off? Gee, you don’t think he withheld the information and selectively declassify it just so he could gain politically? No, that is just not possible. He would not wait months to do that, just to make a DRAMTIC statement in the hearings, our honest AG is not that shallow is he? When I hear him criticized by Bill Frist, maybe that would support his honesty, until then, we can all bank on the game of blame being the GOP’s only play.


Most laughable from the column is this from Rob Portman:

'What Bush did in eight months was more aggressive than what Clinton did in eight years,'' Portman said.

Mr. Portman, my congressman by the way, what the hell did Bush do during those eight months? Some details? Anything? If he really did more in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years, why could he not prevent 9/11? Clinton's team prevented LAX from being bombed during the Millennium celebration. I mean, if Bush such a stud, he surely would have done that in 8 months? Right? Oh, sorry, I forgot he had Iraq on his mind.

Silence?

Ok, everyone who reads my blog knows I am a very big supporter of gay rights, but I find this kind of protest to be not very productive. It could be viewed as something of a joke. I respect the person trying to do something for gay rights, but I really think the group that started this "Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies," should rethink it. It might work in High Schools or younger, where gays are subject to more pier oppression than college, where at most colleges acceptance is becoming more standard practice.

Clooney's Cash

Nick Clooney has set a record in fundraising for the House district in Kentucky he is trying to win. He is well positioned to win. Will he? The last polls I read about had him up significantly. I think he name might just keep that seat for the Dems.