Its funny how alliances switch back and forth ... Walmart has long been targeted by the more 'liberal' members of society for various reasons, but now, many conservative people are taking Walmart to task because of that company's (thought to be) 'friendly attitude' toward gay vendors, and we are seeing some of the 'traditional enemies' starting to become friends and some of the long time friends becoming hostile. Odd, isn't it? PAT
Conservative plan to protest Wal-Mart By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Long under fire from the left, Wal-Mart is now a target of Christian conservatives urging shoppers to boycott the huge retailer's post-Thanksgiving sales because of its low-key outreach to some gay-rights organizations.
One group, the American Family Association, is asking supporters to stay away from Wal-Mart on Friday and Saturday — two of the busiest shopping days of the year. Another group, Operation Save America, plans prayer-and-preaching rallies outside many Wal-Mart stores on Friday.
The corporate actions that triggered the protests were little different from those taken by scores of major companies in recent years — Wal-Mart paid $25,000 this summer to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and donated $60,000 to Out and Equal, which promotes gay-rights advances in the workplace.
Conservative leaders viewed these actions as a betrayal of Wal-Mart's traditions, which have included efforts to weed out magazines with racy covers and CDs with explicit lyrics.
"This has been Christian families' favorite store — and now they're giving in, sliding down the slippery slope so many other corporations have gone down," said the Rev. Flip Benham of Operation Save America. "They're all being extorted by the radical homosexual agenda."
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. spokesman David Tovar said the company's outreach to the gay-rights groups was part of a broader effort to best serve its diverse customer base.
"We take pride that we treat every customer, every supplier, every member of our communities fairly and equally," Tovar said Tuesday. "We do not have a position on same-sex marriage. ... What we do have is a strong commitment to diversity. We're against discrimination everywhere."
Justin Nelson, president of the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, said conservative activists had misrepresented his business-oriented group as a leading advocate of gay marriage in order to tarnish Wal-Mart.
"Their campaign has not been to educate, but to mislead," he said.
Wal-Mart ranks in the middle among companies rated by the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group, for workplace policies toward gays. Scores of companies now have a perfect 100 rating, while Wal-Mart's rating has risen from 14 in 2002 to 65 this year as it added sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination code and offered some domestic-partner benefits.
Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said he spoke with a Wal-Mart executive Tuesday and came away confident the company would continue efforts to promote workplace equality for gays.
Tim Wildmon, the American Family Association's president, said he and his allies had not ruled out extending the boycott against Wal-Mart, depending on how the company responded to the weekend protests.
"They are so gigantic, it's hard to make a dent," he said. "We're just trying to see if there's some measurable effect this weekend, see if we can get their attention."
Wildmon said Wal-Mart had been responsive to conservative pressure on a different issue, approving use of the word "Christmas" in advertising and employee greetings this season after shifting to a "happy holidays" phrasing last year.
That campaign was one of the first times Wal-Mart came under sustained criticism from the right. Far more often, it has been a target of left-of-center groups, such as WakeUpWalMart.com, complaining that the company pays low wages, skimps on employee benefits and outsources too many jobs.
The company has responded by adding low-cost health care plans, launching environmental programs and increasing diversity among employees and suppliers.
Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, sent a letter Tuesday to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott urging the company not to cede to the boycott.
"We not only look forward to Wal-Mart remaining steadfast in its support for equal rights, but to the coming day when Wal-Mart will do what is truly right — become a better employer," Blank wrote.
Gary Chaison, an industrial relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., said the conflicting pressures on Wal-Mart are "the price of being big and having many constituencies."
"Everyone expects Wal-Mart, because it has so many stores, to set the moral tone for America," he said. "The company has been trying to find a middle road, and it's had a great deal of difficulty doing that."
Another major corporation, Ford Motor Co., already is the target of an American Family Association boycott because it advertises in gay publications and supports gay-rights groups.
The Tupelo, Miss.-based AFA says 550,000 people have signed a pledge to boycott Ford and it takes partial credit for the company's financial problems. Ford spokesman Oscar Suris declined comment; an industry analyst, University of Detroit professor Michael Bernacchi, was doubtful the boycott was having much impact.
___
On the Net:
Wal-Mart statement: http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4617.aspx
American Family Association: http://www.afa.net/
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Monday, November 13, 2006
Are They or Are They Not Chnstians?
"He said I wasn't a Christian": teaching confirmation class at a liberal Episcopal parish
Yesterday afternoon (after the long run, before going off to Borat), I spent a few hours with our 2006-2007 Seekers Confirmation Class at All Saints Pasadena. We've got about 19 kids this year, and it looks like another wonderful group. The dear Susan Russell came to talk to us, and she was, as always, a hit with her candor, her humor, and her knack for turning the perfect phrase to appeal to adults and youth alike.
In our discussion, one topic came up that always comes up, and one that I haven't blogged on before: the common experience All Saints youth have of being told "you're not a real Christian." Especially in recent years, as All Saints Pasadena has gained national prominence for its fight with the IRS and our bold stance in favor of gay marriage, I've heard from many, many of the teens I work with that they have been subjected to some fairly hurtful remarks from school friends and classmates.
"You're not a real Christian"; "That's not a real church"; "You're the gay church"; "You don't follow the Bible"; "People at All Saints are going to hell" --every one of those comments was uttered to one or another of the kids in my confirmation class in recent months after telling people they attend All Saints Pasadena. Some of our teens met the scorn and derision with pride and defiance; others responded with a shrug; others were genuinely hurt; still others were frankly bewildered.
Few things make me angrier than to have the youth I call "my kids" told that they aren't real Christians. Kids may not be particularly interested in theology, but they are intensely sensitive to judgment -- and to be on the receiving end of so many unkind, cruel remarks is hard for many of them. The church in which they've been baptized, the church in which they are preparing to be confirmed, is under attack -- and for most of them, that means that their parents and many of the grown-ups they know and trust are also under attack. As a thirty-nine year-old, I'm quite happy to cross swords with a fellow believer who questions my salvation or my theology because I endorse same-sex unions; I'm less happy when my fourteen year-olds are told they are going to hell because they worship where they do.
Still, like most of my fellow adult youth leaders, I have no intention of instilling a "martyr complex" in our teens. I'm not going to give them the pathetic "the world hates us for our commitment to Christ" song and dance. One of the least attractive strategies employed by Christian conservatives is to insist to their youth that by adhering to antiquated social mores they are somehow being boldly counter-cultural; I'll be darned if I'm going to foist the left-wing version of that nonsense on to my teens. In a world where real suffering is omnipresent, being told "you're not a Christian" because you worship at an inclusive church is hardly a major form of oppression.
On the other hand, we don't simply encourage a "stiff upper lip". We reminded our kids yesterday that no one issues "Christian credentials." There is no agreed-upon litmus test. While some evangelicals insist that Catholics aren't Christians, and others refuse to acknowledge Mormons as our brothers and sisters in Christ, most sensible believers choose to see all who follow Jesus as authentic Christians. While part of being Christian is certainly holding the person of Jesus Christ as central in one's faith, it is absurd to suggest that only those who believe in biblical inerrancy, for example, are actual Christians. "Being a Christian is about being willing to be on a journey with Jesus", I said, "even if you aren't quite sure who exactly Jesus is and even if you are very unsure of where it is you are going."
Mind you, I think there are limits to who gets to call themselves a "Christian." My mother regularly told my grandmother she wasn't a Christian. My grandmother had been an atheist since she was a student at Berkeley in the 1920s; she read Lucretius (De Rerum Natura), and that did it for her. She rejected the whole idea of a loving God who took an interest in human affairs. Yet she insisted on calling herself a Christian because in her childhood, to be "Christian" was simply to be kind and good. It wasn't a theological statement to her -- it was a statement about how one behaved towards one's fellow citizens. "Doing the Christian thing" referred to taking an active interest in the well-being of others, and had damn all to do with a belief in Jesus. To the end of her life, she was both "atheist and Christian".
While I adored my grandmother, I think she was outside the realm of what a Christian is. A specific belief about the inerrancy of Scripture or sexual morality is not a prerequisite for calling oneself a Christian, a recognition that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is central to one's faith does seem to be essential to using the term accurately. As a youth leader and confirmation teacher, I want to bring my kids closer to Jesus. I want them to love Him not merely as a great role model for righteous praxis but as the greatest of friends, the best of brothers, the most intimate of lovers. That is how I know Him, and that sweet, intimate, spiritually erotic relationship is the most exciting and enriching of my life.
But whatever relationship this year's confirmation crop chooses to develop with Christ, I want them to know that their right to call themselves Christians, their "claiming of the name", is not contingent on any one particular worldview; any one particular political allegiance; any one understanding of how, when, where, and with whom it is good and right to be sexual. And this year, our confirmands will learn that no narrow-minded classmate or friend can rob them of the right to embrace the Holy Name.
Yesterday afternoon (after the long run, before going off to Borat), I spent a few hours with our 2006-2007 Seekers Confirmation Class at All Saints Pasadena. We've got about 19 kids this year, and it looks like another wonderful group. The dear Susan Russell came to talk to us, and she was, as always, a hit with her candor, her humor, and her knack for turning the perfect phrase to appeal to adults and youth alike.
In our discussion, one topic came up that always comes up, and one that I haven't blogged on before: the common experience All Saints youth have of being told "you're not a real Christian." Especially in recent years, as All Saints Pasadena has gained national prominence for its fight with the IRS and our bold stance in favor of gay marriage, I've heard from many, many of the teens I work with that they have been subjected to some fairly hurtful remarks from school friends and classmates.
"You're not a real Christian"; "That's not a real church"; "You're the gay church"; "You don't follow the Bible"; "People at All Saints are going to hell" --every one of those comments was uttered to one or another of the kids in my confirmation class in recent months after telling people they attend All Saints Pasadena. Some of our teens met the scorn and derision with pride and defiance; others responded with a shrug; others were genuinely hurt; still others were frankly bewildered.
Few things make me angrier than to have the youth I call "my kids" told that they aren't real Christians. Kids may not be particularly interested in theology, but they are intensely sensitive to judgment -- and to be on the receiving end of so many unkind, cruel remarks is hard for many of them. The church in which they've been baptized, the church in which they are preparing to be confirmed, is under attack -- and for most of them, that means that their parents and many of the grown-ups they know and trust are also under attack. As a thirty-nine year-old, I'm quite happy to cross swords with a fellow believer who questions my salvation or my theology because I endorse same-sex unions; I'm less happy when my fourteen year-olds are told they are going to hell because they worship where they do.
Still, like most of my fellow adult youth leaders, I have no intention of instilling a "martyr complex" in our teens. I'm not going to give them the pathetic "the world hates us for our commitment to Christ" song and dance. One of the least attractive strategies employed by Christian conservatives is to insist to their youth that by adhering to antiquated social mores they are somehow being boldly counter-cultural; I'll be darned if I'm going to foist the left-wing version of that nonsense on to my teens. In a world where real suffering is omnipresent, being told "you're not a Christian" because you worship at an inclusive church is hardly a major form of oppression.
On the other hand, we don't simply encourage a "stiff upper lip". We reminded our kids yesterday that no one issues "Christian credentials." There is no agreed-upon litmus test. While some evangelicals insist that Catholics aren't Christians, and others refuse to acknowledge Mormons as our brothers and sisters in Christ, most sensible believers choose to see all who follow Jesus as authentic Christians. While part of being Christian is certainly holding the person of Jesus Christ as central in one's faith, it is absurd to suggest that only those who believe in biblical inerrancy, for example, are actual Christians. "Being a Christian is about being willing to be on a journey with Jesus", I said, "even if you aren't quite sure who exactly Jesus is and even if you are very unsure of where it is you are going."
Mind you, I think there are limits to who gets to call themselves a "Christian." My mother regularly told my grandmother she wasn't a Christian. My grandmother had been an atheist since she was a student at Berkeley in the 1920s; she read Lucretius (De Rerum Natura), and that did it for her. She rejected the whole idea of a loving God who took an interest in human affairs. Yet she insisted on calling herself a Christian because in her childhood, to be "Christian" was simply to be kind and good. It wasn't a theological statement to her -- it was a statement about how one behaved towards one's fellow citizens. "Doing the Christian thing" referred to taking an active interest in the well-being of others, and had damn all to do with a belief in Jesus. To the end of her life, she was both "atheist and Christian".
While I adored my grandmother, I think she was outside the realm of what a Christian is. A specific belief about the inerrancy of Scripture or sexual morality is not a prerequisite for calling oneself a Christian, a recognition that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is central to one's faith does seem to be essential to using the term accurately. As a youth leader and confirmation teacher, I want to bring my kids closer to Jesus. I want them to love Him not merely as a great role model for righteous praxis but as the greatest of friends, the best of brothers, the most intimate of lovers. That is how I know Him, and that sweet, intimate, spiritually erotic relationship is the most exciting and enriching of my life.
But whatever relationship this year's confirmation crop chooses to develop with Christ, I want them to know that their right to call themselves Christians, their "claiming of the name", is not contingent on any one particular worldview; any one particular political allegiance; any one understanding of how, when, where, and with whom it is good and right to be sexual. And this year, our confirmands will learn that no narrow-minded classmate or friend can rob them of the right to embrace the Holy Name.
Fairy-Winged Pledges Raped by Frat 'Big Brothers'
Fairy-Winged Pledges Raped by Frat 'Big Brothers'?
11.13.06
By Walter Armstrong
Florida frat boys say they were just being "Big Brothers," but local cops call it a possible case of male-on-male rape.
Responding last week to "loud aggressive screaming and moaning" from the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity on the campus of the University of Central Florida, Orlando police reported finding seven or eight men crawling on their hands and knees and wearing bras, fairy wings, and other bizarre getups.
Three of the young men were so drunk that they had to be hospitalized. One, in a rainbow-colored wig and a diaper, was found sobbing on the floor, and another—wearing a blond wing, pink tank top, and women's panties—was puking. A third, who was wearing pink fairy wings, could not walk (or fly, for that matter).
College hazing is a crime in Florida. That may be one reason that SAE members say the party was a Big Brother event, during which "a fraternity member hangs out with a pledge assigned to him," according to Central Florida News.
But neither the police nor the university is buying it. "The university is looking into three possible concerns: misuse of alcohol, possible hazing, and possible disorderly conduct," spokeswoman Linda Gray said.
In recent years, SAE has taken the school's storied tradition for marathon drinking to new heights. In 2000, four people overdosed on the illegal drug GHB. In a 2003 hazing, pledges were found duct-taped inside a truck—an incident that led to the frat's one-year suspension.
Now their serious partying may land frat members in court for serious crimes, including rape. During a search of the SAE house, the cops reportedly confiscated evidence indicating that numerous sexual assaults may have taken place. Is that any way for a Big Brother to act?
© 2006 RealJock.com; All Rights Reserved.
11.13.06
By Walter Armstrong
Florida frat boys say they were just being "Big Brothers," but local cops call it a possible case of male-on-male rape.
Responding last week to "loud aggressive screaming and moaning" from the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity on the campus of the University of Central Florida, Orlando police reported finding seven or eight men crawling on their hands and knees and wearing bras, fairy wings, and other bizarre getups.
Three of the young men were so drunk that they had to be hospitalized. One, in a rainbow-colored wig and a diaper, was found sobbing on the floor, and another—wearing a blond wing, pink tank top, and women's panties—was puking. A third, who was wearing pink fairy wings, could not walk (or fly, for that matter).
College hazing is a crime in Florida. That may be one reason that SAE members say the party was a Big Brother event, during which "a fraternity member hangs out with a pledge assigned to him," according to Central Florida News.
But neither the police nor the university is buying it. "The university is looking into three possible concerns: misuse of alcohol, possible hazing, and possible disorderly conduct," spokeswoman Linda Gray said.
In recent years, SAE has taken the school's storied tradition for marathon drinking to new heights. In 2000, four people overdosed on the illegal drug GHB. In a 2003 hazing, pledges were found duct-taped inside a truck—an incident that led to the frat's one-year suspension.
Now their serious partying may land frat members in court for serious crimes, including rape. During a search of the SAE house, the cops reportedly confiscated evidence indicating that numerous sexual assaults may have taken place. Is that any way for a Big Brother to act?
© 2006 RealJock.com; All Rights Reserved.
Monday, November 06, 2006
A Double Standard When Homosexuals Get Arrested
Double Standards for Homosexuals
When it comes to the legal system, everyone is treated fairly and equally. That is unless you are gay, then you find yourself in a witch hunt of the worst kind.
By Kathie Gouraly
Posted Monday, October 2, 2006
They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
Readers of this web site are probably aware of the cases of Ken Gourlay and Tim Richards, both of whom are being prosecuted because of allegations by Justin Berry, who is making his accusations in exchange for U. S. Federal immunity from his own numerous crimes, not least of which is producing child pornography with himself as the child star.
Ken's case is being prosecuted by the Michigan Attorney General, while Tim's is being prosecuted in Tennessee by the U. S. Department of Justice, but both are being prosecuted with overwhelming unfairness and with the hysterical tone of a witch hunt.
Ken's case in particular seems to be fodder for the reelection campaign of Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox. Democrat Amos Williams is running against Cox. We believe that if Williams were the Attorney General now, Ken would not be under state prosecution.
Regardless of whether Ken is guilty or innocent, the Attorney General's office has handled Ken's case unjustly in the following ways:
1) They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
2) They set a half-million dollar bond for this non-violent offender with no previous criminal record.
3) In September after discovering that Ken's family had managed to combine resources and pay the bond, they re-arrested Ken with new charges based on information that they had had for 6 weeks but had chosen not to use before.
4) When Ken turned himself in they again alerted and had tv news there.
5) This arrest was coordinated with arrests of seventeen other alleged sex criminals on the same day, an event which the Attorney General publicized with a press conference.
6) This distorted publicity might prejudice thousands of potential jury members, and prevent Ken from getting a fair trial,
7) Ken's new charges were most unusual, 20 charges instead of 1, all for 3rd degree (consensual) sexual conduct with the same person.
8) Instead of a normal sized bond for these charges, and after Cox's prosecuting attorney repeatedly said he saw no need for more bond money, at the arraignment the A.G.'s office asked for an additional one million dollar bond (appearing to be violating the 8th amendment of the Constitution). The purpose of bond is not to keep someone in jail, but to assure that he/she appears in court. All Ken's charges require a bond, ie. they are "bondable".
9) Although Cox has disclaimers on his website saying that the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty, the words and actions of his office negate this.
Although we feel that child sex crimes can be very serious, not all of them are equally so. The obsession of the Michigan Attorney General's office with this issue is working to Michigan's detriment.
Instead, we believe Michigan should be moving forward on a more effective path. We desire a Michigan Attorney General who:
1) Gives attention to ALL types of crimes. In particular, those crimes that extend beyond the bounds of a single local judiciary or involve the local government itself - corporate crimes, utility company crimes, environmental crimes, crimes by the police.
2) Sets the highest ethical standards for fairness, due process, and civil rights.
3) Respects and defends an accused person's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. Does not hold press conferences announcing arrests and does not parade arrested people in chains before television cameras.
4) Does not use high bonds deliberately to detain people.
5) Does not prosecute homosexuals more severely than heterosexuals accused of the same type of crime.
6) Prosecutes offenders of hate crimes against gays and perceived child offenders, both inside and outside prisons, whether perpetrated by inmates or guards, and educates the public to reduce hate crimes.
7) Encourages judges to take into account the circumstances when creating a sentence.
8) Recommends safe, but less severe punishments to encourage sex offenders and their acquaintances to voluntarily come forward.
9) Uses best known sex therapies and electronic monitoring instead of prison to keep society safe, while at the same time saving taxpayer money, minimizing disruption to families, and allowing sex offenders to contribute to society as much as possible.
10) Does not use stings to create criminals.
11) Does not grant immunity in exchange for incriminating evidence.
This is unfair and produces unreliable evidence.
Other issues raised by Ken's case:
1) The media are sensationalizing the case: by using terms such as Ken "lured" Justin to Ann Arbor; calling criminal sexual conduct in the 3rd degree, which is consensual sex, a "rape"; and by reporting Ken's age as a year older than it is.
2) Ken is being treated as guilty before being convicted. Did you know 60% of the people in Michigan jails are there pre-trial? The UN recommends holding such people, if they must be detained at all, in separate facilities from convicted criminals.
3) Ken is being charged with various crimes, and also being charged separately with using the Internet to facilitate those crimes. The Internet charges actually have harsher penalties than the crimes themselves. Why should use of the Internet to plan a crime have a harsher sentence than the crime itself? Why is using the Internet different than using the phone, or using the mail?
4) The U. S. has extremely long sentences and harsh penalties compared to other countries in the world. Did you know that of the 9 million people in prison in the world, 2 million of them are in the United States? Google "The Sentencing Project".
5) The U. S. is schizophrenic about sex. Almost everything is
sexualized: movies, music, clothes, magazines, even cars. Sex is on teenagers minds more than anything else. If two 15 year olds have sex it is considered "sexual experimentation", however if a 15 year old and an 18 year old have sex it is a 15 year felony. Neither of these situations are necessarily good, moral, or appropriate, but they are not very different from each other.
6) Sex offenders are subject to unique, unreasonable, lifetime penalties. Shouldn't it be possible at some point to say someone has been punished enough? Why should former sex criminals have to register for the rest of their lives, when murderers and other assaultive offenders don't have to? Why should former sex criminals be prevented from living near schools or playgrounds when murderers and assaultive criminals can live there. Why should these penalties extend even to someone who was found to have pornography or to have consensual sex with someone they shouldn't have? Why should former sex offenders be forbidden from holding more and more kinds of jobs?
When it comes to the legal system, everyone is treated fairly and equally. That is unless you are gay, then you find yourself in a witch hunt of the worst kind.
By Kathie Gouraly
Posted Monday, October 2, 2006
They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
Readers of this web site are probably aware of the cases of Ken Gourlay and Tim Richards, both of whom are being prosecuted because of allegations by Justin Berry, who is making his accusations in exchange for U. S. Federal immunity from his own numerous crimes, not least of which is producing child pornography with himself as the child star.
Ken's case is being prosecuted by the Michigan Attorney General, while Tim's is being prosecuted in Tennessee by the U. S. Department of Justice, but both are being prosecuted with overwhelming unfairness and with the hysterical tone of a witch hunt.
Ken's case in particular seems to be fodder for the reelection campaign of Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox. Democrat Amos Williams is running against Cox. We believe that if Williams were the Attorney General now, Ken would not be under state prosecution.
Regardless of whether Ken is guilty or innocent, the Attorney General's office has handled Ken's case unjustly in the following ways:
1) They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
2) They set a half-million dollar bond for this non-violent offender with no previous criminal record.
3) In September after discovering that Ken's family had managed to combine resources and pay the bond, they re-arrested Ken with new charges based on information that they had had for 6 weeks but had chosen not to use before.
4) When Ken turned himself in they again alerted and had tv news there.
5) This arrest was coordinated with arrests of seventeen other alleged sex criminals on the same day, an event which the Attorney General publicized with a press conference.
6) This distorted publicity might prejudice thousands of potential jury members, and prevent Ken from getting a fair trial,
7) Ken's new charges were most unusual, 20 charges instead of 1, all for 3rd degree (consensual) sexual conduct with the same person.
8) Instead of a normal sized bond for these charges, and after Cox's prosecuting attorney repeatedly said he saw no need for more bond money, at the arraignment the A.G.'s office asked for an additional one million dollar bond (appearing to be violating the 8th amendment of the Constitution). The purpose of bond is not to keep someone in jail, but to assure that he/she appears in court. All Ken's charges require a bond, ie. they are "bondable".
9) Although Cox has disclaimers on his website saying that the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty, the words and actions of his office negate this.
Although we feel that child sex crimes can be very serious, not all of them are equally so. The obsession of the Michigan Attorney General's office with this issue is working to Michigan's detriment.
Instead, we believe Michigan should be moving forward on a more effective path. We desire a Michigan Attorney General who:
1) Gives attention to ALL types of crimes. In particular, those crimes that extend beyond the bounds of a single local judiciary or involve the local government itself - corporate crimes, utility company crimes, environmental crimes, crimes by the police.
2) Sets the highest ethical standards for fairness, due process, and civil rights.
3) Respects and defends an accused person's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. Does not hold press conferences announcing arrests and does not parade arrested people in chains before television cameras.
4) Does not use high bonds deliberately to detain people.
5) Does not prosecute homosexuals more severely than heterosexuals accused of the same type of crime.
6) Prosecutes offenders of hate crimes against gays and perceived child offenders, both inside and outside prisons, whether perpetrated by inmates or guards, and educates the public to reduce hate crimes.
7) Encourages judges to take into account the circumstances when creating a sentence.
8) Recommends safe, but less severe punishments to encourage sex offenders and their acquaintances to voluntarily come forward.
9) Uses best known sex therapies and electronic monitoring instead of prison to keep society safe, while at the same time saving taxpayer money, minimizing disruption to families, and allowing sex offenders to contribute to society as much as possible.
10) Does not use stings to create criminals.
11) Does not grant immunity in exchange for incriminating evidence.
This is unfair and produces unreliable evidence.
Other issues raised by Ken's case:
1) The media are sensationalizing the case: by using terms such as Ken "lured" Justin to Ann Arbor; calling criminal sexual conduct in the 3rd degree, which is consensual sex, a "rape"; and by reporting Ken's age as a year older than it is.
2) Ken is being treated as guilty before being convicted. Did you know 60% of the people in Michigan jails are there pre-trial? The UN recommends holding such people, if they must be detained at all, in separate facilities from convicted criminals.
3) Ken is being charged with various crimes, and also being charged separately with using the Internet to facilitate those crimes. The Internet charges actually have harsher penalties than the crimes themselves. Why should use of the Internet to plan a crime have a harsher sentence than the crime itself? Why is using the Internet different than using the phone, or using the mail?
4) The U. S. has extremely long sentences and harsh penalties compared to other countries in the world. Did you know that of the 9 million people in prison in the world, 2 million of them are in the United States? Google "The Sentencing Project".
5) The U. S. is schizophrenic about sex. Almost everything is
sexualized: movies, music, clothes, magazines, even cars. Sex is on teenagers minds more than anything else. If two 15 year olds have sex it is considered "sexual experimentation", however if a 15 year old and an 18 year old have sex it is a 15 year felony. Neither of these situations are necessarily good, moral, or appropriate, but they are not very different from each other.
6) Sex offenders are subject to unique, unreasonable, lifetime penalties. Shouldn't it be possible at some point to say someone has been punished enough? Why should former sex criminals have to register for the rest of their lives, when murderers and other assaultive offenders don't have to? Why should former sex criminals be prevented from living near schools or playgrounds when murderers and assaultive criminals can live there. Why should these penalties extend even to someone who was found to have pornography or to have consensual sex with someone they shouldn't have? Why should former sex offenders be forbidden from holding more and more kinds of jobs?
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Mrs. Betty Bowers' Words of Christian Concern for Ted Haggard's Delicious Disgrace
Mrs. Betty Bowers' Words of Christian Concern for Ted Haggard's Delicious Disgrace
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Delighted Snickers:
I suspect that this will be a rather uncomfortable weekend at the Ted Haggard tax-free mansion. You see, Reverend Haggard is a vociferous spokesperson against gay marriage and, until yesterday, his wife probably had no idea she was actually in one.
Oh, I can hear some of you gals used to being around florists and Governors of New Jersey -- and Texas -- cackling. You think I'm selling the woman's intuition for pushily obvious queenery short. But if Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance. Because if you can't tell that Haggard is not just gay, but marabou mules wearing gay, you must have bought your refurbished Gaydar at the same kiosk Tom Cruise got his E-meter.
But before everyone piles on with protestations of shock and awe, allow me to pause for praise where it is due for this man Harper’s claimed to hold more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than any pastor in America. It is quite clear that Ted Haggard is a man with admirable devotion to the Christian/GOP cause. After all, it must take enormous willpower for a meth-crazed sodomite to remove a penis from his mouth long enough to denounce homosexuality.
Haggard famously claimed that "the only difference between me and George Bush is that Bush drives a Ford and I drive a Chevy." And from what I can tell, this may be the only honest thing the man has said. Let's compare, shall we?
Against gay marriage?
Check.
Fondness for sniffing illegal white powder?
Check.
Association with gay male prostitutes?
Jeff Gannon meet Mike Jones.
But I guess it is no more difficult to be a homosexual who purports to dislike homosexuality than it is to be a strike-first warmonger who purports to follow the Prince of Peace. Indeed, if only lying were a car, instead of a way of approaching the world, maybe one of them would have finally traded it in for something else by now.
But Mr. Haggard shows no more knack for honesty than he does for picking discrete prostitutes. As an evangelical preacher, he is clearly too used to getting up in front of people who believe anything he says to lie convincingly to those still fettered by thought. Indeed, his lying skills are so uproariously amateurish that, frankly, I think he needs some lessons from a pro like Dick Cheney, a man who can say, "I'm not currently saying this" and mean it.
For example, Haggard claims he visited the man he previously had never met simply to get a "massage." The chaste, innocent purpose of this endeavor must explain why he used a pseudonym. (As Marge Davis asked, "Well what is it that they are massaging is what I want to know!").
Haggard is also claiming that he purchased a "first time customers only" introductory sample of crystal meth (meth dealers are notorious for their promotions). But threw it away. This must be our GOP version of the implausibility of "not inhaling," but, in typical Republican fashion, seems rather more blatantly wasteful. Did he not think of the consequences of this lie? Why, poor Nicole Richie is probably combing the side of every road out of Denver for that tiny baggie as I type this. But the talent-free waif searches in vain. Anyone who listens to Haggard's insistent voice messages can tell that this was someone jonesing for a fix, not a mildly curious man given to impromptu middle-age hard-drug experimentation like another 50 year-old might finally try a Mojito. Listen to the recordings: we're talking "Lindsay Lohan down to her last kilo" desperate here.
It's become almost an axiom of American unctuousness that the more preening the public scold, the more inevitable the public scald. A public paradigm usually has a private paramour. Once pompous glutton William Bennett set himself up as an arbitrator of our virtues, it was only a matter of time before the arbitrariness of his own virtues was laid out like a losing twosome in blackjack.
While this type of cynical scorn of one's own words might strike the naïve as galling, there has always been a disconnect between private men and their public protestations. But for the miracle of vote tampering and activist Supreme Court judges, evangelicals would have been as essential to Mr. Bush's election as they like to assume. And every pandering appearance near a cross or coded reference to scripture stuck like a clumsy, phosphorescent Post-It into a State of the Union address reminds us that the President is keenly aware of this perceived debt. But David Kuo, in his book Tempting Fate, tells us that such overt supplication is done with patronizing perfunctoriness. Evangelicals are actually mocked behind their backs at the White House.
The White House might have found this revelation embarrassing if people like Haggard didn't routinely prove that Evangelicals don't take anything they say seriously either. Jim Bakker got caught with his secretary while she still had her own breasts. Jimmy Swaggart got caught in a motel on a urine-stained mattress littered with unsavory streetwalkers. And Paul Crouch had to pay off his gay lover. (Mr. Crouch, appears to have been forgiven, if only because even those most strongly against homosexuality understand the urge to look for sexual outlets that don't involve Jan Crouch being naked.)
Mark Foley campaigned against legalizing gay marriage. Almost inevitably, we then find out that this was probably only because he would never tie the knot with someone old enough to legally marry. Haggard, perhaps in response to how Foley's crude, after-the-fact attempts to link his unacceptable homosexual indiscretion to a perfectly acceptable addiction, was rather smart to have a sex scandal prepackaged with an even better addiction. Well played!
Not to be outdone, Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Attorney General Charlie Crist, much like Ted Haggard, has not allowed his actual participation in homosexuality to get in the way of speaking out against the idea of homosexuality. And, frankly, I'm not sure what more readily impugns his boyfriend Bruce Carlton Jordan's character: being a convicted thief or working for that crazy sex kitten Katherine Harris. But what can you expect from the state that gave us not only the odious Miss Harris but also aquamarine appliances?
While Jesus was appallingly lax in neglecting to mention His disgust with homosexuality, He did take Republicans (for some reason, called Pharisees back then) to task for being hypocrites. As any modern Republican can tell you, Jesus, of course, had it all backwards. Homosexuality is to be despised. And lying (even about despising homosexuality) it just a quirk, something you tell people to get their money or vote. Ask Ted Haggard's best buddy James Dobson.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Delighted Snickers:
I suspect that this will be a rather uncomfortable weekend at the Ted Haggard tax-free mansion. You see, Reverend Haggard is a vociferous spokesperson against gay marriage and, until yesterday, his wife probably had no idea she was actually in one.
Oh, I can hear some of you gals used to being around florists and Governors of New Jersey -- and Texas -- cackling. You think I'm selling the woman's intuition for pushily obvious queenery short. But if Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance. Because if you can't tell that Haggard is not just gay, but marabou mules wearing gay, you must have bought your refurbished Gaydar at the same kiosk Tom Cruise got his E-meter.
But before everyone piles on with protestations of shock and awe, allow me to pause for praise where it is due for this man Harper’s claimed to hold more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than any pastor in America. It is quite clear that Ted Haggard is a man with admirable devotion to the Christian/GOP cause. After all, it must take enormous willpower for a meth-crazed sodomite to remove a penis from his mouth long enough to denounce homosexuality.
Haggard famously claimed that "the only difference between me and George Bush is that Bush drives a Ford and I drive a Chevy." And from what I can tell, this may be the only honest thing the man has said. Let's compare, shall we?
Against gay marriage?
Check.
Fondness for sniffing illegal white powder?
Check.
Association with gay male prostitutes?
Jeff Gannon meet Mike Jones.
But I guess it is no more difficult to be a homosexual who purports to dislike homosexuality than it is to be a strike-first warmonger who purports to follow the Prince of Peace. Indeed, if only lying were a car, instead of a way of approaching the world, maybe one of them would have finally traded it in for something else by now.
But Mr. Haggard shows no more knack for honesty than he does for picking discrete prostitutes. As an evangelical preacher, he is clearly too used to getting up in front of people who believe anything he says to lie convincingly to those still fettered by thought. Indeed, his lying skills are so uproariously amateurish that, frankly, I think he needs some lessons from a pro like Dick Cheney, a man who can say, "I'm not currently saying this" and mean it.
For example, Haggard claims he visited the man he previously had never met simply to get a "massage." The chaste, innocent purpose of this endeavor must explain why he used a pseudonym. (As Marge Davis asked, "Well what is it that they are massaging is what I want to know!").
Haggard is also claiming that he purchased a "first time customers only" introductory sample of crystal meth (meth dealers are notorious for their promotions). But threw it away. This must be our GOP version of the implausibility of "not inhaling," but, in typical Republican fashion, seems rather more blatantly wasteful. Did he not think of the consequences of this lie? Why, poor Nicole Richie is probably combing the side of every road out of Denver for that tiny baggie as I type this. But the talent-free waif searches in vain. Anyone who listens to Haggard's insistent voice messages can tell that this was someone jonesing for a fix, not a mildly curious man given to impromptu middle-age hard-drug experimentation like another 50 year-old might finally try a Mojito. Listen to the recordings: we're talking "Lindsay Lohan down to her last kilo" desperate here.
It's become almost an axiom of American unctuousness that the more preening the public scold, the more inevitable the public scald. A public paradigm usually has a private paramour. Once pompous glutton William Bennett set himself up as an arbitrator of our virtues, it was only a matter of time before the arbitrariness of his own virtues was laid out like a losing twosome in blackjack.
While this type of cynical scorn of one's own words might strike the naïve as galling, there has always been a disconnect between private men and their public protestations. But for the miracle of vote tampering and activist Supreme Court judges, evangelicals would have been as essential to Mr. Bush's election as they like to assume. And every pandering appearance near a cross or coded reference to scripture stuck like a clumsy, phosphorescent Post-It into a State of the Union address reminds us that the President is keenly aware of this perceived debt. But David Kuo, in his book Tempting Fate, tells us that such overt supplication is done with patronizing perfunctoriness. Evangelicals are actually mocked behind their backs at the White House.
The White House might have found this revelation embarrassing if people like Haggard didn't routinely prove that Evangelicals don't take anything they say seriously either. Jim Bakker got caught with his secretary while she still had her own breasts. Jimmy Swaggart got caught in a motel on a urine-stained mattress littered with unsavory streetwalkers. And Paul Crouch had to pay off his gay lover. (Mr. Crouch, appears to have been forgiven, if only because even those most strongly against homosexuality understand the urge to look for sexual outlets that don't involve Jan Crouch being naked.)
Mark Foley campaigned against legalizing gay marriage. Almost inevitably, we then find out that this was probably only because he would never tie the knot with someone old enough to legally marry. Haggard, perhaps in response to how Foley's crude, after-the-fact attempts to link his unacceptable homosexual indiscretion to a perfectly acceptable addiction, was rather smart to have a sex scandal prepackaged with an even better addiction. Well played!
Not to be outdone, Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Attorney General Charlie Crist, much like Ted Haggard, has not allowed his actual participation in homosexuality to get in the way of speaking out against the idea of homosexuality. And, frankly, I'm not sure what more readily impugns his boyfriend Bruce Carlton Jordan's character: being a convicted thief or working for that crazy sex kitten Katherine Harris. But what can you expect from the state that gave us not only the odious Miss Harris but also aquamarine appliances?
While Jesus was appallingly lax in neglecting to mention His disgust with homosexuality, He did take Republicans (for some reason, called Pharisees back then) to task for being hypocrites. As any modern Republican can tell you, Jesus, of course, had it all backwards. Homosexuality is to be despised. And lying (even about despising homosexuality) it just a quirk, something you tell people to get their money or vote. Ask Ted Haggard's best buddy James Dobson.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Betty Bowers Election Day/Halloween News Letter
Mrs. Betty Bowers' Halloween / Election Newsletter 2006
Dear Spooked-Out Voter:
I'm doing a joint Halloween Night and Election Day newsletter this year because, frankly, the two holidays are virtually indistinguishable. After all, political campaigning is all about pretending you're something you're not -- and then scaring people. Mr. Bush pretends he's competent; Mr. Cheney pretends he's sane -- and then they both run around our cities trying to frighten strangers.
The "Vote Because You're Scared!" drumbeat seemed to work well in the last election. It certainly worked more than the indolent blowhards we elected to the 109th Congress because of it! I fear, however, that such an alarmist mantra has lost its appeal and potency now that voters have had time to realize that the reason we're scared is because of who we voted for in 2000 and 2004.
Since the GOP has no verifiable successes to tout, I'm rather proud of how inventive our latest iteration of the "stick with the incumbent" message has been this year.
In case you haven't picked up on this delicately nuanced sophistry in the relentless stream of earnest blather coming every 30 seconds from you TV, allow me to break it down for you, dears.
The GOP message basically boils down to this: We have created a world so unstable and hostile with our unbroken string of blunders and unnecessary provocations, can you really risk electing someone new who will squander two weeks learning the screen-names for all the sluttiest pages?
I have to chuckle at all of the fear-mongering ads this year. No, it's not the ubiquitous, bland female voice, which would sound like a hammy attempt at "solemn" and "concerned" on the stages of even America's least persnickety-at-casting community theaters. And it isn't how often she earnestly intones, "Can we really afford to risk electing the other guy?" No, what makes me laugh is that congressmen who are throwing $200,000,000 each and every day down that insatiable drain called Iraq, money that could be spent on schools and health, have the temerity to ask us questions that start with "Can we really afford to . . ."
Speaking of that imploding, anarchical money pit, when the lights go out at a press conference to herald progress in Iraq, you know that crazy hellhole is falling apart quicker than Kevin Federline's rap career. As such, President Bush (truly the Carrot Top of silly political props) is left to chant "Presto Chango" and unveil -- are you ready for it? -- a timetable. In a nutshell, this "Timetable for Iraq" is basically arbitrary, un-agreed-upon dates when the impossible will not happen. While a timetable in Iraq is probably about as useful as a reservation in Burger King, it is Mr. Bush's gallantly wistful attempt to make it look as if he has actually accomplished something -- anything -- before the election. As you may have guessed, this timetable is just as likely to be successful after the election as the President's mother's recently penned "Timetable to be Smokin' Hot Again."
Speaking of the ever-charming Bar Bush, this campaign has been unusually ugly, hasn't it? But we can't expect an election to be genteel when a perfunctory congressional roll call nets more sexual predators than Dateline NBC.
And if we're not being frightened out of our wits that some Negro running for Tennessee Senator, Harold Ford Jr., might pick up the phone and call a white harlot, we are peeing our drawers that homosexuals may one day pick out china together in the sacred department stores of New Jersey.
Perhaps the scariest thing about this Halloween evening is that it is the last day of the month, and there is still no October Surprise! I don't mean to be an alarmist here, but isn't it time Karl Rove climbed out from under Jeff Gannon long enough to round up an Islamic coffee klatch that knew a man who met a woman who had a niece who once said something suspicious about a recipe for exploding hair conditioner -- or maybe it was tabouli . . .
Of course, nature, just like Mrs. Bowers, abhors a vacuum. When the Republicans fail to hurt the Democrats, we can always count on the Democrats to pull their weight. So, a week before the election the relentlessly clumsy John Kerry makes a comment that would seem to impugn the same troops that are being supported by magnetic car decals from coast to cast.
Yes, the White House has called on Senator John Kerry to apologize to the men and women serving in Iraq because he may have hurt their feelings.
Even if Mr. Bush were wont to admit error, much less apologize, to the servicemen in Iraq he hurt, he couldn't.
They are dead.
Yes, it had been a sad and scary election year. As a Republican, I'd actually be quite scared if America still went through the arduous, quaint process of counting votes!
Dear Spooked-Out Voter:
I'm doing a joint Halloween Night and Election Day newsletter this year because, frankly, the two holidays are virtually indistinguishable. After all, political campaigning is all about pretending you're something you're not -- and then scaring people. Mr. Bush pretends he's competent; Mr. Cheney pretends he's sane -- and then they both run around our cities trying to frighten strangers.
The "Vote Because You're Scared!" drumbeat seemed to work well in the last election. It certainly worked more than the indolent blowhards we elected to the 109th Congress because of it! I fear, however, that such an alarmist mantra has lost its appeal and potency now that voters have had time to realize that the reason we're scared is because of who we voted for in 2000 and 2004.
Since the GOP has no verifiable successes to tout, I'm rather proud of how inventive our latest iteration of the "stick with the incumbent" message has been this year.
In case you haven't picked up on this delicately nuanced sophistry in the relentless stream of earnest blather coming every 30 seconds from you TV, allow me to break it down for you, dears.
The GOP message basically boils down to this: We have created a world so unstable and hostile with our unbroken string of blunders and unnecessary provocations, can you really risk electing someone new who will squander two weeks learning the screen-names for all the sluttiest pages?
I have to chuckle at all of the fear-mongering ads this year. No, it's not the ubiquitous, bland female voice, which would sound like a hammy attempt at "solemn" and "concerned" on the stages of even America's least persnickety-at-casting community theaters. And it isn't how often she earnestly intones, "Can we really afford to risk electing the other guy?" No, what makes me laugh is that congressmen who are throwing $200,000,000 each and every day down that insatiable drain called Iraq, money that could be spent on schools and health, have the temerity to ask us questions that start with "Can we really afford to . . ."
Speaking of that imploding, anarchical money pit, when the lights go out at a press conference to herald progress in Iraq, you know that crazy hellhole is falling apart quicker than Kevin Federline's rap career. As such, President Bush (truly the Carrot Top of silly political props) is left to chant "Presto Chango" and unveil -- are you ready for it? -- a timetable. In a nutshell, this "Timetable for Iraq" is basically arbitrary, un-agreed-upon dates when the impossible will not happen. While a timetable in Iraq is probably about as useful as a reservation in Burger King, it is Mr. Bush's gallantly wistful attempt to make it look as if he has actually accomplished something -- anything -- before the election. As you may have guessed, this timetable is just as likely to be successful after the election as the President's mother's recently penned "Timetable to be Smokin' Hot Again."
Speaking of the ever-charming Bar Bush, this campaign has been unusually ugly, hasn't it? But we can't expect an election to be genteel when a perfunctory congressional roll call nets more sexual predators than Dateline NBC.
And if we're not being frightened out of our wits that some Negro running for Tennessee Senator, Harold Ford Jr., might pick up the phone and call a white harlot, we are peeing our drawers that homosexuals may one day pick out china together in the sacred department stores of New Jersey.
Perhaps the scariest thing about this Halloween evening is that it is the last day of the month, and there is still no October Surprise! I don't mean to be an alarmist here, but isn't it time Karl Rove climbed out from under Jeff Gannon long enough to round up an Islamic coffee klatch that knew a man who met a woman who had a niece who once said something suspicious about a recipe for exploding hair conditioner -- or maybe it was tabouli . . .
Of course, nature, just like Mrs. Bowers, abhors a vacuum. When the Republicans fail to hurt the Democrats, we can always count on the Democrats to pull their weight. So, a week before the election the relentlessly clumsy John Kerry makes a comment that would seem to impugn the same troops that are being supported by magnetic car decals from coast to cast.
Yes, the White House has called on Senator John Kerry to apologize to the men and women serving in Iraq because he may have hurt their feelings.
Even if Mr. Bush were wont to admit error, much less apologize, to the servicemen in Iraq he hurt, he couldn't.
They are dead.
Yes, it had been a sad and scary election year. As a Republican, I'd actually be quite scared if America still went through the arduous, quaint process of counting votes!
Catholic Woman Murdered by Gay Man; She 'Questioned' His Lifestyle
LAW OF THE LAND
Woman's death at hands of 'gay' her fault, says lawyer
Trial begins over death of Christian who questioned homosexual lifestyle choice
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The Death of Mary Stachowicz
Mary Stachowicz was attacked with such ferocity the assailant's hunting knife blade was bent, but a defense attorney for her alleged attacker is painting her with the blame, saying it wasn't a "hate crime" and it happened because her comments about his "gay" lifestyle assaulted the man.
And since it was only a routine murder case, not a "hate crime," the story is getting almost no coverage from mainstream media outlets, several conservative groups have noted.
The murder trial for Nicholas Gutierrez, 23, in Stachowicz' 2002 death has begun in Chicago, where prosecutor Jim McKay described the viciousness of the attack on the 51-year-old mother of four and faithful Catholic Church member.
She was stabbed, strangled, raped and beaten, and then her body was stuffed in a crawl space under the floor of an apartment, he reported.
But the suspect's attorney, Crystal Marchigiani, alleged in her opening remarks that it was Stachowicz who attacked Gutierrez, and her verbal assault was what sparked his response.
"It happened because she could not leave him alone in his (homosexual) lifestyle," she said, describing the apparent confrontation between the two at the Sikorsky Funeral Home where Stochowicz worked and where Gutierrez lived in an apartment with his partner, Ray.
"The Gutierrez defense team's Politically Correct courtroom ploy ought to be called the 'Anti-homophobe Panic Defense,'" said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, a pro-family organization. "Marchigiani's is an ugly attempt to exploit the liberal caricature of Christians who oppose homosexuality as crazed haters with a penchant for aggression."
"So here we see a new defense tactic: stoking the flames of anti-Christian bigotry to save a 'gay' murderer from the punishment he deserves," he said.
According to a report from the Culture and Family Institute, weblog postings after the murder were full of anti-Christian hate statements.
"I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her," said "Iris" in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum.
"Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to 'help' homosexuals," said "Silence Dogood" on the same forum.
"The mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz's murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it," said Allyson Smith of the CFI.
She noted that there was no condemnation of the murder from Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance or the Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
One pro-homosexual group, Soulforce, which works in churches to oppose traditional Christian views of the sexual lifestyle, did make a statement to a newspaper, even though it did not release a press statement.
"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, but "a hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people."
Chicago police reported that on Nov. 13, 2002, an argument broke out between the two and when Stachowicz asked why Gutierrez had sex with "boys instead of girls," he erupted in rage, punching, kicking, stabbing and strangling her.
He later led police to the body and confessed.
National Review Online writer Rod Dreher has lamented that the media buzz about the case has been deafening by its silence.
According to Dreher, "One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of 'gay' blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz’s strangling: 'The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.'
"I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves," wrote Dreher.
The Culture and Family Institute also quoted the victim's friend, May Coleman, who said, "Those of us who knew her (could) hear her soft voice saying something like, 'God wouldn't approve of the way you're living your life.’ That's how Mary did things."
Regional media outlets reported on the attack, but notably left out words such as "gay" or "homosexual," the institute said.
Catholic League President William Donohue said the murder is not listed as a hate crime, and won't be, even though she "was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience."
"Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is."
LaBarbera said the woman "is a modern day martyr who died because she told the truth to a man caught up in homosexuality. Her compelling story is largely unknown to Americans, because the same media that devoted millions of print column inches and broadcast minutes to covering the Matthew Shepard murder case have largely ignored Mary's story."
"The reality today is that growing secularist intolerance threatens to redefine Judeo-Christian beliefs as 'prejudice, intolerance,' or worse, 'hatred.'"
Dreher wrote that the similarities in the cases couldn't be ignored.
"Where have we heard this sort of thing before? Why, when three redneck men killed Matthew Shepard a few years ago, after the homosexual young man propositioned them in a bar. Understandably, the men found Shepard's words offensive," Dreher said.
He said there is no moral difference between Stachowicz' attack and the one on Shepard.
"Both were heinous, and both deserve publicity, but the Stachowicz case, like the case of Jesse Dirkhising earlier, is being largely ignored," Dreher wrote. Dirkhising was a 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped, tortured and strangled by a gang of "homosexuals" in 1999.
One researcher reported that in the month after Shepard's murder, Nexis recorded 3,007 stories were available about the death. However, "in the one month after Dirkhising's case, there were 46 stories."
"In Canada," Dreher noted, "Christians are having their freedom of speech and worship taken away by hate-speech laws designed to protect homosexuals from having their feelings hurt."
Woman's death at hands of 'gay' her fault, says lawyer
Trial begins over death of Christian who questioned homosexual lifestyle choice
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The Death of Mary Stachowicz
Mary Stachowicz was attacked with such ferocity the assailant's hunting knife blade was bent, but a defense attorney for her alleged attacker is painting her with the blame, saying it wasn't a "hate crime" and it happened because her comments about his "gay" lifestyle assaulted the man.
And since it was only a routine murder case, not a "hate crime," the story is getting almost no coverage from mainstream media outlets, several conservative groups have noted.
The murder trial for Nicholas Gutierrez, 23, in Stachowicz' 2002 death has begun in Chicago, where prosecutor Jim McKay described the viciousness of the attack on the 51-year-old mother of four and faithful Catholic Church member.
She was stabbed, strangled, raped and beaten, and then her body was stuffed in a crawl space under the floor of an apartment, he reported.
But the suspect's attorney, Crystal Marchigiani, alleged in her opening remarks that it was Stachowicz who attacked Gutierrez, and her verbal assault was what sparked his response.
"It happened because she could not leave him alone in his (homosexual) lifestyle," she said, describing the apparent confrontation between the two at the Sikorsky Funeral Home where Stochowicz worked and where Gutierrez lived in an apartment with his partner, Ray.
"The Gutierrez defense team's Politically Correct courtroom ploy ought to be called the 'Anti-homophobe Panic Defense,'" said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, a pro-family organization. "Marchigiani's is an ugly attempt to exploit the liberal caricature of Christians who oppose homosexuality as crazed haters with a penchant for aggression."
"So here we see a new defense tactic: stoking the flames of anti-Christian bigotry to save a 'gay' murderer from the punishment he deserves," he said.
According to a report from the Culture and Family Institute, weblog postings after the murder were full of anti-Christian hate statements.
"I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her," said "Iris" in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum.
"Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to 'help' homosexuals," said "Silence Dogood" on the same forum.
"The mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz's murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it," said Allyson Smith of the CFI.
She noted that there was no condemnation of the murder from Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance or the Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
One pro-homosexual group, Soulforce, which works in churches to oppose traditional Christian views of the sexual lifestyle, did make a statement to a newspaper, even though it did not release a press statement.
"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, but "a hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people."
Chicago police reported that on Nov. 13, 2002, an argument broke out between the two and when Stachowicz asked why Gutierrez had sex with "boys instead of girls," he erupted in rage, punching, kicking, stabbing and strangling her.
He later led police to the body and confessed.
National Review Online writer Rod Dreher has lamented that the media buzz about the case has been deafening by its silence.
According to Dreher, "One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of 'gay' blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz’s strangling: 'The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.'
"I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves," wrote Dreher.
The Culture and Family Institute also quoted the victim's friend, May Coleman, who said, "Those of us who knew her (could) hear her soft voice saying something like, 'God wouldn't approve of the way you're living your life.’ That's how Mary did things."
Regional media outlets reported on the attack, but notably left out words such as "gay" or "homosexual," the institute said.
Catholic League President William Donohue said the murder is not listed as a hate crime, and won't be, even though she "was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience."
"Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is."
LaBarbera said the woman "is a modern day martyr who died because she told the truth to a man caught up in homosexuality. Her compelling story is largely unknown to Americans, because the same media that devoted millions of print column inches and broadcast minutes to covering the Matthew Shepard murder case have largely ignored Mary's story."
"The reality today is that growing secularist intolerance threatens to redefine Judeo-Christian beliefs as 'prejudice, intolerance,' or worse, 'hatred.'"
Dreher wrote that the similarities in the cases couldn't be ignored.
"Where have we heard this sort of thing before? Why, when three redneck men killed Matthew Shepard a few years ago, after the homosexual young man propositioned them in a bar. Understandably, the men found Shepard's words offensive," Dreher said.
He said there is no moral difference between Stachowicz' attack and the one on Shepard.
"Both were heinous, and both deserve publicity, but the Stachowicz case, like the case of Jesse Dirkhising earlier, is being largely ignored," Dreher wrote. Dirkhising was a 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped, tortured and strangled by a gang of "homosexuals" in 1999.
One researcher reported that in the month after Shepard's murder, Nexis recorded 3,007 stories were available about the death. However, "in the one month after Dirkhising's case, there were 46 stories."
"In Canada," Dreher noted, "Christians are having their freedom of speech and worship taken away by hate-speech laws designed to protect homosexuals from having their feelings hurt."
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
New Jersey Opens Door to Gay Marrriage
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer same-sex couples either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.
In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or most feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.
The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.
The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage for gays.
Gay rights activists had seen New Jersey as a promising place because it is a largely Democratic state in the Northeast. The only state to allow gay marriage is Massachusetts. The only states allowing civil unions are Vermont and Connecticut. New Jersey is also one of just five states that have no law or constitutional amendment expressly banning gay marriage.
If the court had legalized gay marriage outright, the effect could have been more far-reaching, and New Jersey could have become more of a magnet for gay couples than Massachusetts, which has a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states. New Jersey has no such law.
A clear-cut ruling legalizing gay marriage this close to Election Day could also have been a political bombshell, galvanizing Republicans and the religious right. Eight states have gay marriage bans on their ballots in November.
New Jersey Republicans, who are in the minority in the Legislature, said they would work to ban same-sex unions by enacting a constitutional amendment.
For gay rights advocates, there was debate over whether the ruling was a victory.
Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples. "They get to decide whether it's chocolate or double-chocolate chip," Schwartz said.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay rights group, said his organization wants nothing short of marriage. "We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus," he complained.
The New Jersey high court castigated the treatment same-sex couples receive under the law.
"The seeming ordinariness of plaintiffs' lives is belied by the social indignities and economic difficulties that they daily face due to the inferior legal standing of their relationships compared to that of married couples," the court said.
Outside the court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant.
"I'm definitely encouraged," said Chris Lodewyks, one of the plaintiffs who gathered at a Newark law office. But he added, "I'm not sure what this exactly means in terms of marriage."
Another plaintiff, Saundra Toby-Heath, was more effusive: "I feel they were listening and paying attention to us as human beings who wanted to have the same rights."
Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay political organization, quickly announced that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to give full marriage rights to gay couples.
"New Jersey is a progressive state and has a tradition of tolerance," said one of the lawmakers, Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.
GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached. "Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.
Gay couples in New Jersey can already apply for domestic partnerships under a law passed in 2004. Among other things, domestic partnerships give couples the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and health care coverage for partners of state employees.
Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.
Former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after announcing that he was gay and had an affair with a male staff member, praised the court's decision. "I applaud the court's courage," McGreevey said. "I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor."
Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts, including those in New York, Washington state, and both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.
They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 20 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.
Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.
Associated Press writers Beth DeFalco and Chris Newmarker in Trenton and Jeffrey Gold and David Porter in Newark contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer same-sex couples either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.
In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or most feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.
The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.
The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage for gays.
Gay rights activists had seen New Jersey as a promising place because it is a largely Democratic state in the Northeast. The only state to allow gay marriage is Massachusetts. The only states allowing civil unions are Vermont and Connecticut. New Jersey is also one of just five states that have no law or constitutional amendment expressly banning gay marriage.
If the court had legalized gay marriage outright, the effect could have been more far-reaching, and New Jersey could have become more of a magnet for gay couples than Massachusetts, which has a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states. New Jersey has no such law.
A clear-cut ruling legalizing gay marriage this close to Election Day could also have been a political bombshell, galvanizing Republicans and the religious right. Eight states have gay marriage bans on their ballots in November.
New Jersey Republicans, who are in the minority in the Legislature, said they would work to ban same-sex unions by enacting a constitutional amendment.
For gay rights advocates, there was debate over whether the ruling was a victory.
Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples. "They get to decide whether it's chocolate or double-chocolate chip," Schwartz said.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay rights group, said his organization wants nothing short of marriage. "We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus," he complained.
The New Jersey high court castigated the treatment same-sex couples receive under the law.
"The seeming ordinariness of plaintiffs' lives is belied by the social indignities and economic difficulties that they daily face due to the inferior legal standing of their relationships compared to that of married couples," the court said.
Outside the court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant.
"I'm definitely encouraged," said Chris Lodewyks, one of the plaintiffs who gathered at a Newark law office. But he added, "I'm not sure what this exactly means in terms of marriage."
Another plaintiff, Saundra Toby-Heath, was more effusive: "I feel they were listening and paying attention to us as human beings who wanted to have the same rights."
Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay political organization, quickly announced that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to give full marriage rights to gay couples.
"New Jersey is a progressive state and has a tradition of tolerance," said one of the lawmakers, Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.
GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached. "Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.
Gay couples in New Jersey can already apply for domestic partnerships under a law passed in 2004. Among other things, domestic partnerships give couples the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and health care coverage for partners of state employees.
Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.
Former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after announcing that he was gay and had an affair with a male staff member, praised the court's decision. "I applaud the court's courage," McGreevey said. "I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor."
Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts, including those in New York, Washington state, and both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.
They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 20 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.
Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.
Associated Press writers Beth DeFalco and Chris Newmarker in Trenton and Jeffrey Gold and David Porter in Newark contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Gay Marriage at the State Department
By John Brummett
Talk about an underplayed story. I'm afraid you may have missed it. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice legalized gay marriage a couple of weeks ago.
What happened was that Rice formally announced the appointment of Mark Dybul as the nation's global AIDS ambassador. Dybul is a homosexual man. He was accompanied to the announcement by his homosexual male partner, Jason Claire, who held the Bible for his swearing-in.
Some of you are thoroughly offended already, I'm sure, at the very idea of a gay man swearing on the Bible while his same-sex consort holds that Bible.
Stay seated. You haven't heard anything yet.
In her remarks, Condi Rice said, and I quote: "Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark's parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason, and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have a wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that's always important to us. Welcome."
I direct your attention to the reference to "mother-in-law."
Your mother-in-law is the mother of your spouse. So, no less than our secretary of state, fourth in the line of succession to the presidency, our very emissary to the world, essentially declared Dybul's male homosexual partner his spouse.
This wasn't a liberal Democratic judge in San Francisco or Massachusetts. This was an eminent Bush appointee. And she did it right there in Foggy Bottom, a famously public place in southwestern D.C., with Laura Bush standing by in powerfully passive acquiescence.
This was not far at all from George W.'s White House, where Rice is ever-welcome and highly regarded. Laura, too.
Then Condi flew off to the Far East to try to straighten out that nuclear mess.
Talk about mixed emotions. You don't know which to do first. You could rise in praise of Condi's tolerance and enlightenment. Or you could rise to deplore the Bush administration's breathtaking cynicism and hypocrisy.
Bush and the Republicans rail against the menace of gay marriage to drum up votes from Christian conservatives. Then the president's closest foreign policy adviser publicly declares that a gay man's partner's mother is the gay man's mother-in-law. And the president's wife just stands there like a knot on a log.
The cynical exploitation by Republicans of Christian conservatives - and this gulf between what leading Republicans say and do - began sometime between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Goldwater had no religious element in his insufficient conservative base in 1964, and, truth be known, the charmingly irascible libertarian wouldn't have stood for one. He thought religion ought to be over here and government over there. But conservative leaders realized after Goldwater's drubbing that they needed the religious element to compete.
So, they propped up the pliable Reagan at evangelical religious gatherings to sit with a Hollywood-trained smile as bellowers like James Robison spewed venom about how the "perverts" were going to take over the country unless good Christian men like this Ronald Reagan here got elected.
It's been a tale of deceit ever since. A new book by a former White House aide says Karl Rove would pat evangelical leaders on the back, then laugh at them and call them nuts after they left.
Again, you don't know which to do first, applaud Rove's good judgment or deplore his cynicism.
Dick Cheney's family alone - with the vice president's lesbian adult daughter - is a case study of the hollowness of leading Republicans' vile and cynically manipulative public rhetoric and the compassion and tolerance of their real private lives.
John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com
Talk about an underplayed story. I'm afraid you may have missed it. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice legalized gay marriage a couple of weeks ago.
What happened was that Rice formally announced the appointment of Mark Dybul as the nation's global AIDS ambassador. Dybul is a homosexual man. He was accompanied to the announcement by his homosexual male partner, Jason Claire, who held the Bible for his swearing-in.
Some of you are thoroughly offended already, I'm sure, at the very idea of a gay man swearing on the Bible while his same-sex consort holds that Bible.
Stay seated. You haven't heard anything yet.
In her remarks, Condi Rice said, and I quote: "Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark's parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason, and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have a wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that's always important to us. Welcome."
I direct your attention to the reference to "mother-in-law."
Your mother-in-law is the mother of your spouse. So, no less than our secretary of state, fourth in the line of succession to the presidency, our very emissary to the world, essentially declared Dybul's male homosexual partner his spouse.
This wasn't a liberal Democratic judge in San Francisco or Massachusetts. This was an eminent Bush appointee. And she did it right there in Foggy Bottom, a famously public place in southwestern D.C., with Laura Bush standing by in powerfully passive acquiescence.
This was not far at all from George W.'s White House, where Rice is ever-welcome and highly regarded. Laura, too.
Then Condi flew off to the Far East to try to straighten out that nuclear mess.
Talk about mixed emotions. You don't know which to do first. You could rise in praise of Condi's tolerance and enlightenment. Or you could rise to deplore the Bush administration's breathtaking cynicism and hypocrisy.
Bush and the Republicans rail against the menace of gay marriage to drum up votes from Christian conservatives. Then the president's closest foreign policy adviser publicly declares that a gay man's partner's mother is the gay man's mother-in-law. And the president's wife just stands there like a knot on a log.
The cynical exploitation by Republicans of Christian conservatives - and this gulf between what leading Republicans say and do - began sometime between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Goldwater had no religious element in his insufficient conservative base in 1964, and, truth be known, the charmingly irascible libertarian wouldn't have stood for one. He thought religion ought to be over here and government over there. But conservative leaders realized after Goldwater's drubbing that they needed the religious element to compete.
So, they propped up the pliable Reagan at evangelical religious gatherings to sit with a Hollywood-trained smile as bellowers like James Robison spewed venom about how the "perverts" were going to take over the country unless good Christian men like this Ronald Reagan here got elected.
It's been a tale of deceit ever since. A new book by a former White House aide says Karl Rove would pat evangelical leaders on the back, then laugh at them and call them nuts after they left.
Again, you don't know which to do first, applaud Rove's good judgment or deplore his cynicism.
Dick Cheney's family alone - with the vice president's lesbian adult daughter - is a case study of the hollowness of leading Republicans' vile and cynically manipulative public rhetoric and the compassion and tolerance of their real private lives.
John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Suspicion Permeates Guantanamo
ANDREW O. SELSKY
Associated Press Writer
A military officer probing new charges of prisoner abuse here will encounter a pervasive atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between the detainees and U.S. troops who consider themselves at war.
Even on a recent, controlled visit, an Associated Press reporter and photographer found that the prison brims with hatred. Former prisoners say the guards kick and punch them for no reason and treat them as subhuman. Guards say the inmates fling excrement at them, along with racial slurs and death threats.
Guantanamo is under renewed scrutiny after a U.S. Marine working for a detainee's defense team said she heard guards boast about beating detainees and depriving them of personal items without provocation. The guards described the abuse as commonplace, the Marine said in an affidavit, prompting the Pentagon's Inspector General to order an investigation.
In an interview at the base, a guard told the AP journalists a detainee used an ugly racist epithet in an attempt to provoke him. A defense attorney accused an interrogator, in an unrelated incident, of using exactly the same language against his client.
'I get threatened all the time. Harassed all the time,' the Navy guard, sitting at an umbrella-shaded table in a sun-splashed courtyard, said after finishing his shift. He declined to give his name for security reasons.
The sailor, who is African-American and from Fairfax, S.C., said he was threatened only hours earlier.
'This morning, a detainee woke up as I was walking past his cell, put his hand to his throat and, after using a racial slur, said, 'I will kill you. I will kill you in Iraq,'' he said. 'I thought, 'OK,' and kept on going.'
The 19-year-old guard refused to give his name for security reasons, but his tale is hardly unique.
From July 2005 through August, the military recorded 432 assaults by detainees using 'cocktails' of bodily excretions thrown at guards, 227 physical assaults, 99 instances of inciting or participating in disturbances, and 726 threats against guards.
Meanwhile, attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who represents Mohammed el Gharani, who is of Chadian nationality, said interrogators repeatedly used racial slurs against him as part of a pattern of verbal abuse 'which has upset him a lot, and he has attempted to harm himself on more than one occasion.'
Stafford Smith said in an e-mail that el Gharani, 19, lived in Saudi Arabia before traveling to Pakistan, where he was arrested at age 14.
Sometimes, the antagonism between the guards - many of them still in their teens or early 20s - and the detainees turns violent, according to some former detainees.
Habib Rahman, a 20-year-old Afghan who was flown from Guantanamo to his homeland on Thursday, said he was beaten as recently as four months ago.
'They were kicking us all the time, beating us with their hands,' Rahman told reporters in Kabul, adding that he was once kept awake for 38 hours while being questioned.
Army Brig. Gen. Edward A. Leacock, deputy commander of the detention operation, insisted that detainees are treated humanely and noted that an al-Qaida training manual instructs captured members to invent claims of torture.
But Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey wrote in his request for an investigation that 'physical and mental abuse of detainees by the guard force at Guantanamo Bay appears to be a regular and common occurence.' An Army colonel, who name has not been released, was assigned on Friday to investigate.
Sgt. Heather Cerveny - the Marine who filed a sworn statement alleging she heard guards discussing how they beat detainees - described in her affidavit hearing a Navy guard justify abuse of detainees.
The guard, identified only as Steven, said that even when a detainee is being good, guards will take his personal items away, to anger him so he can be punished further.
'He said it is because he hates the detainees and that they are bad people,' Cerveny said. 'And he stated that he doesn't like having to take care of them or be nice to them.'
The vast majority of the 450 detainees at Guantanamo have been formally classified as enemy combatants - even though human rights groups say detainees have scant opportunities to defend themselves against often vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
Many soldiers at Guantanamo are convinced all the detainees are dangerous men and don't think twice about whether they deserve to be locked up.
'The reason the detainees are here is they are a threat to the American way of life,' said Army Capt. Dan Byer.
When soldiers pass through the 'sally port' - the heavily guarded entrance to some of the detention camps on this 45-square-mile base - they rip their Velcro-attached name tags off their camouflage uniforms. If the name tags are sewn on, they cover them with black tape. Civilian visitors are advised to put their military-issue ID tags into their pockets.
'This is to prevent detainees from organizing attacks against them or their families,' Army Sgt. Vince Oliver said as he went through the sally port. As he entered the compound, a recording of a muezzin calling Muslims to prayer echoed from loudspeakers.
An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog that he wouldn't hesitate to kill a former detainee if he saw him in his town.
'I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning,' wrote the soldier, who would be identified only by his nickname, Stashiu.
Prospective guards are trained at Fort Lewis, Wash., on the treatment of detainees, including Geneva Conventions provisions which ban abusive and humiliating treatment, said Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a Guantanamo spokesman. The guards are even taught Middle Eastern culture and Islamic religious practices, Durand said.
But some would prefer not to be at Guantanamo. The guard from South Carolina said he did not volunteer, but instead was 'voluntold' to come.
Stafford Smith said that as a whole, he came away from his visits to Guantanamo with a good impression of the guards.
'The guards were uniformly pleasant the whole time I was there,' the attorney said. 'They are basically decent people who have been given a terrible job to do.'
The guard from South Carolina said he refrains from retaliating to insults and threats by putting the situation in perspective, and decompresses after his shift by running and listening to jazz.
'I've been called everything in the book,' he said. 'But I know that I still have a job, and a home, and they're going to be here when I leave.'
Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press.
Associated Press Writer
A military officer probing new charges of prisoner abuse here will encounter a pervasive atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between the detainees and U.S. troops who consider themselves at war.
Even on a recent, controlled visit, an Associated Press reporter and photographer found that the prison brims with hatred. Former prisoners say the guards kick and punch them for no reason and treat them as subhuman. Guards say the inmates fling excrement at them, along with racial slurs and death threats.
Guantanamo is under renewed scrutiny after a U.S. Marine working for a detainee's defense team said she heard guards boast about beating detainees and depriving them of personal items without provocation. The guards described the abuse as commonplace, the Marine said in an affidavit, prompting the Pentagon's Inspector General to order an investigation.
In an interview at the base, a guard told the AP journalists a detainee used an ugly racist epithet in an attempt to provoke him. A defense attorney accused an interrogator, in an unrelated incident, of using exactly the same language against his client.
'I get threatened all the time. Harassed all the time,' the Navy guard, sitting at an umbrella-shaded table in a sun-splashed courtyard, said after finishing his shift. He declined to give his name for security reasons.
The sailor, who is African-American and from Fairfax, S.C., said he was threatened only hours earlier.
'This morning, a detainee woke up as I was walking past his cell, put his hand to his throat and, after using a racial slur, said, 'I will kill you. I will kill you in Iraq,'' he said. 'I thought, 'OK,' and kept on going.'
The 19-year-old guard refused to give his name for security reasons, but his tale is hardly unique.
From July 2005 through August, the military recorded 432 assaults by detainees using 'cocktails' of bodily excretions thrown at guards, 227 physical assaults, 99 instances of inciting or participating in disturbances, and 726 threats against guards.
Meanwhile, attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who represents Mohammed el Gharani, who is of Chadian nationality, said interrogators repeatedly used racial slurs against him as part of a pattern of verbal abuse 'which has upset him a lot, and he has attempted to harm himself on more than one occasion.'
Stafford Smith said in an e-mail that el Gharani, 19, lived in Saudi Arabia before traveling to Pakistan, where he was arrested at age 14.
Sometimes, the antagonism between the guards - many of them still in their teens or early 20s - and the detainees turns violent, according to some former detainees.
Habib Rahman, a 20-year-old Afghan who was flown from Guantanamo to his homeland on Thursday, said he was beaten as recently as four months ago.
'They were kicking us all the time, beating us with their hands,' Rahman told reporters in Kabul, adding that he was once kept awake for 38 hours while being questioned.
Army Brig. Gen. Edward A. Leacock, deputy commander of the detention operation, insisted that detainees are treated humanely and noted that an al-Qaida training manual instructs captured members to invent claims of torture.
But Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey wrote in his request for an investigation that 'physical and mental abuse of detainees by the guard force at Guantanamo Bay appears to be a regular and common occurence.' An Army colonel, who name has not been released, was assigned on Friday to investigate.
Sgt. Heather Cerveny - the Marine who filed a sworn statement alleging she heard guards discussing how they beat detainees - described in her affidavit hearing a Navy guard justify abuse of detainees.
The guard, identified only as Steven, said that even when a detainee is being good, guards will take his personal items away, to anger him so he can be punished further.
'He said it is because he hates the detainees and that they are bad people,' Cerveny said. 'And he stated that he doesn't like having to take care of them or be nice to them.'
The vast majority of the 450 detainees at Guantanamo have been formally classified as enemy combatants - even though human rights groups say detainees have scant opportunities to defend themselves against often vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
Many soldiers at Guantanamo are convinced all the detainees are dangerous men and don't think twice about whether they deserve to be locked up.
'The reason the detainees are here is they are a threat to the American way of life,' said Army Capt. Dan Byer.
When soldiers pass through the 'sally port' - the heavily guarded entrance to some of the detention camps on this 45-square-mile base - they rip their Velcro-attached name tags off their camouflage uniforms. If the name tags are sewn on, they cover them with black tape. Civilian visitors are advised to put their military-issue ID tags into their pockets.
'This is to prevent detainees from organizing attacks against them or their families,' Army Sgt. Vince Oliver said as he went through the sally port. As he entered the compound, a recording of a muezzin calling Muslims to prayer echoed from loudspeakers.
An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog that he wouldn't hesitate to kill a former detainee if he saw him in his town.
'I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning,' wrote the soldier, who would be identified only by his nickname, Stashiu.
Prospective guards are trained at Fort Lewis, Wash., on the treatment of detainees, including Geneva Conventions provisions which ban abusive and humiliating treatment, said Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a Guantanamo spokesman. The guards are even taught Middle Eastern culture and Islamic religious practices, Durand said.
But some would prefer not to be at Guantanamo. The guard from South Carolina said he did not volunteer, but instead was 'voluntold' to come.
Stafford Smith said that as a whole, he came away from his visits to Guantanamo with a good impression of the guards.
'The guards were uniformly pleasant the whole time I was there,' the attorney said. 'They are basically decent people who have been given a terrible job to do.'
The guard from South Carolina said he refrains from retaliating to insults and threats by putting the situation in perspective, and decompresses after his shift by running and listening to jazz.
'I've been called everything in the book,' he said. 'But I know that I still have a job, and a home, and they're going to be here when I leave.'
Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Please Stop This Nonsense With Mark Foley!
FOLEYGATE AND THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT
By Robert Klein Engler (10/09/2006)
CHICAGO (9 October '06)--The Eighth Commandment, for those who may have forgotten, tells us "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." This commandment warns about misinterpreting the truth in relation to others. The commandment also cautions us not to rush to judgment and warns us not to destroy a man's reputation before the whole truth is known.
It seems homophobia is raising its ugly head in the nation's Capitol because of the Folegate scandal. Republicans as well as Democrats ought to be careful that homophobia does not lead them to bear false witness against their neighbor.
Maybe Congressman Foley is a "creep," but so far we have seen no evidence that he broke any laws. We are also supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in the United States, yet the press and the Internet have gone after Mark Foley in what looks like a witch hunt. Joe Crankshaw calls this whole affair, "Electronic mob rule."
From what we know so far, the e-mails Congressman Foley sent have nothing overtly sexual in them. Furthermore, many say he never had sexual contact with any Congressional page, unlike Gerry Studds, who went with a page to Portugal and never resigned after that. Congressman Studds stayed in office even after he was censured by Congress.
Furthermore, the Instant Messages in question seem mutual, because they went on for a long time, even if they were or were not a "prank." We are learning, too, that the "teen" in these IMs may in fact have been 18. The Drudge Report claims, "A posting of an unredacted instant message session between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser."
In a recent article in the L. A. Times, another former, unnamed page has come forth and admitted he is gay and at the age of 21, when he was out of the page program, had sex with Congressman Foley. The newspaper says they want to protect the identity of this man by not printing his name. What about protecting the reputation of Mr. Foley? How can you defend yourself against an unnamed accuser? This sexual encounter described in the L. A. Times may be a sin for some voters, but it is not against the law.
Before we throw Congressman Foley completely to the wolves, we better say just exactly what laws he broke. There is no law against being a creep. There is no law against being in the closet, and no law against voting for a gay marriage ban. It looks like now that Congressman Foley can truthfully say, "I never had sexual relations with that boy."
Furthermore, all of the e-mails and IMs found so far on the Internet or in newspapers were sent to young men who had left Washington, DC and were no longer involved in the page program. Why do we have to use the word "disgusting" and "predator" with glee to describe these non-sexual e-mails?
How are we to understand Scott Shuster's comments that border on being libelous? Shuster writes, "This past week it was publicly revealed that Republican Congressman Mark Foley from Florida was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with an under aged male congressional page." What public evidence we have so far shows that this is not true. Is asking someone what they want for their birthday sexual behavior?
Likewise, Andy Martin seems in a rush to judgment when he claims, "The FBI is searching for a local boy, someone in the Washington, DC area...that went to Foley's house and did have "contact" with Marky Mark. They will find that boy and, when they do, all hell will break loose."
Maybe Congressman Foley was too close to those pages, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the pages are gay and were going through a "homosexual panic," something a few gay young men experience before they confront honestly their sexual orientation. Be this as it may, there is the even more troubling issue of who released these IMs and e-mails and why?
It should be especially troubling to gays if Democratic operatives were behind the release to the public of Foley's e-mails and Instant Messages solely for political gain. It is morally wrong to ruin a man's life just because it gives someone a political advantage over their opponent.
It is morally wrong, also, to bear false witness against your neighbor. Many of Mark Foley's accusers may be doing that. Many forget, too, that there is a big difference between a doubtful e-mail or Instant Message and an actual blue dress from the Gap.
Congressman Foley may have had a weakness. We all do. He also did some good work while in Congress. The talking heads on television should remember that when it comes to Washington, D. C., it is not with an excuse but with charity that we say, "Let him without sin cast the first stone."
All gays, regardless of their political party, are hurt by media gay bashing. It especially hurts those who work with young people. This scandal casts a chill on straights, too, who have close contact with youths, like wrestling coaches and Boy Scout leaders.
What will any male teacher say, now, when someone that does not like him describes his behavior as "overly-friendly?" Foleygate opens up suspicions in people's hearts and gives them a greater opportunity to bear false witness against a neighbor they do not like or find "creepy."
In a broader context, if we do find that false witness is being brought against Mark Foley by political operatives from the left, then it will be another sign that we are living through the death of liberalism. When the left begins to eat their children, you know they are desperate. Are liberals now beginning to cannibalize closeted gays, the very people who often come to them for shelter?
When they look the matter over closely, the so-called Christian Right will weight this scandal justly. Republicans know that the Christian Right does not like sex scandals of whatever kind. That's why Republicans try to deal with them quickly. In Illinois, Jack Ryan was asked to step down from his bid to be Senator. Ryan's scandal allegedly involved only him and his wife. No laws were broken here, either.
To use political and media power to bear false witness is another matter. It is possible that the Christian Right will rightly conclude that abuse by the media and politicians in Foleygate is a greater evil than Mark Foley's questionable sexual behavior. Given this, they will not stay home election day, but go to vote.
Foleygate, unfortunately, may show us that in their quest for power, some politicians will do anything. They will abuse the very gay people they claim to support in order to gain a political advantage. After this scandal that the left may have fueled, it is beyond the reasoning of many how this very same left expects to pass gay marriage into law.
Like that village in Vietnam, the left may have destroyed gays in order to save them. Could it be that with Foleygate the left has shot itself in the foot, again? Or, better said, in another part of the male anatomy.
Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.
By Robert Klein Engler (10/09/2006)
CHICAGO (9 October '06)--The Eighth Commandment, for those who may have forgotten, tells us "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." This commandment warns about misinterpreting the truth in relation to others. The commandment also cautions us not to rush to judgment and warns us not to destroy a man's reputation before the whole truth is known.
It seems homophobia is raising its ugly head in the nation's Capitol because of the Folegate scandal. Republicans as well as Democrats ought to be careful that homophobia does not lead them to bear false witness against their neighbor.
Maybe Congressman Foley is a "creep," but so far we have seen no evidence that he broke any laws. We are also supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in the United States, yet the press and the Internet have gone after Mark Foley in what looks like a witch hunt. Joe Crankshaw calls this whole affair, "Electronic mob rule."
From what we know so far, the e-mails Congressman Foley sent have nothing overtly sexual in them. Furthermore, many say he never had sexual contact with any Congressional page, unlike Gerry Studds, who went with a page to Portugal and never resigned after that. Congressman Studds stayed in office even after he was censured by Congress.
Furthermore, the Instant Messages in question seem mutual, because they went on for a long time, even if they were or were not a "prank." We are learning, too, that the "teen" in these IMs may in fact have been 18. The Drudge Report claims, "A posting of an unredacted instant message session between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser."
In a recent article in the L. A. Times, another former, unnamed page has come forth and admitted he is gay and at the age of 21, when he was out of the page program, had sex with Congressman Foley. The newspaper says they want to protect the identity of this man by not printing his name. What about protecting the reputation of Mr. Foley? How can you defend yourself against an unnamed accuser? This sexual encounter described in the L. A. Times may be a sin for some voters, but it is not against the law.
Before we throw Congressman Foley completely to the wolves, we better say just exactly what laws he broke. There is no law against being a creep. There is no law against being in the closet, and no law against voting for a gay marriage ban. It looks like now that Congressman Foley can truthfully say, "I never had sexual relations with that boy."
Furthermore, all of the e-mails and IMs found so far on the Internet or in newspapers were sent to young men who had left Washington, DC and were no longer involved in the page program. Why do we have to use the word "disgusting" and "predator" with glee to describe these non-sexual e-mails?
How are we to understand Scott Shuster's comments that border on being libelous? Shuster writes, "This past week it was publicly revealed that Republican Congressman Mark Foley from Florida was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with an under aged male congressional page." What public evidence we have so far shows that this is not true. Is asking someone what they want for their birthday sexual behavior?
Likewise, Andy Martin seems in a rush to judgment when he claims, "The FBI is searching for a local boy, someone in the Washington, DC area...that went to Foley's house and did have "contact" with Marky Mark. They will find that boy and, when they do, all hell will break loose."
Maybe Congressman Foley was too close to those pages, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the pages are gay and were going through a "homosexual panic," something a few gay young men experience before they confront honestly their sexual orientation. Be this as it may, there is the even more troubling issue of who released these IMs and e-mails and why?
It should be especially troubling to gays if Democratic operatives were behind the release to the public of Foley's e-mails and Instant Messages solely for political gain. It is morally wrong to ruin a man's life just because it gives someone a political advantage over their opponent.
It is morally wrong, also, to bear false witness against your neighbor. Many of Mark Foley's accusers may be doing that. Many forget, too, that there is a big difference between a doubtful e-mail or Instant Message and an actual blue dress from the Gap.
Congressman Foley may have had a weakness. We all do. He also did some good work while in Congress. The talking heads on television should remember that when it comes to Washington, D. C., it is not with an excuse but with charity that we say, "Let him without sin cast the first stone."
All gays, regardless of their political party, are hurt by media gay bashing. It especially hurts those who work with young people. This scandal casts a chill on straights, too, who have close contact with youths, like wrestling coaches and Boy Scout leaders.
What will any male teacher say, now, when someone that does not like him describes his behavior as "overly-friendly?" Foleygate opens up suspicions in people's hearts and gives them a greater opportunity to bear false witness against a neighbor they do not like or find "creepy."
In a broader context, if we do find that false witness is being brought against Mark Foley by political operatives from the left, then it will be another sign that we are living through the death of liberalism. When the left begins to eat their children, you know they are desperate. Are liberals now beginning to cannibalize closeted gays, the very people who often come to them for shelter?
When they look the matter over closely, the so-called Christian Right will weight this scandal justly. Republicans know that the Christian Right does not like sex scandals of whatever kind. That's why Republicans try to deal with them quickly. In Illinois, Jack Ryan was asked to step down from his bid to be Senator. Ryan's scandal allegedly involved only him and his wife. No laws were broken here, either.
To use political and media power to bear false witness is another matter. It is possible that the Christian Right will rightly conclude that abuse by the media and politicians in Foleygate is a greater evil than Mark Foley's questionable sexual behavior. Given this, they will not stay home election day, but go to vote.
Foleygate, unfortunately, may show us that in their quest for power, some politicians will do anything. They will abuse the very gay people they claim to support in order to gain a political advantage. After this scandal that the left may have fueled, it is beyond the reasoning of many how this very same left expects to pass gay marriage into law.
Like that village in Vietnam, the left may have destroyed gays in order to save them. Could it be that with Foleygate the left has shot itself in the foot, again? Or, better said, in another part of the male anatomy.
Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Foley Case Upsets Balance of Gay Republicans
Foley Case Upsets Balance of Gay Republicans
By MARK LEIBOVICH
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 — Every month or so, 10 top staff members from Capitol Hill meet over dinner to commiserate about their uneasy experience as gay Republicans. In a wry reference to the K Street Project, the party’s campaign to build influence along the city’s lobbying corridor, they privately call themselves the P Street Project, a reference to a street cutting through a local gay enclave.
For many of those men and other gay Republicans in political Washington, reconciling their private lives and public roles has required a discreet existence. But in the last week, the Mark Foley scandal has upset that careful balance.
Since Representative Foley, Republican of Florida, resigned after it was revealed he had sent sexually explicit electronic messages to male pages, gay Republicans in Washington have been under what one describes as “siege and suspicion.”
Some conservative groups blamed the “gay lifestyle” and the gathering force of the “gay agenda” for the scandal. Others equated homosexuality with pedophilia, a link that has long outraged gay men and lesbians.
Conservative blogs and Web sites pointed out that gay staff members played principal roles in investigating the Foley case, suggesting that the party was betrayed by gay men trying to hide misconduct by one of their own. In the meantime, a group of gay activists, angered by what they see as hypocrisy by gay Republicans, have begun circulating a document known as The List, a roster of gay Congressional staff members and their Republican bosses.
“You can see where it would be easy for some people to blame gays for something that might bring down the party in Congress,” said Brian Bennett, a gay Republican political consultant. He was a longtime chief of staff to former Representative Robert K. Dornan, Republican of California, who regularly referred to gays as Sodomites.
“I’m just waiting for someone in a position of authority to make this a gay issue,” Mr. Bennett said of the Foley case.
The presence of homosexuals, particularly gay men, in crucial staff positions has been an enduring if largely hidden staple of Republican life for decades, and particularly in recent years. They have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers.
Known in some insider slang as the Velvet Mafia or the Pink Elephants, gay Republicans tend to be less open about their sexual orientation than their Democratic counterparts. Even though the G.O.P. fashions itself as “the party of Lincoln” and a promoter of tolerance, it is perceived as hostile by many gay men and lesbians. Republicans have promoted a “traditional values” agenda, while some conservatives have turned the “radical gay subculture” into a reliable campaign villain. And there are few visible role models in the party; Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona is the only openly gay Republican in Congress.
As the blame from the Foley case has been parceled out in recent days, some people in Washington suggested that the Republican leadership’s inadequate response to alarms about Mr. Foley was borne of squeamishness in dealing with a so-called gay issue. Meanwhile, some Republican staff members worried that several gay men caught up in the scandal would be treated unfairly.
They include Kirk Fordham, Mr. Foley’s onetime chief of staff who resigned Wednesday as an aide to Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York, and Jeff Trandahl, formerly the clerk of the House of Representatives, a powerful post with oversight of hundreds of staffers and the page program. The two men were among the first to learn of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate communications. Along with the Republican leadership, they have been criticized for failing to act more aggressively to stop the congressman’s behavior, and possibly covering up for Mr. Foley.
Mr. Fordham and Mr. Trandahl did not hide their homosexuality, and they were well known in Washington’s gay community. (Neither returned phone calls seeking comment.) Others, though, strenuously protect their private life.
“You learn to compartmentalize really well,” said one Republican strategist who, like many gay Republicans interviewed for this article, would speak only anonymously for fear of adversely affecting his career.
Mr. Fordham’s history illustrates the potential tensions between private life and professional rhetoric. After leaving Mr. Foley’s office in 2004, he worked as finance director for the campaign of Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida. In that race, a Martinez campaign flier accused a political rival of favoring the “radical homosexual lobby” by supporting hate crimes legislation that included protections for gay men and lesbians.
One of the inevitable facts, said Mr. Bennett, the former Dornan aide, is that “there are just going to be some days when it’s hard to be a gay Republican.”
When asked why he remains in the party, Mr. Bennett gave an answer common to gay Republicans: he said that he remained fundamentally in sync with the small government principles of the party and its approach to national security, and that he was committed to changing what he considers its antigay attitudes.
“I’m fighting hard, every day,” said Mr. Bennett, who was among a small group of gay Republicans who met with George W. Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign.
Like Mr. Bennett, other gay staff members wind up working for politicians they consider infamous for their inflammatory remarks and hostility to their cause.
Robert Traynham, the top communications aide to Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, endured the fallout from an interview with The Associated Press in 2003 in which Mr. Santorum seemed to equate homosexuality with bestiality, bigamy and incest, among other things. Mr. Traynham had been openly gay for years, but that was not widely known in his professional life — until a gay rights advocate revealed his sexual orientation last year. Mr. Traynham confirmed the report, and Mr. Santorum issued a statement in support of his aide.
In contrast to what many view as the right’s increasingly antigay rhetoric, members of both parties say there has been a growing tolerance for gay men and lesbians within the Republican ranks.
“There’s been a change from 20 years ago when people used to be hyperconscious of staying in the closet,” said Steve Elmendorf, an openly gay Democratic strategist who was the chief aide to former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who served as the Democratic leader. “Now there’s more of an evolution to a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ rule.”
An addendum could be “don’t flaunt.” “You just don’t wear it on your sleeve, bottom line,” said one gay Republican staff member.
“I always made a point of dating women,” said Mr. Bennett, who disclosed that he was gay after his tenure with Mr. Dornan.
Others point out that advancing the beliefs and careers of the boss is a priority, and staff members are expected to stay in the background. “Discretion is what most members expect from their staff, no matter who you are,” said Tracey St. Pierre, who was chief of staff for former Representative Charles T. Canady, Republican of Florida.
“For many conservative Republicans, just being gay in itself is an act of indiscretion,” said Ms. St. Pierre, who is gay but was not open about it until shortly before leaving Mr. Canady’s office. When she worked with him in the mid-1990’s, one of his chief causes was legislation that would ban same-sex marriage. Ms. St. Pierre, who works for a federal agency, considers herself an independent now.
The code of behavior largely extends to Republican politicians themselves, a point underscored by Mr. Foley, who just this week publicly acknowledged that he was gay. He appeared in public with women whenever possible and held parties at his home, which one guest described as decorated with photographs of himself with attractive women.
Mr. Foley had always refused to discuss his sexual orientation, a topic that drew increasing attention as he considered a bid for the Senate in 2004. Amid intensifying rumors about his personal life, he decided not to run.
Despite Mr. Foley’s silence, people on Capitol Hill assumed he was gay. “It was commonly known on Capitol Hill by staff and members,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. “People have their own lifestyles as long as they mind their own business and play by the rules.”
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida who served with Mr. Foley, said, “If you’re a gay Republican, you have to act like a Republican.” Mr. Scarborough, who is now the host of “Scarborough Country” on MSNBC, said “acting like a Republican” entailed going out on the campaign trail “talking about guns, chewing tobacco and riding around in a pickup truck.”
He contrasted that with gay Democrats, “who can strut around and still get a standing ovation.” He cited the case of former Representative Gerry E. Studds, a Democrat of Massachusetts who is openly gay, who became embroiled in a sex scandal involving a page and still won re-election. And Representative Barney Frank, another gay Democratic Massachusetts congressman, has attained almost iconic status among gay men and lesbians.
Gay members of both parties describe the Foley matter as something that could jeopardize the role that gay men and lesbians have assumed in Republican politics.
One gay Republican campaign strategist said he feared that conservatives would “play to the base” and redouble their efforts to vilify homosexuals. “It’s one of the places the party goes when it’s in trouble,” he said. “A lot of us are holding our breath to see how this plays out.”
By MARK LEIBOVICH
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 — Every month or so, 10 top staff members from Capitol Hill meet over dinner to commiserate about their uneasy experience as gay Republicans. In a wry reference to the K Street Project, the party’s campaign to build influence along the city’s lobbying corridor, they privately call themselves the P Street Project, a reference to a street cutting through a local gay enclave.
For many of those men and other gay Republicans in political Washington, reconciling their private lives and public roles has required a discreet existence. But in the last week, the Mark Foley scandal has upset that careful balance.
Since Representative Foley, Republican of Florida, resigned after it was revealed he had sent sexually explicit electronic messages to male pages, gay Republicans in Washington have been under what one describes as “siege and suspicion.”
Some conservative groups blamed the “gay lifestyle” and the gathering force of the “gay agenda” for the scandal. Others equated homosexuality with pedophilia, a link that has long outraged gay men and lesbians.
Conservative blogs and Web sites pointed out that gay staff members played principal roles in investigating the Foley case, suggesting that the party was betrayed by gay men trying to hide misconduct by one of their own. In the meantime, a group of gay activists, angered by what they see as hypocrisy by gay Republicans, have begun circulating a document known as The List, a roster of gay Congressional staff members and their Republican bosses.
“You can see where it would be easy for some people to blame gays for something that might bring down the party in Congress,” said Brian Bennett, a gay Republican political consultant. He was a longtime chief of staff to former Representative Robert K. Dornan, Republican of California, who regularly referred to gays as Sodomites.
“I’m just waiting for someone in a position of authority to make this a gay issue,” Mr. Bennett said of the Foley case.
The presence of homosexuals, particularly gay men, in crucial staff positions has been an enduring if largely hidden staple of Republican life for decades, and particularly in recent years. They have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers.
Known in some insider slang as the Velvet Mafia or the Pink Elephants, gay Republicans tend to be less open about their sexual orientation than their Democratic counterparts. Even though the G.O.P. fashions itself as “the party of Lincoln” and a promoter of tolerance, it is perceived as hostile by many gay men and lesbians. Republicans have promoted a “traditional values” agenda, while some conservatives have turned the “radical gay subculture” into a reliable campaign villain. And there are few visible role models in the party; Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona is the only openly gay Republican in Congress.
As the blame from the Foley case has been parceled out in recent days, some people in Washington suggested that the Republican leadership’s inadequate response to alarms about Mr. Foley was borne of squeamishness in dealing with a so-called gay issue. Meanwhile, some Republican staff members worried that several gay men caught up in the scandal would be treated unfairly.
They include Kirk Fordham, Mr. Foley’s onetime chief of staff who resigned Wednesday as an aide to Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York, and Jeff Trandahl, formerly the clerk of the House of Representatives, a powerful post with oversight of hundreds of staffers and the page program. The two men were among the first to learn of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate communications. Along with the Republican leadership, they have been criticized for failing to act more aggressively to stop the congressman’s behavior, and possibly covering up for Mr. Foley.
Mr. Fordham and Mr. Trandahl did not hide their homosexuality, and they were well known in Washington’s gay community. (Neither returned phone calls seeking comment.) Others, though, strenuously protect their private life.
“You learn to compartmentalize really well,” said one Republican strategist who, like many gay Republicans interviewed for this article, would speak only anonymously for fear of adversely affecting his career.
Mr. Fordham’s history illustrates the potential tensions between private life and professional rhetoric. After leaving Mr. Foley’s office in 2004, he worked as finance director for the campaign of Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida. In that race, a Martinez campaign flier accused a political rival of favoring the “radical homosexual lobby” by supporting hate crimes legislation that included protections for gay men and lesbians.
One of the inevitable facts, said Mr. Bennett, the former Dornan aide, is that “there are just going to be some days when it’s hard to be a gay Republican.”
When asked why he remains in the party, Mr. Bennett gave an answer common to gay Republicans: he said that he remained fundamentally in sync with the small government principles of the party and its approach to national security, and that he was committed to changing what he considers its antigay attitudes.
“I’m fighting hard, every day,” said Mr. Bennett, who was among a small group of gay Republicans who met with George W. Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign.
Like Mr. Bennett, other gay staff members wind up working for politicians they consider infamous for their inflammatory remarks and hostility to their cause.
Robert Traynham, the top communications aide to Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, endured the fallout from an interview with The Associated Press in 2003 in which Mr. Santorum seemed to equate homosexuality with bestiality, bigamy and incest, among other things. Mr. Traynham had been openly gay for years, but that was not widely known in his professional life — until a gay rights advocate revealed his sexual orientation last year. Mr. Traynham confirmed the report, and Mr. Santorum issued a statement in support of his aide.
In contrast to what many view as the right’s increasingly antigay rhetoric, members of both parties say there has been a growing tolerance for gay men and lesbians within the Republican ranks.
“There’s been a change from 20 years ago when people used to be hyperconscious of staying in the closet,” said Steve Elmendorf, an openly gay Democratic strategist who was the chief aide to former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who served as the Democratic leader. “Now there’s more of an evolution to a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ rule.”
An addendum could be “don’t flaunt.” “You just don’t wear it on your sleeve, bottom line,” said one gay Republican staff member.
“I always made a point of dating women,” said Mr. Bennett, who disclosed that he was gay after his tenure with Mr. Dornan.
Others point out that advancing the beliefs and careers of the boss is a priority, and staff members are expected to stay in the background. “Discretion is what most members expect from their staff, no matter who you are,” said Tracey St. Pierre, who was chief of staff for former Representative Charles T. Canady, Republican of Florida.
“For many conservative Republicans, just being gay in itself is an act of indiscretion,” said Ms. St. Pierre, who is gay but was not open about it until shortly before leaving Mr. Canady’s office. When she worked with him in the mid-1990’s, one of his chief causes was legislation that would ban same-sex marriage. Ms. St. Pierre, who works for a federal agency, considers herself an independent now.
The code of behavior largely extends to Republican politicians themselves, a point underscored by Mr. Foley, who just this week publicly acknowledged that he was gay. He appeared in public with women whenever possible and held parties at his home, which one guest described as decorated with photographs of himself with attractive women.
Mr. Foley had always refused to discuss his sexual orientation, a topic that drew increasing attention as he considered a bid for the Senate in 2004. Amid intensifying rumors about his personal life, he decided not to run.
Despite Mr. Foley’s silence, people on Capitol Hill assumed he was gay. “It was commonly known on Capitol Hill by staff and members,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. “People have their own lifestyles as long as they mind their own business and play by the rules.”
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida who served with Mr. Foley, said, “If you’re a gay Republican, you have to act like a Republican.” Mr. Scarborough, who is now the host of “Scarborough Country” on MSNBC, said “acting like a Republican” entailed going out on the campaign trail “talking about guns, chewing tobacco and riding around in a pickup truck.”
He contrasted that with gay Democrats, “who can strut around and still get a standing ovation.” He cited the case of former Representative Gerry E. Studds, a Democrat of Massachusetts who is openly gay, who became embroiled in a sex scandal involving a page and still won re-election. And Representative Barney Frank, another gay Democratic Massachusetts congressman, has attained almost iconic status among gay men and lesbians.
Gay members of both parties describe the Foley matter as something that could jeopardize the role that gay men and lesbians have assumed in Republican politics.
One gay Republican campaign strategist said he feared that conservatives would “play to the base” and redouble their efforts to vilify homosexuals. “It’s one of the places the party goes when it’s in trouble,” he said. “A lot of us are holding our breath to see how this plays out.”
Porn Case Dismissed Against Ex-JonBenet Subject; Would-Be Ped-O-Phile Walks Free.
A collossal waste of taxpayer's money ... Would-Be Ped-O-phile bilks USA taxpayers out of ten thousand dollars, King Crab dinner, free air flight back to USA, etc, etc, ad-naseum. And now it appears, State of California not in a position to try him either. PAT
Case dismissed against ex-JonBenet suspect
Updated 10/6/2006 4:50 AM ET
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
SAN FRANCISCO — Nearly two months after his arrest as a suspect in one of the USA's most lurid unsolved slayings, John Mark Karr was freed Thursday after prosecutors said they don't have enough evidence to try him on child pornography charges.
Judge Rene Chouteau ordered Karr to be immediately released from jail. He was not in the court for the hearing.
Karr was briefly held in the 1996 death of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey but was cleared when Boulder, Colo., authorities said in August that DNA tests failed to link him to the crime.
He was extradited to Sonoma County, Calif., last month to face 5-year-old misdemeanor charges of possessing illicit computer images and had been in jail awaiting trial. The sheriff's department admitted it lost original computer evidence, leading to Thursday's dismissal.
The 41-year-old former schoolteacher, who jumped bail in 2001, ended up in Thailand, where he was arrested Aug. 16.
"Hasn't this been a colossal waste of the taxpayers' money," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Levenson says Karr now becomes "a headache" for law enforcement. "What I think everyone recognizes is that this guy on some level is a threat," she says. "He's a threat, but he's not yet a criminal."
The apparent mishandling of evidence between Karr's 2001 arrest and his return to California "probably happens more often than people think," Levenson says. "It's an embarrassment, but it usually doesn't happen in a case under the limelight."
Karr's lawyers had tried to get the charges thrown out and were asking the judge to bar evidence when prosecutors said they couldn't establish when the child porn images had been downloaded on Karr's computer.
"The impression that we've had all along is that the prosecution had every intention of getting this case to trial, regardless of the evidence," said defense lawyer Robert Amparan. "I am pleasantly surprised by them having done the right thing."
Even if Karr had been convicted of the charges, he likely wouldn't have served any additional time. Prosecutors admitted as much. Karr had spent six months in jail after his 2001 arrest before fleeing.
"We probably will hear from him again in some way or another," Levenson says. "Either the criminal justice system will initiate it or he will."
Thai authorities took him into custody after he wrote e-mails and made telephone calls describing how he was with JonBenet in her home when she died.
"Here's a guy who thrived at the world's attention," Levenson says. "It's very hard for me to believe that he's just going to go back to obscurity."
Contributing: Wire reports
Case dismissed against ex-JonBenet suspect
Updated 10/6/2006 4:50 AM ET
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
SAN FRANCISCO — Nearly two months after his arrest as a suspect in one of the USA's most lurid unsolved slayings, John Mark Karr was freed Thursday after prosecutors said they don't have enough evidence to try him on child pornography charges.
Judge Rene Chouteau ordered Karr to be immediately released from jail. He was not in the court for the hearing.
Karr was briefly held in the 1996 death of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey but was cleared when Boulder, Colo., authorities said in August that DNA tests failed to link him to the crime.
He was extradited to Sonoma County, Calif., last month to face 5-year-old misdemeanor charges of possessing illicit computer images and had been in jail awaiting trial. The sheriff's department admitted it lost original computer evidence, leading to Thursday's dismissal.
The 41-year-old former schoolteacher, who jumped bail in 2001, ended up in Thailand, where he was arrested Aug. 16.
"Hasn't this been a colossal waste of the taxpayers' money," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Levenson says Karr now becomes "a headache" for law enforcement. "What I think everyone recognizes is that this guy on some level is a threat," she says. "He's a threat, but he's not yet a criminal."
The apparent mishandling of evidence between Karr's 2001 arrest and his return to California "probably happens more often than people think," Levenson says. "It's an embarrassment, but it usually doesn't happen in a case under the limelight."
Karr's lawyers had tried to get the charges thrown out and were asking the judge to bar evidence when prosecutors said they couldn't establish when the child porn images had been downloaded on Karr's computer.
"The impression that we've had all along is that the prosecution had every intention of getting this case to trial, regardless of the evidence," said defense lawyer Robert Amparan. "I am pleasantly surprised by them having done the right thing."
Even if Karr had been convicted of the charges, he likely wouldn't have served any additional time. Prosecutors admitted as much. Karr had spent six months in jail after his 2001 arrest before fleeing.
"We probably will hear from him again in some way or another," Levenson says. "Either the criminal justice system will initiate it or he will."
Thai authorities took him into custody after he wrote e-mails and made telephone calls describing how he was with JonBenet in her home when she died.
"Here's a guy who thrived at the world's attention," Levenson says. "It's very hard for me to believe that he's just going to go back to obscurity."
Contributing: Wire reports
Friday, October 06, 2006
Congressman Foley and 'Family Values'
E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post Writers Group
Friday, October 6, 2006
(10-06) 04:00 PDT Washington -- WE NEED to have a long talk about the meaning of "family values."
The "we" here is our country, and the discussion should be encouraged by the shameful behavior of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and the reaction, or nonreaction, of the House Republican leadership.
Over the next few weeks, the argument will be partisan in nature because that's what always happens during an election. Democrats will rightly argue that the Republican brass seemed far more interested in ignoring Foley than in doing anything that might endanger their grip on power. The Republicans should pay a price, and I suspect they will.
But in the long run, this episode should be our national opportunity to break free from empty, politically driven rhetoric that has nothing to do with strengthening families and everything to do with electoral advantages.
Right out of the box, the widespread reaction to the Foley episode was that it would hurt the Republicans with their "base" of Christian and moral conservatives.
Well, yes it will. But the implication here is that those of us who are not conservatives might somehow be less affected by what Foley did. Excuse me, but I am a married father of three children and that's more important to me than the fact that I am a liberal. Our kids matter infinitely more to my wife and me than the results of an election, even an election we both care a lot about.
Like just about every parent I know, I was horrified by this episode because I couldn't believe that the politicians involved didn't themselves think first not as politicians, but as parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles when they learned of Foley's special interest in a page.
"Family values" is more than a political slogan to be pulled off the shelf at election time. Republicans and conservatives do not have a monopoly on the commitments behind the phrase. For too long, liberals have reacted against the idea of "family values" because they wrongly accepted it as a conservatives-only slogan. And many liberals who lead thoroughly old-fashioned, child-centered, family-oriented lives have not been willing to integrate that fact into the way they talk about policy.
Some liberals have been reluctant to embrace "family values" because they see the phrase as implying a negative attitude toward single people or gays or lesbians. But the Foley case should demonstrate that the issue here is not about homosexuality. It is about whether adults, straight and gay alike, behave responsibly toward the young.
The fact that Foley is gay is not the issue. What should upset us are the inappropriate ways in which he expressed his sexuality. We would be condemning him if he had been a 52-year-old heterosexual making similar come-ons to underage females. And, yes, we should be unapologetically judgmental about such things.
And, by the way, isn't it strange that politicians who expressed moral objections to the desire of adult gays and lesbians to marry seemed to take the Foley matter so lightly when it first came to their attention? Where is the morality here?
I would ask my friends who are Christian conservatives to think about this. But I'd also ask my liberal friends to be more willing to come out as family-oriented people. Same-sex marriage is not the greatest threat to the heterosexual family. Misbehavior and irresponsibility by married heterosexuals do far more damage to families and children. Liberals should be unafraid to embrace the language of personal responsibility. In my experience, there's not a dime's worth of difference between my morally conservative friends and neighbors and me in our attitudes toward the obligations of parenthood.
And let economic liberals and moral conservatives come together to discuss how our society has made it more difficult for parents to do the job right. The family-values issues that we can do the most about through government and private-sector policies include how we organize work, how we provide for parental leave time, how we schedule the school day, how we guarantee medical benefits -- in short, how we can make it easier for mothers and fathers alike to juggle their responsibilities.
You might say that these questions are far afield from the Foley scandal. They are not.
The issue in the Foley case, at root, is no different from the issues raised by the great array of policy questions Congress faces all the time: When confronted with an issue, do politicians focus on narrow political imperatives, or do they care most about the well-being of children and families? The politicians should have asked that question in Foley's case, and they should ask it about a lot of other issues, too.
Friday, October 6, 2006
(10-06) 04:00 PDT Washington -- WE NEED to have a long talk about the meaning of "family values."
The "we" here is our country, and the discussion should be encouraged by the shameful behavior of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and the reaction, or nonreaction, of the House Republican leadership.
Over the next few weeks, the argument will be partisan in nature because that's what always happens during an election. Democrats will rightly argue that the Republican brass seemed far more interested in ignoring Foley than in doing anything that might endanger their grip on power. The Republicans should pay a price, and I suspect they will.
But in the long run, this episode should be our national opportunity to break free from empty, politically driven rhetoric that has nothing to do with strengthening families and everything to do with electoral advantages.
Right out of the box, the widespread reaction to the Foley episode was that it would hurt the Republicans with their "base" of Christian and moral conservatives.
Well, yes it will. But the implication here is that those of us who are not conservatives might somehow be less affected by what Foley did. Excuse me, but I am a married father of three children and that's more important to me than the fact that I am a liberal. Our kids matter infinitely more to my wife and me than the results of an election, even an election we both care a lot about.
Like just about every parent I know, I was horrified by this episode because I couldn't believe that the politicians involved didn't themselves think first not as politicians, but as parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles when they learned of Foley's special interest in a page.
"Family values" is more than a political slogan to be pulled off the shelf at election time. Republicans and conservatives do not have a monopoly on the commitments behind the phrase. For too long, liberals have reacted against the idea of "family values" because they wrongly accepted it as a conservatives-only slogan. And many liberals who lead thoroughly old-fashioned, child-centered, family-oriented lives have not been willing to integrate that fact into the way they talk about policy.
Some liberals have been reluctant to embrace "family values" because they see the phrase as implying a negative attitude toward single people or gays or lesbians. But the Foley case should demonstrate that the issue here is not about homosexuality. It is about whether adults, straight and gay alike, behave responsibly toward the young.
The fact that Foley is gay is not the issue. What should upset us are the inappropriate ways in which he expressed his sexuality. We would be condemning him if he had been a 52-year-old heterosexual making similar come-ons to underage females. And, yes, we should be unapologetically judgmental about such things.
And, by the way, isn't it strange that politicians who expressed moral objections to the desire of adult gays and lesbians to marry seemed to take the Foley matter so lightly when it first came to their attention? Where is the morality here?
I would ask my friends who are Christian conservatives to think about this. But I'd also ask my liberal friends to be more willing to come out as family-oriented people. Same-sex marriage is not the greatest threat to the heterosexual family. Misbehavior and irresponsibility by married heterosexuals do far more damage to families and children. Liberals should be unafraid to embrace the language of personal responsibility. In my experience, there's not a dime's worth of difference between my morally conservative friends and neighbors and me in our attitudes toward the obligations of parenthood.
And let economic liberals and moral conservatives come together to discuss how our society has made it more difficult for parents to do the job right. The family-values issues that we can do the most about through government and private-sector policies include how we organize work, how we provide for parental leave time, how we schedule the school day, how we guarantee medical benefits -- in short, how we can make it easier for mothers and fathers alike to juggle their responsibilities.
You might say that these questions are far afield from the Foley scandal. They are not.
The issue in the Foley case, at root, is no different from the issues raised by the great array of policy questions Congress faces all the time: When confronted with an issue, do politicians focus on narrow political imperatives, or do they care most about the well-being of children and families? The politicians should have asked that question in Foley's case, and they should ask it about a lot of other issues, too.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Foley Sets Equal Rights for LGBT Americans Back Years
This posting, by Todd Hill in the Campus Progress Blog tells how many of us feel today, thinking about Congressman Foley. PAT
Post from Campus Progress Blog:
Foley Sets Equal Rights for LGBT Americans Back Years
By ToddHill - Oct 4th, 2006 at 11:41 am EDT
As disgusting as former Congressman Mark Foley's actions were, and no matter how many people voice outrage at his actions, one fact is quite clear: Foley has set equal rights and opportunities way back for gay Americans.
I knew the very minute this scandal broke that our political opponents on the Right, including the Moral soldiers of the Christian extremists, would be pointing to this scenario as the very reason homosexuals should be condemned in our society, and how gays can't be trusted to be around children because they will prey on them like a spider prey's on a trapped fly. According to Texas Women's University around 95% of all child molesters are heterosexual, not homosexual. The claims by some that the majority of child predators are homosexuals are simply, and unequivocally not true. I challenge my fellow members of the LGBT community to stand up and denounce such unfounded comparisons in order to salvage efforts towards equality and opportunity.
I'm gay, and was molested as a child. The last thing I have a desire to do is to rob the innocence of another child, especially one of the same gender as me, and the same goes for most homosexuals who might also have been molested. Being molested plays no role in someone becoming, or being, homosexual. I know for a fact that thousands of Americans are molested today, and equal amounts, if not more, in years past. A large percentage of those individuals have no desire to turn around and rob the innocence of another child much like they were at such a young, and vulnerable age. The reason men and women molest children is because they are easy prey. They are easy to manipulate, control, terrorize, threaten, and take advantage of; it is the very cycle of nature at work. They rob them of their innocence and this action has no limitations in of it. It's the same reason it is so easy for a bully to pick on someone smaller then them instead of picking on someone their own size. Or the very reason larger animals that desire food will attack the smallest or weakest link of a herd in order to best yield themselves food to eat.
It is incredibly important to understand the difference between molestation and pedophilia, which often get blurred during such spats of hateful rhetoric towards gay America. Pedophiles are males or females with sexual thoughts or desires for younger, even pre-pubescent children. A pedophile may have the desire for sex with a child, but never act on it. A child-molester has the same desires but actually, physically acts upon them.
Here are the facts as we know them today. Foley claims to have been molested as a child, was a closeted homosexual, preyed on young teenaged boys, and now blames alcoholism for all his problems. Mark Foley's main problem was the fact he hid who he truly was, which resulted in him sneaking around like a cat at night, and now forces his lawyer to tell the world he was gay when everyone already knew that, and attempts to divulge sorrow from the masses because he was molested. As if that is supposed to give him a free pass for his disgusting actions. Foley was a pedophile, not a child-molester, and his preference was for young male-to-old male sexual molestation in his mind. Homosexuality and molestation are not one in the same, they are polar opposites. Religious extremists have now seized this story as their moral mission to once again piñata the LGBT community for even existing, instead of fully investigating the ranks of their own clergy who so often physically molest young men and women in communities across the United States. The Roman Catholic sex abuse cases are the most recent example of this, including allegations the current Pope Benedict XVI was involved in the cover up. The fact is that Mark Foley waited too late in his life to come to terms with his sexuality, and because he did so he acted upon his homosexual tendencies by dreaming of sex with younger men while living the life society deems is the normal life to live. Had he come to terms with his sexuality at a younger age he could have lived a comfortable life with a youthful partner before he reached his current age. All too often gay men who wait till late in life to come to terms with their sexuality wish to relieve their youth all over again in the life they should have lived to begin with.
It's important that members of the LGBT community take the lead in educating Americans on the facts about pedophilia and child molesters and dispelling the myths that there is a connection between homosexuality and these heinous acts. Otherwise the agenda of equality and opportunity will continue to be a distant achievement to reach as extremists will frame the debate on their terms, not ours.
Post from Campus Progress Blog:
Foley Sets Equal Rights for LGBT Americans Back Years
By ToddHill - Oct 4th, 2006 at 11:41 am EDT
As disgusting as former Congressman Mark Foley's actions were, and no matter how many people voice outrage at his actions, one fact is quite clear: Foley has set equal rights and opportunities way back for gay Americans.
I knew the very minute this scandal broke that our political opponents on the Right, including the Moral soldiers of the Christian extremists, would be pointing to this scenario as the very reason homosexuals should be condemned in our society, and how gays can't be trusted to be around children because they will prey on them like a spider prey's on a trapped fly. According to Texas Women's University around 95% of all child molesters are heterosexual, not homosexual. The claims by some that the majority of child predators are homosexuals are simply, and unequivocally not true. I challenge my fellow members of the LGBT community to stand up and denounce such unfounded comparisons in order to salvage efforts towards equality and opportunity.
I'm gay, and was molested as a child. The last thing I have a desire to do is to rob the innocence of another child, especially one of the same gender as me, and the same goes for most homosexuals who might also have been molested. Being molested plays no role in someone becoming, or being, homosexual. I know for a fact that thousands of Americans are molested today, and equal amounts, if not more, in years past. A large percentage of those individuals have no desire to turn around and rob the innocence of another child much like they were at such a young, and vulnerable age. The reason men and women molest children is because they are easy prey. They are easy to manipulate, control, terrorize, threaten, and take advantage of; it is the very cycle of nature at work. They rob them of their innocence and this action has no limitations in of it. It's the same reason it is so easy for a bully to pick on someone smaller then them instead of picking on someone their own size. Or the very reason larger animals that desire food will attack the smallest or weakest link of a herd in order to best yield themselves food to eat.
It is incredibly important to understand the difference between molestation and pedophilia, which often get blurred during such spats of hateful rhetoric towards gay America. Pedophiles are males or females with sexual thoughts or desires for younger, even pre-pubescent children. A pedophile may have the desire for sex with a child, but never act on it. A child-molester has the same desires but actually, physically acts upon them.
Here are the facts as we know them today. Foley claims to have been molested as a child, was a closeted homosexual, preyed on young teenaged boys, and now blames alcoholism for all his problems. Mark Foley's main problem was the fact he hid who he truly was, which resulted in him sneaking around like a cat at night, and now forces his lawyer to tell the world he was gay when everyone already knew that, and attempts to divulge sorrow from the masses because he was molested. As if that is supposed to give him a free pass for his disgusting actions. Foley was a pedophile, not a child-molester, and his preference was for young male-to-old male sexual molestation in his mind. Homosexuality and molestation are not one in the same, they are polar opposites. Religious extremists have now seized this story as their moral mission to once again piñata the LGBT community for even existing, instead of fully investigating the ranks of their own clergy who so often physically molest young men and women in communities across the United States. The Roman Catholic sex abuse cases are the most recent example of this, including allegations the current Pope Benedict XVI was involved in the cover up. The fact is that Mark Foley waited too late in his life to come to terms with his sexuality, and because he did so he acted upon his homosexual tendencies by dreaming of sex with younger men while living the life society deems is the normal life to live. Had he come to terms with his sexuality at a younger age he could have lived a comfortable life with a youthful partner before he reached his current age. All too often gay men who wait till late in life to come to terms with their sexuality wish to relieve their youth all over again in the life they should have lived to begin with.
It's important that members of the LGBT community take the lead in educating Americans on the facts about pedophilia and child molesters and dispelling the myths that there is a connection between homosexuality and these heinous acts. Otherwise the agenda of equality and opportunity will continue to be a distant achievement to reach as extremists will frame the debate on their terms, not ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
