Republicans Say The Craziest Things

Take, for example, Arizona Republican Congressional candidate, Joe Sweeney:



Yet another example of the futility of trying to advance "libertarian values" inside the right-wing looney-bin popularly known as the Republican Party. With guys like this making up the brain trust, we'd hate to see the dumb ones.

John McCain says gay parent households aren't "family"

He also pledges to use his office to attack queer families in this interview with the New York Times:

Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. “I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption,” he said.

So while the Democrats offer up a candidacy of empty platitudes and flip-flopping, the Republicans offers up a member of the Keating Five to lecture gay parents on how they're not real parents... and condemn thousands of children to lives in orphanages without parentage.

Some Help From Outright To Ease Obama's "Difficulty"

Recently, a gay Democratic activist went to ask Obama about immigration equality. An emotional issue for the gentleman, he teared up when asking Obama about it and received a Clintonian "I feel your pain" response, followed up with a statement that immigration equality is a "difficult" issue:

It was apparent that he knew this issue well. He took some time to explain that same sex immigration is going to be a very difficult one because it combines two of the most controversial issues Congress faces, gay rights and immigration. (I heard this from Barney Frank two years ago as well.) Obama also said that to tackle it we were going to have to establish a vehicle to recognize gay couples.

Obama's understanding of this issue is pretty lousy, and must contribute to his perception of "difficulty."

Presently, the Uniting American Families Act (or UAFA) would make immigration equality happen for both same-gender couples AND opposite-gender couples who choose, for religious, personal or other reasons, not to get legally married.

So here's a simple, easily implemented plan for Obama to pursue on this issue:

1) Talk to Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker, and get the Democratic Whip to get all Democrats to sign on to support UAFA. Ask Pelosi to allow the bill out of committee. The bill, supported by all Democrats and a number of Republicans, would easily pass the House.

2) Introduce identical companion legislation in the Senate. As a senator, Obama can do this, and ensure there's no "committee" necessary to reconcile differing pieces of legislation in the house.

3) Have Harry Reid instruct all Democrat Senators -- who have a majority -- to vote for the bill. A number of GOP senators support the bill as well.

4) If President Bush vetoes it, attempt to get a veto-proof majority, which could possibly be achieved for the bill. If a veto-proof majority is impossible to get, commit to signing the bill if elected president. Then, simply repeat the use of the Democrat majorities in both houses and sign the bill as president, after campaigning on a committed platform for UAFA.

It's not that real action on immigration equality is "difficult," it simply requires Democrats to actually walk the walk on gay issues. Since Democrats typically cannot be bothered to make legislation on gay issues happen -- except when it's anti-gay legislation like DOMA and the anti-gay military policy -- the difficulty is not theirs, but that of 40,000 binational same-gender couples divided or exiled due to Republicrat duplicity on this issue.

Sorry, Barack, but "feeling our pain" ain't good enough. We heard that often enough from Bill Clinton over 16 years ago. It's time to listen to Lee Iacocca and either lead or get the hell out of the way.

Chris Cole, Libertarian for U.S. Senate

A nice article in North Carolina's News and Record:

"I think I contrast in every way," Cole said when asked to compare himself to Hagan and Dole. "They both consider government to be the solution for problems and I consider government the source of problems."

Cole is openly gay, a fact he says he hesitates to talk about only because he doesn't want it to define his campaign.

Newsweek Commentator Alter: Throw The Gays Under The Bus (Again)!

The Obama campaign has been mystifying observers for a while in its sheer audacity. Not necessarily audacious in hope, but rather in flip-flopping, Obama has been running so far to the right as of late to shock even longtime critics like yours truly.

When not advocating an expansion of George W. Bush's government funding program for religious organizations, extension of the warrantless wiretap law, or claiming ignorance about the teachings of his own pastor, Obama is taking steps to distance himself from gay people.

Whether it's slamming marriage equality while announcing his opposition to California's anti-gay marriage ballot initiative or the possible nomination of notorious homophobe Sam Nunn as his VP nominee, Obama has shown nothing but contempt for LGBT Americans.

Which makes this article from Newsweek's John Alter advocating a Nunn Democratic VP nomination all that much more patronizing to LGBT Americans, especially this portion:

The biggest stumbling block in selecting Nunn is his support in 1993 for a Pentagon study that backed a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for gays in the military. Nunn's position now is a mixture of new rhetoric ("I'm grateful to the thousands of gays and lesbians serving today") and a willingness to "review the policy" with an eye toward "eventually" changing it.

This won't be nearly enough for the gay and lesbian community and other liberals, for whom a controversial position of 15 years ago is still fresh. But, contrary to what many assume, this constituency does not have a veto over Obama's choice. And after pleasing gay rights groups by expressing his opposition to a California ballot initiative that would change the state constitution to bar gay marriage, Obama has some room to maneuver.

The blunt political truth is that Nunn's history on this issue might actually help the Democratic ticket in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. While gays would protest loudly if Nunn is the nominee, his selection would show Obama's independent streak in standing up to a powerful Democratic interest group.

I'll leave it up to you to decide which assertion is most pathetic:

1) The assertion that all gay and lesbian Americans are "liberals";

2) The idea that Obama's speechifying on a state issue not directly relevant to the presidency in California "makes up for" dithering in a federal area -- military readiness -- by taking the wrong side on an issue that a supermajority of Americans have long thought should change;

3) The idea that bigotry against gays and lesbians is demonstrative of an "independent streak" (one wonders if Alter and his media cohorts would characterize David Duke's policies against African Americans as edgy and independent);

4) The idea that gay people have any significant power or influence in the Democratic Party -- which has been taking the votes and contributions of gay people for two decades yet delivered not a single substantive positive policy change in that time.

If this article is what passes for "political analysis" in the mainstream media, it's no wonder we're stuck with a boatload of mediocre candidates this election cycle. The media isn't doing its job.

Repealing Don't ask, Don't tell is Fundamental to Freedom

Last December the CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes featured a story about Don’t ask, Don’t tell – the misnomer people commonly use for the Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Correspondent Lesley Stahl spoke to a number of gay veterans who had served in the US Armed Forces. She also spoke to one soldier who appeared on camera while still serving in the Middle East. Yes, he spoke out publicly about his sexual orientation while still in the military. His name was Darren Manzella.

After completing their tour in the Middle East, Manzella and his unit returned to Fort Hood, Texas. Over six months since speaking out on national television, Manzella was finally discharged under the policy earlier this month. Yet another waste of talent, training, experience and all the money invested in giving him that talent, training and experience. Besides being a waste of money, the current law is an unnecessary assault on personal liberties.

The rationale behind the current law is that the presence of a known homosexual service member would disrupt the military unit's morale and cohesion. In other words, straight people and gay people can't work together to accomplish a mission. In the past fifteen years, since the law was debated and codified, there has been no evidence whatsoever to support this rationale. The case of Darren Manzella and numerous others actually provide quite a body of evidence that the rationale is completely wrong.

Congress and the courts have given the military a lot of discretion when it comes to regulating their own activities. And sometimes that includes regulations that would be unacceptable in civilian society. In particular, judges recognize that they may know very little about what is necessary to train and lead an army, so they let the army commanders decide what is best so long as it isn't too extreme. But the case of Darren Manzella makes me think about why Congress felt it was necessary to create this law, instead of leaving it in the hands of the military commanders.

Part of my outlook on life - and what attracted me to the Libertarian Party - is a sincere belief in the worth of the individual. That each one of us is valuable in some way. And when I was a sergeant in the Army, I tried to look at my soldiers that way. They were all able to do a variety of tasks, but some were simply better at doing certain tasks. I could assign a soldier according to his strengths in order to more effectively accomplish our mission. If we were in training, I could assign a soldier according to his weaknesses, so that he could get better.

No matter how much uniformity you try to instill in soldiers, they are always and will always be individuals. A common mission brings them together so that they may apply their individual strengths. The key to building a successful squad or section in the Army is a lot like building a successful (and free) nation - you rely on and exploit the strengths of the individual. Successful military leaders know this. They also know that you cannot crush the individual because crushing the individual also means crushing his strengths.

Successful military leaders want to retain those service members who have demonstrated their strengths, but when one of those service members happens to be gay, they have no say in the matter. Like Darren Manzella, and more than 12,000 other former service members, gay Americans who are honest about their sexual orientation are forced out of the service.

The public's opinion about gays in the military has changed dramatically over the past fifteen years. And the officers and NCOs in our military have shifted as well. Few of them will openly declare their support for gay soldiers, but, like Darren Manzella's commander, they will openly ignore a good soldier's sexual orientation for as long as possible. Time is ripe, the supporting rationale is weak and we should prepare to make a decisive blow for liberty.

Many will say that Don't ask, Don't tell shouldn't be a priority, but how can we advance liberty for all gay Americans when there are thousands of gay American soldiers who still cannot even come out of the closet without retribution?

Democrats Continue Record Of Failure On The Most Basic Of Gay Issues

Democrats have a majority in the House.

Democrats have a majority in the Senate.

Democrat Barack Obama has a polling advantage exceeding 13% in some polls against his Republican rival -- an incredible lead by political standards.

And as long ago as 2004, almost 2/3 of Americans supported an end to the military's anti-gay policy.

So what do Democrats do?

The same thing that gay Americans have come to expect them to do, time and again, on our issues -- absolutely nothing other than talk:

Democrats say the nation should be ashamed of its ban on gays serving openly in the military. It discourages qualified people from joining the ranks at a time when the armed forces are stretched by two wars, they say, and is degrading to those willing to serve their country.

So what have the Democrats done about it? Nothing, really.

Since taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats have not convened hearings on the matter or taken up legislation that would let gays serve openly, although most party members favor repealing the prohibition.

But surely, Barack Obama, the "hope and change" candidate, is leading the way to transform the Democrats' "old politics" into the "new politics of hope and empowerment," right?

Doesn't appear to be so:

In a recent interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, Democrat Barack Obama stopped short of promising to lead the way for change, saying only that he can "reasonably see" a repeal of the current ban if elected president.

So let's get this, ehrmmmm, straight.

The Democratic Party has a majority of both houses of Congress -- a majority that's expected to grow in November. The Democrats have a presidential candidate who is almost certain to win the election -- by double-digit margins against his rivals.

That Democrat claims to be in favor of "real change" and worked to court gay voters.

The policy in question actively harms the US military's ability to recruit and retain skilled workers at a time when there's a severe shortage of them.

A repeal of the policy in question is supported by at least 2/3rds of the public -- probably even more today -- eliminating even the most wimpy inside-the-beltway spineless "we need to avoid backlash" argument against taking action.

And the best the Democrats can do is "reasonably see" if eliminating this law is "possible?"

Pathetic.

No wonder Democratic homophobe Sam Nunn is a favorite for Obama VP.

PS, for comparison's sake, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr -- himself no stranger to controversy in the LGBT community -- issued a clear call to end the policy in 2007 -- a call to action that Barack Obama and the Democrat leadership still won't make.

How much more of this will LGBT voters put up with before demanding some accountability from the party that claims a near-monopoly on their support?