Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Saying good bye to my son

To my first born son:

Your dad and I will miss you terribly these next 2 ½ years, but it will be tempered by the knowledge that you are doing what you’ve always dreamed of doing: giving back.

Enjoy the Peace Corps. Do as you’ve always done, put your whole heart and soul into all that you do. Make a difference in as many people’s lives as you can. And of course have fun too. Life is short.

We love you so much. Stay safe baby.

Love mom


Mohler's God of double standards

Ahhh yes, another wingnut salivates ponders over the endless possibilities should science ever give us the ability to determine sexual orientation in utero. And I suppose I should have seen this coming several years back when I heard Rush Limbaugh discussing it on his radio program. But as I wrote before, I was so stunned and sick to my stomach thinking about the possible consequences of people knowing ahead of time that they were going to have a child who would grow up to be gay or lesbian that I had to pull to the side of the road and concentrate on not losing my lunch right there in the car. So it didn’t really occur to me then that the most heinous part would be that the very people who find it so convenient to deny science and its advances whenever it suits their religious beliefs would also be the ones who’d turn to science and its advances in a heartbeat if it meant undoing God’s little “oopsie daisies” with some sort of “prenatal treatment”. And the best part according to Mohler? It would be biblically justified. Who knew?

Now I know this is actually old news at this point. Albert Mohler wrote this nonsense back on March 2nd. I just chose to ignore it because I’ve been suffering from major “fury fatigue” lately and I just could not muster the energy to even acknowledge his idiocy let alone get angry about it. (I am slowly learning that these loons are so not worth it anyway.) But I stumbled upon an article that so beautifully articulates the profound hypocrisy of people like Mr. Mohler that I decided not to waste brain cells or energy when it’s so eloquently done in this wonderful OPED:

Science is stealing up on America's religious fundamentalists, causing much alarm. Consider the dilemma of the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and a leading figure in the Southern Baptist firmament.

Writing in his blog this month, Mohler acknowledged that "the direction of the research" increasingly points to the possibility that a "biological basis for sexual orientation exists." Should sexuality be determined in utero, Mohler continued, that still wouldn't justify abortion or genetic engineering.

Gosh darn it, the Mohlers of this world just might have to admit that {gasp} homosexuality is “as genetically determined as hair color”. And believe you me, that is not something that will go down easily in the evangelical world, just ask the ole “rev Mohler” himself. Just mentioning the possibility on his blog produced a massive amount of angry email responses from those who don’t like believing that God intended some people to be gay. And besides, that would totally blow their whole argument that “homosexuality is behaviorally induced and thus can be unlearned”.

The OPED goes on to point out that if we do one day find out that homosexuality is genetically determined, it will indeed create a great moral dilemma for those who believe the “Bible's condemnation of homosexuality as a sin” because it would mean that “God is making people who, in the midst of what may otherwise be morally exemplary lives, have a special and inherent predisposition to sin.”

Mohler's response is that since Adam's fall, sin is the condition of all humankind. That sidesteps, however, the conundrum that a gay person may follow the same God-given instincts as a straight person -- let's assume fidelity and the desire for church sanctification in both cases -- and end up damned, while the straight person ends up saved. Indeed, it means that a gay person's duty is to suppress his God-given instincts while a straight person's duty is to fulfill his.

Mohler's deity, in short, is the God of Double Standards: a God who enforces the norms and fears of a world before science, a God profoundly ignorant of or resistant to the arc of American history, which is the struggle to expand the scope of the word "men" in our founding declaration that "all men are created equal." This is a God who in earlier times was invoked to defend segregation and, before that, slavery.

And it just keeps getting better:

This is a God whom vast numbers of this nation's self-professed believers (not to mention its nonbelievers, such as I) neither heed nor like very much, particularly the young, who in growing numbers support gay marriage and certainly don't consider gay coupling any more sinful than they do straight coupling. That said, this God still commands millions of followers, among them Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Old Time Religion, who recently declared homosexuality immoral in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

Indeed, this God commands so many followers that the initial tendency of presidential candidates who know better was to duck when they themselves were asked about the morality of gay sex. Sen. Hillary Clinton, when first asked if homosexuality was immoral, answered that it was for "others to conclude," before righting herself to say that she didn't think being gay was immoral. Sen. Barack Obama, according to Newsweek, avoided a direct answer three times before coming to his senses and disagreeing with Pace. The spokesperson for Sen. John "Straight-Talk Express" McCain said that "the senator thinks such questions are a matter of conscience and faith for people to decide for themselves." Such political and moral contortions are hardly confined to presidential candidates.

But the biggest problem of all is this, if one day science does prove a genetic link to homosexuality, how will the Mohlers of the world reconcile “a God who creates homosexuals with a God who condemns practicing homosexuals to hell?” The OPED puts the biggest moral dilemma for these people in a nutshell:

A mysterious God may be well and good, but a capricious or contradictory God can inspire so much doubt that He threatens the credibility of the entire religious enterprise.


After all, there are few American believers who don't profess at least some faith as well in the verities of proven science and the rightness of our national credo's commitment to human equality. By effectively insisting that God is a spiteful homo-hater, his followers saddle him with ancient phobias and condemn him to the backwaters of American moral life.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Episcopals Rebuff Demands on Stance on Gays

I feel such happiness for all gay and lesbian Episcopalians today. How wonderful that their Church is standing its ground on its commitment to full equality for all people, including gays and lesbians. Episcopal bishops made it clear today that they will not abandon or exclude anyone because of who they are. They made it clear that nothing less than full inclusion will suffice. That is what they believe the Gospel teaches.

Now I’d be a wee bit dishonest though if I didn’t fess up to feeling a little bit of sadness mixed in with the great joy I feel over this wonderful announcement today. This amazing piece of news only makes the Catholic Church’s position on gays and lesbians look even more archaic and cruel.

Today is a bittersweet day for Catholic gays and lesbians and their friends and family. It should also be a reality check. The Episcopal bishops chose to move their Church forward today. The Pope is content to keep his Church in the dark ages. But at least he’ll have good company with his Nigerian brethren.

But enough of that, there is no sense in dwelling on the Catholic Church today when we can bask in the enlightenment of the Episcopal Church:

Responding to an ultimatum from the leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion, bishops of the Episcopal Church have rejected a key demand to create a parallel leadership structure to serve the conservative minority of Episcopalians who oppose their church’s liberal stand on homosexuality.


The bishops have a “deep longing” to remain part of the Communion, they said, but they are unwilling to compromise the Episcopal Church’s autonomy and its commitment to full equality for all people, including gay men and lesbians.

Hat tip to Mike and Dean


Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Why do straights hate gays?

My gosh, here is yet another article so good it should be read in its entirety. This one breaks my heart. The author of this piece, Larry Kramer, is a 72-year-old-gay man who has pretty much lost hope for any big strides in basic gay rights and equality in his lifetime. It’s hard to read this article and not feel heartbroken for him. It’s hard to read this article and not feel heartbroken for all gays and lesbians. And as a mother of a gay son, it’s hard to read this article and not feel just plain old heartbroken (and angry):


Why do you hate gay people so much?

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot. Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column. This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.


President Bush will leave a legacy of hate for us that will take many decades to cleanse. He has packed virtually every court and every civil service position in the land with people who don't like us. So, even with the most tolerant of new presidents, gays will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate. Courts rule against gays with hateful regularity. And of course the Supreme Court is not going to give us our equality, and in the end, it is from the Supreme Court that such equality must come. If all of this is not hate, I do not know what hate is.


Why do you hate us so much that you will not permit us to legally love? I am almost 72, and I have been hated all my life, and I don't see much change coming.

I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you.


This cartoon is worth a thousand words

I really like the Arizona Republic's political cartoonist, Steve Benson. He has the courage to tell it like it is through his editorial cartoons -- not always an easy task in a state that leans to the conservative side. And today, Mr. Benson out-did himself. Share

Monday, March 19, 2007

LEONARD PITTS Jr. is at it again

My goodness Leonard Pitts Jr. has certainly been on a roll lately:

The funny thing is, when George W. Bush came into office what seems like a hundred years ago, I remember thinking that though I disagreed with his politics, it would be good at the very least to have grown-ups -- disciplined, sober, pragmatic -- back in charge of the nation's affairs after the perceived juvenility and shenanigans of the Clinton team. I was wrong.


This is not the way grown-ups behave. It is the ways cultists behave. The willingness to bypass critical thought, the tendency to make one's faith in a man a litmus test, the emphasis on belief, sounds more appropriate to followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh than to high officials of the U.S. government.

Every president has the right to seek subordinates who support his policies. But not at the expense of competence. Nor integrity. Nor loss of life and destruction of property.

Loyalty to Bush is all well and good. But ultimately, these people work for me and you.

Is it asking too much that they show a little loyalty to us?

No, it’s not asking too much, but at this point, it’s probably a big waste of breath.

2008 feels soo far away – I don’t know if I can wait that long. And I really don’t know if our country can take 2 more years of this administration. {sigh}


Rainbow Presence

Catherine, a frequent visitor to this blog, sent me an email today to call my attention to a movement afoot in the Episcopal Church which will culminate on Easter Sunday 2007. This movement, the Rainbow Presence, is calling upon all LGBT folk and their supporters and families, to wear a rainbow of some kind to church that Sunday to show that all are welcomed by Christ as full members of the Christian community and of God's good creation.

And from the website:

While conservative clergy may feel called to deny communion to anyone wearing a rainbow sash or insignia on Easter Day, in doing so they could be in violation of the Canons of The Episcopal Church. Canon I.17.5, titled "Rights of Laity," states

No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons.

And there will even be a Canadian Rainbow Presence! From a parish newsletter:

Rainbows At Easter

This Easter Sunday your rector will be wearing, not a white stole, but a rainbow stole, indicating his support of the full inclusion of Gay and Lesbian persons as members of the Anglican Church of Canada. In response to the vitriolic anti-gay rhetoric manifested by certain representatives of neo-conservatism in the global Anglican community, and as an indication of support for the Anglican Church of Canada’s present commitment to respectful and open dialogue with its Gay and Lesbian members, Anglicans across Canada are being asked to show up on Easter Sunday morning wearing the rainbow, which has become the symbolic of our hope to be a church which welcomes and affirms all persons, regardless of sexual orientation. So I am asking you to find a rainbow and wear it with pride this Easter Sunday.

If you need one, Janet has a collection of rainbow buttons which she will be pleased to share with you for the occasion.

What a concept: A church that reaches out to everyone. {sigh}


Saturday, March 17, 2007

Morality – General Peter Pace doesn't know the meaning of the word

I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

-- Gen. PETER PACE, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Leonard Pitts Jr. had an article in the Miami Herald yesterday that is so good it really should be read in its entirety. As is usually the case, Mr. Pitts expertly peels away the layers of sanctimony and pious bullsh*t to expose the real issue: homophobia. Inspired by General Peter Pace’s comment above, he starts by dismantling the “morality argument”, the most common smokescreen used by homophobes to justify their “hatred of gays and lesbians”:

People like [General Pace] -- in other words, bigots -- often wrap up their objections in claims of fundamental right and wrong where sexual orientation is concerned: I have a moral objection to homosexuality, they will say, loftily.

I've always thought ''visceral'' would be a better and truer adjective. As in, a gut-level objection to people of the same sex engaging in physical or emotional intimacy.

I’ve often made this very same argument, that these people are probably more driven by a deeply rooted revulsion to the idea of gay sex than they are by any sense of morality. They just (ab)use the morality argument to hide their discomfort and in most cases their blatant homophobia.

And Mr. Pitts calls these people on their dishonesty, although I would argue it’s a much graver sin than dishonesty:

If those who feel that objection would admit to being driven by instinct and not principle, I could at least respect their honesty. Frankly, it's not uncommon for heterosexual people to flinch at the idea of homosexual intimacy. But the problem is, that admission would cost gay-haters the pretense of principle.

After all, to admit that a response is visceral is to admit you haven't thought it through. Ergo, frame it as a ''moral'' issue. As a practical matter, it comes out the same, but it sounds more high-minded.

And that’s it in a nutshell. “Gay sex disgusts me” just doesn’t have that “holier-than-thou” ring that “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts” has. By framing the argument as a matter of right and wrong these people effectively claim the moral high ground they need to squelch any intelligent debate on the matter and put a “case is closed” finality to the whole thing:

At this point, of course, someone is frantically pointing to an obscure Old Testament passage as his or her authority for the immorality of homosexuality. Thing is, the Old Testament also requires the death penalty for disrespectful children, forbids the eating of meat cooked rare, and obligates the man who rapes a virgin to buy her from her father and marry her. I've seen no groundswell of support for those commands.

Mr. Pitts wraps up with the “painful irony” of General Pace’s words:

That's why, four years into the Iraq debacle, there is painful irony in hearing the president's top military advisor give a lecture on morality. Team Bush misled the nation into war against the wrong enemy. It hospitalized wounded Americans in squalor and filth. It left the people we ''liberated'' without electricity, gasoline or medical services for months turning to years because of its failure to plan.

How moral is that? And how moral is it for the chairman of the joint chiefs to insult soldiers who are still in harm's way, soldiers who have been wounded, soldiers who have died, because they do not love as he would choose? The answer in two words: not very.

So the general will have to forgive me if I cannot take seriously his maundering on right and wrong. Where morality is concerned, his words serve only to make one thing clear: He doesn't know the meaning of the word.


Wednesday, March 14, 2007

And we’re supposed to take this guy seriously?

I almost spit my morning coffee across the kitchen table this morning when I read this sick quote (bolded text) from the pope in the paper this morning:

The plight of divorced Catholics who remarry is a concern for many faithful in the United States, where divorce and remarriage are common.

While the pope acknowledged "the painful situations" of those remarried Catholics, he also reiterated the church's stance that they cannot receive Communion because the church holds they are living in sin if they consummate their new marriages.

The church "encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship ... as friends, as brother and sister," Pope Benedict said.

So all divorced, remarried Catholics must live together as “friends” or “brother and sister” in order to remain in the good graces of the Catholic Church? And if they don’t? They can’t receive Communion.

Oh my God! That is so sick (and this is the same guy who thinks gay love is objectively disordered). But it sure makes any other idiocy that comes out of this guy’s mouth a whole lot easier to ignore.

And hey, all you Catholic politicians out there, this same guy has a few dictates for you too:

The Church's opposition to gay marriage is "non-negotiable" and Catholic politicians have a moral duty to oppose it, as well as laws on abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict said in a document issued on Tuesday.


"Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce laws inspired by values grounded in human nature," he said

Wow! After telling certain married couples they have to pretend their relationship is more like that of a brother and sister than that of a married couple, this Pope actually thinks he has enough credibility left to tell our politicians how to legislate? He’s really a piece of work.

Could this Pope look any more ridiculous? Under him the Catholic Church has been fast tracking it to irrelevancy. His hyper-abnormal focus on any kind of sex that doesn’t fall strictly within the confines of Catholic-approved sex (i.e., sex strictly to produce a baby) is sick. With so many truly huge problems facing the world today, this church’s dogged persistence in focusing on all the wrong things makes it look more and more archaic, out-of-touch, and just plain stupid everyday.

No wonder so many people have left the Catholic Church. And something tells me that most of those who remain just turn a deaf ear to this guy and pick and choose what they want to believe makes them a good Catholic. There is no way that everyone in that line for Communion meets all the criteria put forth by the Catholic Church. The church has pretty much made it impossible to be a Catholic in good standing.

So today’s Catholic is left with two choices: a) leave the Church or b) follow your own gut for being a good human being and ignore the guy in the Prada cape and Gucci shoes. I lived option “b” for years and finally felt forced to leave when the Church told me that one of my children was objectively disordered and intrinsically evil. My only regret is that I didn’t do it sooner. I hate hypocrites, but the Catholic Church forced me to be one.

And oh, by the way, no worries to anyone who is divorced from a nightmare spouse and wishes to remarry and remain a Catholic in good standing. Even the Catholic Church has loopholes that can be exploited for the right price.


Thursday, March 08, 2007

The day my son learned that faggot is not just a schoolyard taunt

I will never forget the first time my son was called a faggot. It will be forever burned into my memory as a very traumatic experience – for both my son and for me. And in no way was that word used as a “schoolyard taunt” or a “joke” as Ann Coulter would like everyone to believe.

It happened 11 years ago when my son was 10 years old. Our family had just moved back to Arizona and into a new home in a new development. My husband and I purposely chose a new neighborhood because we believed that would be a great way for our children to ease in and make new friends. Everyone would essentially be in the same boat as a new kid on the block. And there would not yet be established friendships, cliques, or baseball teams. They would be getting in on the ground floor so to speak. Our plan definitely had its advantages, but as we were soon to find out, it also had some disadvantages too.

Every evening after dinner the kids would all rush out the door to congregate outside and talk, get to know one another, and basically size each other up. But it was also a time for some of the new boys in the neighborhood to start marking their territory and establishing their place in the pecking order.

As each new home was completed, a new family would move in and that evening the ritual among the kids would begin anew: “congregate’, “size up the new kids”, and further “refine the pecking orders”. New families were moving in at a fairly regular pace and the neighborhood was quickly becoming a vibrant melting pot of people from all over the country.

One week a new family with 3 kids moved in a few houses down from us. One of the kids in that family was a girl about the same age as my middle son. Not long after they had moved in, my middle son was standing in this family’s driveway having a conversation with this young girl. Unfortunately, this did not set well with some of the boys in the neighborhood. I suppose they felt he’d overstepped some unwritten boundary they’d set by talking to the new girl before they’d had a chance to strut their stuff and make an impression on her.

Before my son knew what was happening, he was quickly surrounded by about 5 or 6 boys who’d figured out the perfect way to make an impression on this little girl and teach my son a lesson at the same time. The first boy stepped forward, shoved my son hard, almost knocking him to the ground. Before he had a chance to recover another boy came at him, grabbed him by the shirt collar and called him a faggot, while at the same time a third boy came up from behind and pulled my son’s shorts down exposing his underwear in front of this girl. The others began closing in and it was clear at that point that their intention was to escalate this whole thing to the next level. Just as my son was bracing for the first blow, the new girl’s mother came outside to see what was going on and the bullies scattered like cowards for cover. My dazed son quickly headed home, frightened, horrified, and mortified. He had no idea what he’d done to deserve what had just happened and he quickly decided in his 10-year-old line of reasoning that Arizona was a very bad place and he no longer wanted to live here.

When he walked through the door that evening, I knew something was terribly wrong. He didn’t want to tell me, but when I prodded him, he spilled the whole story. I cannot put into words the gamut of emotions I was feeling. It was a mixture of rage and fear. And when he told me they’d called him a faggot, I felt sick to my stomach.

It took Herculean efforts to hide those emotions from my son. I was overwhelmed by a desire to march out that door and find every one of those punks and show them what it feels like to be bullied by someone bigger than them, but instead I put my arms around my son and told him that there will always be bullies in this world. I explained that they are usually very insecure people who have a terrible sense of inadequacy and they compensate for that inadequacy by hurting others and temporarily getting a rush of superiority from it. It went way over my 10-year-old’s head. He simply wanted to know what he’d done to deserve such cruel treatment and when we were moving back to Minnesota.

That word, faggot, was not intended to be a “schoolyard taunt” or a joke that day. That word was intended to be the prelude to violence, with my son as the intended target. That word was a weapon. It was used to demean and hurt my son and it accomplished both goals. To this day, when I hear that word it evokes intense emotions within me. I will never forget the terror, the rage, or the hurt that word inflicted on my son and on me.

Watching Ann Coulter stand up on that stage in all her cutesy, smarmy, smug glory and spout that word brought back all that rage I felt 11 years ago. She did it for the benefit of her overly receptive crowd and they loved it, but I’ve really got to wonder how many parents had the same reflexive reaction I did. We know the impact that word has, we know it first hand. And something tells me Ann Coulter knows its impact too, and that’s why she used it.

She is worse than those bullies who ganged up on my son. They were kids, she is not. It is a very pathetic human being who can only make their mark in this world by demeaning others, or only be funny at the expense of others, or only feel adequate when they are making others feeling inadequate, but that seems to sum up Ann Coulter’s shtick in a nutshell. Like I told my little boy that day 11 years ago, there will always be bullies in this world. Ann Coulter is one of those bullies.


Tuesday, March 06, 2007

My brother was not a faggot. He was a man.

Sometimes I just have to steal and the post below is stolen. It moved me to tears.

Hope you don't mind Andrew:

Thank you, Andrew, for that post. I will testify to you about the bravest man I ever knew.

My brother, eleven years older than me, my godfather, was a semi-nelly queen from rural southeast Texas, where we grew up. Talk about steel. There, especially then, you take your life in your hands if you're queer and honest about it. Far more likely you grow up closeted and hating yourself. Well, my brother didn't hate himself, but plenty of people down there did. And somehow, in the face of hate, he displayed understanding and equanimity. How he managed understanding was sometimes beyond me. Like your friends, Andrew, my brother had more strength and courage and grace than Hannity and Coulter put together. He died of AIDS, Christmas 1994. He lived long enough to have several fatal diseases - Kaposi's, pneumocystis carinii, etc. - by the time he died. He lived his illness without bitterness, complaint, or regret. He planned his death, from the hospice to the urn, so as not to be a burden to our parents or to his brothers or friends. All the while offering comfort to his friends who were sicker, cooking meals, driving to appointments, enforcing medical regimes.

I've never seen someone so kind to the nurses and doctors attending him.
"I'm sorry, I look horrible," he said to the doctor at his last appointment.
"Do you feel like you're dying?" his doctor asked.
"Yes. Is that okay?"

He faced eternity with peace and wisdom and a great good humor that I continue to find simply stunning. I am not prone to experiencing profound revelations. But his death was just that to me. And this, of course, says nothing about who my brother was apart from his disease.

My brother was not a faggot. He was a man.

Yes, and he probably would have forgiven Ann Coulter her transgressions. But I sure won't.


And the ignoramus speaks again

Coulter says Faggot "isn't offensive to gays" -- It's just a "schoolyard taunt."

Well Ann, tell that to the family of 72-year Andrew Anthos. He found out first hand what your so-called “schoolyard taunts” could lead to:

Anthos, a 72-year-old gay man whose great dream was to light the Michigan State Capitol dome in red, white and blue each Fourth of July, was helping a wheelchair-bound friend through the snow when a fellow bus rider, irked with his singing and spouting gay slurs, bludgeoned him from behind with a metal pipe. Anthos lingered, paralyzed from the neck down, for 10 days before dying.

And Ann, you just keep on talking, because every time you open your hateful mouth you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what an ignorant bigot you are.

I don’t know of many children who suffer daily bullying and “schoolyard taunts” who have the luxury of an array of bodyguards like you do, but something tells me they might beg to differ with your assessment that the word “faggot” isn’t offensive.

Words hurt Ann. Words can do damage Ann. Words have consequences Ann. So shut your mouth Ann Coulter --- you have no idea what you're talking about.


If I could just have a minute of your time...

Word of advice to all Democratic Presidential hopefuls:

This administration has handed you a plethora of issues upon which to run. Just saying you want to undo the massive damage this incompetent group of people presently in the White House has done to this country is a winner. But please, please don’t ignore that segment of society who has borne more than their fair share of damage at the hands of a party who knew they could turn hatred, homophobia, and bigotry into votes – our LGBT brothers and sisters.

Silence on LGBT issues is not an option.

Confidential to Rudy Giuliani:

You’re lookin pretty good in the polls right now bud, I’m happy for you. But a big word of advice: don’t go waxing poetically about “family values” or “the sanctity of marriage”, you’ll have both sides of the aisle laughing you out of the room if you do.

In fact Rudy, how about doing something really different? Rather than making a complete and total hypocritical ass of yourself like McCain and Romney are doing, how about disconnecting yourself from this bunch of heathens who call themselves Christians, but act like hateful creeps. They’ve hijacked your party, dirtied the good name of Christianity, and turned people like Ann Coulter into a celebrity.

And please, don’t do what John McCain has done, it isn’t working for him – they still hate him, and it won’t work for you either. Break away my friend, you will never ever have the Dobson-Falwell crowd’s support, but you might be surprised whose support you will get if you give that crowd a swift kick in the ass.

Please Rudy --- don’t sacrifice your gay and lesbian friends for political gain --- ok? I know one seething mom who doesn’t give a whit about the D or R after a candidate’s name, but I do care deeply about a candidate who will fight for all American’s rights and not just the ones who pass the Dobson smell test.


Monday, March 05, 2007

Is Ann Coulter the face of today’s Republican Party?

“I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!”

That is a direct quote taken from Ann Coulter’s website. There isn’t an ounce of shame or an apologetic bone in her body. And why would there be? She got what she wanted: attention, a few minutes basking in the limelight, and another opportunity to show America that she can spew hate with the best of em. But I’ll say one thing about her, she knows her audience and she knows what they want. And judging from the applause and laughter, she satisfied their appetite for hateful rhetoric at the expense of others.

After watching the video below taken at the CPAC Conference, I came to the sad realization that Ann Coulter was very much in her element. It took no guts for her to say what she said about John Edwards in that crowd. They ate it up. She no sooner got that ugly word out of her mouth and the audience’s applause and laughter said it all, she was speaking their lingo. So I guess this is today’s Republican Party, love it or leave it. My skin crawls thinking I once thought this party actually represented my values.


And John Edwards you blew it

Yes, Ann Coulter is an awful person, but that’s not news. Most people know that. And yes her rhetoric is ugly and hateful, but most people have come to expect that from her too. I know for me she’s become nothing more than a bad joke. She’s an irrelevant, desperate-for-attention, pathetic human being, hardly worth the energy it takes to yawn let alone get worked up over.

But Ann Coulter handed John Edwards an opportunity and I’m hugely disappointed at what he did with it. Her ugly words actually gave him the chance to prove that he really is the man who will stand up for the less fortunate, the downtrodden, the impoverished, and the discriminated against. And who better to start with than the very group of people who were trampled over and over again by the current administration?

But I guess it’s not yet politically advantageous enough to stand up for the homos – so John Edwards did the next best thing, he used Ann Coulter’s nasty words as an excuse to beg for money.

And before her spittle could evaporate off the mic in which she spewed her ugliness, this email from John Edwards landed in my inbox:

This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us. And now that it's begun, we have a choice: Do we sit back, or do we fight back?

I say we fight. Help us raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week to show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign. I just threw in 100 bucks. Will you join me? Just click here.

I am so disappointed. I expected so much more from John Edwards. He has made it his platform to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, but he couldn’t take the chance of hurting himself politically by standing up for the group who’s had the bulls eye on their back for the past 6 years.

Well John Edwards is a huge disappointment to this mother of a gay son. I expect wretched behavior from Ann Coulter, but I have very high expectations of anyone who thinks they have what it takes to be president of this country. And if a person doesn’t have the backbone to stand up for all Americans, then that person isn’t going to get my vote or my money.

Ann Coulter did something much worse than call John Edwards a “f*ggot” the other night, she made him show his hand.

And I don’t like what I saw.