McBush the "Feminist"

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

So you still think McCain's some "feminist icon" who's advancing women's rights? Think again. Next time he whines about "lipstick", remember this. Remember what McBush & his GOP really think about women.

Masochists for McCain

Author's Note: The Log Cabin Republicans is an organization for gay Republicans. (Yes, both of them.)

The most pathetic, self-loathing group of people on the face of the earth just came out with their much anticipated endorsement. The Log Cabin Republicans are backing Sen. John McCain and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

From the LCR website:

On issues of concern to Log Cabin, Sen. McCain has a mixed record. But, on the most important issue the LGBT community has faced in the last decade, the federal marriage amendment, McCain stood with us and was on the right side of history. He consistently voted against the anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment. He voted against the proposal in both 2004 and 2006, saying the matter should be left to the states. Watch Sen. McCain's 2004 speech opposing the FMA.

He supported Arizona's 2006 effort to ban marriage equality and roll back domestic partner benefits offered by some municipalities in the state. McCain opposes hate crime legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). He supports continuation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly and honestly in the U.S. military.

So he has a "mixed record" because he endorsed every aspect of the Dr. Dobson hate agenda EXCEPT a federal constitutional amendment that had no chance of passing anyway? That's a mixed record!?

The Log Cabin Republicans need to do more research. Although Sen. McCain voted against the federal anti-gay marriage amendment, he signed a petition for a referendum on an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Arizona state constitution. McCain seems to believe that states should be allowed to make their own decisions on gay marriage. So while he opposed the federal ban, he supported the state ban.

Here is the ad he cut for the anti-gay bigots activists:



He discussed his personal views at the Hardball College Tour in Iowa in 2006:

“On the issue of gay marriage, I do believe, and I think it's a correct policy that the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, a marriage between man and woman, should have a unique status. But I‘m not for depriving any other group of Americans from having rights. But I do believe that there is something that is unique between marriage between a man and a woman, and I believe it should be protected.”

In this video, McCain explains that while he doesn’t have problem with gay marriage, in that he doesn’t have a problem with the ceremony, the marriage should not confer any rights.



If that doesn’t send a chill down your spines, maybe this will. In the fall of 2007, a judge in Iowa struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage. Fox News wrote this about Senator McCain's response to that ruling:

Republican White House hopeful John McCain called the ruling "a loss for the traditional family."

"I have always supported the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman," he said. "The ruling of the court only reinforces my belief that we must have a president who is committed to appointing strict constructionists to the bench."

This spring, after securing the nomination, Senator McCain repeated his pledge to nominate “strict constructionist judges.”

What does that mean for the gay rights movement? Before John Roberts and Samuel Alito were added to the Supreme Court, the three strict constructionist judges were Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and the late William Rehnquist. In 2003, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down laws that banned consensual sex between adults of the same sex. From CNN:

Religious conservatives quickly criticized the decision, and in a sharply worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court "has taken sides in the culture war." Scalia -- joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas -- said the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda though normal democratic means," Scalia wrote.

But with Thursday's decision, he wrote, the court was "departing from its role in assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

If this is what the Log Cabin Republicans call a "mixed record," then they are crazier than I thought. Having skimmed LCR's website, I'm starting to believe they are seriously delusional. After all they still haven't heard (or accepted) the news that John McCain endorsed California's proposition 8, an amendment on the November ballot that would ban gay marriage.

From the LCR website:

Like Sen. Obama and most Democratic lawmakers, Sen. McCain opposes marriage for gay and lesbian Americans. He has expressed support for allowing gay couples access to some benefits short of a civil marriage license. When the California Supreme Court affirmed the state legislature in May 2008 and paved the way for marriage equality in the Golden State, Sen. McCain issued a statement saying that the people of California should decide the issue.

Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama has come out against proposition 8 in California. Unlike the Log Cabin Republicans, the Democratic Party is not afraid to embrace the gay and lesbian community in an election year. Although Republicans have used gay marriage and gay rights as wedge issues in previous elections, Democrats crafted a platform that gay activists hailed as its "strongest ever" on gay rights.

The Log Cabin Republicans, on the other hand, seem content to continue their role as the Uncle Tom's of the GOP.

If the LCRs thinks the only way they will be taken seriously by Republicans is to abandon any notion of fighting for gay rights and shamelessly endorse a man who thinks that they are unfit to marry, adopt children, or serve in the military, so be it. But they need to stop pretending that they are putting gay and lesbian families come first when the endorse a man who said, "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."

No self-respecting man or woman who has suffered at the hands of an intolerant society because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity would support this bigot for president.

Profiles in Cowardice: Log Cabin Republicans

Wow. So the Log Cabiners are really endorsing McBush-Failin'? After all he's done to sell out LGBT people to win approval from the religious right wingnut fundies? How precious. I guess they'd rather buy into the "McMaverick" myth than recognize reality for what it is.

So why, again, should anyone supporting equal rights support someone who thinks "separate but equal" is OK?

McBush's VP = Just As Anti-LGBT As He Is

Don't believe me? Look at the record. She opposes marriage equality, domestic partner benefits, and any semblence of equal rights.

So what's different? Where's the change? There's none for queer people.

Maverick My Ass

I'm sick of this "John McCain is a maverick" bullshit. He is a political opportunist who embraced his party orthodoxy in exchange for embracing the far right-wing agenda. This week, for instance, he hinted that he might be willing to choose a running mate with non-traditional beliefs, but there were limits to how far a potential running mate could stray from the Republican Party line.

"I think it's a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a -- albeit strong -- but just it's a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that. Far more so than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues."

Asked about it today, Bloomberg predictably dodged jumping into the mud by praising McCain as someone who's done great things for this country but then added this dig, "I think that choice and gay rights are personal things -- particularly if you are a conservative, the government should get out of the bedroom."

Let's put this issue in Republican words so we can get the full effect of his statement. John McCain is open to choosing a running mate who believes that it should be legal for women to murder their babies, but not a candidate who believes in equal treatment of heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. In his eyes, being pro-gay is worse than be pro-baby-killing.

Why is pro-gay worse than pro-choice? Deep down, they hate gays more than they hate doctors who "kill" babies. The former is perceived as a "threat" to themselves, while the latter is not.

As the LA Times noted this week, anti-gay marriage advocates try to frame their arguments in terms of preserving traditions and protecting families. Despite this front, when given the opportunity to speak freely about their beliefs, the anti-gay affect comes to the surface. Before announcing it's opposition to Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, the editorial board met with supporters and opponents to allow them to make their case.

The measure's supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people...until the talk went deeper.

At one point, the conversation turned to the "activist judges" whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.

In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children's rights, and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers.

It's not clear that John McCain agrees with the anti-gay activists who push the homosexual recruitment conspiracy theory, but many of his anti-gay positions fly in the face of current social science research.

For example, despite the fact that study after study after study after study has shown that children raised by same-sex parents turn out no better, no worse, no gayer, no straighter than children raised by heterosexual parents, John McCain still believes that it is better for children to grow up without parents than it is for them to be raised by gays and lesbians.



And despite research which shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would not harm readiness, John McCain still supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell.



John McCain is not a maverick. He's a conservative Republican adn a bigot. And if he'll sell homosexuals down the river to pander to the right-wing lunatic fringe, what do you think he'll do to the "McCain Democrats" once he's gotten your votes?

Don't fall for it!

"Family Values" McBush

Awwwww! How precious! "Mr. McMaverick" is taking money from someone operating a gay crusing (as in, cruising for a one night stand) site?

I don't know who will be more outraged by this... Gay guys who find out their $$$$ is going toward electing a President who will discriminate against them more, or the Christianist wingnut fundies who will scream at the thought of "Mr. McFamily-Values" taking $$$$ from a "Sodomite"? Yippee for McBush! :-D

CO-02: Jared Polis, My New Hero

I haven't said this in a while, but I have to say this now. Matt Stoller is right on! I simply can't believe it.

In case you haven't heard the HUGE news already, Jared Polis will likely be the next member of Congress representing Colorado's 2nd District. And in case you didn't know, Jared Polis is openly gay. He's the first openly gay challenger to be elected to Congress.

As a gay person myself, this is BIG news. This is a major breakthrough for us LGBT people and another breaking down of the homophobic barriers holding back progress. If elected in November (which is highly likely, as CO-02 includes Boulder & tilts quite Democratic), Polis will be the 3rd open LGBT member of Congress along with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) & Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).

So please excuse me today if I seem extra happy... I'm just glad to see yet another advance for not just LGBT people, but for civil rights for all. :-)