In an appearance on yet another right wingnut talk program, Ricky Sanctimonious played his oh-so-tired homo card.  Again.

This time he was on Janet Parshall's America (I wish I had my own America), a nationally syndicated talk radio program. I picked this up from the Raw Story. 

Read what Ricky has to say this time ...

It is. If you think about it, Janet, from everything from Brokeback Mountain to, you know, all the TV shows that you see promoting and affirming alternative lifestyles -- I guess to put it nicely -- you would think that the culture would eventually just move in the other direction. But I think these kind of debates are the chance for a public discourse to counter what Hollywood is purveying to our young people. Not just what Hollywood is purveying to young people, to all people. And it's an opportunity for us to get beyond, you know, 'We should treat everybody nicely.' I'm for treating everybody nicely, but that doesn't mean that we need to change the law to recognize a form of marriage that is harmful to our country.

Hey, hey --- I wonder if Santorum spokesfag Robert Traynham gets treated nicely when he's asked to spin yet another stupid lie to cover Ricky's ass?  You could say he's the right man for that job, but that would be an overly obvious joke. 

And, of course, there are still no details on how gay marriage will hurt the country.  Perhaps Ricky left that document in Penn Hills when he moved?  

I missed this, but on Thursday the Trib published a column by Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute (limited government, free markets, etc). 

Powell explains how federal regulation of marriage proved to be a bad conservative idea back in the days of Theodore Roosevelt. 

Polygamous families were producing more children than monogamous families and TR feared that polygamy would sweep the nation. He recommended a constitutional amendment banning polygamy. He came close to suggesting that there ought to be a law making it mandatory for monogamous families to have children.

Aside from the characters on HBO, do you know any polygamous families?  

Powell continues:

One big problem with the idea of federalizing everything is the assumption that the "right" people will always be in control.

<snip>

Mindful of historical reality, one has to consider the possibility that if the marriage amendment is ratified, it will strengthen precedents for the federal government to find new ways of interfering in people's personal lives. At least some of the interference will likely be abhorrent to the religious right.

All very excellent points.  But Powell fails to carry his argument to its logical conclusion -- its not so much federal control of marriage that's abhorrent as government control period.  Why should the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania exert that latitude of control over marital and, by default, nonmarital relationships? 

We've already seen examples of the damage that the amendments can do vis a vis blasting domestic violence convictions out of the water for unmarried couples.  People of faith should rethink this because its not just the great unwashed sinners who run into this wall of control.  If your engaged virginic daughter is beaten by her fiancee, she may have no legal recourse.  If he waits until they are married to beat her, she's all set.  That makes no fucking sense.

Powell wraps up with a call to the conservative faithful to live up to their own ideals rather than imposing them on others:

If they really want to promote traditional marriage, conservative people of faith should do two things:

First, they could marry someone of the opposite sex and set an example of how beautiful such unions can be.

Second, rather than working to close off the rights of gays, they should use their political efforts to abolish the obnoxious marriage tax penalty. Then all people of every sect and philosophy would owe them a debt of gratitude.

I'd go a bit further.  If the conservatives want to preserve the institution of marriage and protect families, they should put down their fetus signs and sign up as a foster family.  It is the best way to help put a family back together.

While he deftly minces closer to his own heterosexual-style wedding to the lovely and talented Roberta, our good friend and lesbian-lover John McIntire gave gay marriage a big old shout out in his local blog, MacYapper.com. 

In spite of his fondness for large-fonted bold-faced type (I always wondered what his type was), McIntire adroitly dissects the bigot-fawning behavior of Arlen Specter, Dubya and pretty much the entire Republican party (plus Democrat Ben Nelson).

Not to mention members of the general public who like to pussy-foot around their homophobic principles (type faced reduced for non-yelling like reading):

*To those who ask, "why, just because I'm against gay marriage, does thatmake me a bigot or a homophobe?" I extend my sympathies.
You're not necessarily either of those.*You could just be an imbecile.

Edith Bell of Highland Park has got it right:

Mr. Casey is also correct that Pennsylvanians' concerns are health care, the war in Iraq and a living wage, not gay marriage or abortion rights.

Yet both our federal and state legislative bodies are compelled to whip Americans into a puritanical frenzy over anti-gay marriage amendments.  There's no sense in unwhipping (dewhipping?) them.

What we need are constructive solutions to the real problems -- a health insurance plan, a withdrawal plan, etc.  Edith names our great fear:

It is imperative for Mr. Casey to take a stand on at least these important issues, so that we can vote for something positive and not just the "lesser of two evils," which still is evil. I believe, many people will sit out the upcoming election if there are no constructive proposals by the candidate.

We will be stuck with Sen. Santorum for another six years.

I heard Mr. Casey speak with John McIntire last week I wanted him to do well and was pleased when he worked up some passion on particular issues.  If only he could do that across the board.  I was listening for his solutions.  He said he'll be issuing policies over the coming months. 

In the meantime, keep in mind that protecting marriage from marauding homosexuals is not a priority for Pennsylvanians.  No matter what Darryl Metcalfe spews out his hateful little mouth. 

Good job, Edith. 

   From the New York Daily News. 

Mayor Bloomberg landed another left on the right yesterday, coming out strongly in favor of gay marriage - and vowing the city will perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, if allowed.

The Republican mayor used his weekly Sunday radio address on Memorial Day weekend to say he is "firmly opposed" to any constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

President Bush and other prominent Republicans endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The measure is set for a Senate vote next month.

"The U.S. Constitution should be something that unites, rather than divides Americans," said Bloomberg, a life-long Democrat who joined the GOP to run for mayor in 2001.

"I do not believe that government should be in the business of telling people who they can and can't marry," he added during the address on 1010 WINS.

The mayor took pains to give his comments local context, referring to a lawsuit due before the state Court of Appeals tomorrow that focuses on five same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York City.

Bloomberg recently took a stand against the Bush White House by advocating for stronger gun control laws as well as lambasting the wingnuts for their anti-stem cell research, pro-intelligent design stance. 

Bloomberg was slightly more subdued yesterday, saying he was trying to strike a balance between enforcing the laws of the land and working to change those laws that he considers unconstitutional.

"I believe New Yorkers should have the right to marry whomever they choose, regardless of sexual orientation," he said.

"If they [the Court of Appeals] rule that same-sex marriages are legal, then we'll perform them," he vowed.

Click here to listen to the address.

This terrifies Pennsylvania wingnuts who recognize that banning gay marriage is ultimately unconstitutional and tremble as the interstate marriage recognition issue inexorably inches toward the Supreme Court. Hence, the desperate scramble to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

If marriage is legalized in NY, we may go there to wed.  That would be nice.

A local hate group has issued a call for an "evangelistic outreach" to bring their message of hate, bigotry and intolerance to Pittsburgh's LGBT community during the 2006 PrideFest activities. 

Rescue Pittsburgh is best known for their "blow up the women's health care center" message of Christian love. However,  founder Joseph Parente has tried to hurl  invectives at a homo or two in conjunction with his cohorts at Operation Rescue. 

On his blog, he writes:

The month of June has become, for some, "pride" month, or a time to parade the sin of homosexuality just as they did in Sodom. Under the banner of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender, sin will be lauded as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. God's Word, however, is clear:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". --Romans 6:23

We must stand in the gap for those trapped in the bondage of homosexual perversion, boldly speaking the truth that sets the captives free. Jesus Christ is the only one who can rescue us from our sin, please join with us as we love our neighbors enough to tell them the truth.

Uh huh.  Well, PrideFest is certainly a good starting point if you are looking for homos in bondage, but most of the BDSM crowd respect the family friendly atmosphere and limit their bondage apparatus.  But I digress ...

You only have to browse through a few of his blog posts to recognize the Parente is no more an authentic Christian messenger than Barney.  Beyond his endless ranting about abortion and baby killing politicians, he actually posts a description and photos of a man who appears to be an employee of the Allegheny County Department of Health and asks his reader(s) to track down information on this person.  Nice.  I guess Parente learned that little tactic in his domestic terrorism classes.  Too bad he ran out of film and only identified one person over the past three months.  Perhaps his mom wouldn't increase his allowance and he spent it all buying anti-choice porn over the Internet.

It takes someone really committed to saving babies to allow three young children (10,12 and 14) to be arrested -- trying to bring water to Terry Schiavo.  That's the kind of good parenting that clearly proves why homosexuals are unfit to raise children!

What you WON'T read on the Rescue Pittsburgh blog is any reference to volunteering at a soup kitchen or food pantry, conducting prison ministry, taking clothing and medicine to the homeless, visiting seniors in nursing homes, OR fostering children.  Nope.  Not a whisper.  Because those are boring run-of-the-mill Christian activities.  Parente and his ilk are in it for the glory and the attention.  Not to mention the unceasing desire to control the lives of other people. 

PrideFest organizers estimate 8,000 people will attend this year's celebration, including several thousand heterosexuals. 

Parente usually attracts two dozen or less wingnuts to his little hatefests. 

I wonder if they will bring the fetus signs?

In another overt example of homophobic law enforcement, Allegheny County police are "stepping up patrols" around a South Park bathroom suspected of being the location of many a gay tryst. 

The Post-Gazette report hits the classic homophobic note -- the site's proximity to a children's playground.  Because you cannot report on gay sex without making at least one subtle allusion to children. 

Now I understand that having sex in public places is illegal.  But when is the last time you read a story about cracking down on heterosexual public sex?  I guarantee you that there are more incidencts of breeders having public sexual relations than homos.  And I guarantee you that most gay men are not having sex in public restrooms.  But those who do are not guilty of a greater crime than the majority of high school students parked at South Park. 

When I was in high school, we rode the activity bus and had to walk through the parking lot of Sam's Club to get home.  Every day for the entire track season in my junior year (1987), a car was parked in that lot containing an adult man and woman having sex.  We walked right past it every day and they never batted an eye.  They were having sex within eyeshot of the middle school and a half a block from a preschool.  Where was the umbrage?  Who protected me? 

Let's be honest -- this is not a crackdown on public lewdness.  This is a crackdown on the crime of being gay. 

Whereas our federal government seems insistent on bringing the anti-gay marriage amendment to the Senate floor, things are looking up in the federal court system.  More accurately, we aren't losing ground in the federal courts

On Friday, the US District Court ruled that an Oklahoma law banning LGBT couples from adopting was so extreme that it threatened to invalidate adoptions from other states.  If a gay couple traveled to Oklahoma, their parental rights would not be recognized while they are in the state.

What the hell kind of sense does that make? As one of the judges opined, the adoption was approved by a court in another state which indicates that it was deemed to be in the best interest of the child(ren).

Obviously, Oklahoma has some serious homo-hating folks in their legislature.  Or back home among the voting faithful.

Is it progress that we can now visit Oklahoma without our children being deemed orphans?  Hmmm.

From the AP

WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee yesterday approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Mr. Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Mr. Feingold, who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Amid increasing partisan tension over President Bush's judicial nominees and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment -- which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages -- to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.

Arlen voted Yes because he thinks the measure should get a full vote on the Senate Floor, but is personally opposed to the measure.  Huh.  Why do I think he's trying to appease Pennsylvania conservatives in order to rally votes for Ricky?

The proposed amendment would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has scheduled a vote on it for the week of June 5.

Early June is going to be a busy month for homophobic legislation.  Its also when the Pennsylvania House will (possibly) consider a state level marriage amendment. 

Face it, this is a Republic ploy to drive conservative voters to the polls.  The ass-whipping in the Pennsylvania election this past week has them scared out of their minds that Ricky's base will sit out the November election.  The anti-incumbent feeling in the air does not bode well for Mr. Sanctimonious. 

Of course, it doesn't bode well for Rendell either. 

My question is what it bodes for the homos?

The American Family Association of Pennsylvania is displeased with the First Lady for suggesting that gay marriage not be used as a campaign tool.  Even Laura Bush is not spared their fury when the AFA smells a whiff of tolerance.  From their May 17 press release:

Homosexuals have a right to live their lives as they want, but they do no have a right to force our society to redefine marriage and family.   Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.  Even the Rev. Jesse Jackson is on record as stating that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.  Those involved in the homosexual lifestyle have never been forced to sit at the back of the bus nor are there water fountains labeled ?Gay Only.?  The thousands of ex-gays in this country show that people are not born ?gay.?

I could be wrong, but I suspect being prevented from medical decision making, having your parental rights restricted or terminated, and losing your job BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY would in fact be on par with being sent to the back of the bus.   I have never been sent to the back of the bus, but I can clearly point out an array of civil rights that are now labeled "heterosexual only."  Including marriage. 

?It is tragic that Mrs. Bush doesn?t see the importance of making the marriage amendment a campaign issue.  Americans want marriage between one man and one woman protected through a constitutional amendment.  Marriage is the foundation of any society and the voters recognize the need to protect its foundation,? stated Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.

?The federal Marriage Protection Amendment is not discriminatory.  Our proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment is not discriminatory.  People want to protect traditional marriage and any individual running for public office would be well-advised to make marriage amendments a campaign issue,? Gramley concluded.

In other words folks, ramp up the hate-rhetoric because the homo-bigots are gonna roll.  With the power dynamic shifting in the House, I have no idea what the future of the Marriage Amendment will be.  Stay tuned.