Letters to the Editor
-
Thompson's wrong about state legislatures
The California legislation's passage of a bill that would make same-sex marriage legal isn't something that just happened for the first time; Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill last year, so this is actually the second time this legislation has passed. So Fred Thompson is flat-out wrong when he says a state legislature has never passed this sort of thing; it happened in 2006.
-
Are there any brains among them
Good lord. It's frightening to think that any of these "men" could be president when they stand behind nothing but irrational fear and hate mongering on the gay issue. Somebody please, please tell me: how exactly is gay marriage going to end the world as we know it...or have an effect on any straight couples marriage? As for the bible being clear on saying homosexual acts are immoral? The word didn't appear in a bible until the 1940s and didn't exist until the 1880s. And if you read about Lot and Sodom and Gemorrah, you'll find that Lot's daughters got him drunk and screwed him, and both had their father's offspring--their sons who were also their brothers. Yet God had no problem with that. Yeah. The bible's clear.
Idiots.
-
The gay vote is more than homosexuals
Let's remember what gay means. It no longer means people who are in same sex relationships. Gay people are all those people who are friendly and supportive of those relationships. I know many hetrosexual people who are gay. The America is gayer than ever.
-
Improper wording.
the ordained Baptist minister matches up with most on the religious right in opposing reforms that would give gays and lesbians greater rights.
-------------------------
Gays and lesbians don't need to be granted any rights, they already have them. That passage should read.
"the ordained Baptist minister matches up with most on the religious right in opposing reforms that would recognize gays and lesbians right to marriage.
-
What a transparently shallow diversion of a piece of fluff...
I would expect to find a piece like this in the Sunday Reader section of some benignly-readable local newspaper. The typical sort that's owned and run by any generic, massive, stodgy old standard of a conglomerate with its delusional head in the ostrich position (when not performing up-close auto prostate inspections, that is) regarding everything from the views/tastes of its own readership, through the matter of distinction between print/digital delivery medium proverbial elephant in the room (which only seems to grow larger the more stubbornly defiant they become, almost as if this socio/technological nightmare of theirs actually feeds off of their fear and the desperate fruits of their siege mentality), all the way down to the actual news they deliver, not to mention hapless attempts at any thing even resembling poignant, valid analysis thereof.
Not that its flat, diluted nature is the actual problem with it. But honestly, I can't find enough texture to determine if I should regard as naive or just plain disingenuous the [utterly detestable and furthermore, flat out wrong] oblivious, casually asserted claim that any homosexual who sees through the destructive/otherwise entirely cowardly and ineffectual pretentiousness of the Democrats has as their only option to settle in with the Republicans. Beyond the fact that they are both simply opposite sides of the same arrogant, dishonest, thieving coin, the options for someone silly enough to participate in the charade of a presidential election are literally infinite (via the write-in option). And that's without the myriad choices of organized official parties--some of whose views and portions of platforms are actually positive and possess potential to actually DO SOMETHING (ANYTHING at all!) in the stale, bloated, elitist atmosphere of Washington.
...and by the way: is it just me who views with great disgust the fact that it's such a novelty for Ron Paul to so strictly follow the spirit and words of the very document upon which our system is supposedly founded and built...? Are the American people so far gone/jaded/vapid/complacent that they speak of someone having the modicum of honor required to simply follow the [legally-binding(!)] oath he swore to uphold the Constitution as if its some new or unconventional concept without taking the thought to its obvious, transparent conclusion that all the rest of the swine they elect are, if nothing else, at very least patently guilty of betraying their oath of office (which has potential to equal treason in a hurry)...(in addition to almost every one of them being filthy, spineless liars/con artists...)?
-
McCain and Mark Bingham
After Mark Bingham, the gay rugby player, died on flight 93 on 911, it became known that he had been a supporter of McCain's 2000 presidential bid. McCain came to Bingham's memorial service at UC Berkeley and gave a very moving tribute.
-
Umm...
Would it be too much to say that the concept is just plain stupid? I dunno. I find the concept alien, but I don't have to deal with such a thing.
It seems that the GOP attitude towards gays runs the gamut from barely tolerating them to hating them but claiming not to, to barely veiled disgust, to outright hatred. And those in the 'tolerate' category would apparently still trade you to the nearest SS officer in exchange for their vote. True there ARE a few deluded rich fools who buy the crap about 'fiscal conservatism', but c'mon, Santa is just a myth and Elvis really IS dead.
Trudeau makes an interesting related point in today's Doonesbury - "Who else but the GOP reaches out to closeted gays? If you're gay, but ashamed of it, the Republican party is your ONLY home!"
I suppose this article could just be a form of irony utterly alien to me, but stupid seems more likely.
-
The Ants' Guide to Friendly Aardvarks.
Yeah, Giuliani's gonna be great for gay and lesbian rights. Yep. Just like I remember some of my conservative gay buddies telling me a few years ago all about how Bush would ultimately be fine on gay rights cause of the VP's lesbian daughter.
Now that the Supreme Court is getting closer and closer to being fully stacked, how's that working out for you?
With Justice Stevens in his eighties and Ruth Bader Ginsburg with periodic health problems and in her seventies, if the GOP takes the White House, the stacking of the US Supreme Court will be complete.
And that court, with an over-riding activist far-right majority is going to make sure any and all gay rights issues are royally screwed for the next several decades.
So go ahead and vote however you want, gay and lesbian GOP'ers, but don't be surprised if a lot of folks still see that Republican log cabin of yours as little more than an outhouse that's really helped stink up the atmosphere.