Commuting in and out of Central London during these Olympic Games has been something of a mixed bag. Londoners were inundated with dire warnings of transit chaos. "Plan ahead! Don't get caught out!"; was the slogan we heard and saw everywhere.
My commute usually consists of three trains. First is theLondon Overground. To my friends in San Francisco, think of the Overground as kind of like BART. Then I change to the London Underground Jubilee Line, and finally the Northern Line which puts me about a block walk from my Office.
The Jubilee Line is one of the main arteries in and out of the Olympic Park, so I have for the most part tried to avoid it, and the London Overground. But all the predictions of mass chaos on the trains have not come to pass. It seems that most people heeded the call and have either left town or, (like me) have found alternative routes to get in to work in the Mornings. So much so that as it turns out, the trains are actually less crowded than normal. So today I figured I would risk it, and give my normal commute a try.
It was pretty much the same as any normal day. As I stood reading my morning paper, I noticed a worried looking older couple, who were staring intently at the system map. They clearly weren't sure where to get off . I asked if they were looking to change for the Olympic Park. They said yes, and asked if I knew where to transfer to the Jubilee Line. I said not to worry, and said to just follow me, when I got off the train. They looked very relieved and thanked me.
As we were chatting, I asked where they were from, and if they were going to see any Olympic events today. It turns out they were from New Zealand, and were on their way to see their Daughter compete in field hockey. They were so excited, nervous and very proud of their "little girl". Suddenly all the other people standing around us , started to congratulate them and wish them and their Daughter good luck.
It was, for lack of a better term for it; a wonderful "Olympic Moment". So my own countrymen and women can forgive me if for one day I find myself rooting for the New Zealand Women's field Hockey team.
Go Team NZ!
UPDATE! - The New Zealand Women "All Blacks" won their match today.
You have to hand it to Mitt Romney, when he turns on a "charm offensive" it is really offensive!
Having been here in London less than 24 hours , he has managed to show how out of touch,and gaffe prone he is. So much so that even the conservative newspaper the Telegraph weighed in on just how far down his own throat, Governor Romney is able to shove his own foot. The nicest thing the Telegraph could manage to say was this;
Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive.
Foreign Policy.com picks up the story on how well Mitt's visit is going over...
Mitt Romney has landed in aspot of trouble here in London for suggesting that Britain may not be quite ready to host the Olympic Games. Romney has walked back his comments, but it's not the first time Willard "Mitt" Romney has slagged off the UK. In his book,No Apology, he wrote:
England [sic] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions. Yet only two lifetimes ago, Britain ruled the largest and wealthiest empire in the history of humankind. Britain controlled a quarter of the earth's land and a quarter of the earth's population.
Then when it was painfully clear just how much damage he was doing. Mitt reverted to form and went for the inevitable flip-flop.
This trip was to highlight Romney's international credentials. Remind everyone how he "saved" the scandal plagued 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Yet as with Bain Capital, when you invite people to start looking into things, they tend to find all sorts of interesting tidbits. (Hat tip to buzzfeed)
As head of the Salt Lake Olympics Mitt Romney became the first Olympic executive to approve a series of commemorative pins in his likeness. (They're in the news right now because they were made in China, but their mere existence is its own indictment of Romney's judgment.)
Romney will be here in town for two more days. It will be fun to see just how many more Brits the GOP nominee can "charm" while he is here.
You know things are not going well when earlier this evening, London's Tory Mayor, Boris Johnson mocks you in front of 60,000 people in Hyde Park.
Last week Fox News was giddy.. seriously giddy. The kiddies over at "Fox & Friends" finally had their PROOF that President Obama was a SOCIALIST! To that point they showed a clip where the President was apparently disparaging the hard work small business owners put in building those business and claiming the Government was really the one responsible for all their success.
They even had a "small business owner" on the show to voice her outrage at the President's "insult".
The problem if course is that isn't what the President meant, or even said. Fox News selectively edited the clip, changing both the context and the meaning of the President's words. Here is the full quote from the President's remarks. The text in blue is everything Fox News cut out of the clip:
OBAMA: [L]ook, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the GI Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together.
Sigh.... Normally I wouldn't even comment on stuff like this. But Fox News has spent the last two weeks flogging this little piece of selective editing like a rented mule. The Romney Campaign, which was desperate to talk about something, ANYthing other than Mitt Romney's taxes, Swiss bank accounts and the fact he lied about when he really left Bain Capital; Jumped on this like a drowning man to a life raft.
The problem with that of course is we live in a digital age, and sooner or later video of you making the exact same point that that President made, was going to pop up... and lo and behold....
Here is my problem with Mitt Romney. I don't blame him for being rich or successful. I congratulate him for that and wish that every American has the same opportunities for success that Mitt Romney has had. That isn't the issue. My problem with Mitt Romney is that he truly has no core beliefs. He will literally say anything. If what Mitt Romney says today, is a complete 180 degree contradiction of what Mitt Romney said yesterday, he simply ignores it and pretends everything else he has ever said or done, just doesn't exist.
]
I have made no secret ofmy disappointmentwith President Obama's first term. I feel he has been a weak centrist and not the bold progressive agent of change he campaigned as. Yet at the end of the day to put Mitt Romney in the White House is a recipe for social and economic disaster.
A small item in the news
the other day has created a bit
of excitement in my email inbox. As of
this posting no fewer than 33 people
have contacted me asking what do I think
of the announcement by the Boy Scouts of America, upholding the BSA policy prohibiting Gays and Lesbians from participation in the American Scouting program.
The Boy Scouts of America will uphold the organization's ban that prevents gay people from being members of the organization, after concluding a confidential two-year review. An 11-member committee formed in 2010 unanimously agreed to uphold a ban that prevents "open or avowed" gay people from being part of the youth organization. In a statement released to the Associated Press, BSA chief executive Bob Mazzuca said the policy is supported by most Scout families: "The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting. We fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society."
Summer Camp Staff - 1987
Ok then... If you really want to know what I think, (and apparently at least 33 of you do...) then a little bit of history and context is required.
I was involved in Scouting for most of my life up until the late 1990's. The experiences and friendships that
I have had while in Scouting were, and remain, a pivotal factor in making me the
person I am today. I truly believe
that Scouting is a force for good
in a troubled world, and participation in Scouting is
one of the greatest gifts any parent can give their child.
The decision to keep the current membership policies in
place was the right one. I understand
many of you may be very surprised to hear me say that. But hear me out... I
understand the anger many of my
fellow former Scouts and Scouters feel
towards the BSA on this issue. It is
very easy, and even cathartic to point fingers at Irving Texas and decry the bigotry and discrimination the current membership policies perpetuate.
The fact is, the
BSA is not at present, able to make that kind of cultural change.
The reasons for this are not because of a “culture of homophobia” that critics of the BSA
like claim is behind the decision. The policies on membership in the BSA have very little to do with morals or
social attitudes, and very much to do with political and financial
realities.
Scout Camp Staff - 1991
I was an active member of Scouting for over a quarter of a century, and
not once, did I ever hear anyone
say being Gay or Lesbian was either good or bad. The subject simply never came up. The topic of
human sexuality really had nothing do with
outdoor skills and leadership development.
The argument that many supporters of the policy
make, that banning Gay and Lesbian volunteers is a “Youth Protection Issue” is equally ridiculous. Statistics on abuse cases in organizations
like the BSA paint a clear and very different picture of who is a threat to kids in Scouting The majority of cases involve married, self-identified heterosexuals with children of their own in the program, and not Gay and Lesbian parents. So why is the policy still there? The answer is complicated but the reasons can largely be traced back to a deal the BSA made over 30 years ago.
In the 1970's the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints) offered to make the BSA an official youth program for the entire Mormon church. Meaning EVERY LDS church in America
would sponsor a Boy Scout Troop and/or Cub Scout Pack, or Explorer Scout post.
This was at a time when membership in Scouting was in dramatic decline and many
thought the program had seen it's day. Then the LDS Church came along with their offer, and with it tens
of thousands of kids joined the program. It made the Mormon Church the single
largest sponsor of Scouting, which also gave the LDS church a great deal of say
over how Scouting is run.
The 2nd largest sponsor of Scouting is the Catholic
Church. The reality is, the membership
policy needed to be upheld. For the
simple reason that both the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church have said
that should the membership policies in question (the ban on Gay and Lesbians and the requirement to believe in a God (any
God, the policy does not specify, all it says you have to believe in a
higher spiritual Power) Should either of those policies be changed BOTH
churches would pull out of Scouting completely.
That would mean
the end of the Boy Scouts of America. The
BSA, at present, would not be able to function without the membership and money
that the sponsorship by those two churches provides. So the question becomes do you kill the entire program, over this one
issue?
Many in the BSA would in all honestly love to be able
to just quietly get rid of both policies , The public relations nightmare that has resulted from keeping in place discrimination is one the BSA would really like to be free of. But it really is not up to the BSA at this
point. The Boy Scouts of America is for
better or worse, a hostage to the financial support of two religious
organizations that practice politically expedient homophobia.
Until that changes, the BSA is not in a position to make any
change in its membership policies.
So what should parents who disagree with the policies do? Simple you need to take responsibility as a parent and do what the BSA suggests that you do - "The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting...."
The decision by the BSA offers parents of Scouts the opportunity to have a conversation with their kids about the issues of equality and civil rights. And by that, I mean the rights of Gays and Lesbians AND the rights of a private non-profit organization like Scouting to set their own membership standards. My mother is an ordained Lutheran Minister, so naturally I feel the Catholic Church's ban on female clergy is incredibly stupid, therefore, I am not a Catholic. Yet the United States Constitution protects the Catholic Church's right to be incredibly stupid.
At my last Scouting
Event in 2000
For me, the decision to leave Scouting was incredibly painful. I love the program and to say it has been a huge part of my life, would be a massive understatement. I have met the most amazing friends I have ever known through my involvement in the Boy Scouts of America. But for me to have remained in Scouting as an adult, meant I would have had to lie. Lie about who I am, and who I love. So I had to make a choice. As a result of that choice, some of those friends, I have lost. Many however, most however, understood, and hope one day to see me back in that Scout uniform.
Likewise if you in good conscience cannot live with the BSA's membership policies, then you need to make a choice. Does this one issue negate everything else positive about Scouting? If for you, it does, then by all means, don't join, or if you and/or your kids are in Scouting now, the choice may be to get out. There are plenty of other activities and organizations out there for young people to join.
It is worth noting, there are groups who are working to bring about a change in the policies of the BSA. Groups likeScouting For All, have worked to educate both the BSA and its sponsoring organizations. The fact that Scouting has spent the last two years studying the issue is testament to the impact these groups and individuals are having. Lord Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of Scouting once said "Your influence, like your shadow may reach places you will never be..." Change for the BSA won't come through a task force of 11 people, debating for two years. It will come through the power of example of people who believe the values of Scouting are not limited only to heterosexuals.
So if you understand that a movement can be better than, and bigger than the organizations that represent it. If your experience in Scouting isn't defined by this one issue. Then by all means,stay in the program. Be the example.
To those among my friends who see this week's announcement as a defeat, my response is, (as frustrating as it is to hear...) be patient. The arc of history bends toward equality. I honestly believe the BSA will get there. When it does, I will be first in line to once again, put on a uniform, and give of both my time and money.
In the meantime, I would point out that you may be focusing your anger on the wrong target. It is the bigotry and homophobia of the Mormon and Catholic churches that is at the center of this issue. Yes the leadership of the BSA does bear responsibility for keeping these policies in place, but I would also say, don't JUST blame the hostage. Blame the two groups who are holding the BSA hostage.
Faced with the reality that their Presidential candidate really is Mitt Romney, the leadership of the Republican Party has started to panic. Now that the GOP primary process has run it's inevitable course, many in the Grand Old Party have had the chance to take a good long look at what they are left with.
That long look revealed that like it or not, the GOP is stuck with a nominee with all the charisma of a bucket of warm spit. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus, (seriously, that is the guy's real name... ) recently went on GOPTV (Fox News) to desperately re-frame the debate not as America should elect Mitt Romney, but rather, America needs to fire President Obama, "for the sake of Liberty and Freedom", or fish heads,... or something.
Meanwhile, the Democrats and the Obama Campaign have had the months of the GOP primary circus to prepare for going up against Willard "Mitt" Romney. From Romney's time with outsourcing giant Bain Capital ...
To the former Governor's off shore tax shelters, the Obama Campaign has clearly found their narrative.
The Republican Party is hoping that hundreds of millions of Dollars in unchecked, untraceable super-pac money will convince 51% of the electorate to vote against Barack Obama, since they clearly won't be able to get even the majority of their own base voters excited about the prospect of voting for Mitt Romney.
They key to the strategy appears to be keep Mitt Romney away from as many reporters who are not with Fox News as possible. When asked by CBS's "Face the Nation" why Governor Romney only goes on FOX News, the Romney Campaign was quick to point out that Romney doesn't just talk to FOX, but he recently also talked to to schoolchildren.... Wow.
It is going to be an interesting campaign... stay tuned kids!
Well I got back to London yesterday from my two week business trip to the U.S. As good as it always is to get back to the United States, it is at the same time a reminder of the reasons I had to leave in the first place.
First was a week in New York, which is always a bit of a blur. I do love NYC but it is a city that moves at a ridiculous pace. It is largely why New Yorkers are the resilient , slightly cranky people that they are. New York is an argument. If you want to live there, the city is going to fight you most every step of the way. I forget who it was who once wrote that every person should live in both New York City and San Francisco once in their life. But not stay in NY so long as to become hardened by the experience, or in SF long enough to become soft.
My week in New York was incredibly busy, but I did manage to find time to hang out with my amazingly talented friends Daniel and Gerardo. They moved from SF to NY shortly before I moved to London. So getting to see them in their new NY Life is always a plus for me. As Eric was unable to come with me this trip, Daniel and Gerardo prevented me from spending every night in my hotel room watching MSNBC.
After a week in New York, I then flew back to San Francisco. I spent Pride Weekend with my incredible Niece Sophie and my wonderful adopted niece (her flatmate) Sogole. It was great to get back to SF, even if only for a day and a half. Of course the frustrating part of it was, being a just a regular spectator at SF Pride, after years of being heavily involved at a volunteer. It was the first time since 2004 I had watched the Parade from the public side of the barricades.
Then after that all too short visit back to SF, it was on to Los Angeles where I spent all of last week. I will confess, LA has grown on me. I still could never ever see myself living there. But I find I enjoy visiting there far more then I have in previous years. I think, as with most cities, the more you get to know it, the more comfortable you feel. There was very little free time, but I did manage to get down to Manhattan beach and dip my toes into the Pacific Ocean. Then after some required shopping at Walgreens to pick up the various odds and ends I can't get in the UK, I headed back to LAX and flew home.
While in New York, I was walking down Broadway with one my co-workers who had accompanied me on this trip. We were discussing the pending Supreme Court ruling on Health Care. I remarked that the United States still didn't have a NHS "like we do at home". My colleague looked at me in amusement and pointed out that was the fist time he had heard me refer to London as "home". He was correct, during my previous business trip to the US, back in January, I still spoke of how nice it was to spend sometime visiting "home", meaning California .
The ex-pat existence is an odd one. It is a life of living neither here nor there. London is my home, but it is a city where I am always a foreigner. New York and Los Angeles are cities I have never lived in, and therefore certainly can't call them "home", but even so, for two weeks I will confess it was very nice to not be the foreigner for a while. Back in London, this week I will celebrate yet another American Independence Day from outside the United States, looking in.
As the rhetorical battle over equal rights for LGBT Americans plays out over the coming months of the U.S. Presidential election campaign, those of us who live in DOMA-Exile will watch from across oceans and borders and continue to hope for the day that all American couples are treated equally by our own country.
I have for the most part, not weighed in on the effort to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Mostly due to the fact that I live in London. I was born and raised in Wisconsin, but have not lived there, (and therefore not paid state taxes there), for more than 15 years. I did follow the events that lead to the recall effort, via the national media coverage. The popular movement to oust Walker had momentum, a great deal of energy and a decent organization behind it. Yet as the dust settled late last night, the news from my home state was that Governor Walker had won the recall election, and won it rather convincingly.
The reactions have been fairly predictable. People on the left are shocked and depressed, and people on the right are overjoyed, all the while the political divide in Wisconsin remains as wide a chasm as it was before this whole saga started.
Obviously, I am not a fan of Scott Walker, and I would have been as happy to see him go, as many Republican friends of mine are, to see him stay. With the Wisconsin State Senate back in the hands of the Democrats, Gov. Walker will find it a bit more difficult to force through his agenda. So there is at least one bright spot for the Democratic Party this morning. Yet the overall result of the Recall Walker effort, raises a number of very bright red flags for not just the Wisconsin Democratic Party, but for Democrats nationally, and for President Obama's re-election campaign.
On the surface the race to recall Scott Walker should have been a cakewalk. Nearly one million people signed the petition to hold the recall vote. It was a truly popular movement propelled forward by the largest outpouring of public dissent since the days of the Vietnam War.
Yet the Democrats couldn't seal the deal Why? To a certain extent it highlights the cultural differences between the America's two main political parties. Specially how the two parties relate to their respective base voters. The GOP pays attention to it's base. The Democrats put up with theirs. The GOP understands that voters have short memories and even shorter attention spans. The Democrats are often far more enamoured of (or more often bogged down in) the process, than they are focused on the results.
For the Wisconsin GOP/Tea Party faithful the issues were clear; The hysterical, fat, greedy and lazy public employees were in bed with the loony lefty socialist Obama loving Union Thugs, and they were all out to destroy them.
The fact that the policies of Scott Walker are as equally bad for them as they are for everybody else really didn't matter. For The Republican base this wasn't political it was personal. So they fought back like it was personal. The Democratic base, started out fired up, but there was no real large scale effort to keep them engaged, so they soon got bored and wandered off.
When Scott Walker came under siege, the national conservative apparatus kicked into high gear, funnelling massive amounts of cash into the State. Millions of dollars worth of Ads, robo-calls, and op-ed's flooded Wisconsin's airwaves, phone lines and blogosphere.
Meanwhile, the national progressive apparatus can never decide what the core issue is on a given day. The Unions have an agenda slightly different from the Occupy folks, who have slightly different goals than the environmentalists, who have slightly different goals than the LGBT rights activists, who are odds with the African American Churches, who disagree with the Latinos on immigration who have a slightly different agenda than....than,.. than.... You get the picture.
The Democrats began this fight with a massive popular movement behind them, and after collecting enough signatures to hold the recall election, they completely failed to use that movement or harness the energy of it. Instead they allowed themselves to get bogged down in a tedious primary election battle between Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. All the while the Democratic National Committee and the Obama Administration tried desperately to keep their distance, while trying desperately to not look like they were trying to keep their distance.
Finally when the polls were showing that Scott Walker was actually ahead, and gaining ground. Bill Clinton was dispatched a few days before the election to try to relight the progressive fire under the Democratic base.
Sadly, it would be too little, too late.
For President Obama, there are some disturbing lessons from the Walker victory. You can't come in at the last minute to engage the base and expect the same fire and energy you had in 2008.
The Democratic loss in yesterday's recall election has, like it or not, put Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes in play. Wisconsin is now clearly apurple state.
We trekked into Central London for the Queens Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Yes, it rained, yes it was cold, and overall the day was pretty miserable weather-wise. But the enthusiasm of the HUGE crowds more than made up for it.
But the soggy wait was worth it. The Royal Barge went by, we waved, the Queen waved, and everybody felt part of something truly historic. Even if the idea of hereditary priviledge seems rather silly in the 21rst Century, even the most strident anti-monarchist UK Republican had to marvel at the spectacle of it all.
Everyone's favorite oddly effeminate white supremacist has not been having a good month. Perkins is head of the "Family Research Council". An organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center has certified as an extremist hate group .
First there was his recent disastrous appearance on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Mathews. Where after numerous past guest spots where he was faced with nothing more than softball questions. Mathews apparently noticed he had been giving free network airtime to hate mongering nutjob, and decided to do an actual interview based on real facts. Perkins, came on the Mathews' show to vent his standard faux-Christian outrage over President Obama's statements in support of Marriage Equality. Instead, he got his anti gay talking points served back to him with a big side order reality. The result was not pretty.
Then today, a double whammy. First the U.S. Government released a new international television ad to encourage tourism to the United States. The Ad shows a diverse range of people and sights from all over the USA.
What could Perkins possibly find offensive about that ad? Well if you look carefully at the 0:34 mark, for less than a fraction of second, the ad shows (gasp!) a GAY COUPLE!!! Aiiiiirrgghhh! The horror! The Gays are going to come to America and spend their filthy pink money! The website Right Wing Watch has Perkins' hyperventilating in all its wing nut glory.
In 236 years, America's never had an international tourism ad. So when Congress passed the Travel Promotion Act, people thought it'd be a great chance to highlight American attractions. What they didn't know is that it would highlight same-sex attractions. That's right. The commercial invites people to America-not to see the Grand Canyon, but to celebrate homosexuality. In one scene, a gay man is sleeping on his partner's shoulder in a trolley.
Really??
Then if that wasn't enough, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that declared Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" -- as unconstitutional. (Hat tip to Metro Weekly)
Writing that "Supreme Court review of DOMA is highly likely," the appeals court has stayed, or put on hold, the implementation of its decision pending any appeal.
Judge Michael Boudin, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, wrote for the court: "[M]any Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."
I have blogged regularly and extensively about Tony Perkins and his hate group the FRC. So there really isn't much more I can add to everything I have already said. I know I should not be surprised by Perkins' hysterical rantings in light of today's events. But I find his whining about a split second image of a gay couple in a thirty second television ad , to be over the top, even for him. Yet it's in that I find a refreshing honesty for a change.
Perkins' whole shtick is to go on television and pretend to be this reasonable guy who doesn't "hate" gay people, he just doesn't want them to have any rights.... at all. Now we see that it's not just rights for Gays and Lesbians that sticks in Tony's craw, it's the idea that Gays and Lesbians are visible in anyway that bothers him. He doesn't just think LGBT Americans don't deserve equal rights, he honestly believes Gays and Lesbians don't deserve existence. The idea that Gays and Lesbians should be visible like any other group of Americans really bothers him.
Whether by chance, or by design, the issues of LGBT Rights has been put center stage in the 2012 Presidential race. With Mitt Romney desperate to show the American Talibangelicals like Perkins, just how much he hates the gays.
All the while desperately hoping people won't remember things like, then Gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney promising the people of Massachusetts that he'd be more pro-Gay Rights than the late, great Senator Edward Kennedy.
So once again we will see the idea that all Americans should be treated equally under the law portrayed by Tony Perkins and his assorted ilk, as the greatest threat to the country, and to American Families. Desperate to find something they can get scared, angry racists teabaggers to vote against, the GOP will jump on the "Be afraid! The Gays are gonna get you! Aiiiiighh!" bandwagon and try to ride it to a 50.1 % electoral victory this November.
The bad news for Tony, Mitt, and all the other bigots is the arc of history is clearly bending in the other direction. The trend in Gallup polling on the issue is not going to make Tony Perkins feel any better .
The ridiculously mis-named "Defense of Marriage Act", is going to end up in front of the United States Supreme Court. Maybe not this year, But certainly next year. As the legal issues are not different from those in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, it would be unusual for the court to violate its own precedent. Combine that with the likelihood that President Obama will more than probably win re-election and 2012 is shaping to be Tony Perkins' own annus horribilis.
Generally, I take no delight from the misfortunes of others, but in Tony Perkins' case, I am more than happy to make an exception.
American Talibangelical Nutjob and White Supremacist Tony Perkins gets the nonsense kicked out of him on live television. Grab some popcorn and watch as this lying bigoted hate monger discovers that reality and facts, are not his friends. (HUGE hat tip to JoeMyGod)
The American Taliban has officially gone berserk (or more accurately, gone more berserk), since President Obama dared say publicly that all Americans should be treated equally under the law. Maggie Gallagher, the founding troll of the National Organization for (some people's) Marriage (NOM) has been spewing her outrage nearly non-stop since President Obama made his recent comments supporting same sex marriage.
Eric and I celebrated our first year wedding anniversary back in January, and as I read Slaggie Gillamonster's hysterical rantings on the "Threat" posed by same sex marriage, I couldn't help but want to ask her about all those dire predictions she has made about what would happen if two people of the same sex were allowed to get married...
Dear Maggie Gallagher:
Well, It's been well over a YEAR now, And after scanning all the major news outlets all over the world , we discovered something really odd. We ran multiple Google, Bing, Yahoo and even a few Alta Vista searches (that takes ya' back huh?), and found that there has been a disturbing lack of apocalyptic disasters that We can claim direct responsibility for.
We were shocked to learn that in the past year, apparently none of the following things have happened.
A mad rush of people marrying their pets...
Pandemic Polygamy
All across America Kindergarten students taught classes on Gay sex...
Scores of Clergy rounded up and put in prison for preaching...
Marriage as a civil institution collapsing and millions of Heterosexual couples getting divorced...
America as a Nation overrun by godless hordes bent on enslaving our people and destroying our very way of life.
Opposite Sex couples in America completely stopping having Children...
Which is quite odd when you think about it. Because it has now been well over a year since , We got married. (That in and of itself is not the odd part.) But rather it is the lack of anything odd happing as a result of it, that is strange.
After all, We can't even count the number of times we have heard You, and your cadre of self-proclaimed "Family Values" proponents spew dire warnings of doom, gloom, apocalypse and general hubbub and brouhaha should Eric and I ever get married.
Well, guess what? We are married, and have been for a year and four months now.
So.... Where are all the promised apocalyptic consequences? Where are the mass divorces of all the marriages Eric and I supposedly "attacked" last year, by tying the knot ourselves? Where is all the promised damage to millions of children who are now, (according to you), so confused as to what a marriage is?
Where are the plagues of frogs, locusts and boils? Where is the collapse of Western civilization as we know it, due to its very foundation being rent asunder by the HORROR of Eric and I getting married back in January of 2011?
Nothing? .... Anyone? ... Anybody? ... Really?
How terribly disappointing, And after you went to all that trouble to pay those actors to look so scared.
For years now , whenever the subject of marriage equality comes up as part of our national discourse, You claim it is an "attack" on marriage and the family. So we decided to look up the word `attack' in the dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:
Attack Pronunciation: &-'tak Function: verb 1 : to set upon or work against forcefully 2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words 3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously 4 : to set to work on 5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
Hmmm… to set upon or work against forcefully huh? Ok, so if we take your argument seriously, for Eric and I to have the same rights as any other couple, not more rights, not any new rights that other couples do not currently have, but only the exact same rights, would injure, damage and potentially even destroy heterosexual marriages and families.
Uh.. ok.. How exactly?
Does the fact of our marriage now mean that you have lost the 1,100 federal benefits and protections that you had a year ago? Does the fact that we are now married mean you and your spouse can no longer file a joint tax return, have, adopt or raise children, pass on social security survivor benefits, or make medical decisions for each other?
Does our being married now mean that people will no longer want to even get married. and if they are married, will now want to get divorced? Has your marriage or family changed in any way as result of what happened to us last year?
The answer of course, is no. None of your talking points on same sex marriage stand up to even basic common sense. But it's pretty clear that common sense isn't something you deal in very much.
You say that gay marriage cheapens or lessens the value of the institution of marriage in the eyes of society. But since none of the rights or benefits that you enjoy have changed in any way as result of our marriage; What you are really saying is that for YOU, Eric and I getting married has cheapened your own marriage in your own eyes.
Our getting married means we now have something that, (again, according to you,) only heterosexuals are supposed to have, and that makes you mad. It's not just that you wanted to prevent Eric and I from having equal rights, you want make sure that we don't have any rights at all..
You see equal rights for us, as an attack on you.That's interesting...
Let's be honest Maggie, this isn't about "protecting marriage". It's about people you don't like, having the same rights as you. Even though your life clearly has not changed in ANY way, you firmly believe that your marriage now has less value, lower status, and the institution itself, could come to an end. All because Eric and I were able to get married last year.
It suddenly occurs to me there is a word for someone who is irrationally fixated on the preservation of inequality, that they feel is in their favor. It turns out, Merriam-Webster's dictionary has the same word for it.
Bigot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot 1: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Your latest broken record argument is that somehow, you are the real victim of oppression. That your freedom to deny civil rights to people you don't like, is being 'attacked' by pro-equality activists. Keep trying to sell that snake oil Maggie. It may make you feel better when you look in the mirror have to face what the rest of the world sees....
The Jubilee Line is one of the main arteries in and out of the Olympic Park, so I have for the most part tried to avoid it, and the London Overground. But all the predictions of mass chaos on the trains have not come to pass. It seems that most people heeded the call and have either left town or, (like me) have found alternative routes to get in to work in the Mornings. So much so that as it turns out, the trains are actually less crowded than normal. So today I figured I would risk it, and give my normal commute a try.
