“Traditional” Marriage

Here’s a nice short film about the history of marriage that dispels some of the talking points that jokers like NOM like to toss out.

Perhaps one day, faced with incontrovertible evidence such as that which is included in this film, society will catch up with reality. I just hope it’s within my lifetime.

Suffer the Little Children

The Apostolic Truth Tabernacle in Greensburg, Indiana, is today’s winner for purveying hatred in the name of religion. I don’t think there are any Grammy’s in their future, but they have put together an original song, with a new child star.

Could this be the next Rick Santorum? (He’s already got the sweater vest.) Was indoctrination like this the cause of the current Rick Santorum? We may never know.

Note the congregation cheering and clapping at the success they’ve had teaching their children to hate. Lemmings? Sheep? You decide.

NAACP: Equal Equals Equal

In a somewhat surprising move, the NAACP passed a historic resolution endorsing marriage equality.

President and CEO Benjamin Jealous made the following statement:

“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people.”

Although the endorsement carries no specific legislative weight, the significance of the largest and arguably best known civil rights organization in the nation making such an endorsement can’t be ignored, particularly since there has been such disparity in polling numbers between the black community and the community at large when asked about marriage equality.

Opposition among blacks is often attributed to black churches.  The text of the NAACP’s resolution addresses that opposition in a somewhat roundabout way:

“The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the ‘political, educational, social and economic equality’ of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.”

Read more about this:

At Liberty

Mitt Romney today made one more stride at fusing church and state, with his speech at Liberty University. His pandering seems to know no boundaries.

In one fell swoop, Romney sucked up to the “religious” right and fumblingly grabbed at the youth vote, a demographic for which he desperately needs to gain traction.  (I hope, for his sake, that he doesn’t consider the students at Liberty University as being representative of the youth vote.)

The line in his speech that made the 30,000 or so lemmings in the stadium leap to their feet and applaud was:

“I believe that Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”

This, of course, is the same person who claimed in 1994 that he was going to be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights.  This is the also same person who signed the nation’s first marriage equality law into effect.

Does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that a speech advocating significantly restricting liberty is being delivered at Liberty University?

View the Mitt’s entire speech at Liberty University (if you can stomach it) in the video above.

A One Way Ticket to Nowhere

Shepard Smith of Fox News has recently made some statements on the air that are in direct contradiction to the “values” that are otherwise expressed on-air by those at Fox.  He blasted Newt Gingrich immediately after Newt’s rambling, self-aggrandizing concession speech.  And, more recently, he called out the Republicans for their position on marriage equality, stating essentially that the GOP is choosing to be on the wrong side of history.

Smith has hardly been the consummate truth-teller during his time with Fox.  But one wonders if his current contrary positions put him in career jeopardy.  Others at Fox seem much more willing to toe the line.

And if one thinks that Smith is possibly putting is job at risk, one also must wonder where else someone like Smith would find employment.

The journey to Fox News for any journalist seems to be a one-way dead-end street.  Journalists and personalities have come from other more legitimate media outlets to Fox News:  Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Greta Van Sustern.  But I can’t think of anyone who has left Fox News who has continued their career path elsewhere.

When you go to work for Fox News, it would appear that the deal that you  make with the devil is this:  We’ll keep you employed at a competitive salary, but you give up any journalistic credibility you may have and therefore are essentially unemployable anywhere else.

It’s sort of a self-regulating agreement, too; you know that you can’t stray too far from the Fox talking points because there’s nowhere else for you to go.  Once you leave legitimate broadcast journalism, you’ll turn into the proverbial pillar of salt if you look back.

I fear for Shepard Smith.

We Love Us Some Tamron

Tamron Hall, MSNBC’s afternoon host and occasional Today show anchor/contributor, invited Romney apologist Tim Carney to talk about some of the statements that Romney has made in the last few days on the campaign trail. When Carney tried to hijack the interview, Ms. Hall was having none of it.

The video speaks for itself.

Holding a Losing Hand

The headlines today concerning the Republican politicians’ response to President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality either refer to a tepid, tiptoe response or make note of the general lack of response altogether.

While a few foolhardy mouthpieces tried to frame Obama’s statements as some kind of a flip-flop on gay issues, most GOP politicians were uncharacteristically quiet or guarded about their response.  (The usual suspects in the “religious” right wasted no time in mouthing off, but that’s par for the course.)

I’m sure there are a number of theories circulating as to why this has happened.  But my guess is that the Republican politicians are relatively certain that they cannot win by focusing on this issue.  I suspect that many of the Republicans have LGBT staffers, know LGBT people, perhaps even have gay family member (except for the occasional member of Congress who boasts overconfidently that they don’t).  I’d like to believe that there is sufficient conscience remaining in at least some of the GOP not to continue the tradition of claiming that their personal beliefs are one thing and their policy decisions are completely detached from those personal beliefs.  That “some-of-my-best-friends-are-gay” line will not work in this day and age.

The only outcome for Republicans if they raise a stink about this issue is that they will make themselves look even more extreme than they already have.  There may still be some Republicans who have a concern for their respective political legacy.  As many others have said, they’re clearly on the wrong side of history.

Pundits today have been talking about the risk that Obama took today, and there may indeed be some.  But the Republicans need to attract moderate voters in the upcoming election, as well; the risk may be even greater for them than for the President.  They’ve already done their best to drive away women, Latinos, and the LGBT community.  If they veer much farther to the right, they may go over a cliff.

Read more on Politico about the GOP’s silence: