Is this really for the sake of goodness?

Clay Greene and Harold Scull were an elderly gay couple in love. Throughout the 20 years they spent building a life together they had assembled all the necessary legal paperwork – wills, POA papers, advanced directives – to be as certain as possible the other would be secure should something happen to one of them. This was especially important for Clay, 77, as he was healthier and younger than Harold, 88.

It didn’t matter.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

The county described Clay as nothing more than a “roommate” to a judge, sold all his property at auction, and would not allow him to see his most cherished human being during the final months of one of their lives. Now that Harold has died, Clay has nothing. He has been freed from his forced imprisonment at the nursing home, but all his possessions, his memories, his life – it’s all gone. It’s utterly gone.

This is what 53% of Mainers voted to allow last November. It’s what 30 other states have demanded be possible. It’s what the liars who claim the government has no interest in allowing same-sex marriage want. All these people, these majority Americans, desire that people be mistreated, abused, disregarded based upon sexual orientation.

Why is there no shame?

Catholic Church punishes homeless

The Catholic Church doesn’t seem able to do anything good these days. Between promoting the spread of disease by telling people condoms are immoral to covering up child rape scandals (or is it “petty gossip? I forget), the Church appears to be actively trying to harm the world. Not that this is anything knew, but the media has obviously been hopping on the band wagon a lot more recently. I hope it continues, such as is the case in this deplorable tale of evil.

[Maine Gov.] Baldacci decided to hold the spaghetti feed after learning last month that the Catholic Church had withdrawn funding for Preble Street’s Homeless Voices for Justice program because of Preble Street’s support for same-sex marriage.

Homeless Voices for Justice lost $17,400 for this year and will lose $33,000 that it expected for its next fiscal year. All of Wednesday’s donations will go to the statewide advocacy group, which works on issues that affect the homeless.

Baldacci is a Catholic himself, but he isn’t so blinded by religious dogma that he can’t recognize the difference between right and wrong. He has helped to correct an ugly act and bring attention to an evil, petty organization that cares more about its bigoted agenda than helping out human beings.

But maybe the best part of this is that he isn’t up for re-election. While I would like to see him continue as governor (he is constitutionally prohibited from doing so), it’s so nice to see him acting based upon what he thinks is right, not simply what is politically convenient. In fact, he began his tenure as governor by claiming to be against same-sex marriage – which was a lie to help get him elected – but once he faced no consequences for the truth, he approved a bill for equal treatment in Maine (which was struck down by bigots helped illegally by non-taxed political donations from the Catholic Church). This doesn’t make him a great man necessarily, but the waning months of a person’s time in office are often the best because they reflect what that person actually thinks and wants.

Don’t ask, get told on

A gay soldier in Kansas has been given the boot because she got legally married in Iowa.

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old’s honorable discharge under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

The Bigot Brigade PD basically ratted Newsome out because she wouldn’t cooperate with helping them find her spouse on an outstanding warrant. The BBPD claims they were running a proper investigation, but that’s an incredibly thin lie. They had no business reporting anything to the military. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome’s home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

“It’s an emotional issue and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it,” Allender said Saturday. “It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information.”

Steve Allender (adminInt3@rcgov.org) is a liar. The marital status of a third party in their investigation is irrelevant. It doesn’t take some half-ass cop out in the boonies to see that.

“This information was intentionally turned over because of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and to out Jene so that she would lose her military status,” said Robert Doody, executive director of ACLU South Dakota. The ACLU is focusing its complaint on the police department, not the military, and Newsome said she and her attorney have not yet decided on whether to file a lawsuit.

“The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ piece is important and critical to this, but also it’s a police misconduct case,” Doody said.

The BBPD has no idea what is appropriate action. It’s a department full of petty and vengeance to the citizen who crosses them, evidently. They should have had no expectation that a third party would help them with their investigation – but they did. They precisely expected Newsome to cow-tow to their demands to make their jobs easier. When she didn’t, they sought to ruin her career.

Of course, what would be an obvious case of bigotry without the overt bigotry?

Despite claiming that she had played by the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rules, she got married to her lesbian lover in Iowa after an activist state supreme court said she could.

Well, that was tell number one. A marriage license, Ms. Newsome, is a public record. If you want to keep your sexual preference hidden from your superiors, it’s best not to advertise it to the whole world.

This is from some dying dinosaur named Bryan Fischer. Apparently Fischer thinks gays want to keep who they are private. No, no, really. People just love faking it.

Second, when the police came to her home seeking to execute an arrest warrant on her lesbian “wife” (“husband?” — it’s hard to know these days), they found the wedding license lying right in the middle of the dining room table. If you want to keep your sexual preference a secret, there are better ways.

For instance, one could hide a marriage license behind a smarmy aura of asshole. To date, no one has been able to confirm Fischer’s marital status.

Rapid City, S.D. law enforcement officials saw the wedding license and did their legal duty by reporting what they had found to the military.

What law is that again?

Ms. Newsome received an “honorable discharge” in January. (This is not your father’s military: she committed what is a crime under the UCMJ, and has the word “honorable” on her discharge papers. Go figure.)

There must be a mistake on Fischer’s website. It says he’s from Idaho, not Uganda.

Newsome’s partner in sexual deviancy is apparently not a model citizen, currently being under indictment for one felony and three misdemeanor counts of theft. That’s another tip for Ms. Newsome — if you don’t want get outed, it might be best not to “marry” somebody who robs people.

Do donation baskets count as robbery since they purport to be used for good causes but instead continue to support religion?

Gates’ theory — you get to break the law as long as you don’t rat yourself out — is absurd. Imagine if we applied that to any other realm of law enforcement. You, sir, get to go right on holding up banks because all we have to go on is ironclad eyewitness testimony from tellers, managers and other bank patrons. Please, please, pretty please admit you did it so we can lock you up. Otherwise, we will be forced to let you go so you can rob and pillage some more.

Idaho simply must be a mistake.

Kelly Glossip

Every so often I will get a comment on a post from a person I’ve specifically discussed or who is specifically involved in the topic at hand. Sometimes those posts are inane. Other times they are worthwhile and concise. Then there are the times when they deserve to be highlighted for the sake of their sincerity, meaning, and even application to bigger social issues (even if that application has no bearing on what the commenter would say one way or the other).

So Dennis is shown gratitude for giving his life while he was working for the state of Missouri by leaving his entire debt onto his life partner. It just doesn’t seem like the state appreciated his life. This simply makes me sad; because he loved his job and loved helping others. Yet to show their gratitude for his life; the person that Dennis loved more than anyone (and yes I have the documentation to prove it, he kept a journal in his handwriting) he often states that I was his one and only and the person of his dreams. I’m thankful for Dennis giving his life for the safety of others, for that I will pay off his debt on my own. Because I unconditionally loved him and that is what love is.–May the Peace of the Lord be always with you and your family.

Written by Kelly Glossip, this was in response to my post about Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard. Engelhard was a Missouri patrolman who died in a traffic accident while on duty last Christmas. Under Missouri’s anti-equality laws, his partner, Glossip, is not entitled to any of the benefits upon death that would be awarded to married couples. Missouri has failed to make any steps forward in granting protections to such couples, instead forcing them to feel like they mean nothing, both socially and morally, not to mention economically and as productive members of society; of these four examples of forced demonization and degradation, the moral matter is the most important. However, given the nature of the concern over the loss of benefits upon death in the original article, the economic impact cannot be ignored. Glossip and Engelhard shared a home. Whether they jointly owned or not it is unclear (and Glossip need not clarify, both because my point can be made without further information and for his own privacy), but if the two are homeowners, it’s entirely plausible that the loss of one of them could result in the loss of a home. For those who make the disingenuous economic arguments against same-sex marriage (“What’s the benefit to the prosperity of the government?!?!”), this is one convincing reason to abandon such inane stances.

Of course, it has never been about the triviality of economic welfare.

Not a big deal, big deal happens

Two people got married. Socially, this ought not be a big deal. Whatever. Good for those two people. But since this is another big step forward for equality, it is a big deal.

One bride wore a knee-length lace dress and pearls. The other bride wore a yellow shirt and white suit. And when a pastor pronounced them “partners in life this day and for always” Tuesday, they hugged and smiled in front of wedding guests and nearly a dozen TV cameras and reporters.Sinjoyla Townsend

On the first day same-sex couples could marry in Washington, brides Angelisa Young and Sinjoyla Townsend were the first of three couples taking the plunge in morning ceremonies at the offices of the Human Rights Campaign, which does advocacy work on gay, lesbian and transgender issues. Other ceremonies were planned throughout the day.

“Today was like a dream for me,” Young said.

I declare Poe’s Law

Bigots have suffered a couple of blows recently; one is in D.C. and another in Mexico City where same-sex marriage has started. Don’t worry. All the buildings are still standing and the birds are still flying.

Unless you’re Robert Moon.

Washington, D.C. has now officially become the sixth place in the U.S. where homosexuals can go to force the public to endorse their lifestyles. Until now, insecure gays in need of validation had to travel to Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire or Vermont if they wanted to help dismantle our foundational institution of marriage.

…f-for real? For real real? Am I endorsing all the heterosexual marriages right now? What about the bans on same-sex marriages nearly everywhere else? Am I and all the other non-bigots endorsing those by living in places where they exist? Is everyone endorsing Obama by him being president? Do we all endorse each others checks when just one of us signs?

Never mind the fact that the will of the people is completely against this (as evidenced by the overwhelming rejection of gay marriage even in ultra-liberal states like California) or that marriage in this Judeo-Christian country is, by definition, incompatible with homosexuality, polygamy, and other deviations from “one man, one woman.” A liberal special interest group needs to feel more mainstream than it is, so there is nothing else to think about.

I don’t understand. Does Robert Moon just smash his face against the keyboard when he writes? This must be an accident.

As I have noted, whether it be trying to criminalize dissent against homosexuality, forcing taxpayers to fund special gay high schools or strong-arming homosexuals into a military that does not want them (especially in the middle of a war), gays are simply on a war path here…one that is all about special treatment, not actual equality.

I still don’t understand. All these letters form words. If he’s just smashing his face, then wow. What are the chances?

Question 1 and Respect

By Michael Hawkins

It is necessary to briefly address the ugliness of Question 1. The results were abysmal: 52% of Mainers are bigots.

It would be a mistake to forget the analogy consistently drawn by No on 1 supporters. That is, this is like the past denials of civil rights for racial minorities.

Yes on 1 supporters never bothered to show how same-sex marriage infringed upon anyone’s rights. From this reason it must be concluded that “bigot” is the most appropriate term for these people.

Yet there’s an unjustified apprehension surrounding this label. Those who fought for liberty would do well to remember that the aforementioned analogy was more than just words. It meant something.

Do away with the undue respect. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Declare it loudly.

Maine Family Policy Council and Evil

This article experienced a printing error which caused several paragraphs to not be printed. A correctional insert should come with all physical copies of the paper. The full version appears here.

By Michael Hawkins

It takes some lingual force to make one’s point crystal clear.

So it is with the point of this article that it begins with succinct force: the Maine Family Policy Council is filled with slime balls.

A quick perusal of their website (http://www.mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/) reveals a slew of articles attempting to disparage every homosexual not only as sexually deviant, but as wholly awful people with evil agendas. They excitedly report on a speaker (that they hired) who is going to speak in Maine next month and “show the horrifying truth about the radical homosexual agenda”. In other articles, they repeatedly disparage same-sex marriage proponents as being deceptive because money from groups outside Maine is being used to support their position. This ignores the fact that 1) both sides are getting outside help and 2) outside help does not make a group deceptive. But who expects logic from this crowd?

But the worst thing of all is the attempt to link murder (or manslaughter, as the case may be) to homosexuality. The MFPC apparently has no moral or logical qualm with trying to link the death of Fred Wilson by a gay man with homosexuality in general.

“One plausible scenario is that the sadomasochistic activity on the night of the killing became more and more depraved until LaValle Davidson [the accused killer] inflicted the greatest possible harm on his victim, that is, death. If the details of the crime come out at trial, the public will see a part of the homosexual lifestyle that is very different from the positive image the gay rights movement is trying to project.”

How many people are aware of this offensive rubbish? The Kennebec Journal and other major outlets in the state often allow representatives from the MFPC have a voice. Do they recognize the utter inanity these people believe?

In another article, the MFPC tries to connect Senator Larry Bliss of South Portland to the killing. In their wondrous display of utter slime ball-ness, they note that one group supporting same-sex marriage in Maine is based in Southern California. They then point out that Bliss was raised in the same general area. Finally, they think they’ve really nailed down the coffin by observing that Wilson and Davidson are also from Southern California AND that Bliss lived half a mile from Wilson in South Portland.

This is utterly loony.

The website calls this connection a “mysterious one”. Without Apology calls it inane, illogical, dubious, stupid, dishonest, a hallmark of being crackpots, obvious defamation of character, and above all horribly immoral. At no point should people who peddle this sort of, to be frank, complete crap be given any sort of respect or special outlet through the dominant media.

The Maine Family Policy Council has fallen far, far into sin. It is a disreputable organization that no serious thinking person can take seriously. It offends not only common sense, but common decency as well. It is a source of evil for which there is little immediate remedy. The best chance for Maine to show that it shuns such embarrassment in the short run is to vote “No” on Question 1 come November.

Why You May Be a Bigot

By Michael Hawkins

In the time since Governor Baldacci signed the same-sex marriage bill there has been much made of the word “bigot”. Those in favor of securing civil rights have deemed their opponents to be worthy of such a term. Naturally, those opponents balk at such an insult. So let’s take a closer look at the term.

The dictionary definition leaves a bit to be desired: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”. If this is the only definition of “bigot”, then most people who offer any certainty in their beliefs could fall under its umbrella. But the word clearly must have a better distinction than that.

It is actions on which the term turns. Thomas Jefferson noted in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists that “government [can] reach actions only, and not opinions”. Even if one wishes to abuse the word to include beliefs of certainty, it is not important here. Action matters.

And so it is the action of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious groups (and a majority of conservatives) to deny civil rights to a group of people. This is bigotry by definition. There is no way to get around this, no matter how offended one might be by the label.

If you are against homosexuality, you may be a bigot. It isn’t important to settle that issue right now. But if you are against allowing homosexuals civil rights you would otherwise readily grant to another group? Well, sir, that makes you a bigot.

The very idea of rights is that they are to be granted to anyone and everyone so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. It must be shown that granting all of Maine’s citizens (it doesn’t just apply to homosexuals) the right to marry a person of the same gender will be somehow harmful if one wishes to outlaw it. No such case has been made. No such case could be made. Homosexuality offers no threat to any individual’s or group’s welfare, property, or rightful pursuit of happiness. But denying rights to an entire group for no good reason? That does violate the concept of rights espoused by so many philosophers, professors, rational thinkers, and the founding fathers. It runs counter to what it means to be a fair and good and moral human being.

Lead us not into bigotry but deliver us from evil.