Courting Catholics

In the wake of the passing Senate Bill 6239 which is expected to go to the Washington State House of Representatives this week, it appears that opponents of marriage equality have wasted no time in getting their demonstrations started. As early as Friday morning, members of a Catholic charitable organization known as the Knights of Columbus already showed their presence on the Capitol steps carrying a sign stating “Knights of Columbus Support Marriage Exclusively Between One Man & One Woman”.

It's okay, guys, the Knights didn't get the memo that Jesus is cool with you too.

The Knights of Columbus, whose ability to help raise $1M along with the Catholic Church and other anti-marriage organizations during the 2008 California Proposition 8 battle, seem to be in a bit of a bind themselves these days with most of their money and donations going to anti-gay marriage as opposed to relief work right on the heels of their 130^th anniversary, as Nicole Sotelo reports in the National Catholic Reporter:

“On the surface this sounds benign, but “family life” is the Knights’ terminology for predominantly anti-gay initiatives, whereas “community projects” represents soup kitchens and food pantries… Additionally, in 2009 and 2010, Knights officials contributed $200,000 as noted in annual reports to Vox Clara, the bishops’ committee responsible for turning back the clock on the liturgy and implementing the recent controversial language changes in the Mass. They have been a significant funder of the committee since 2006. Over the same time period, the Knights donated almost $1.2 million to fund the bishops’ newly created committee that works against equal protection for gays and lesbians and dubbed it “charity” in their annual report.”

Although Washington has historically been considered one of the most non-religious states, the Catholic Church represents the largest religious organization in this state with 1,058,721 members, inclusive of the Archdiocese of Seattle and the Diocese of Spokane. While many Washington Catholics such as Governor Christine Gregoire (D) - who helped to endorse this bill – are split on the issue of same-sex marriage, they can also be great allies in the fight for greater civil rights.

As same-sex marriage becomes a closer reality for residents of Washington State, it will be increasingly important for members of equal rights groups to garner increasing support religious communities in raising money and awareness about the facts of marriage equality and help to assuage concerns about the negative impact of allowing gay marriage and in speaking out, as I have in my own personal blog, about addressing the fundamental dissonance in fighting against marriage when monies raised could be going toward more constructive ends.

Yes, Discrimination Against HIV+ Employees Still Exists

The US has laws on the books that prevent on-the-job discrimination against employees working in the States who are living with HIV. It's fantastic legislation that I have been grateful for since my positive test result in January, 2009. I have felt secure since then because I felt that I would be be protected in the workplace.  Maybe I shouldn't have that false sense of security, as it is plain that discrimination is still taking place.

One former employee isn't smiling.

One HIV-positive man in a Michigan dental office called Great Expressions is now alleging that his employees and coworkers, once they found out he carried the virus, created a horribly uncomfortable environment at work. They sprayed him with Lysol, ordered him to not touch doorknobs, and eventually fired him over his serostatus.

Lawyers for James White have called his case the worst case of alleged HIV-related job discrimination they have ever handled. According to White, who was an office assistant at Great Expressions Dental Center, his superiors leaked news of his HIV-positive status to fellow coworkers, several of whom began spraying White with Lysol, prohibiting him from touching doorknobs, and wiping down office furniture and equipment after he used it. Finally, during a stint in the hospital to seek care for his HIV, Great Expressions allegedly called White and told him not to return to work.

White has already sought legal action against Great Expressions, with the Detroit chapter of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that there was probable cause to believe that the office discriminated against him because of his serostatus. Great Expressions has ignored the ruling, however a Change.org petition has been created with 37,500 signatures at the time of this writing demanding an apology from the administrators of the office.

Just to be clear about the law in the US regarding HIV-positive employees, I got this clarification from the website for the National Association of Social Workers:

Individuals with disabilities are protected under the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA). Persons with HIV, whether they have outwardly manifested symptoms or not, are considered to have physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Therefore, the ADA covers them.The ADA gives federal civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities. It also guarantees equal opportunity in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services and telecommunications. Recent court decisions and pending legislation may affect this protection of HIV-positive people against discrimination.

Equal Employment Opportunity Laws (EEOP) cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. They also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

[Employment practices covered by the ADA] include hiring, firing, job application procedures, job interviews, job assignment, training and promotions, and wage benefits, including health insurance, leave, and other employment related activities.Employers who know an employee is HIV-positive are required to make "reasonable accommodations" for that person.

Great Expressions is clearly violating the law as mandated by the federal government.

People are often taken aback with my willingness to disclose my status, and James White is a perfect example why. People can't hold prejudices or unfair stigma against people living with HIV when someone they like or respect is open about their serostatus. I look forward to the day when this sort of disgusting harassment ends.

 

 

Newt Gingrich Is SUPER Dumb When It Comes To Palestine

Newt Gingrich is basically an unspeakable horror of a person who should just go home and think about what he's done.

The presidential hopeful remarked today, in a statement which has sparked outrage among Palestinian leaders, that the Palestinian people were "invented," citing their former inclusion in the Ottoman Empire as proof that the region has never been a country and didn't really need to be: 

"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state – (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places," Gingrich said, according to a video excerpt posted online. 

The Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, demanded Gingrich "review history." 

"From the beginning, our people have been determined to stay on their land," Fayyad said in comments carried by the Palestinian news agency Wafa. "This, certainly, is denying historical truths."

You go, Salam! Because Newt Gingrich does need to review history. While the boundaries of the region known has Palestine have shifted over the centuries, the region was defined as "Palestine" in 1920 by the British Mandate for Palestine and has since declared independence officially from Israel in 1988. Two-thirds of the world's nations recognize the Palestinian people's right to govern themselves. You know how I bothered to learn this? By looking on the fucking Wikipedia page. It's that easy.

Maybe Newt should recall a certain other invented people: Americans. Before 1776, we didn't exist either. We became independent because we chose the path of self-determination. So have the Palestinians.

Also, Newt Gingrich can suck it.

Mars Hill Attacks

According to a recent post (by recent I mean, nearly a week old) on the Seattle Weekly blog, local megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll has gone on record as saying that practicing yoga and reading Harry Potter are Satanic:

"Practicing yoga is Satanic, it leads to evil just like reading Harry Potter," he told a film festival in Umbria this week, where he was invited to introduce The Rite, a film about exorcism starring Sir Anthony Hopkins as a Jesuit priest. "

My response - well, only if you're doing it right.

Honestly, I just wanted a reason to post the above picture. That is all.

OneAngryCultist: Love Thy Neighbor

In a recent article on the Catholic Lane, retired schoolteacher and fellow, Seattle OCCUPY activist and writer Robert “Bob” Struble, Jr. writes about the ongoing problem of institutional child abuse. In his recent articles, Paterno, Pedophiles, Homosexuals, and Cowards; and Homosexuality/Pedophilia Correlation? Struble explores the recent Penn State sex abuse scandal in which assistant coach Jerry Sandusky had been found guilty of sexually assaulting or having inappropriate contact with at least eight underage boys as indicative of the moral decline of society due to the growing acceptance of homosexuality.

In the first article, Struble writes:

“Cultural commissars in the West urge citizens to worship at the altar of a much-touted triune ethic – tolerance, diversity and choice. This secular trinity militates against the influence of righteous indignation. It demands that people who express disgust at sexual sins be reprogrammed. Teach them to reconsider their negative attitudes. Show them that a tendency to look down on homosexual sex is wrong in itself. Brow beat them with the notion that such a critical attitude is condescending and judgmental.”

Putting aside any snarky reference I could make by invoking Matthew 7:1-5, there is a tendency in our culture to censor language that is perceived to be intolerant or that doesn’t respect the current values of diversity and choice and with good reason –this kind of language kills people!

 In a free society we do have the right to speak our minds, however the point at which this language and dialogue infringes upon the lives and liberty of others, I take serious concern.

In specific regards to Catholic social teaching, of which Mr. Struble should be well aware, sexual minorities, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Quoting the controversial archbishop of the airwaves, Fulton Sheen, Mr. Struble writes in agreement:

“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil…, a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment…. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles.”

Immediately following, in his own words, Bob additionally calls for an end to, “the prevailing idolatry about inclusiveness. We need, rather, to exhibit the militancy and intolerance that Jesus modeled when he cleansed the temple.”

So, Bob, tell us what you really think about the teachings of Jesus who enjoins all Christians to, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk. 12:31). Thousands of Catholics struggle on a daily basis with deep-seated problems related to being faced with having to choose between being true to themselves or their faith – I for one think they are owed at least a modicum of tolerance.

In his second article, Bob attempts to make the case that the child abuse case at Penn state is not only a moral problem, with which I fully agree, but correlates homosexuality to pedophilia – clearly something I cannot endorse. Pedophilia cannot in any way be related to homosexuality.

Pedophilia, as defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems is “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” and has nothing to do whatsoever with homosexuality even in cases where the abused are of the same gender of the abused.

In essence, pedophilia is a profound psychological and emotional disorder that cannot be correlated in any way to homosexuality in which relationships formed between same-sex partners are most often consensual in nature, as with heterosexual relationships, and based on positive regard for partners and are not typified by power-dynamic disparity as in the case of pedophilia.

Continuing, Bob predicts:

“That if social mores continue their downward trajectory, and society reaches such a level that NAMBLA’s agenda gets mainlined into the culture (as was its equivalent in ancient Greece and Rome); then the social climate will be about as libertine as we read about in pagan antiquity, when there was not much about pedophilia that scandalized people… 

At that point, homosexuals and homosexualists (their heterosexual backers) will not be compelled to conjure up so much anger or indignation whenever someone associates them with pedophilia. To the extent that all sex is considered good sex, no stigmatizing of deviant sexuality will exert enough social suasion to make people feel guilty about sexual relations with children.”

With all due respect, Bob, NAMBLA represents a socially deviant organization that I can guarantee the majority of the LGBTQI community along with the rest of society views with equal disdain as you yourself hold. Also, as something of a lay-historian myself, I’m profoundly disappointed in Bob’s anachronistic reading into the fall of ancient Rome which most historians now assess as being due to extreme economic pressures brought about by territorial expansionism and not about sexual excess and moral denigration. 

Historically speaking, same-sex attraction as understood in the ancient world was understood differently than it is today. While the cultural practice of pederastry as practiced to a small extant in Ancient Greece and Rome may be to some extant equitable with hebephilia – a related but different disorder from pedophilia and something against which Paul rails in Romans – there are cultural contexts which separate making such a drastic comparison to NAMBLA.

These two articles fail to pass biblical and intellectual standards of editorial excellence and are indicative of a small-mindedness that should not be confused with the great academic and loving religious values present in Catholicism, instead they appear to regurgitate the same old “gays are bad because the pope says so” arguments that contribute to a strong social stigmatization of the Church.

I humbly, yet frankly, ask the author to look deeper into the issues at stake as well as inform himself better on the Spirit of the Gospel as opposed to the letter of the law and enjoin him to make a sincere and loving inventory based on love of his sisters and brothers and cease depriving what he likely would not appreciate having deprived himself – the right to love their partners as themselves.

In Dedication to Ss. Sergius and Bacchus
(Aren't they cute?!)

US Senate Votes To Allow Military To Indefinitely Detain American Citizens

Fuck you, US Senate.

In a move that has many Americans stunned, the US Senate has voted to approve an amendment in the most recent Defense appropriations bill which would allow the military to detain American citizens on US soil indefinitely, a drastic expansion of powers which first were used to hold, without trial, enemy combatants in Afghanistan.

Could this be your new home?

In light of the Obama administration's failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the White House was quick to denounce the amendment and has threatened veto twice.  I assume the Republican controlled House of Representatives will pass this disgusting piece of legislation, assuring a showdown between the White House and Congress:

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeatan amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it. 

"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.
Rand's top complaint is that a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist -- and then they could be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged. The only safety valve is a waiver from the secretary of defense.

The division of Senators who voted for and against the provision is a bit bewildering, with a sizable Republican contingent (to include Paul) voting against it and a significant bloc of Democrats siding for the amendment, to include Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Clair McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). The White House is staunch in its criticism of the amendment:

This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.

 I'm a bit concerned that the White House didn't include in its statement: "Also, this is unconstitutional and a gross abuse of power."

I know I might be a bit "conspiracy theorist" in supposing that this is a well-timed provision coinciding with nationally coordinated attacks on Occupy Wall Street encampments.  Who knows when some governor is going to decide that OWS protesters are terrorists and calls in the National Guard?  Should Congress overturns the President's veto, will Occupiers run the risk that they will be moved, without justification, to Gitmo?

Video: SPD Laughing, Joking While Pepper Spraying Compliant Protesters

On November 15th, the Seattle Police Department pepper sprayed innocent protesters who had already complied with a lawful order to get on the sidewalk.  One person filming engaged in conversation with an officer who laughed and joked about what was going on.  Watch (warning, graphic footage of police brutality and extreme assholism):

OneAngryCultist: Voting for God

Hold on to your horses, kids, the current GOP-led Congress is finally voting on something that is nothing short of Biblical and will bring about the second-coming; cure cancer, AIDS, hemorrhoids, and result in the liberation of all humanity accomplish absolutely nothing except reaffirm, "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the United States. The proposed bill would also encourage public buildings to include the motto in their architecture because, you know, architectural redecoration is some kind of job-creation, right?!

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04), Co-Chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus and author of H.CON.RES.13 cites the following reasons why this bill is necessary:

"President Obama inaccurately proclaimed "E Pluribus Unum' as our national motto. Last November before a worldwide audience, in a much-anticipated and much-publicized speech focusing on the United States' relationship with the Muslim world, President Obama falsely proclaimed that our national motto was E pluribus unum. The President failed to respond to congressional entreaties to issue a correction; the uncorrected transcript remains on the White House website.

Misunderstanding of the phrase "Separation of Church and State". The Supreme Court has held, “The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. . . We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion.” The words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the phrase originates from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802, to the Danbury Baptist Association.

Inaccuracies and omissions in the half-billion-dollar Capitol Visitor Center. In 2008, the over half-billion dollar Capitol Visitor Center opened for the purpose of educating over 15,000 Capitol visitors daily on the “legislative process as well as the history and development of the architecture and art of the U.S. Capitol.” Yet, Capitol Visitor Center historians had sanitized the public building of any references to our national motto, including replacing the inscription of ‘In God We Trust,’ inscribed above the Speaker’s Rostrum with stars in a replica of the House Chamber and cropping an actual picture of the chamber so you could not see the words ‘In God We Trust.’ Only until Members of Congress intervened publically [sic.] and legislatively were these omissions and inaccuracies corrected."

So, essentially, what I'm reading is that Congressman Forbes took one of President Obama's gaffes a little too close to heart and is using Congress to make sure this doesn't happen again lest we all fall into godless heathenry.

Now, "Why is your OneAngryCultist chiming in on this particular issue?" you might ask. Well, because religion is important to me - not just mine, but all religions and spiritual perspectives atheism inclusive. As much as I like a little ceremonial deism here and there, H.CON.RES.13 is decidedly sectarian in nature and is part of a growing trend of denying the religious pluralism upon which this country was founded. While the issue of "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution in word, the kind of religion that politicians like Forbes, Perry and others want to enshrine into law is not the kind of religion that would be recognizable by the founding fathers, let alone the 25% of non-Christians in the United States.

OneAngryDyke: Ron Paul Thinks The Gays Are Okay

Since Ian Awesome is busily running around declaring war on the rich, he is proud to introduce his latest guest writer, Kate West, formerly of the Seattle Lesbian and all-around good gal.  Huzzah!

Apparently Ron Paul thinks the gays aren’t the problem in the military . . . it’s those darn heterosexuals causing “trouble”. The same guy who is avidly anti-choice and a self-avowed Republican now (remember when he was a Libertarian?) told Iowa State Daily today that he thinks the straight soldiers are “causing more trouble than the gays”. He didn’t address the real ongoing problem of sexual assault in the military, presumably the “trouble” he referenced. According to NPR, “In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military.” 

Thank goodness those queers didn’t start hitting on all the straight soldiers after DADT repeal . . . we can all sleep better at night knowing THAT didn’t happen.

Video: Santorum's Remarks On DADT

Video from tonight's GOP debate in which Santorum threatens to reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell and, well, incurs the wrath of myself and my readers (video includes audience booing):



If you want to tell Rick Santorum that his remarks were wrong, click here and sign this petition.  Thus far we've dumped 200 e-mails in his campaign headquarters' inbox.  Let's make it 2,000.

Thanks to reader Brad C. and ThinkProgress for video.

Today In Creepy Asshole Weirdoes

Televangelist John Hagee below, warning his flock about the dangers of secular humanism.  Is he really comparing rape crisis centers and shelters for battered women to single's bars and penitentiaries?  Plus: I've tried the magic spells in Harry Potter (oooooh, some days I want to Expelliarmus the hell out of Adam) and sorry, they don't work.  No danger of teaching your children witchcraft there.

Joe Jervis of Joe. My. God. reminds us that John Hagee is the dude who blamed Katrina on the gays and has called for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran.

Ron "Let The Uninsured Die" Paul's 2008 Campaign Strategist Died Uninsured. Also, Here's A Drunk Guy.

Wolf Blitzer's cornering of Ron Paul on the rights of Americans in regards to health care has now become legendary: he asked, and Ron seemed to agree, whether society should let uninsured sick people just die.  While Ron's position on the matter seemed shocking, what was even more sickening and disappointing was the audience, who shouted "Yes!" and burst into applause.

The incident has had repercussions through the GOP, with a Huntsman staffer exclaiming that the incident made her "sick and sad" for the Republican Party, while Rick Perry admitted himself, after being raked over the coals for a few of his more liberal policies, that he was "taken aback" by the crowd's reaction.  

Ron Paul, who is a medical doctor, took what many feel is a callous stance, stating that it would be up to churches and charities to take care of people who don't have the appropriate insurance to deal with a life threatening illness.  Before he said that, unfortunately, he should have thought back to his own past, when his campaign chairman-- his uninsured campaign chairman-- died of pneumonia complications.  Because he was uninsured, Kent Snyder (who is widely credited with being the man who pushed Ron Paul to run in the first place), left his mother a whopping $400,000 medical bill, leading some to express shock that the campaign didn't have a health plan.

“I can’t believe he didn’t have health insurance,” said one political activist who read about Snyder’s unpaid medical bills in a story published last month in the Wall Street Journal. “I can’t believe that Ron Paul didn’t give him health insurance,” said the activist, who asked not to be identified.

As far as we know, charities have only covered a fraction of the cost of Snyder's hospitalization and subsequent death, leaving the rest to the responsibility of his family.

At least we can say he is consistent, as he didn't lift a finger to financially help the Snyder family.  However, one wonders-- if he's such a fan of private insurance companies, why didn't he have a private health plan for his campaign employees?

In much lighter Ron Paul news, this Paulitician was arrested for drunk driving and spent the whole time shouting "Ron Paul 2012 First Amendment!"  You have to give him this: he knows how to keep idiots on-message.

"Are You Saying That Society Should Let Him Die?"

Ron Paul, during tonight's debate on CNN, suggesting that if someone doesn't have insurance due to the exorbitant cost of premiums, we should let them die if unforeseen medical catastrophes ensue:


The "YES!" and applause on Wolf Blitzer's shocked question turns my stomach.

UPDATE:  Alan Grayson, a congressman who famously said two years ago "Republicans want sick people to die quickly," had this to say to the Huffington Post:

My speech was about the fact I had been listening to the Republicans for months, and they literally had no plan to help all those millions of people who can’t see a doctor when they’re sick. So I said, in sort of a wry manner, that their plan was "don’t get sick." All I really wanted to do was just call attention to the stark absence of a Republican plan. But Fox, trying to take the heat off Joe Wilson and Sarah Palin I guess, transmogrified that into a charge that Republicans want to kill people. 

What you saw tonight is something much more sinister than not having a healthcare plan. It's sadism, pure and simple. It's the same impulse that led people in the Coliseum to cheer when the lions ate the Christians. And that seems to be where we are heading -- bread and circuses, without the bread. The world that Hobbes wrote about -- "the war of all against all."

I agree, it seems that this farce is quickly devolving into nothing more than a circus without substance.

Today In Smiting-- Joplin Tornado Was Caused By Barack Obama

This whackjob, coming via Right Wing Watch, blames Israel's eroding position in the Middle East, a hypothetical rise in racism which will rival 1967's struggle, and the tornado that destroyed a good portion of Joplin, Missouri on one thing: Barack Obama's speech in May 2011 calling for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by bringing Israel's borders back to the defined limits before expansion in the late 60s.

Right.

Regardless of this loon's religious background, he clearly is mixing religion with politics in the worst kind of way: by blaming a deadly, tragic weather event on a political stance-- then saying that God was punishing Joplinites for that political stance.  That's more than crazy, it's outright disgusting and this man should be ashamed of himself.  I can think of a few Joplinites that would take umbrage over this crackpot's assertions.

Sally Kern: Gays Are Worse Than Terrorists

The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is tomorrow, meaning the usual jokers are taking the opportunity to amp up the crazy in the usual hateful rhetoric and feverish claims about terrorism.

While 9/11 is typically the time for right-wing nutjobs to claim that Sharia law is taking over American government and advocate for the senseless slaughter of Muslims, Sally Kern has instead decided to use what has become a sacred day of remembrance for many Americans to bash LGBT Americans.  In a radio interview with Peter LeBarbara (the head of the SPLC certified hate group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality), Kern claimed that gays are far worse than terrorists by comparison.  Why?  HIV:

You know if you just look at it in practical terms, which has destroyed and ended the life of more people? Terrorism attack here in America or HIV/​AIDS? In the last twenty years, fifteen to twenty years, we’ve had maybe three terrorist attacks on our soil with a little over 5,000 people regrettably losing their lives. In the same time frame, there have been hundreds of thousands who have died because of having AIDS. So which one’s the biggest threat? And you know, every day our young people, adults too, but especially our young people, are bombarded at school, in movies, in music, on TV, in the mall, in magazines, they’re bombarded with ‘homosexuality is normal and natural.’ It’s something they have to deal with every day. Fortunately we don’t have to deal with a terrorist attack every day, and that’s what I mean.
…
It’s more dangerous, and yes I think that it’s also more dangerous because it will tear down the moral fiber of this nation. We were founded as a nation upon the principles of religion and morality, if we take those out from under our society we will lose what has made us a great nation, we will no longer be a virtuous people, which we see happening already. And without virtue this nation will not survive.

Of course, terrorists choose to kill and maim, while gay folk do not choose to "murder" people with HIV, so her statement is not only guilty of the worst sort of propagandist assertions, but is entirely nonsensical to the topic at hand.   Sadly, we've come to expect this level of crazy from Kern, who in 2009 created and signed the "Proclamation for Morality," a document that blames all the economic ills on our country not on Wall Street, but instead consensual relationships between gay adults. 

I found this story on Facebook, ironically right next to another 9/11 story.  The story of Mark Bingham is a sad one, but tells of an American hero who intervened in on flight United 93 on that day, preventing possibly thousands of more deaths by storming the cockpit with other passengers and crashing the plane which had been intended to strike yet another target.  Mark Bingham was gay.  Was he worse than a terrorist? 

Or what about FDNY chaplain Mychal Judge, who died while giving last rites to a firefighter during the fall of the Twin Towers?  He was the first recorded victim of 9/11 and was gay.  Is he worse than a terrorist?

Dear Sally: I know you are really trying to drum up publicity for your new book about the horrible liberals who victimize you, "The Stoning of Sally Kern," but if you really gave a shit about what happened 10 years ago, you would stop slandering the good names of these and other American heroes who were, incidentally, gay.  While they are dead and probably don't care, you dishonor the memories others have on them and worse?  You dishonor yourself with such despicable rhetoric. 

Iran Executes Gay Men, Even Though They Don't Have Any

Does anyone else remember this?

That's right. That's the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, telling a crowd of Ivy-league students, reporters and diplomats that Iran doesn't have gay people.  Naturally, they laughed in his face. 

So why is it that three men were just executed in his country for "Hadd," which translates to sodomy?  From Iran Human Rights:

According to the reports from Iran, six people were hanged in the Karoun prison of Ahvaz (southwest of Iran) early Sunday morning September 4th.

The state run Iranian news agency ISNA reported that three of those executed were sentenced to death by the Ahvaz revolution court, convicted of "unlawful" acts and acts against Sharia, based on the articles 108 and 110 of the Iranian Islamic penal code. Articles 108 and 110 of the Iranian Islamic Penal code are part of the chapter covering the punishment of "Hadd" for "sodomy". Article 108 says: "Sodomy (or Lavat) is sexual intercourse between men”, and article 110 says:”Punishment for sodomy is killing; the Sharia judge decides on how to carry out the killing".

While I am naturally very angry over this, it's nothing new.  Those laws have been on the books (and have reportedly been enforced) for years.  While many are angry over Uganda's pending legislation to begin executing citizens for homosexuality, the ongoing government mandated murder of Iranian gay men begs the question: what's being done to stop it?
 
The quick answer is not much.  One recourse is available to Iranian gays seeking to avoid death:  seeking asylum elsewhere.  However, deportation laws in the UK, Europe, and here in the US have prevented many from finding asylum, dooming the thousands of gay Iranians to a seemingly hopeless situation.