| christian grantham | |||
| Christian Grantham was a student activist in the late 90s and later was a consultant to domestic policy forums for the Clinton Administration as well as events for HRC and GLAAD. | |||
|
|
|
||
latest posts
March 31, 2004
Concerns over the volume of untranslated terrorist intercepts are posing a significant security threat to the United States, according to CIA Chief George Tenet's recent testimony before the 9-11 Commission. Those concerns are echoed in a March 2 letter (page 1, 2) to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, from ranking committee member Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
As both Tenet and Sen. Leahy note, the federal government has a significant backlog of untranslated intercepts. Linguists are a front-line asset the federal government is finding in short supply. Despite the security threat and the need for qualified linguists, the federal government continues to make a person's sexual orientation a bigger threat to America.
According to a December 2003 article in the Washington post, the Department of Defense had discharged 37 linguists from the Defense Language Institute for being gay under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The threat of homosexuals apparently is so great that even untranslated terrorist chatter takes a back seat to the federal government's purge of gays attempting to serve their country.
When it comes to the government's need for bodies in the line of fire, however, DADT discharges drop under stop-loss orders in time of war. Presumably the threat posed by homosexuals "in the foxhole" disappears in the reality of war, but as the military trains and prepares for war, irrational fears of homosexuals consume the military elite.
In a March 24, 2004 report by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Conduct Unbecoming: The 10th Annual Report on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," discharges plummeted last year due to war in Iraq. In the emerging theater of information warfare, the federal government has to begin asking itself whether DADT is harming our effort to muster our country's strengths or whether it is playing to politics that are ultimately harming our country.
It is very important to remember that DADT was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Gay Democrats should take note of lessons learned and not allow the 2004 party front-runner John Kerry to waffle on this important national security issue.
The unfairness of DADT not only affects those few people prohibited from serving their country, it affects all Americans. If the 9-11 Commission is to focus on one solution to prevent another 9-11, it will be for our country to use all our resources and set politics aside to protect our country.
It is time to repeal DADT and make sure our country is served by people willing to defend our country from the real enemy.
filed under: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
March 23, 2004
The authors of a discriminatory amendment to the United States Constitution are tweaking the language to attempt to gain more support. While the original language was slightly altered, the intent was left virtually unchanged.
In a press conference yesterday, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) told reporters the change in language is "a good faith effort here to address some concerns that were raised." Rep. Musgrave's use of "good faith" in conjunction with such an historic profile in bigotry is outstanding.
Here is the old language of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
And here is the reworked language which supposedly addressed concerns of writing discriminatory language into the United States Constitution:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Rep. Musgrave might have forgotten her charge as a Representative of Colorado in the United States House of Representatives. Musgrave spends her time attacking American principles she and her colleagues want to change to exclude people her faith refuses to view as equal under the law. Any law that forces Rep. Musgrave to share equally in the democratic freedoms afforded to all Americans, including gays and lesbians, is a direct threat, and Rep. Musgrave is taking a disgraceful course of action targeting those democratic principles.
Rep. Musgrave’s personal drive to deny equal protections to American citizens should alarm every American, despite how they feel about marriage rights.
Please visit www.hrc.org and take action using your zip code to send a message to your representatives asking them to take a stand for fairness and equality by opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Being Retooled
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post
March 23, 2004
Backers of ban on gay marriages alter proposal
By Mary Curtius
Los Angeles Times via Baltimore Sun
March 23, 2004
Marriage amendment rewrite allows civil unions
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 23, 2004
filed under:
March 22, 2004
Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), continues to illustrate why the Log Cabin Republicans are withholding their endorsement of President Bush in 2004. In his Senate confirmation hearings last year, Bloch promised to protect all federal employees against discrimination but now refuses to reaffirm that promise.
Last month, Bloch, who previously served on the Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Justice, began deleting references to "sexual orientation" from OSC websites and training manuals. Bloch also deleted references to a recently settled case between a gay IRS employee and the federal government.
Such protections, Bloch now argues, go beyond his legal obligations, and that he intends to only protect people from discrimination, as it is defined in areas cleansed of references to "sexual orientation." When he was asking the American people for confirmation through the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Bloch conveniently left that position out and lied.
Now that Bloch has the job, his personal desire to disempower the rule of law providing equal protections illustrates how far Republicans are willing to go to make discrimination against gays legal.
Deleting the references from all OSC documents is nothing more than an effort to void Bloch's obligation to provide recourse for discrimination based on sexual orientation to federal employees. By deciding gays don't deserve the equal protections granted them, Bloch is doing a great disservice to his faith, his party, his administration, and his county.
Gay GOP Group Wants Web Site Data Restored
By Stephen Barr
Washington Pos
March 22, 2004
Gays' 'protected-class' status doubted
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 22, 2004
FEDERAL GLOBE DECRIES OSC PULLBACK ON FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PROTECTIONS FROM SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
FEBRUARY 12, 2004
Special Counsel Under Scrutiny
By Stephen Barr
Washington Post
February 23, 2004
filed under:
March 18, 2004
A group of Republican Senators and Representatives are attacking the United States Constitution, again.
This time, they want to strip jurisdiction from federal district courts and the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to cases of elected or government officials acknowledging God as the source of law, liberty, or government.
The "Constitution Restoration Act" has 12 congressional co-sponsors in both the House and Senate. All but two of these co-sponsors are also co-sponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution seeking to deny equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans.
Under the proposed "Constitution Restoration Act," a handful of Republican legislators want to deny American citizens any legal right of recourse when it comes to elected officials trampling on First Amendment protections. These protections allow a diversity of religions to co-exist peacefully. But, to the increasingly emboldened radical ideology of Republicans, these laws have allowed a tolerant society to accept false Gods and equality with heathens. Republicans have had enough of a tolerant society in America and the laws that allow such democratic balance of powers to protect a freedom loving society.
The core supporters of the "Constitution Restoration Act" represent an increasingly vocal faction of the Republican party that shares support for such radical ideology with none other than President George Bush. President Bush has lent his voice of support to most of their causes, from the right of religious-based programs to discriminate with federal funds through Faith-Based Initiatives, removing federal job protections, to the President’s active support for an amendment denying equal marriage rights to American families. President Bush is in lock-step with the radical ideologly of the Republican party base.
To the Republican sponsors of the "Constitution Restoration Act," the highest laws of the land and the people they serve run second to personal beliefs in the Bible and serving God. To these elected officials, the greatest threat facing a desire to deny constitutional protections from American citizens is the United States Constitution and the judges measuring their unconstitutional legislative agenda against higher principles.
When it comes to the highest laws in the land standing in the way of Republicans instituting discriminatory religious ideology, Republicans continue to demonstrate who they prefer to serve and who they prefer not to serve. The radical ideology of the Republican party continues to hold in contempt the fair principles of our highest law when such laws rule in favor of higher principles than what religious ideology offers a diverse society.
The only way religious political extremists can achieve their goal of stripping American citizens of constitutional protections is to make sure those rights no longer apply in America. Republicans are not only full of ideas on how to divide America, they are moving the agenda forward with the support of President George Bush and the silence of moderate voices in America.
Republicans using phrases like “activist judges” hope America won’t remember the work of “activist judges” that struck down laws prohibiting blacks to marry whites less than 40 years ago in Loving v. Virginia. Republicans hope you won’t recall how the Supreme Court measured these discriminatory laws against higher principles allowing fairness and equality to prevail. These “activist judges” saw through arguments against fairness, and delivered a "compassion" and "unity" our United States Constitution will uphold forever and that the Republican party has failed to deliver for our country in the past four years.
filed under:
March 15, 2004
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind." - President Bush, Meet The Press, Feb. 8, 2004
After Janet Jackson exposed her right breast at the Super Bowl, the federal government answered the call of outraged conservatives. Michael Powell, the FCC Chairman, quickly echoed that outrage. Despite his public pronouncements of indecency, I can't help but think Michael Powell, like most drunk, male Super Bowl fans, secretly craves breasts. I guess America is queerer than I thought.
There is nothing more frightening to gay men and devout Christians than titties. This fact always screwed up my gaydar in college.
Attorney General John Ashcroft is so frightened by titties, he had a prominent statue in the Justice Department draped with over $8,000 worth of curtains. To put that in context, that's enough fabric to toss a burkha over every elected female official in U.S. Congress. Any gay man knows that's a lot of curtains.
If Janet Jackson was the shocking appetizer, then Howard Stern, Jews and gays are the main course for rabid Christian conservatives this election cycle.
By now it ought to be clear that when President Bush thinks about domestic policy, he has a different kind of war on his mind. President Bush's strategy for diverting the national dialogue from important domestic policy issues this year amounts to nothing less than a culture war.
The Republican party's base of Christian conservatives couldn't be happier with President Bush's divisive election strategy. Fresh from spending $8 a head to watch Hollywood depict Jews as "Christ killers," they clearly want more blood. Luckily, President Bush has about half as much money as Mel Gibson to deliver the cultural scourging his party base hysterically craves.
The cultural icons are rich for the pickings in President Bush's culture war.
The 15 million listeners of shock-jock radio icon Howard Stern are getting a daily dose of Bush-bashing following Clear Channel yanking his show from 6 major market stations. Call it a "pre-emptive strike." Stern calls it censorship. Famous for being fined by the FCC for what Stern called a "doody joke" in the 80s, Stern continues to lament Bush's culture war daily. Just this morning, Stern talked about how he gave money online to the John Kerry campaign.
President Bush's divisive support for an amendment to the United States Constitution to deny equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans is the icing on the cake. The discriminatory proposal is a regrettable turn for an increasingly radical conservative base. The Republican Party has long championed amendments expanding American principles of fairness and equality, as the GOP website proudly proclaims.
Never has the Republican party seemed so in touch with the American people than when Vice President Dan Quayle lamented fictional television characters for raising kids in a single parent home. With moderate Republicans cowering in silence during this culture war, the Republican party seems more obsessed with titties, Jews, gays and Howard Stern. If President Bush's culture war goes as well as it did for his father, perhaps Bush will find more time to spend at the "Western White House."
filed under:
March 11, 2004
Kansas Republican State Senator Kay O'Connor is a classic example of the opposition to equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. In a letter to a constituent regarding a proposed amendment to the Kansas state constitution, Sen. O'Connor adequately summed up what "compassionate conservatism" has come to mean to many Republicans.
"Unfair discrimination against people of color or people with disabilities, etc., is certainly to be rejected. However, a choice to give into ones lust and not practice self-control is not a disability, it is a life style choice.
"Historically, any state or nation that gives into the lusty perversions of the homosexual lifestyle, soon sees its own demise.
"Like it or not, we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and it (our constitution) has served us well for over two-hundred years. The judicial branch has been over-stepping its bounds the past few years and caused the need for this legal remedy."
Despite Sen. O'Connor's assertion our nation was "founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs," laws that protect lifestyle choices to worship other Gods continue to send far more Americans to Hell than those who choose to love one another. The protection of religious lifestyle choices have allowed false Gods to proliferate and find a home in a tolerant and increasingly Godless, secular society.
If Sen. O'Connor wants to make sure Heaven is stocked with morally pure Americans, her Republican colleagues had better get on the ball stripping away equal protections under the law for American citizens.
filed under:
March 08, 2004
Last month, 16 Christian conservative groups opposed to equal marriage rights signed a statement laying out their position on the issue. The statement decried "activist judges" standing up for constitutional principles and acting "in spite of thousands of years of history." To this day, several of those signed on continue to invoke a Biblical claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman for over 5,000 years. The only problem with that claim is the facts.
It wasn't until more recent history that women were brought out of the Bible's idea of trading and collecting them like property by upstanding Christian men under God's blessing. Thankfully, the institution of marriage has radically departed from 5,000 years of history and now bans Biblical definitions of marriage. Somewhere along the thousands of years of history, the law strived for a better definition of marriage.
Somewhere along the way, most Christians settled on the idea that not everything in the Bible is as God intended it. If we were to adhere to a 5,000 year old tradition of marriage as outlined in the Bible, America would look something like this:
| Name | Numbers | Reference |
| Abdon | 40 sons | Judges 12:14 |
| Abijah | 14 wives | 2 Chronicles 13:21 |
| Abimelech | 1 wife and multiple concubines | Genesis 20:17 |
| Abraham | at least 1 wife and 3 concubines | Genesis 16:3 |
| Genesis 25:1-6 | ||
| Ahab | wives given to Ahab and 70 sons | 1 Kings 20:1-9, 2 Kings 10:1 |
| Ashur | 2 wives | 1 Chronicles 4:5 |
| Belshazzar | wives and concubines | Daniel 5:2 |
| Ben-Hadad | wives of Ahab | 1 Kings 20:1-9 |
| Bethuel | 1 wife and 1 concubine | Genesis 22 |
| Caleb | 1 wife and 2 concubines | 1 Chonicles 2:18-19,46-48 |
| David | 12+ wives, 3+ concubines | 1 Samuel 18:27 |
| 2 Samuel 3:2-5 | ||
| 2 Samuel 5:13 | ||
| 2 Samuel 11 | ||
| 2 Samuel 12:8 | ||
| 1 Chronicles 3:1-5 | ||
| 1 Chronicles 14:3 | ||
| Eliphaz | 1 wife and 1 concubine | Genesis 36:12 |
| Elkanah | 2 wives | 1 Samuel 1:1-2 |
| (Ephraim) | at least 2 wives during his lifetime | 1 Chronicles 7:20 & 23 |
| Esau | 4 wives | Genesis 26:34; Genesis 36:2-3 |
| Genesis 28:9 | ||
| Gideon | many wives and 72 sons | Judges 8:30, 9:5 |
| (Hezron) | at least 2 wives during his lifetime | 1 Chronicles 2:9 & 21 |
| Isshiah | many wives and children | 1 Chronicles 7:3-4 |
| Jacob | 2 wives and 2 concubines | Genesis 29 |
| Genesis 30 | ||
| Jehoiachin | multiple wives | 2 Kings 24:15 |
| Jerahmeel | 2 wives | 1 Chronicles 2:25-26 |
| Jehoram | multiple wives | 2 Chronicles 21:12-14 |
| Joash | 2 wives | 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 |
| Joel | many wives and children | 1 Chronicles 7:3-4 |
| Josiah | 2 wives | 2 Kings 23:31 & 36 |
| Lamech | 2 wives | Genesis 4:19 |
| Manasseh | at least one concubine | 1 Chronicles 7:14 |
| Mered | 2 or 3 wives | 1 Chronicles 4:17-18 |
| Michael | many wives and children | 1 Chronicles 7:3-4 |
| (Moses) | 2 wives | Exodus 2:21 |
| Numbers 12:1 | ||
| Nahor | 1 wife and 1 concubine | Genesis 22:20-24 |
| Obadiah | many wives and children | 1 Chronicles 7:3-4 |
| Rehoboam | 18 wives and 60 concubines | 2 Chronicles 11:21 |
| Saul | at least 2 wives | 1 Samuel 14:50 |
| 2 Samuel 3:7 | ||
| 2 Samuel 12:8 | ||
| Shaharaim | 2 divorced wives and at least 1 not divorced | 1 Chronicles 8:8 |
| Simeon | at least 2 wives | Genesis 46:10 |
| Solomon | 700 wives and 300 concubines | 1 Kings 11:3 |
| Song 6:8 | ||
| 2 Kings 10:1 | ||
| Genesis 20:12 | ||
| Xerxes | wives and concubines | Esther 2 |
| Yahweh | 2 wives | Jeremiah 3:6-10, 31:31-32 |
| Ezekiel 23 | ||
| Zedekiah | multiple wives | Jeremiah 38:19-23 |
| Zerubbabel | 2 wives | 1 Chronicles 3:19-20 |
Thankfully, our better senses now supercede a religious definition of marriage as outlined in the Bible. While America still has pockets of patriarchal polygamist pedophiles, like those whose Biblical marriage practices promises a Waco-style confrontation with the entire fortified city of Colorado City, AZ, America stands for better.
Our nation's forefathers envisioned a society where each person was an equal partner in the rights and freedoms of democracy. This trend has empowered women to become equal with men. The struggle to grant rights to blacks in America saw an equally disgraceful use of the Bible to justify slavery. Later, the supposed defense of marriage fought interracial marriage invoking selected passages of the Bible. Time and again, our nation's better senses prevailed over such tragic diversions.
Today's society is far removed from the Christian ideals of marriage. Marriage today is a civil right, and the only way to stop that is to alter the United States Constitution to exclude gays and lesbians from equal protections under the law. This path is the choice of those who seek to undo our nation's most precious founding principles. Our country has been there before, and it is curious to find the same people at the center of dividing America from its roots in fairness and equality.
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
March 05, 2004
In his peice today, Where Is My Gay Apocalypse?, Mark Morford says,
"Maybe you didn't know. Shrimp are evil, as are all shrimp eaters. Clams, too. Hey, it's in the Bible. You can look it up. Why the Right is attacking homosexuals in love and not, say, Red Lobster, remains a mystery."I've given up a long time ago picking which parts of the Bible are absolutely not worth attributing to God. Some people today swear the book is the difinitive word of God, going so far as to suggest homosexuals will bring the fate of Sodom and Gomorah to our nation.
If that's the case, I suppose the only thing hotter than a 12 peice shrimp plate at Red Lobster after Sunday school are the flames of Hell. I'm not sure who the Bible says will get their faster, those that gobble these buttered abominations or screaming queens scrambling for Cher tickets.
filed under:
March 04, 2004
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict"
-- Representative Seaborn Roddenberry (D-GA) - December 1912 | Gilmore, Al-Tony (1975). p.108 - Bad Nigger! The National Impact of Jack Johnson. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press.
"Let this condition go on if you will. At some day, perhaps remote, it will be a question always whether or not the solemnizing of matrimony in the North is between two descendants of our Anglo-Saxon fathers and mothers or whether it be of a mixed blood descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa."
-- Representative Seaborn Roddenberry (D-GA) - December 1912 | Kristof, Nicholas D (March 3, 2004). Marriage: Mix and Match: New York Times
filed under:
March 03, 2004
filed under:
March 03, 2004
"But our opponents can’t campaign on jobs or health care or fiscal responsibility. Instead, George Bush, who promised to be a uniter, has become the great divider. Just last week, he proposed to amend the Constitution for political purposes. He has no right to misuse the most precious document in our history in an effort to divide this nation and distract us from his failures. We reject the politics of fear and distortion. And we will keep trust with Lincoln’s ideal of America as “the last best hope of earth.”
-- John Kerry, March 2, 2004
Four years ago, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney said "gay marriage" should be left up to the states to decide. What a difference four years brings. Now that it appears the states are deciding in favor of American principles of fairness and equality, President Bush wants to stop it at all costs. Unfortunately, the principles upon which President Bush asks Americans to stand in defiance of equal marriage rights doesn't exist in the United States Constitution. The great "uniter, not divider" will have to write in the discriminatory principle with an amendment whose legacy would forever tarnish the party of Lincoln and divide our country.
In the culture war President Bush has launched, he and his supporters are using a new code phrase to level blame: "activist judges." But "activist judges" are merely measuring laws against the higher principles of state constitutions and properly deeming them unfit. It was "activist judges" of the U.S. Supreme Court that in June of 1967 ruled antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional. It was "activist judges" that protected the sanctity of marriage from racists who only 30 years ago claimed marriage was being assaulted by "niggers." Today's opposition to equal marriage rights are cut from the same disgraceful, thread-barren cloth, and Americans will stand for much better.
And that's just one important difference between John Kerry and President George Bush. John Kerry opposes a federal marriage amendment to the United States Consitution that would forever strip rights from gay and lesbian Americans. President Bush supports such an amendment.
filed under:
March 02, 2004
"One of the most unpleasant aspects of this business is the extent of which private lives are intruded upon when these kinds of issues come up. I have really always considered my daughters lives private, and I think that's the way it ought to remain." -- Vice President Dick Cheney - MSNBC March 2, 2004
One of the most unpleasant aspects of Vice President Dick Cheney's support of an amendment to the United States Constitution denying equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans is how little Cheney seems to care how such a divisive law would treat his own daughter, Mary.
The institution of marriage is under attack in America. It is under attack by those who want to make certain the rights will never apply to gay and lesbian Americans. Marriage is one of the most publicly joyous moments in the life of our country, but when it comes to sharing that joy and those rights with gays and lesbians, President Bush and Vice President Cheney want you to take their lead and abandon your sons and daughters. For some, it seems to be an easy choice. For most Americans, it's wrong.
Vice President Dick Cheney aptly illustrates what Republicans mean when they say "compassion." Vice President Dick Cheney's example of support for such a measure asks America to forget our children and to oppose their rights to marry and pursue the American dream.
The President of the United States has chosen this issue to be "a matter of national importance." There is nothing private about that very public and regrettable assault on higher principles. Vice President Dick Cheney has become the epitome of a wayward party that has turned its back on its own family as it has long-standing American principles of fairness and equality the party once helped champion.
filed under:
