Monday - February 05, 2007

Queer Eye For The Snickers Guy

I know most of you saw The Big Game yesterday and I imagine most of you saw all of the amusing little ads that advertisers paid bajillions to have aired. With that said, there is one commercial that is already causing a a major controversy among a certain vocal minority in our country. Can you guess which ad that was?

Was it the ads from Budweiser? Coca-Cola? GoDaddy? Sprint? Doritos? FedEx? Blockbuster? Taco Bell? ... Give up?

Well, the answer is none of the above. No, it turns out that a stupid candy bar has caused a great wadding of panties among homosexuals. There is much sobbing and wailing going on about how homophobic the ad was and how it will surely promote violence against queers (I can use that word nowadays, can’t I? After all, they use it in the title of the homosexuals’ favorite TV show!).

Here is a link to the Snickers TV ad. There you will find not only the ad but THREE other versions of the ad featuring two automobile mechanics caught in an embaressing faux pas. The page also includes interviews with and reactions from both Bears and Colts players as they are shown the commercial. You can also vote for your favorite.

When you get through looking at the silliness there then go to AmericaBlog, what seems to be a Liberal group grope with a decided anger at Mars, Inc. for airing the commercial. The first post expresses the complete and utter disgust at the ad and the homophobic attitude it apparently demonstrates.

As if that’s not enough a second post today is entitled, “Mars family, owner of anti-gay Snickers franchise, are top billionaire Republican activists”.

Now I don’t have a quarrel with John Aravosis, owner of the site (Bio: John Aravosis is a Washington DC-based writer and political consultant, specializing in using the Internet for political advocacy. He is the creator of StopDrLaura.com, Matthew Shepard Online Resources, and DearMary.com, among other activist Web sites. John has a joint law degree and masters in foreign service from Georgetown, where he studied under former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. John speaks five languages and has visited or worked in 28 countries.) but it seems to be to be a tad over the top as far as reactions go.

I’m calling “BULLSHIT” on Mr. Aravosis on this one. No one, and I mean NO ONE, actually takes Super Bowl ads seriously unless they are seriously looking to pick a fight at the drop of a hat. Those ads are nothing but contrived silliness, meant to attract attention to a product. Every person in this country over the age of twelve knows that.

So get a grip, John (and the rest of the homosexual crowd too). It’s all fun and games, buddy. Lighten up and quit trying to start a war where none exists. Liberal activists like John always seem to enjoy starting fights with peaceful folks here at home but have no stomach for a fight against true homophobic madmen in the Middle East. Now, why is that?

   Tuesday - November 21, 2006

Quote Of The Day

“We don’t have a Jewish state here. We have Sodom and Gomorrah here!”

-- Moshe Gafni, ultra-Orthodox Israeli lawmaker

   Friday - October 20, 2006

Gay Activists

_{Gary McCoy - Cagle Cartoons}

The Outing Game
- by Michael Reagan

Mike Rogers is a scandalmonger who calls himself a “Gay activist blogger” devoted to “outing” alleged closet-gay Republicans. He claims that his sleazy activism is justified because it reveals the alleged hypocrisy of Republican homosexuals who refuse to promote what he insists is the real gay agenda.

Last week his target was Republican Congressman David Dreier. His latest target is Idaho Senator Larry Craig who he charged has engaged in homosexual sex with at least four men – a charge the senator vehemently denies.

Significantly, he refuses to identify his alleged sources for the accusation, surrendering by his refusal any claim to credibility. Rogers says that digging into the private lives of politicians who support anti-gay legislation is perfectly legitimate, adding because the senator both supported and voted for the Defense of Marriage act, he has a perfect right to out him.

Rogers is one of the so-called gay activists who is going on nationally syndicated radio shows and writing newspaper columns to punish what he believes are gay Republicans for not agreeing with the liberal agenda of gay marriage or whatever the else the gay issue of the day is.

He’s outing all of these targets, not caring who he hurts, simply because they don’t agree with the radical gay agenda. There is no outrage from the Democrats or the media that there is somebody out there punishing conservatives who don’t agree with the liberal gay agenda.

They don’t understand that conservatives don’t look first at people’s sexuality. They look at a person as a whole person. There are people however, who have been described by a gay Republican talk show host as “professional homosexuals”—people who see nothing else but a person’s sexual orientation.

When they get up in the morning and look in the mirror all they see is a homosexual. They see absolutely nothing else about themselves or their lives. Yet just as the radical Muslims have taken over the Muslim faith, these professional gays are putting themselves forth as spokesmen for the entire gay community and being accepted as such by the liberal media.

They are not. The majority of gays want nothing to do with Rogers and his fellow professional homosexuals. I know a lot of gays who live in California. Most of them are not supportive of gay marriage. Most gays are not supportive of the radical gay issue of punishing the Boy Scouts because they won’t allow homosexuals to be scoutmasters.

These are the issues that the activists are pushing. Most gays are embarrassed by the gay activists but they can’t say anything since they will be ostracized within their own community, just as a black who is conservative is ostracized within the black community.

If a gay speaks out against the radical gay agenda he will be driven out of the gay community, and that includes speaking out against the professional homosexuals who pretend to represent the entire gay community and are accepted as such by the lamestream media.

We are now seeing the outrageous practice of liberal radio talk show hosts allowing radical gays to go on their shows and broadcast their slimy messages, identifying as closet gays conservative Republicans who will not kowtow to them and their demands that they support what Rogers and his ilk claim is the only legitimate agenda for homosexuals.

Rogers may claim his aim is to advance his cause, but it is nothing more than his method of punishing those who disagree with him. He’s telling his targets, “Do what I demand or I’ll expose you to ridicule.”

I don’t care if a Republican politician is gay. What I care about is his agenda. Is it a conservative agenda or a liberal agenda? I vote for those who support my conservative views.

Liberals take it as an article of faith that conservatives hate gays. That’s absolutely untrue. What we don’t support is the radical gay agenda. We are utterly opposed to gay marriage, homosexual scoutmasters or promoting the gay lifestyle in our schools.

And, as I said, most gays agree with me and not with Rogers on these issues.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted.” Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. Email Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

   Friday - October 06, 2006

California Court Slaps Homosexuals

It looks like another setback for the homosexuals in Kalifornia. An appeals court yesterday decided that when the majority of citizens vote to deny marriage rights to homosexuals, the courts have to abide by the wishes of the people. Isn’t that an interesting concept? Voters deciding issues? What is the world coming to when a radical minority can’t override the citizens of a state in court?

Of course the story below wouldn’t be near complete without the obligatory last two paragraphs in which the homosexuals cry “foul” and raise the race card. They are convinced that Kalifornia will soon be putting up signs in rest rooms saying “Heterosexuals Only” and forcing homosexuals to ride in the back of the bus. In their mind, anyone who doesn’t bow to their wishes and give them anything they want is a certified homophobe ... and probably racist to boot. And they acuse us heterosexuals of being “intolerant”? Go figure ....

Court Backs California Ban On
Same-Sex Marriages
_{SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Thu Oct 5, 2006 8:13pm ET}

A California appeals court upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday, reversing a lower court’s judgment against a voter-approved law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that ‘marriage’ in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning,” the California Court of Appeal held.

“We may not strike down a law simply because we think it unwise or because we believe there is a fairer way of dealing with the problem,” it said in a majority opinion written by Justice William McGuiness. The decision stalls, at least temporarily, efforts to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage. But gay activists said they will appeal to the California Supreme Court.

Jon Davidson of the gay rights group Lambda Legal said the California law was unfair, and legal analysts expect lawsuits over same-sex marriage will continue for years across the United States. “This violates a fundamental right that all people have in California, which is to marry a person of their choice,” Davidson said.

The appeals court reversed a lower court, which had overturned California’s ban on gay nuptials in a lawsuit triggered by the marriage licenses San Francisco briefly issued to same-sex couples in 2004. “Courts in this state simply do not have authority to redefine marriage,” the appeals court said.It said a voter initiative or legislation would be required to legalize same-sex marriage.

California’s Democrat-led legislature last year passed a bill to make same-sex marriages legal, making it the first in the country to do so, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. The governor has said voters or courts should decide whether the state’s marriage law should be altered. Voters approved a law defining marriage as the union of a man and woman in 2000.

In its ruling Thursday, the court noted gay couples in California have rights comparable to married heterosexuals thanks to domestic partnership laws. But gay rights activists said comparable rights are not equal rights, and, citing Justice J. Anthony Kline’s dissent, they said the majority carved out an unconstitutional “separate but equal” standard for gays by supporting domestic partnerships, which Kline compared to laws enforcing racial segregation.

The domestic partnership act is “a form of pseudomarriage that stigmatizes homosexual unions in much the same way ‘separate but equal’ public schools stigmatized black students,” Kline said. “Like separate educational facilities, domestic partnership and marriage are ‘inherently unequal,’” he said.

   Thursday - October 05, 2006

Perverts And Pages

I’ve been waiting for our gal Ann Coulter to weight in on the Foley Affair and I’m happy to say she finally lets fly. The target is Democrats and the double standard we are all used to seeing by now. Mark Foley is a certified creep but at least he had the dignity to fall on his sword and resign from Congress - something Democrats Gerry Studds, Barney Frank and Mel Reynolds refused to do when they were exposed for doing much worse. Follow the links if you have a short memory or just don’t believe it.

My personal opinion is that Congress and government in general just need to do away with the whole concept of Pages and Interns. The jobs are an anachronism and have become nothing more than a bordello for perverted Congressmen and creepy Presidents from Arkansas. For the time being though, read what Ann has to say about the whole mess ...

_{Michael Ramirez - Investors Business Daily}

Who knew Mark Foley was a closeted Democrat?
_{(WORLDNET DAILY) - October 4, 2006 6:18 p.m. Eastern}

At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they’d be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat. The object lesson of Foley’s inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

Foley didn’t claim he was the victim of a “witch hunt.” He didn’t whine that he was a put-upon “gay American.” He didn’t stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn’t run for re-election. He certainly didn’t claim he was “saving the Constitution.” (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

In 1983, Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a “mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults.”

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds – not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men – defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha’s Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: “It’s the outfit, stupid.")

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds’ affair with a teenage page as “a brief consenting homosexual relationship” and denounced Studds’ detractors for engaging in a “witch hunt” against gays: “New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life.”

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages. But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush’s National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman’s instant messages.

Let’s run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager – oh also, we think he’s gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy – and a credit check, too!

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada’s judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley’s phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won’t let us do to al-Qaida – solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

- More from Ann at WND ...

   Monday - September 18, 2006

Grumpy Old Men

The question on everyone’s minds nowadays is: what happens to homosexual men when they grow old? Well, maybe it’s not on your mind (mine either) but the Washington Post took a look at “The Village” in New York and was surprised to find that the “gay” men have turned into grumpy old men who frown on the younger homosexual crowd’s behavior.

Yes, it seems the homosexual crowd in Greenwich Village are now rich, retired and mad as hell at the young whippersnappers wandering the streets at night raising hell. I’m sure an often heard phrase there is “back in my day we were better behaved” ... followed by “dude, can you spare me a dime bag of weed - I’m low?”. Some things never change ....

Race, Class and Sex Breed Contempt in Greenwich Village
A Neighborhood Grown Older and Wealthier Is Tired of Today’s Rowdies
_{NEW YORK (WASHINGTON POST) - Monday, September 18, 2006}

A pair of shapely legs in low-slung jeans strut through Greenwich Village, sequined rainbows stitched onto the back pockets jiggling from side to side. A lanky teenage girl with red-dyed braids, wearing baggy red basketball shorts, gazes at the rainbows and yells, “I like your jeans.” The rainbow-wearing girl yells back: “I like you .”

The girls trade flirtatious smiles and rejoin the nightly parade along Christopher Street, past Village Pleasure with its inventory of gay erotic toys, past a church, and a gay bar with an older black and Latino clientele, and another frequented by white gays. Just beyond is Badlands, once a notorious leather bar and now a triple-X video shop.

They stroll toward the Hudson River and the action on Pier 45, where the gay teenage crowd practices vogue moves (runway poses immortalized by Madonna), flirt and gossip. But at 1 a.m., when the pier shuts down, the crowd that looks and oozes fabulous chic strolls back up Christopher Street. Their screaming and music drives the locals nuts.

“The young people . . . are raising holy hell,” said David Poster, 68, president of the Christopher Street Patrol, a neighborhood watch group. “We pray for rain and snow.”

Forget the image of the Village as gay haven; forget the gay liberation movement that rose from its cobblestone streets. The scene has moved north to Chelsea, and what’s left in the Village is a gay neighborhood gone older, wealthier and stodgier. Some in the area of $4 million townhouses and lofts says it is under siege by gay kids of color who bring loud talk, drug dealing and prostitution.

It is a conflict, thick with issues of race and class within the gay community, that is now coming to a head. “They didn’t want black faces on the street,” said Bob Kohler, who is white, explaining the outcry against the pier crowd. Kohler, a longtime Village resident and former business owner on the strip, took part in Gay Liberation Front that organized some of the first gay rights protests.

He remembers the methadone-clinic houseboat docked at the piers. And the junkies who shot the real deal through their veins and nodded out on brownstone stoops. That generation now visits the gay senior center where Kohler regularly gets into heated arguments about the teenagers. “Those kids . . . get them off the street,” says Kohler, feigning the whining voices of seniors at the center. “They come here and mess up the Village. They steal.” Then he adds wearily, “Meanwhile, these old men are trying to score for pot.”

- More silliness in the Village at WAPO ...

   Friday - August 04, 2006

Defense: Children can give consent

Phillip Distasio is a sick man. Very, very sick. But I have no sympathy for the admitted pedophile. Article is here.

Ohio Man Claims Right To Have Sex With Boys
Admitted Pedophile Says Children Can Consent

POSTED: 6:52 am EDT August 3, 2006

CLEVELAND—It was probably not a defense the court had heard before.

A suburban Cleveland man accused of sexually assaulting nine disabled boys told a judge Wednesday that his apartment was a religious sanctuary where smoking marijuana and having sex with children are sacred rituals protected by civil rights laws.

The admitted pedophile offered a surprising defense Wednesday to 74 charges of rape, drugs and pandering obscenity to minors.

I’m already surprised at the religious sanctuary defense. 

   Wednesday - July 26, 2006

Amerika the Gay

For me to say anything would be redundant.

Amerika the Gay

Our precious kids in the new world of sexual fascism

Linda Harvey

(The following is excerpted from a speech given to the Illinois Family Institute)

What were you like at age thirteen? At age eleven? At age seven?

Every one of us should stop for a second and remember. Put yourself, if you can, in your own shoes at the tender ages of 7, 11, and 13. What was your perception of the world? Of your future? Of right and wrong?

Then, if you can, imagine this. At age thirteen, you are told to make a decision that will dramatically change the entire course of your life. You are not advised to wait, but you are urged to rush forward. You are told by those whom you trust to start down a road that is blaringly adult. It’s a road that has grave health risks, but the grown-ups don’t tell you about this. It’s a road that may horrify your parents, but the whisperers say, “Go ahead-- your parents don’t understand.” It’s a road that has been rejected and condemned by most cultures and most civilizations since the dawn of creation, but these adults beckon you on, oblivious to the disaster that awaits you.

Walking this road will very likely shorten or cripple your life, and it’s one that will guarantee you will never parent a child produced by you and the person you love.

   Friday - July 21, 2006

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day

Get real! You have to be kidding me!

Jerusalem Gay Parade Called Off Due To War
_{(Y-Net News) - July 21, 2006}

Open House announces cancellation of parade, which was scheduled for August 10, but says other gay pride events will take place as planned. ‘We are determined to fight for our right to march in Jerusalem this year,’ organization’s director says

The Open House Organization announced Friday that the World Pride parade, which was scheduled to take place on August 10 in Jerusalem, has been called off due to the war in Lebanon.

However, the other gay pride events will take place as scheduled, the group said in a statement. “This is not the time for celebrations,” Open House said. “The parade, which requires extensive security, will not take place due to the situation.” The organization said the parade will be held with the improvement of the security situation in the country.

“The gay pride events will take place as scheduled in a format that is sensitive to the situation and as part of the continued democratic struggle for a free Jerusalem,” the statement said. “These events, along with the conventions, exhibits, performances and film festival will all take place as planned.”

Open House Director Hagai Elad said, “we are determined to fight for our right to march in Jerusalem this year; we will not succumb to the violent incitement against our community and against all the proponents of democracy in Jerusalem.”

   Monday - July 10, 2006

Married Without Children

_{Rick McKee - The Augusta Chronicle (GA)}

As you may know by now, the high courts in both New York and Georgia produced a major setback to the homosexual quest for “gay marriage” laws in those states. Both courts said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Always has been, always will be. To me that is just common sense and the only real surprise is that the liberals in New York feel the same way as the conservatives in Georgia. Now there’s an odd couple.

I really think it’s time to put this silliness behind us. If homosexuals want to live together, I could care less. What they do is their business. I think it’s abnormal but that’s just my opinion. However you may stand on the issue of homosexuality, it’s important to remember that what’s going on here has nothing to do with discrimination or a violation of anyone’s “civil rights” - which is how the Left tries to paint it. Obfuscation by any other name would still smell as bad.

This becomes evident when you actually listen to the homosexual arguments for “gay marriage”. The editorial below from the Los Angeles Times (where else?) is a case in point. I came across it while researching this story and, try as hard as I can, I just cannot seem to come to grips with the thinking behind the author’s obvious anger.

How on Earth can anyone refer to rulings like this as moving “in the opposite direction of history and justice”, “adding insult to injury”, “odiously racist” and “challenge to heterosexual monopoly”? That last one makes my brain hurt. Even worse is the last paragraph where racism is brought into the argument in a comparison to this decision that defies reason. Homosexuals playing the race card? You have to be really desparate to prove your point when you get that far out in left field.

The final argument below about “someday we’ll look back on the anti-gay-marriage hysteria with the same revulsion” is almost too much to bear. What our writer out in California fails to realize is that it’s not “hysteria” ... it’s hysterical. The attitude and arguments presented below are merely laughable, to say the least.

Setback For Marriage Justice
_{(LOS ANGELES TIMES) - July 10, 2006}

The highest courts of New York and Georgia last week moved in the opposite direction of history and justice on same-sex marriage. By a 4-2 vote, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the state Legislature’s limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples was a “long-accepted restriction” not based solely on “ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals.”

Adding insult to injury, an opinion signed by three of the judges in the majority ruled that it was rational for the Legislature to ban same-sex marriage in the interests of protecting children. Noting that “an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born,” Judge Robert S. Smith wrote that the state could “offer an inducement — in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits — to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.” Never mind that childless heterosexual couples also receive legal benefits from civil marriage — or that many gay couples are raising children.

The Georgia Supreme Court decision, also handed down Thursday, was narrower but still disappointing. The court rejected technical objections to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that was approved by state voters in 2004. Neither of these decisions is binding on the courts of other states, any more than was the famous 2003 ruling by Massachusetts’ high court that gay marriage couldn’t be prohibited. So there’s still hope that California’s Supreme Court will take a more enlightened view of the issue when it next hears a challenge to heterosexual monopoly on civil marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriage have turned to the state courts since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ill-advised veto of a same-sex-marriage bill last year, but hopefully the Legislature will keep trying.

Gay-rights activists shouldn’t underestimate the challenge ahead. In Georgia, the ban on same-sex marriages upheld last week passed with 76% of the vote. Meanwhile, even politicians who support gay rights consider it political suicide to mention the M-word. And conservatives continue to score points with the fallacious argument that legalizing same-sex marriage would make heterosexual marriage less attractive or, even more absurdly, damage the religious sacrament of matrimony. It took the Supreme Court until 1967 — 1967! — to strike down odiously racist anti-miscegenation laws. Someday we’ll look back on the anti-gay-marriage hysteria with the same revulsion. Until then, with a high court seemingly disinclined to address marriage, states such as California should take the lead.

   Monday - June 26, 2006

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)

These folks crack me up. Unlike Reverend Phelps and his satanic spawn of evil who believe homosexuals are gonna cause all of us to go to hell, I just think it’s funny as hell. No, not the fact that they’re homosexual. What has me rolling on the floor laughing every year when they have these parades is how ridiculously silly it all looks. From the “Dancing Dorothys” to the “Bouncing Buckaroos” (don’t ask) you can’t help but laugh.

Take the exquisite irony exhibited in paragraphs three and four below. In paragraph three one of the marchers states, “for one day in New York, you can be free and not feel ashamed or embarrassed.” Then in the very next paragraph we are treated to this description, “a bearded man wearing a white lace miniskirt and fishnet stockings sang Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.” A half-dozen men dressed in underwear and top hats danced behind him.” Embaressed? Ashamed? Somebody call the Fashion Police ASAP!

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA ....... 

I mean, how can you not die laughing at that? I think if they want to be homosexual, that’s perfectly dandy but there is no excuse for being patently stoopid (and badly dressed in clashing colors). Seriously, I can just never seem to take anything the homosexual “movement” says at face value as long as they carry on like this.

Why not spend “Gay Pride Day” cleaning up a public park, helping out at a nursing home, collecting money for the Red Cross or other charities? That would show me they have “pride” and civic responsibility. Then I might be able to take them seriously when they push for “gay marriage”. Until then, it’s all just a joke to me.

Gay Pride Parades Held Across Nation
_{June 26, 2006, 6:03 AM EDT}

NEW YORK (AP)—Drag queens in knee-high boots, kids with two dads and New York City’s first openly gay city council speaker were among hundreds of thousands attending gay pride parades across the nation, weeks after a vicious attack on a popular gay singer and the 25th anniversary of the start of the AIDS epidemic.

Tens of thousands of spectators lined Fifth Avenue on Sunday for the city’s annual parade, withstanding intermittent rain and turning the route into a sea of rainbows with colorful floats and lavish costumes.

“Everyone else has a chance to express their affection freely, and for one day in New York, you can be free and not feel ashamed or embarrassed,” said 42-year-old Roberto Hermosilla, from Miami, attending his ninth gay pride parade.

On San Francisco’s Market street, thousands of festively dressed people looked on as marching bands, dancers and floats bearing corporate logos streamed by. On one float, a bearded man wearing a white lace miniskirt and fishnet stockings sang Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.” A half-dozen men dressed in underwear and top hats danced behind him. The parades also had a political message, with parade-goers bearing slogans about gay marriage, AIDS, and discrimination.

“It’s to have a good time, but also to remember the issues out there,” said Jane Woodman, 26, in San Francisco. “There’s still a lot of work to be done,” she said, noting the national debate raging over whether gays should have a legal right to marry.

The New York parade marked the very public and triumphant return of singer Kevin Aviance, who rolled down Fifth Avenue atop a fake pachyderm and a circus-themed float just weeks after the drag queen was viciously beaten and suffered a broken jaw. Police have charged four young men with assaulting the artist while yelling anti-gay slurs.

The theme of New York’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride March was “The Fight for Love and Life,” but there was plenty of talk about hate following the Aviance attack. The New York Police Department said reports of anti-gay bias crimes totaled 25 through mid-June—compared with 19 over the same period in 2005. “A few hateful homophobes will not set us back,” said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who marched in the parade. In January, Quinn became the first woman and first openly gay person to lead the council.

- More “gay” silliness from AP ...

   Saturday - June 24, 2006

Opinion: Homosexual Adoption

Before I begin, let me state quite clearly for the politically correct crowd out there that I am not a homophobe. I could care less what other people do in their bedroom. With that said however, I do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. In spite of the fact that I ignore their sexual habits, I still think the behavior is abnormal ... in much the same way that picking one’s nose at the dinner table is abnormal - harmless overall but disquieting, to say the least.

One can possibly ignore the nose-picker ... unless he or she prepared the dinner. Get the picture? In a similar manner, I don’t believe homosexuals should be allowed to raise and care for adopted children. It just isn’t right. For starters, every child absolutely needs a male and a female parent to keep things in balance during the learning years. This is most clearly evidenced by the rise in youthful offenders and criminals who were raised in single-parent homes. Having two parents of the same gender creates a similar imbalance. There are things that mothers do that fathers don’t (and vice versa) in raising children. Children need that balance.

There is also the problem that the child faces with his or her peers, whose parents are mostly heterosexual couples. The child can become alienated from his or her group of friends in adolescence and that creates a whole new world of problems. In case you haven’t figured out my stance yet, it all comes down to this: I don’t give a damn what the grownups want to do - what is best for the child?

In addition to all that, there is the problem of child abuse. I don’t know whether there is a prevalence of that type of behavior among homosexuals. I seriously doubt it. Sexual predators come in all shapes and sizes. I would however, have to cast a wary eye on homosexual couples wanting to adopt young children. I’m sure some truly want to be good parents, in spite of the arguments I presented above - and they may even be good people of good character. Then again, there are couples like the one below ...

Inquiry Ordered After Gay Couple
Jailed For Abusing Foster Children
_{Saturday June 24, 2006}

LEEDS - UK (GUARDIAN) - An independent inquiry is to be held into how a gay foster couple duped social services over photographs of young boys in their care whom they abused. They were jailed at Leeds crown court yesterday by a judge who accused them of wholesale betrayal of trust once their “ridiculous” reason for taking a picture of a foster-child urinating was believed.

Craig Faunch, 32, was sentenced to six years and his partner Ian Wathey, 41, to five. Judge Sally Cahill QC accused them of showing no remorse, empathy with their victims or responsibility in the role of foster parents. The couple, who were convicted at an earlier trial, targeted boys from difficult backgrounds. Judge Cahill said one 14-year-old victim suffered from autism while another had a background of drug-taking and sexual and physical abuse.

Referring to one teenager singled out by Faunch, she said: “You saw him as the ideal victim. You then chose to victimise and abuse him, showing the very depths of what you are prepared to do.” The court heard that Faunch and Wathey, from Pontefract, West Yorkshire, had abused four boys fostered to them by Wakefield, after checks showed that they had no police record and met all the council’s requirements. Suspicions were raised when the photograph was found by the child’s mother. But the court heard that staff had decided that the men had been “naive and silly”, accepting their explanation that they used the picture to embarrass boys into closing the toilet door.

Judge Cahill said: “Once you realised social services would not take any action and believed your ridiculous story about why you had taken the photograph, you went on to abuse others in your care, believing yourself safe from the authorities.” Both men were convicted of multiple charges of sexually abusing 14-year-old boys. Wathey was cleared of two charges of having sexual activity with an eight-year-old.

Kitty Ferris, Wakefield’s director for children in need, said that internal procedures had been reviewed pending the independent inquiry. But “correct procedures had been carried out at every stage”, including unannounced house visits. She said: “Allegations were referred to the police as quickly as possible. The council has offered support to children who have been affected.” Both men have been banned for life from working with children and will remain on licence for three years after release.

_{(-- Hat tip to Brit reader LyndonB for the lead on this story --)}

   Friday - June 16, 2006

Words You Cannot Use: Deviancy

Your Attention, Please! You are hereby required to remove from your vocabulary the following word as it pertains to persons of alternative lifestyle, also known as homosexuals. It seems they are offended by the term and have alerted the Politically Correct Police to that fact. The PC Police are herewith ordered to arrest and imprison anyone using the word in public. Punishment may include either 200 hours of community service or having to watch an entire season of “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy” and write a report on “The Benefits of Homosexuality” of no less than twenty single-spaced typed pages, describing in detail how you think homesexuals have truly benefited mankind over the course of history.

de·vi·ant

adjective: Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

noun: One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

[Middle English deviaunt, from Late Latin dvins, dviant-, present participle of dvire, to deviate; see deviate.]

devi·ance, devi·an·cy n.

-- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

Deviant behavior is behavior that is a recognized violation of social norms. Formal and informal social controls attempt to prevent and minimize deviance. Crime, the violation of formally enacted law, is formal deviance while an informal social violation such as picking one’s nose is an example of informal deviance. It also means not doing what the majority does or alternatively doing what the majority does not do. For instance, behaviors caused by cultural difference can be seen as deviance. It does not necessarily mean criminal behavior.—Wikipedia

So why are we bring this to your attention? Read the news story below from the Washington Post and learn why another word has been expunged from your dictionary. We urge you not to deviate from this new verbal proclamation in any way shape or form.

Metro Board Member Fired for Comment on Gays
_{Friday, June 16, 2006}

Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. yesterday fired Robert J. Smith, his appointee on the Metro transit authority board, for referring to gay people as sexual deviants on a cable television show. “Robert Smith’s comments were highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable,” Ehrlich (R) said in a statement less than five hours after the controversy erupted during a Metro board meeting. “They are in direct conflict to my administration’s commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity.”

At the Metro meeting, board member Jim Graham, who represents the District, had called for Smith to disavow his remarks or apologize or for Ehrlich to remove him. “As someone who cares deeply about human rights, and as an openly gay elected official . . . I cannot remain silent in the face of these comments,” Graham said, reading from a prepared statement. Smith acknowledged after the meeting that he had referred to homosexuals as “persons of sexual deviancy” during a political round-table discussion on a Montgomery County cable show that was shown on Sunday.

“Homosexual behavior, in my view, is deviant,” he said. “I’m a Roman Catholic.” Smith said his comments had been part of a discussion about a proposed ban on same-sex marriage. “The comments I make in public outside of my [Metro board job] I’m entitled to make,” he said. His personal beliefs, he said, have “absolutely nothing to do with running trains and buses and have not affected my actions or decisions on this board.”

- More on this story at the WAPO ...

   Saturday - June 10, 2006

Commie Comedy

Les Fwench Commies are outraged that their Russian counterparts discriminate against Les Pacquiers du Fudge. They claim the Russkis have “betrayed the ideals of Marxism.” Sacre Blew! Some stories just seem to write themselves.

French Communists End Relations With Russian
Communist Party Because Of Gay Scandal
June 9, 2006 (PRAVDA)

The world communist movement is currently facing a major scandal. The relations between the Russian and the French communist parties have been practically ruined. The reason of the conflict lies in the negative attitude which the leader of the Russian communists, Gennady Zyuganov, expressed against the recent gay pride parade in Moscow.

The outcome of the “free love parade” in Moscow is history now. Young communists and patriots violently attacked the homosexuals and defamed them. Delegates of the French Communist Party, who took part in all events organized by the Moscow gay movement, did not hesitate to express their reaction to that.

The French communists harshly reproached their Russian colleagues of being homophobic and betraying the Marxism-Leninism ideology. The Socialistic Party of France (the country’s second largest party) supported the communists of France too. Unlike for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the struggle for social justice implies the protection of class interests, as well as people’s rights and freedoms, including the right to choose a sexual orientation.

That is why the French communists described the Russian Communist Party as a homophobic and anti-communist organization. A member of the political bureau of the French communist organization Richard Sanchez said that they simply could not make up with such an idea. “It is nonsense for European communists. Being a communist and a homophobe at the same time is so typical of the Communist Party of Russia,” said he. Another spokesman for the French communist party said that the CPRF was a non-communist party, which still had the communist rhetoric, but betrayed the ideals of Marxism.

“The French comrades” also criticized Russia’s communists for their aspiration to form the real opposition in Russia. “The Russian Communist Party has actually been the government of the country for almost 80 years. Therefore, they simply do not know what it means to be a real opposition. They think of themselves as the opposition, but they do nothing that an opposition organization would do. It’s all about declarations, that’s all,” Sanchez said. Richard Sanchez thinks that Russia needs to have the real leftist movement, but not the CPRF which views itself as an opposition organization.

- More Commie Silliness At Pravda ...