Governor Dean had faced harsh criticism for his “50 State Plan,” which hoped to make the Democrats more competitive in states considered to be solid red. Dean began building grassroots infrastructure in all 50 states to the ire of many beltway Democrats who wanted more money for close races. Dean was stubborn… and it paid off.

Although Dems were optimistic even a few months before the election, they had failed to predict kicking out many of the Republican incumbents who were ousted on Tuesday. Without Dean’s infrastructure already on the ground in these conservative states, it is entirely possible that the party would not have realized the potential to pick up these states and districts until it was too late to catch up. Because the personnel was trained and on the ground, the grassroots could kick into action instead of spending weeks on administrative organizing. Many of the Democrats in the conservative districts won by a very narrow margin… would they have pulled it off without the “50 State Plan”?

Other Democrats deserve a lot of credit also, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi. But it was the vision of Howard Dean (and the other architects of the “50 State Plan”) that helped create such a healthy Democratic margin in the House, and he most likely set the Democrats up to succeed in 2008. With Democratic governors now in the majority, the party will have great infrastructure in place for the presidential election.

It has been an extraordinary couple of days. Optimism has returned to us alienated progressives! It’ll be nice talking about health care, minimum wage and ethics reform instead of the Federal Marriage Amendment, English as the official language and a flag burning amendment. What a joke the last Congress was. Now let’s hope both the Democrats and Bush can work together to get something done.

Check out my earlier post which talks more about Dean’s “50 State Plan”.

Fair Wisconsin has waged a smart and effective campaign that emphasizes the amendment’s far-reaching consequences… not only would it ban marriage, it would ban civil unions and possibly other forms of same-sex relationship recognition. The message seems to have played well over the past year or so, but as it comes down to the wire, there is still a sizeable gap between supporters and opponents. A St. Norbert College Survey Center poll released last week shows 51 percent of likely voters supporting the amendment, compared to 44 percent who are opposed. Support for the amendment has been pushed by conservative churches, most likely with the help of national organizations such as Focus on the Family.

The Commonwealth Coalition in Virginia has also run a promising campaign that has faced a more skeptical public than Fair Wisconsin has. In July of this year, 56 percent of Virginians supported the amendment and only 38 percent were opposed. Today that gap has narrowed by 8 percent, with only 52 percent of Virginians supporting the amendment and 42 percent opposed. The Commonwealth Coalition has been able to sway Virginians using a number of tactics, one of which asserts that Virginia’s bill of rights was a model for the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Right, and that changing it would be fundamentally misguided (see ad here).

The passion that flamed anti-gay sentiment in the 2004 elections seems to have calmed a bit, and newspaper editorial staffs now seem to be able to see through anti-gay rhetoric and analyze the amendments for what they truly are.

Of the seven mainstream Wisconsin newspapers that have run editorials on the amendment, only one has supported banning same-sex marriage (the Green Bay Press-Gazette). The state papers with the largest circulations (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin State Journal and The Capital Times) have all opposed the amendment.

Some highlights from Wisconsin editorials:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [from before the Assembly approved the measure]:

…the law of the land is secular, not sectarian. Moreover, we note that not everyone who claims religious faith has the same views on gays. And some note that the New Testament, at least, says much more about such virtues as charity, kindness and eschewing wealth than about homosexuality…

The other reason given for the amendment usually has to do with the “will of the people” or the need “for the people to be heard.” In other words, “we” can do this because there are more of “us” than “them,” otherwise known as “you people.”

We hope there are far fewer in this other editorial “we” than amendment backers hope. We’ve heard variations of this discrimination argument applied to other groups of people. It doesn’t sound any better this time.

The Capital Times:

This is not merely discrimination. It is cruelty. And it is a form of cruelty that will cause young people to leave the state, convince pioneering researchers to leave the University of Wisconsin and force responsible businesses to locate their factories and offices elsewhere…

Wisconsin is about more than its business climate, however. Even if the amendment did not pose such a clear threat to the state’s economic prospects, it would be wrong for Wisconsin.

Amending the constitution to require discrimination goes against everything that Wisconsin stands for. It breaks faith with the most fundamental of the values that have guided this state for all of its 158 years.

***

Editorials on Virginia’s amendment have often expressed little doubt that the measure will pass, but of the seven newspapers that have taken a clear stand on the amendment, only two have encouraged support for the amendment (Danville Register & Bee and the Washington Examiner).

Some highlights from Virginia editorials:

Daily Press:

But at the core the truth is that this amendment speaks of two things: A deep-seated prejudice against gays and lesbians.

The reality that there are among us, always, people who seek to use fear and prejudice for their own political advancement…

Make no mistake, this amendment goes beyond its stated intent of protecting marriage. It hurts gays and lesbians. It will hurt unmarried partners regardless of their sexual orientation. It will hurt us all.

Bristol Herald Courier:

Tampering with either state’s constitution in this manner is redundant. It reinforces an attitude of intolerance or hostility toward those who are different. It is a dangerous government foray into the realm of religion and a blow to individual rights.

In this nation’s history, most constitutional amendments have granted freedoms rather than taking them away – prohibition being the obvious exception. Virginia and Tennessee voters should think twice before altering these hallowed precepts to ban that which is already illegal.

A “no” vote is not a vote for same-sex unions. It is a vote to protect our constitutions and to respect freedom. We cannot think of a more traditionally conservative stand to take.

***

While the majority of media outlets seem to have taken a hard stance against marriage amendments, the American public has not quite reached that point. Fear created by the anti-gay right has fueled opposition to same-sex marriage, yet many who support the amendment still struggle to find a reason for the amendment beyond “protecting marriage.” Ask them how it protects marriage and their arguments usually hit a dead-end.

The recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling, which requires the legislature to give all the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples (without forcing them to call it marriage), has renewed anti-gay rhetoric about “activist judges.” Although New Jersey did not ban same-sex marriage while all the states with proposed amendments do, anti-gay activists refuse to explain this to voters and have distorted the ruling for their own gain. Whether the New Jersey decision hurts efforts to defeat state amendments has yet to be seen, but with only a week to go, we can only hope that voters realize these amendments are unnecessary measures designed to bolster cynical election campaigns.

Let’s hope Wisconsinites and Virginians recognize the media’s fair analysis of anti-gay amendments while they enter the voting booths on November 7.

Visit the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) for more editorials on amendments in the eight states with anti-gay ballot initiatives.

Anti-gay Family Research Council held a “Liberty Sunday” event this last weekend in hopes of rallying social conservative voters by attacking gay and lesbian people and their lives. It seems ridiculous that spending over an hour attacking a small group of people would be considered as a way to mobilize voters, but anti-gay activists believe it is a tested and proven method.

I know it is almost cliche to say this now, but why are these allegedly Christian political activists focusing on attacking gay people when they could use those resources and platforms to fight for causes that are truly Christian: helping America’s poor, encouraging a fair health care system and providing relief to the people of Sudan. The Family Research Council was able to gather dozens of influential conservative Christians and politicians: Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, American Family Association’s Don Wildmon. When is the last time these conservative leaders gathered to support a cause that would actually help people, or a cause that truly lives up to Jesus’ teachings? It doesn’t happen… and it doesn’t happen because these men are political activists, not representatives of Christianity.

Included below are some statements from speakers at Liberty Sunday. With all the issues facing America and the world, do these leaders sound like Christians looking out for the betterment of God’s world? You can decide…

Bishop Wellington Boone, Wellington Boone Ministries:

My wife said to me, well okay then, if sodomites, because they are not gays, it’s a misnomer, they’re sodomites. There were sodomy laws all over this country from 1600’s and it was one time a capital offense, how could we make it a capital offense?.. The Bible! If God calls homosexuality an abomination, if he calls it a vile affection, if he calls it wickedness, I can’t call it inappropriate behavior. So, if this is just a small matter, then let two women go on an island. All women, if you’re a sodomite go on an island and stay by yourself, all women and then put all the men on another island… I called this whole idea of trying to get rights and trying to get on the African American’s side, I called it the rape of the civil rights movement.

Don Wildmon, American Family Association:

The day will come when they’re walking in your church and if you say one thing wrong or bad about homosexuality they will walk in your church and they will shut you up and you will be arrested for a hate crime. That sounds far removed, but it is the truth.

Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute:

The leadership in this state is beholden to the homosexual lobbyist. Homosexual money is flooding into the state to deny citizens the right to vote and to deny our freedom of speech.

Let me remind you, dear readers, that Focus on the Family alone has a higher budget than all the national LGBT organizations combined. It is absurd to think that the majority of lobbyist money flooding a state is from the LGBT movement… anti-gay activists have a tremendous financial advantage in every way.

Just as David Kuo, author of the new book Tempting Faith, worries: “the name of God is being destroyed in the name of politics.”

When the census statistics were being collected in 1999 and 2000, it was still illegal to have gay sex in several states (until the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws in 2003). It had been a little over a year since Matthew Shepard was tied to a fence in rural Wyoming and several years before same-sex marriage was believed to be a realistic goal for equality. But in the years between the 2000 census and the most recent ACS survey, much happened that has radically changed LGBT people and their role in society. Gay and lesbian relationships have been used by presidential and Congressional candidates as a weapon for mobilizing anti-gay voters. Same-sex marriage has been legalized in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay and lesbian people in Lawrence v. Texas. These events have encouraged same-sex couples to live their lives more openly and honestly, which is part of the reason we see the tremendous increase in same-sex couples between 2000 and 2005.

In six of the eight states with anti-marriage equality amendments on the November ballot, the number of same-sex couples has increased more than the national average of 30 percent. The number of same-sex couples in Wisconsin has increased by 81 percent since 2000, Colorado by 58 percent and South Carolina by 39 percent. Although these numbers are unlikely to dramatically affect the outcome of these ballot initiatives, they could make moderate politicians reconsider their positions on these amendments. Support for anti-gay amendments will alienate a larger number of people than the 2000 statistics would suggest, and in close races, it could make a difference in whether a politician wins an election.

The Williams Institute study estimates there are 8.8 million gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) Americans and that there are same-sex couples in every Congressional district in the United States. Although the study shows GLB people make up only 3 percent of the U.S. population, the actual number is likely higher because of the number of GLB people who are closeted or did not identify as GLB in the ACS survey. These numbers can make an important voting bloc in elections that are growing increasingly tight in recent years.

As statistics on gay and lesbian people continue to become more accurate, the impact of sexual orientation and gender identity issues on elections will become increasingly evident. While the average American voter feels less threatened by the possibility of same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian people are continuing to come out and become an influence in American politics.

While Sen. John Kerry stumped around blue states with a rather bland agenda during the 2004 Democratic primaries, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean had captured the imagination and idealism of America’s youth. His no bullshit, less pandering approach convinced the more liberal Democrats that it was time for change… that speaking out against President Bush’s failed and corrupt policies was both good politics and morally sound.

This excitement and hopefulness came to an abrupt halt, however, because of a momentary rush of excitement that was over-analyzed and unfairly treated by the media. Dean’s now infamous ‘yelp’ had officially ended his campaign for the presidency. Despite my disgust over voters who feel a one-time shriek is less forgivable than lying to put American troops into combat, most of us young liberals were thankful for the time Dean shared with us.

Little did we know that Howard Dean would reenter the national scene so quickly. Just a few short months after the 2004 elections, in February 2005, Howard Dean was selected as chairman of the Democratic National Committee (despite reservations from many of the Washington elite). His new position at national headquarters would include a function beyond fundraising and handshaking… he was setting out a new vision for the Democratic Party.

Upon taking office, Dean criticized the Party’s focus on Blue and Purple (swing) states at the cost of completely ignoring Red states. Because copious amounts of money was poured into battleground states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin, states like North Carolina, Louisiana and Colorado were rarely if ever visited by Democratic presidential candidates and received little help from the DNC.

In comes Howard Dean and the “50 State Plan”. Dean realized, and continues to understand, that many poor white southerners are voting against their own interests because they somehow see the GOP as the party of GOD. Absurd as it seems, Dean and his allies realize that overturning this ill-conceived notion of Republicans-as-Christ could go a long way towards rebuilding the party in the South and West. After-all, does it really make sense that rural southerners are voting for the Republicans who gave tax-cuts to the super-rich, billions of dollars to a failed Iraq war policy and botched both response and recovery after Hurricane Katrina?

Howard Dean and his allies realize southerners should not be voting Republican, and that issues like same-sex marriage, flag-burning and English as the official language should not outweigh issues that promote the health and well-being of their families and country.

Southern states are most definitely winnable, but it will take a vision that extends beyond 2006 and 2008. As a recent New York Times Magazine article points out, Howard Dean’s 50 state vision is quite controversial among Democratic insiders. Dean has his allies, but he also has his enemies (or opponents, to put it more tactfully). His opponents ask why Dean is providing funds for additional campaign staff in Alaska when there are much more competitive districts in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. On its face, it seems to make little to no sense, but Dean truly has a vision for the party.

His vision includes building a Democratic party that may be willing to take minor setbacks right now in order to strengthen itself for the future. Democrats may not win Alaska in the next few years, but with a strong ground campaign they could succeed in 2012 (especially if Republicans remain as arrogant as they currently are). Although his critics believe it is important to win elections to build the party, the Clinton era proved that winning big elections means nothing to the long-term success of the party. America currently has a federal government dominated by conservatives – the legislative branch, executive branch and even the judicial branch (look at Bush v. Gore, for example). And this is right after one of the Democratic party’s most popular presidents left office (so much for party-building via winning elections).

Howard Dean wants to prove that the Democratic party is the values party, not Republicans. While GOP tax cuts help the rich, middle and lower class Americans continue to struggle with rising healthcare costs and the threat of “privatized” social security. It is time for Democrats to stand up to the Republican party’s claim on so-called “values”, and in the long-term Democrats can win the reddest of the red states. It will take time, and defeat could be a temporary result, but the Democratic party will never return to its heyday unless it plans for the future instead of just the next election.

At the summit, volunteers from Wellington Boone Ministries handed out pamphlets that accurately depict how these “compassionate” Christians view gay and lesbian people. The pamphlet, titled “The Rape of the Civil Rights Movement: How Sodomites are Using Civil Rights Rhetoric to Advance Their Preference for Sexual Perversion,” blames the difficulties of being gay or lesbian on their “desire for sex”.

The pamphlet is a disgusting mixture of obvious lies, distortions and gross exaggerations. Here are just a few examples:

A lie:

What blacks have gone through to gain their freedom relates to their culture and race. What gays are dealing with is a result of their behavioral preference and desire for sex.

The first sentence is true. The second sentence is absurd. Despite what anti-gay leaders claim, the vast majority of peer-reviewed research shows a combination of factors potentially cause homosexuality, but that it is most definitely not a choice. Also, I guarantee you a gay man has no more desire for sex than the average straight man.

Another lie:

Sodomites are people who willfully break the laws of God and the laws of the land… The legal term “sodomy”, which includes the illegal, perverted behavior of same-sex relationships, including oral and anal sex, comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19.

We could debate for years whether God condemns homosexuality, but sodomy is most definitely legal in the United States. In the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v Texas, the court overturned all sodomy laws because of the right to privacy. The authors of this pamphlet know that… they just have no problem being dishonest.

Although I could continue to point out other lies, we will move on.

An obvious distortion:

Sodomy causes the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and natural and spirtual uncleanness that result in sickness, disease, and death.

Technically, yes, sodomy can result in spreading sexually transmitted diseases. But, heterosexual sex also spreads sexually transmitted diseases. It may be easy to single out gay people, but I know plenty of heterosexuals who ended up with STDs and it sure wasn’t from gay sex. As for “natural uncleanness”… no more unclean than any other sex act.

Gross Exaggeration:

If you followed same-sex marriage to its logical conclusion, it would bring an end to our society as we know it. It would mean the annihilation of the human race.

Unless these crazies believe gay people have the power to infect everyone else on the planet, this argument is idiotic. I probably don’t need to further explain why it is so.

Who knew you could fit so much bullshit in a two-page pamphlet? Ridiculous statements like the ones above show how weak and ignorant the arguments condemning gay people truly are. If they are forced to realize religion shouldn’t play a role in government recognition of marriage, the right-wingers have absolutely no legitimate arguments for banning it (although I know the ones they will attempt to regurgitate at you).

You can download a PDF of the Wellington Boone Ministries pamphlet here (once page opens, “download button is near the bottom of the screen.)

Read More About the Summit and the “Ministry”:

Think Progress: “‘Values Voter Summit’ Features Attack on ‘Faggots,’ Claim That Gay Rights Movement Inspired ‘From The Pit Of Hell Itself’”

Andrew Sullivan: Christianism Watch

After a full week’s coverage of Chávez’s statements on cable news programs, a nutjob nearly on the same-level as Chávez equated another American politician with the devil. Actually, this nutjob held the devil in higher regard.

At the extreme-right Values Voters Summit last weekend, anti-gay formerly pro-segregation preacher Jerry Falwell told the audience that Christians would vote for Satan himself before voting for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Here’s his soundbite:

I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. She has $300 million so far. But I hope she’s the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the fundamentalist audience erupted in applause after his statement claiming his base would support the devil over Clinton. It seems odd that the arch-nemesis of God himself, Satan, would be held in higher esteem than little old Hillary Clinton. Knowing Falwell and his followers, however, they probably can find some Bible passage to distort in support of his statement.

So why the outrage over some bum from Venezuela taking a crack at President Bush, but no outrage at an alleged “religious leader” for making nearly the same comment about a U.S. senator? Where is this “liberal media” I keep hearing about? Just remember… Jerry Falwell and his friends represent the “base” the Republicans are always trying to please through tax-cuts for the rich and banning same-sex marriage.

The most important item to note is that openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson never committed adultery, despite what McCullough claims. Robinson has been with partner Mark Andrews since 1989, but was divorced three years before after telling his wife he could not change his sexual orientation (him and his ex-wife remain close). McCullough is an ass for spreading rumors about Robinson, a man of God who not only did not commit adultery, but was honest with his ex-wife about his “homosexual inclinations” before they were even married.

When it comes to Bill Clinton and Jim McGreevey, there is little doubt that they did commit adultery. Republicans spent millions in taxpayer money to prove Clinton had, and McGreevey apologized for it while resigning from the state’s highest office. McCullough claims liberals’ love for Clinton and McGreevey proves liberals also love adultery, but his characterizations are a mixture of generalizations, distortions and flat-out lies.

Bill Clinton is indisputably loved by the left. If McCullough believes that also means the left loves adultery (an almost laughable correlation), so be it. But he also claims liberals love Jim McGreevey, pointing out his appearances on Oprah and the Today show. Apparently McCullough has not picked up a newspaper or turned on television in weeks, however, because the vast majority of liberals have been far from embracing McGreevey. Nearly all lesbian and gay organizations have refused to comment on McGreevey and traditionally “liberal” media such as The New York Times, Los Angles Times and Washington Post have reported that McGreevey has received a cold reception from both conservatives and liberals. But McCullough chooses to ignore these reports to help further a point that cannot be furthered without bold-faced lies and mischaracterizations.

So McCullough has found his one example of the left loving adultery: Bill Clinton. For the sake of fairness, we will take a look at some conservative heroes to see if we can mischaracterize conservatives as loving immoral actions. Conservative favorite and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has been married three times and divorced his second wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. Then there is former Oregon Christian Coalition leader Lou Beres, who has admitted to molesting his own daughter, their friends and his sister-in-law. And several-times-divorced conservative favorite Rush Limbaugh has been charged with illegally obtaining prescription drugs in between his oh-so-common tirades against illegal drug use.

If we are to use the same standard of honesty as McCullough, it is quite fair to say conservatives love divorce, incest, molestation and illegal drug use just as much as liberals love adultery. However I do not believe conservatives love these “sins”, because as liberals know, there is no reason to hate someone just because they have made mistakes in the past (although incest and molestation are difficult to forgive). Just as liberal hero Bill Clinton has not always been on the moral high-road, many conservative heroes have fallen from the moral wagon to carry out actions that are unacceptable for most Americans (minus the divorce thing).

The intellectual dishonesty (or just dishonesty) McCullough engages in is astounding. It should be criticized by any conservative or liberal who does not want to be characterized by the actions of all people who happen to share the same ideology. It seems like common sense, but when you are dealing with idiots like Kevin McCullough, common sense always seems to be outweighed by lies and distortions.

When anti-gay organizations put out a press release on some issue they find offensive, it is always dressed up by their communications department to sound less hateful and extreme than it actually is. Anti-gay organizations have come up with a number of pleasant soundbites that are thrown out when complicated and important issues face the American public. Here are two of their favorites:

• Equal Rights, Not Special Rights: When communities or states discuss non-discrimination laws for gay and lesbian people, anti-gay organizations will scream and moan about not giving gay people “special rights”, just “equal rights”. Is it a special right for people not to be fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation? Is it a special right to be able to find housing without worrying about discrimination? Are non-discrimination laws protecting race and religion giving these people special rights? Obviously not… it is called equal protection, but claiming “special rights” sure sounds good doesn’t it?

• Children Deserve a Mother and a Father: In opposing adoption rights for same-sex couples, anti-gay leaders will claim children deserve a mother and a father. Forgetting about the millions of children in single-parent households and the increasing number of single people who adopt, they deny same-sex couples the right to children with this simplistic slogan. Do they oppose single parents adopting children? If so, why don’t they say that? When anti-gay organizations say children deserve a mother and a father, they mean same-sex parents cannot take care of children… they could care less if they actually have a mother and a father.

If there is one thing Republicans and the religious right are good at, it is taking complicated and important issues and boiling them down to meaningless, over-simplified soundbites that ignore reality but sound good to the voting public. They disguise issues Americans would not support with well-tested phrases. No Republicans talk about global warming anymore… it is always “climate change”, because they know it sounds less threatening than the problem actually is. No Republicans will talk about the estate tax, a tax on the super-super-super rich upon their death… it is now called the “death tax”.

Just as Republicans blind Americans to important issues through crafted messages, the anti-gay right has been able to talk about gay and lesbian issues in a way that hides their true feelings. They talk about loving the sinner but hating the sin. They claim to care about gay people and want to help them. But lets look at how the religious right truly feels by grabbing some comments off different posts from this blog.

A comment talking about a lesbian couple who worried about their child when one partner was diagnosed with cancer:

Oh please! Gay people shouldn’t have ANY rights. This country was founded on the principles of God’s Holy Word, which calls homosexuality an ABOMINATION.

A comment talking about the increasing number of Muslim Americans immigrating to the United States and how they could help lessen anti-American sentiment among Muslims:

We don’t owe the muslims ANYTHING. They shouldn’t be in our country, to begin with. Once again, our country was founded on GOD’S HOLY WORD, and I, for one, don’t want other gods in our country. In Bible days, people were killed who didn’t serve the one and true God.

A comment on a post about gay and lesbian people who lost a partner on 9/11:

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Everyone who dies in their sins – whether the sin is mistreatment of slaves, adultery, homosexuality, murder, cheating on taxes, malicious gossip, or failure to do good or calling what is evil “good” – will be condemned. There is no special punishment for homosexuals, just the same punishment that all who fail to revere God will suffer. [NewsFitToPost Note: Remember the Bible condones slavery, yet Bible thumpers have realized this is not to be followed, but somehow are sure condemnations of gay people should be.]

Those who acknowledge their sin as the affront it is to a Holy and Righteous God, those who repent and obediently believe in Jesus Christ, those who are transformed by His power, will be saved from Hell by the grace of God and not through their own human merit.

Believe it now, or believe it when it is too late, my friend.

Also from the post on 9/11 is a comment attacking openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson:

Gene Robinson is not devoted to God. If he were, he would have sacrificed his selfish desires and remained faithful to the marriage vow he made to his wife. He would not have committed adultery and he would not have participated in homosexual sex. And most of all, he would not lie to others saying that adultery and homosexual sex are acceptable to God when God Himself has spoken to the contrary. He is not only bound for Hell, he is intent on taking others with him. I pray that he will repent before it is eternally too late…

Finally, homosexuals are not engaging in just one sin. When a man lives in a sin like homosexuality, he is not only sexually sinning, he is often lying to himself and others about what is right/wrong, he is sinning against the persons with whom he has sex and causing them to sin, he is sinning against those he misleads with his example, etc. He is sinning by not worshipping with God’s people, and he is sinning “worse” if he does partake of communion while in an unrepentant state. I could go on, but that makes the point.

These are but a few of the wondrous messages the “loving” extreme-right Christians leave for all of us to read. It is often times difficult stuff to read, but it is important to remember there are many denominations who speak the true word of God: one of inclusiveness, love and support.

There are two excellent video clips on the ridiculousness of the Christian right. The CBS Evening News clip “Evangelical Politics” shows that progressive evangelical Christians are gaining in popularity and hope to stop extreme-right Christians from stealing the religion. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council acts like a partisan hack who does nothing but sling mud at Christians who aren’t anti-gay, while progressive preacher Jim Wallis speaks of love, helping the poor and tolerance.

Another great video (a must see) is a Daily Show with Jon Stewart clip about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. The segment makes the Family Research Institute’s Paul Cameron look like a gay-obsessed nut job, which quite frankly, is exactly what he is. Meanwhile, Bleu Corpas, who was discharged from the military under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, is well-reasoned and intelligent.

Religion is on the side of gay and lesbian people… anti-gay bigots just have a louder voice right now.

In what will most likely be the most notable speech during this session of the United Nations General Assembly, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez referred to President Bush as the devil. Speaking at the same podium at which Bush had spoke earlier, Chávez said, “It smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.”

Apparently, the comments were met with applause from many of the diplomats in the General Assembly, a stark reminder of the tremendous increase in anti-American sentiment since the invasion of Iraq. Although Chávez’s comments sounded immature and inappropriate for the UN, the Bush administration and its friends often use the same simplistic, unproductive and mind-numbing rhetoric. Some examples:

• In August 2005, televangelist and buddy of the Christian right Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo Chávez. Robertson: “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

• In Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, he cut off an opportunity for constructive dialogue by calling Iran, Iraq and North Korea an “axis of evil”. The phrase may have gone over well in the U.S., but I don’t believe anti-American sentiment was lessened by branding entire countries and its people as evil. Bush: “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

• When the French government realized Iraq was a mistake years before the majority of Americans did, Republican lawmakers decided to get even by changing the name of the House cafeteria french fries to “freedom fries”. Aside from making ourselves the laughing-stock of the entire world, we further isolated ourselves from one of the most important countries on our dwindling list of allies. Now disgraced Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio): “This action today is a small but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France.” Apparently House Republicans forgot we would have no “freedom” at all if France hadn’t won the Revolutionary War for us.

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chávez to Adolf Hitler earlier this year: “I mean, we’ve got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power…”. Owns lots of oil. Was elected legally. Consolidated power under one person. Sounds like an American president I know.

This is not a defense of the comments Hugo Chávez made at the General Assembly. These are examples of American leadership destroying dialogue with other nations through the use of loud-mouthed rhetoric that does nothing but hurt the world’s view of America. Hugo Chávez, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Pat Robertson and GOP House members need to quit the back-and-forth bullshit and engage in constructive conversations that will find compromise, not further anger. It probably took days for the Bush team to come up with and get approved the ‘axis of evil’ statement. Could these few days have been used to attempt to build bridges instead of testing angry rhetoric? I don’t expect miracles to happen overnight, but we need to move in the right direction before we come any closer to world peace.