jump to navigation

Superman, Democrats, Jesus, Gays & America-Haters June 29, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in entertainment, media.

Does every news and entertainment event have to be put in the context of the “culture wars”? Reading newspapers, watching pundits on cable news and searching through blog postings has shown me that almost every cause, movement and political party has called the new Superman their own. I am extemely excited about Superman Returns and it has received good reviews, but everywhere I turn Superman is being called either a Democrat, gay, unpatriotic or Jesus-like. I personally am just going to enjoy the movie, but I will allow you all to decide who you believe:

Superman as Jesus – Fundamentalist Christian group Focus on the Family:

Superman returns to theatres this week and some think the Man of Steel is being cast in a decidedly spiritual light…

You might think it’s just the latest comic book on celluloid, but many Christians who see Superman Returns will leave thinking there was something familiar about the film because of quotes like this one, “They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I’ve sent them you, my only son.” Dr. Reg Grant is with Dallas Seminary.

“Now that just sounds like something right out of the Gospel of John. It sounds like God the Father saying that he’s going to send his son, Jesus, to the world to save the world.”

He says the movie could be a good witnessing tool courtesy of Hollywood.

“The director, Bryan Singer, just offers up on a silver platter a golden opportunity for us to use this as a gospel starter with our friends.”

Do you think this guy realizes that director Bryan Singer is openly gay? I find this unlikely, considering less than a month ago Focus on the Family’s Citizen Magazine had this to say about gay people:

At its core, the homosexual zeitgeist seeks to destroy God’s created intent for sexuality and the family while deconstructing the imago dei that humans bear—male and female—on the Earth.

Hmm… anyways… speaking of gay…

Superman as Gay – Los Angeles Times reporting:

In addition to being strikingly good-looking, [superheroes] often are portrayed as alienated outsiders, typically leading double lives. In the case of Superman, the beefcake character historically has struggled with romance, all the while running around in a skin-tight suit…

Defamer has posted a number of stories on how gay the “Superman Returns” posters and Topps trading cards make the character look, particularly in one trading card showing Superman literally coming out of a closet. “If Warner Bros. marketing partners like Topps aren’t even going to bother pretending, why should we?” Defamer asked. “Be proud, our fabulously caped little Queer-El.”

Not buying it…

Superman as Unpatriotic Wimp – Some lame-brain radio talk show host on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country [edited]:

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: You think it`s an attack on our values. You think that Superman is a super-wimp? Why?… you also take issue with the fact that they took away the line, “Truth, justice and the American way.” Talk about that…

DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, they took it away, and yet the movie studio, Warner Brothers Pictures, is still selling posters that do say, “Truth, justice and the American way,” and feature the American flag. You don`t see any of that in the movie. They do mention truth and justice, but I guess it`s the neo-slacker superhero way, because that`s basically what Superman has become, and he`s been toned down in a lot of ways in terms of his masculinity. His muscles, a lot of them are gone. Even the Superman cape and uniform doesn`t have bright red anymore! It`s a muted burgundy tone that you`d probably see in “Men`s Vogue.”…

[Lois Lane’s even] won a Pulitzer Prize that is — for an article entitled “Why the World Doesn`t Need Superman.” It`s kind of like something you`d read in the “Daily Planet`s” real-life version of the “New York Times” about why Al Qaeda is great.

Superman as the Democratic Party – The Huffington Post:

In a world that has grown far more complex since his departure, Superman must somehow reclaim a place of preeminence against a lurking backdrop of ethical ambiguity and mounting cynicism. Subtract the cape and tights, insert some ponderous discussion of polling, and you couldn’t blame confused viewers for thinking they’d tuned into the latest diagnosis of the Democratic Party’s ills on C-Span…

As millions of movie-goers are sure to discover this week, Superman always saves the day. With voters rapidly tiring of the fierce political currents of anger and fear, Democrats can certainly do the same. But to do so they need to remember the optimistic, brave face they showed when – instead of asking “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” – they emulated the characteristics of the immigrant raised on that tiny farm outside of Smallville.

So apparently Superman is a cross between Boy George, Ted Kennedy, the Holy Spirit and Osama Bin Laden. I’ll let the pundits, journalists and bloggers debate which one is right… I’m just going to admire Brandon Routh in tights.


Aborting Gay Babies Conflicts With the Right and the Left June 28, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in abortion, lgbt Issues.

The mainstream media and bloggers have been responding to a recent study that adds further support to the idea that sexual orientation is determined before birth. Among those considering the impact of the study is GayPatriot, who wrote a post claiming that people may abort gay babies if scientists are able to determine the origins of homosexuality. He blames this possibility on people from the “Gay Left”:

Now… and here’s the fun part… how does the Gay Left now reconcile its historic, increasingly vocal and unavowed support of “abortion-on-demand rights” as also being intertwined with “Gay Rights”?

Speaking as someone from the Gay Left would (or should if they had principles): If a mother knew there were a biological increase in her baby being born gay…why not have the right to abort that baby? Or treat the suggested “antibodies” with a pre-natal genetic therapy to “cure” the gayness before it is born?

That seems to be the only intellectually honest position the Gay Left could have. Otherwise the Gay Rights movement should become stridently Pro Life in order to stop the soon-to-be Gay Abortions-On-Demand.

Although a process for determining homosexuality is only a theoretical possibility (and a very unlikely one in the near future), women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. If they choose to an abort a baby because it is gay, who is the government (especially “small government” conservatives) to stop them?

That said, the potential for a dramatic move to abort gay babies is extremely unlikely. Conservatives don’t believe abortion should be available and therefore would be hypocrites to abort a gay baby. Also, conservatives are usually opposed to stem-cell research, cloning and other scientific procedures that can save lives and cure disabilities. Even if these gay baby-carrying conservatives believe homosexuality is a disorder, it is against their belief system to either abort it or “cure” it through genetic therapy. These people could abort or “cure” their baby, but it seems that they would be pissing off their God in the process (according to their beliefs).

Liberals also would be unlikely to abort a gay baby simply because of its sexual orientation. Just as most who are pro-choice oppose the practice of sex-selective abortion (aborting babies solely because of their sex), they would also be opposed to aborting babies because of pre-birth characteristics such as sexual orientation. Liberals are also much more likely to have a favorable view of gay and lesbian people, which naturally brings down the likelihood that they would end the pregnancy over sexual orientation.

In addition to this, some argue non-discrimination laws based on gender and sexual orientation already ban aborting babies because of these two characteristics. Although this has not been legally tested and there is currently no federal non-discrimination law for sexual orientation, both the legal and legislative issues could be addressed if this were to become a problem.

This hypothetical does not necessarily need to be addressed through legislation or the courts. It doesn’t even have to be debated by pro-life and pro-choice organizations. Just as very few sex-selective abortions happen in the United States, we can create an environment where few sexual orientation-related abortions would happen. Instead of dividing the LGBT movement with hypothetical, it is important to work together and push Americans towards realizing that a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender child is just as valuable as a heterosexual child. Most parents with LGBT children already know this… I am sure most would balk at the opportunity to go back and abort their child.

The LGBT movement will advance by allowing people to get to know us. If a procedure to determine an unborn child’s sexual orientation does come into existence, it will not happen for decades. There is plenty of time to change hearts and minds… time and public opinion trends are on our side. We will achieve marriage equality, end discrimination and yes, even avoid gay baby abortions, if we can show America that we are as moral and valuable as anyone else.

Respecting the Constitution June 27, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in amendments, congress, politics.
add a comment

The “judicial activism” avengers are at it again… not with same-sex marriage, but with flag burning. As talked about in an earlier post, conservatives and some Democrats are attempting to pass an amendment banning flag desecration. In 1989, the Supreme Court decided in a 5 – 4 decision that laws prohibiting the burning or desecration of the American flag were a violation of free speech rights and therefore unconstitutional.

But if you don’t like what the Supreme Court decides, you can always waste taxpayer time and money with another amendment. During debate over the amendment, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R – Utah) once again used his “Congress knows best” argument to justify narrowing free speech laws. He claims a flag burning amendment would:

…restore the constitution to what it was before unelected jurists changed it five to four… Five lawyers decided 48 states were wrong.

He’s an idiot. The court system was never intended to be a numbers game… it is a check on the legislative and executive branches. If Hatch truly has respect for the constitution, he would honor the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment’s right to free speech) instead of adding amendments of his own creation because the highest court in the land doesn’t agree with him.

Did Orrin Hatch speak out when the Supreme Court overturned the will of 50,996,582 Americans who voted for Al Gore in 2004 (540,520 more votes than Bush received)? No… the Supreme Court ruled and the Democrats respected the checks and balance system laid out in the Constitution (albeit grudgingly, of course).

However, Republicans are now accusing progressive Democrats of being “unpatriotic” because they refuse to ban flag desecration. These Democrats are standing up for free speech and civil liberties on an issue they know is just an election year tactic, so we should thank them for being true patriots even though they face an unpopular issue.

A final thought from Gary May, chairman of Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights:

We like the Constitution more than we dislike the damage to the symbol of the Constitution. To threaten to amend our most sacred document to include censorship is reprehensible. If the flag amendment passes, it would stifle dissent and send the dangerous message to the American people that we can alter the Constitution simply because we do not agree with a message and how it is expressed.

You can’t say it any better than that.

UPDATE: The amendment failed by one vote!

New Study Shows Evidence That Gay Men are Born Gay June 27, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in lgbt Issues.

Check this story out. More info later.

Likely Terrorists: Gay People and Peace Activists June 26, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in bush administration, lgbt Issues, military, politics, terrorism.
add a comment

Last December the Bush administration allegedly authorized the government to spy on “suspicious” domestic organizations for links to terrorist activity. Among these groups were some anti-war student organizations that oppose “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the military’s ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers.

Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, we now know that the government’s spying activities stretched farther than previously acknowledged:

The Department of Defense (DOD) has confirmed it conducted surveillance, on a more extensive level than previously reported, of student groups at universities in California, New Jersey and Connecticut. Some of that surveillance, new documents suggests, may have been part of an undercover Pentagon operation…

The letter and the accompanying TALON reports reveal government surveillance of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and anti-war protests at the State University of New York at Albany (SUNY Albany), William Paterson University in New Jersey, Southern Connecticut State University and the University of California at Berkeley…

The documents released today indicate that emails sent by various student groups were intercepted and monitored by the government and that the government collected reports from seemingly undercover agents who attended at least one student protest at Southern Connecticut State University. None of the reports in the documentation, however, indicated any terrorist activity by the students who were monitored.

This is unbelievably insane. Targeting anti-war activists and LGBT people? These two groups aren’t exactly known for their intense love of violence, much less terrorism. The government shouldn’t be looking into any peaceful organizations’ activities. If the Department of Defense really has that much extra time, they should keep their wandering eye on the NRA… rumor has it they carry guns, chant slogans and organize in a cult-like (or cell-like) fashion.

I don’t believe the government was actually looking for terrorist activity in these groups. The administration was not looking for terrorist among peace activists enrolled in college. Were they monitoring the group to create fear and stifle dissent? To help diffuse future protests? What the hell was (is) going on?

So here is the update: If you use a phone, have a bank account, send e-mail or attend peaceful protests, the government could be watching you. Oh… and these are only the monitoring activities we already know about… who wants to put money on there being many more?

Congress needs to investigate… now.

Both AMERICAblog and Pam’s House Blend wrote about the alleged spying activities when they were uncovered in December. These were their initial reactions.