If It Weren't So Dang Funny....

If you're interested in learning more...

International Organization of Heterosexual Rights

....it'd be just another sad hate group.

The International Organization of Heterosexual Rights (INOOHR): the name alone should be a tipoff that the group can't be taken seriously. Visit their home page and you're greeted with a dove (dime-a-dozen on free clipart sites) beating its wings over a picture of a rainbow arching over a scenic valley (a little harder to find than the animated dove, but common). The flapping wings almost keep time to the slow drawal of a country singer lamenting he is weak and weary and seeking the Lord.

Someone should inform the webmaster that sound files really slow down the loading time of the page. My 56k modem takes awhile to handle the page and of everything on the site, that dang song is the most annoying.

Being an international organization, one might think that global membership would require a board of directors, a reporting staff, an editorial staff, an editor, a webmaster, and, well, a whole bunch of people.

Clicking on the Contact Us, you find the director (director@inoohr.org) and a generic contact (inoohr@inoohr.org). There is no About Us page. All the articles are cut and paste jobs from other news sources cleverly linked to tell one story - gays are bad. In fact, the articles' statistics rely heavily on on the gay hate group, NARTH and the "research" of Paul Cameron.

Apparently, there isn't even a webmaster let alone a staff of any kind.

INOOHR has been in existence since 2001, based on the current domain registration, with headquarters in Idaho. Idaho as a base of operations for a global organization must come as a real shocker. Idaho is known for potatoes, militia groups, and Mr. Potato Head.

Ok, sit down, now. Mr. Potato Head is from New York, not Idaho. But that didn't stop four residents of Boise from voting for him for mayor as a write-in candidate in 1985. Unconfirmed rumors are that every resident of Idaho has Mr. Potato Head sitting on the mantle flanked by the Bible on one side, Jesus on a cross on the other side, and at least three guns hanging on the rack overhead.

No one would believe Idaho could be the center of a global organization. Ninety-eight percent of Idaho residents can't even find the world on a globe.

Yet here we have a global organization out of Idaho. INOOHR does have at least one confirmed member. Denise Caster is listed as the director of the organization in the WHOIS directory. Please fell free to write her at:

PO Box 6109
Boise, Idaho 83707

Better yet, give her a jingle at 417-496-5070.

She put a lot of time, sprinkled with a loving dash of hate, into making the website. I'm sure she'd love to hear what you have to say about it.

I wouldn't suggest sending two Mr. Potato Heads embracing, kissing, or...ahem, you know...because, well that's plain blasphemous.

Oh, maybe she could use some soy products. This theory is what makes the whole site so dang funny: soy products (Ms. Caster refers to them as "soy toxins") are directly responsible for the effeminization of the American male and the rise in homosexual activity.

Now that can't be hate, right?

Hate Speech or Moral Convictions?

Related Reading:

Do No Gay Marriage Arguments Hold Water?

The Eight Forms of Marriage Recognized by the Bible

Mormon Church:
"We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families"

Catholic Church:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Southern Baptist Church:
We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy – one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.

United Methodist Church:
We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that God's blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A sampling of official stances issued by a few of our major churches – all saying the same thing: marriage is between one man and one woman. It's how they sat it that we have to ask, "Are they expressing legitimate moral views or hate speech?"

Throughout history, man has used the Bible to separate “us”, the good guys, from “them”, the bad guys. It helped man to make sense of the world and, more importantly, helped to civilize the world.

We don’t need to rehash the historical abuses of the Book, though. From the Crusades to the witch-hunts to slavery, the Bible guided the good people in fighting evil and defining the world. If the Bible is Eternal Truth, history begs the question: why don’t we kill non-Christians until they convert? Why don’t we burn witches at the stake or drown them in the lakes? Why did we ignore Noah’s Curse and abolish slavery?

For almost four centuries, many mainstream Churches defended the practice of slavery through Scriptural reference. When society abolished slavery, many of these same Churches justified segregation through Scriptural references. Not until recently, within the past thirty years or so, have these Churches abandoned their discriminatory practices, at least in official edicts if not in practice. They no longer preach that the races were meant to be separate in society and marriage.

As the Churches slowly evolved and adopted the belief that all people, regardless of race, are God’s children and deserve equal respect and as they adopted policies that the races could marry, many who could not accept the new teachings – or even the silent acceptance of racial equality – splintered off into new, and old, hate groups. The KKK and the World Church of the Creator, two well known hate groups, still use the Bible to justify their belief that God meant for the races to be separate.

The Churches now face a new challenge: homosexuals.

As our knowledge in the sciences and genetics grew and the general populace moved from superstitious beliefs to rational thinking, changing our belief that non-Whites were heathens not worthy of God’s love to our belief that all people of all color are God’s children and all are descendants of Adam and Eve was relatively simple. It took almost five hundred years, but the Churches did change their interpretation of the Bible.

Homosexuality, though, issues new challenges. Despite all the evidence that homosexuality is most probably genetically linked, Church leaders cling to the notion that it is a choice. At most, they might concede that God gave homosexuals a “special challenge” in life to overcome by living a life of chastity. Depending on their view of the causes of homosexuality, mainstream Churches view homosexuals as deviant child molesters to loving human beings deserving all the love and respect afforded everyone else.

So when does the Churches’ official stance on homosexuality cross the line of sound, moral teachings as guided by the Bible to a form of hate speech?

The defining line depends on who you are. Look at the official Church standings above. Mormons view homosexuals as immoral, selfish sinners. The Catholics view homosexuals as “intrinsically disordered”. Southern Baptists view homosexuality as an “invalid lifestyle”. The Methodists ignore homosexuals all together and simply state that marriage is “one man, one woman”.

If you believe homosexuality is a choice, you see no problem with any of the wordings. If you see homosexuality as genetic, then you probably see a lot of problems with some of the wording. And if you have a child, family member, or close friend who is gay, you may be struggling with your own beliefs and may be having problems sorting out what is hate speech and what is not or what is intolerant and what is not.

The most interesting thing to observe with many Christians who condemn homosexuality is how they justify it. They don’t hate homosexuals. In fact, they have a friend or work with someone who is gay and they’re all right people. They just hate the sin. It’s not that they don’t think homosexuals should live together under some civil union arrangement. They just believe marriage is God ordained and is reserved for one man and one woman.

Now contrast that rationalization with the racist groups’ philosophy. They don’t hate Black people. In fact, they have a friend or work with someone who is Black and they are all right people. They just take pride in their race. It’s not that they think Black people should be separate from Whites. They just believe that Whites are God’s chosen people and are not meant to mix with the races.

If you’re in doubt if anything the Church leaders say is hate speech, substitute yourself or a group you belong to in place of the words gays or homosexuals. Doing so, you might get a better feel how homosexuals feel when they hear this speech.

Of course, if you believe homosexuality is a choice, then you’ve read this far for nothing. You may choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence, the majority opinions of the medical, psychological, and social work professionals, and the almost every homosexual, who can unequivocally tell you he was born that way. As everyone else comes to understand and accept homosexuality as a normal facet of human sexuality and the Churches come to accept them as God’s children and equals, you can always splinter off into your own group, or old ones, who believe otherwise. And you can add Faggot to their list of Niggers, Jews, Spics, and Gooks to hate.

Texas Poised to Ban Gay Foster Parents

Read Story

Is there any way we could give Texas back to Mexico?

The Texas House passed a Children's Protective Services bill, yesterday, that would ban gay foster parents. If it passes the Texas Senate, the new law would affect an estimated 2,000-2,500 children who currently live with gay foster parents.

In the name of family values, sponsors and supporters of the bill want to protect foster children from homosexuals because they are more likely to be sexually molested and are more likely to become gay themselves.

Here's the quote of the day: ""Homosexuals cannot procreate, so they recruit."

Those words of wisdom come from Cathie Adams, president of the conservative forum The Texas Eagle Forum.

Now I have to wonder what family values these people really stand for. They'd rather take society's throw away kids away from loving gay parents and shuffle them around through a system already overloaded and underfunded. But I reckon that's much better than letting them live with gay people.

Yeah, right. They aren't for family values of any kind. They are for gay bashing.

Plain and simple.

Makes you wonder how so much hate can seize anyone.

Connecticut Steps Out Front

Read Story

Can you believe it? A Republican governor signed a civil union bill into law. And no court order forced him to do it.

Oh sure, the state legislature had to add language to the bill defining marriage as "between a man and a woman", but the point is, it passed.

Roman Catholics promptly plan a protest.

The head of some psuedo-family organization (a fancy name for gay-hate organization) plans to "keep the issue "squarely before the public."

Yeah, right. And everyone wonders why making civil unions is only half good. Separate but equal never is. Depending on the mood of the public, some homophobic politician could yank these rights away in another ten years.

Gay Catholics Disappointed With New Pope

Read story

Gay Catholics - now there's an oxymoron. What is it with these gays, anyway? Not content with their flashy, x-rated parades and screaming "Gay pride!", they now have infiltrated our Churches to push their gay agenda.

C'mon, now. I'm willing to bet that most people reading the headline, Gay Catholics, had thoughts along those lines. Be honest. Didn't you?

That's the sad facts fundamentalist love to push.

The real fact is homosexuals are everywhere, in every walk of life and many are Christians who believe in and love God as much as any other Christian. If you refuse to believe that, there is no point in reading any further.

I will admit the headline shocked me, though. I figured most gays raised in a Catholic household would grow up and turn their backs on the Church the same as the Church had turned its back on them.

Apparently, their faith in God is much stronger than their faith in a Pope, who is nothing more than a man who puts his pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else.

Pope John Paul II had said that homosexuals should be treated with compassion, but homosexuality was a sin and gays shouldn't have sex. The new Pope maintained during that time that homosexuals were "intrinsically evil".

Now that he's Pope, no wonder many gay Catholics see a new Dark Ages where homosexuals will be so marginalized by the Church, they'll be pushed off the Holy page.

Catholicism, with a membership of 1.1 billion worldwide, hardly looks to be a dying religion. With strong homophobic feelings running rampant throughout the Catholic Church - and many other Christian Churches - the Pope's continued harsh rhetoric many would term hate may drive gay Catholics to other Churches, but the loss in membership would hardly raise eyebrows at the Vatican much less threaten to bring the Church to its knees.

The gay problem solved - hate 'em until they leave.

But when the Catholic divorcees, birth control users, abortion supporters, stem cell research advocates, and women rights believers join the homosexual exodus - as they already have done in America and Europe - more than just eyebrows will be raised at the Vatican.

Let's hope Pope Benedict XVI shocks everyone and tackles these controversial topics head on. And let's all pray he leads the Catholic Church of Pope John Paul II's reign safely out of the Middle Ages and into the New millennium with real progressive thinking through Divine inspiration.

Being Catholic and gay needn't be an oxymoron nor be judged as being at odds with God.

Ask the gay Catholic sitting in the pew next to you. I bet there's at least one.

Which Don't Belong? Lawyers, Religion, Homosexuality

If you answered homosexuality - WRONG.

If you answered religion - WRONG.

It's lawyers. Don't worry if you answered incorrectly, though. A lot of people aren't good at those word association puzzles. The average SAT score is pretty indicative of that...but the state of our education system is a whole 'nother blog.

This blog centers specifically on a letter written by attorney Steve C. Whiting in Portland, Maine to the local paper, Portland Press Herald. It is so important to save this letter from the cyber-trash heap, I have reprinted the full text below.

MAINE VOICES: Stephen C. Whiting
Why some
Christians oppose gay rights

I am writing to respond to a
recent column entitled "It's Unchristian to Oppose Gay Rights" (April 4 Press
Herald).

I am legal counsel to the Christian Civic League. I am also on
its board of directors. So I can answer the question: "Why would the leadership
of the Christian Civic League sponsor yet another referendum to veto yet another
gay rights bill?"

First, the primary purpose of the gay rights bill is to
give legal and social approval to homosexuality, to pave the way for gay
marriage. That is what gay rights bills did in Vermont (where they have gay
civil unions) and Massachusetts (where they have gay marriage).

The Bible
is very clear that homosexuality is wrong and should not be endorsed by society;
and that marriage is between a man and a woman only - not between two men or two
women.

Proponents of gay rights/gay marriage ask: "But isn't
homosexuality genetic?" The answer is no. Thousands of homosexuals have changed
their sexual orientation, and are happily married to people of the opposite sex
and have children.

Second, there is no widespread discrimination against
gay people in this state in employment, housing, etc. If there were, the
Christian Civic League would strongly condemn it. But have you ever heard a
waiter say to a gay couple: "We don't serve your kind here"? Have you ever heard
a hotel check-in clerk say: "We don't rent rooms to gays
here"?

Proponents of the bill say 40 percent of "hate crimes" in the
state involve gay bashing. However, this gay rights bill has nothing to do with
violence against gay people. It only purports to prevent discrimination against
gay people in employment, housing, etc. Since such discrimination is virtually
nonexistent, it is clear the primary purpose (if not the only purpose) of this
bill is to legitimize homosexuality and pave the way for gay
marriage.

Third, unlike discrimination based on race or ethnicity,
sometimes discrimination based on sexual orientation is reasonable and should
not be outlawed. For example, under this bill if a school wanted to hire a gym
teacher whose job would include supervising the locker room and group showers,
the school could not refuse to hire a gay person who would be sexually oriented
toward the students. Or if you were financially strapped, so you had to take in
boarders to live with you and your family to make ends meet, you could not
refuse to rent to a gay couple.

In fact, the governor's gay rights bill
defines "sexual orientation" as: "a person's actual or perceived
heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or
expression."

This means that if a transvestite applied for a receptionist
job, you could not refuse to hire him, even if you did not think it would be
appropriate to have a man dressed in women's clothes greeting your clients. Or
worse, it means employers, hotels and restaurants could not stop a man from
using the women's bathroom if the man said he thought he was a woman.

And
fourth, gay rights laws inevitably lead to reverse discrimination. If two people
apply for a job, one gay and one straight, the employer better hire the gay
applicant or he could be sued. And an employer could not fire, fail to promote
or reprimand a gay employee without running the risk of being sued. Defending
against such suits would cost the employer tens of thousands of dollars, even if
the employer won!

Moreover, anyone who says anything negative about
homosexuality at work would have to be fired for creating a "hostile work
environment" - so while gays could extol the virtues of homosexuality at work,
anyone who dared express a contrary opinion would risk losing his
job.

These are not wild, imagined concerns. These are examples of how gay
rights laws are actually being used and abused around the country
today.

Jesus told the people not to kill the woman caught in adultery.
However, he then told the woman to "go and sin no more." He did not say: "Let's
go to the Legislature and get them to pass a law making adultery
legal."

We all have gay friends and relatives. We love them regardless of
their sexual preference. But that does not mean we approve of their lifestyle -
which is the primary purpose, if not the sole purpose, of this gay rights
bill.

- Special to the Press Herald

Up front and honest - I'm no lawyer. I can't even claim to be related to a lawyer to add an air of validity to what I have to say.

Ok, my sister is a lawyer, but for the right price, she would convincingly argue that that ain't true. It's the nature of lawyers. For the right price, they'll argue any point regardless of the truth.

Now take a close look at this letter from attorney Stephen C. Whiting of Portland, Maine. He represents the Christian Civic League. They must be paying him a whole heap of money to go out on the limb with the legal claims he has put forth.

He claims the purpose of a gay rights bill is to lend legal and social approval of homosexuality that would eventually pave the way to gay marriage. The Bible, however, condemns homosexuality and defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The claim that there may be a genetic component to homosexuality is casually brushed off with no further explanation and complete disregard to the myriad of scientific evidence and general medical consensus.

That's the crux of his argument: the Bible says homosexuality is not normal and that's the final authority on the matter.

He even advocates that sometimes, discrimination against homosexuals in employment and housing is justified.

How's that again? Because the Bible says so, we can treat others as less than equal citizens? As a lawyer, has he ever heard of the phrase "separation of Church and state"? I think I learned that in my third grade civics class. His Bible may say that it's ok to treat some citizens as less than equal, but my Bible does not. If he's going to make a law, he dang well better be making it on more than just his Biblical beliefs.

Or, in this case, the radical, conservative, religious nuts who are paying him tons of money need to practice their religion and stay out of law.

I do hope the Christian Civic League is paying attorney Stephen C. Whiting of Portland, Maine handsomely to say such un-lawyer like arguments. If not, we may have our first example of a welfare-qualified lawyer, ever, 'cause Lord knows these kinds of arguments tell me that he isn't a very smart lawyer and probably doesn't have very many clients who are willing to lose their cases just to help him put food on his table.

I wonder if attorney Stephen C. Whiting of Portland, Maine is fully aware that the Bible accepts eight different forms of marriage? I wonder if he and his client, the Christian Civic League, would be willing to endorse these marriages as legal.

Probably not. And that throws their whole because-the-Bible-says-so argument out of the court room and onto the street where it can ooze through the manhole covers and disappear into the sewers where it belongs.

If you are so inclined, you can always sound off to the Portland Press Herald with a letter to the editor. Of course, they just published a letter one of their readers wrote. But let's change attorney Stephen C. Whiting's letter a bit and then ask yourself, "Would the paper have printed this letter?" If you're answer is "No" then sounding off to the paper would be a good idea.

Discrimination acts currently protect individuals from discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability. The only protected class in this listing that is purely choice is religion. You are not born Christian. You are taught to be Christian. So let's give the readers out there who see nothing wrong with attorney Stephen C. Whiting's letter the benefit of the doubt and assume, for the moment, that all the scientific evidence is rubbish and homosexuals choose to be homosexuals.

So here is attorney Stephen C. Whiting's letter rewritten with regards to religion - the other choice lifestyle - seeking protection of the law:

I am writing to respond to a recent column entitled "It's
Unchristian to Oppose Religion Rights" (April 4 Press Herald).

I am
legal counsel to the Christian Civic League. I am also on its board of
directors. So I can answer the question: "Why would the leadership of the
Christian Civic League sponsor yet another referendum to veto yet
another religion rights bill?"

First, the primary purpose of
the religion rights bill is to give legal and social approval to Catholics,
to pave the way for Catholic marriage. That is what religion rights
bills did in Vermont (where they have Catholic civil unions) and
Massachusetts (where they have Catholic marriage).

The Bible is very
clear that Catholism is wrong and should not be endorsed by society; and
that marriage is between a Christian man and a Christian woman only - not
between two Catholics.

Proponents of religion rights/Catholic marriage ask: "But
isn't Catholism genetic?" The answer is no. Thousands of Catholicss have
changed their religion, and are happily married to Christian people and have
children.

Second, there is no widespread discrimination
against Catholics in this state in employment, housing, etc. If there
were, the Christian Civic League would strongly condemn it. But have you ever
heard a waiter say to a Catholic couple: "We don't serve your kind here"?
Have you ever heard a hotel check-in clerk say: "We don't rent rooms to
Catholics here"?

Proponents of the bill say 40 percent of "hate crimes"
in the state involve Catholic bashing. However, this religion rights
bill has nothing to do with violence against Catholics. It only purports to
prevent discrimination against Catholics in employment, housing, etc. Since such
discrimination is virtually nonexistent, it is clear the primary purpose (if not
the only purpose) of this bill is to legitimize Catholism and pave the way
for Catholic marriage.

Third, unlike discrimination based on race or
ethnicity, sometimes discrimination based on religion is reasonable and should
not be outlawed. For example, under this bill if a school wanted to hire a gym
teacher whose job would include supervising the locker room and group showers,
the school could not refuse to hire a Catholic, or even a Catholic
priest, who might be sexually oriented toward the students. Or if you
were financially strapped, so you had to take in boarders to live with you and
your family to make ends meet, you could not refuse to rent to a Catholic
couple.

In fact, the governor's religion rights bill defines
"religion" as: "a person's actual or perceived religious identity or
expression." This means that if a Catholic applied for a receptionist
job, you could not refuse to hire him, even if you did not think it would be
appropriate to have someone wearing crosses and rosary beads or ashes on
their forehead greeting your clients.

And fourth, religion rights laws inevitably lead to reverse
discrimination. If two people apply for a job, one Catholic and one
Christian, the employer better hire the Catholic applicant or he could be
sued. And an employer could not fire, fail to promote or reprimand
a Catholic employee without running the risk of being sued. Defending
against such suits would cost the employer tens of thousands of dollars, even if
the employer won!

Moreover, anyone who says anything negative
about Catholism at work would have to be fired for creating a "hostile work
environment" - so while Catholics could extol the virtues of Catholism
at work, anyone who dared express a contrary opinion would risk losing his
job.

These are not wild, imagined concerns. These are examples of
how religion rights laws are actually being used and abused around the
country today.

Jesus told the people not to kill the woman caught in
adultery. However, he then told the woman to "go and sin no more." He did not
say: "Let's go to the Legislature and get them to pass a law making adultery
legal."

We all have Catholic friends and relatives. We love them
regardless of their religious affiliation. But that does not mean we approve of
their lifestyle - which is the primary purpose, if not the sole purpose, of
this religion rights bill.

If this letter doesn't outrage you, feel free to substitute any other religion in for Catholics - Protestants, Methodist, Muslims, Wiccans, Satanist, New Age Spiritualists - whatever you like and read it again. I'd be willing to bet no paper, including the Portland Press Herald, would even seriously entertain the idea of printing the letter.

If you're really outraged, feel free to call or write attorney Stephen C Whiting of Portland, ME:

Whiting, Steve - Whiting Law Firm
(207) 780-0681
75 Pearl St # 207
Portland, ME

Click on the link and you can e-mail him, if that's easier.

We should no longer be forced to accept public displays of prejudisms, bigotry, and hatred towards homosexuals in silence. Let him and the Portland Press Herald know that such blatant displays of antagonism towards homosexuals is no more tolerated than blatant displays of discrimination towards the disabled, religious intolerance, sexism, or racism are tolerated.

Jesus Was Gay

An openly gay Bishop of the Episcopalian Church, Bishop V. Gene Robinson, responded to a question at a forum on sexual issues at the Christ Church of Hamilton, Mass. back on February 13. As he now recalls the question, he responded believing the question was trying to get him to affirm that the nuclear family of mother, father, and children is the only way a family could be as far as the Bible is concerned.

His response to the question:

``Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values and so on, this man that we follow ... was single as far as we know; who traveled with a bunch of men, although there were lots of women around; who had a disciple who was known as `the one whom Jesus loved'; who said my family is not my mother and father, my family are those who do the will of God. None of us like those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was, at least in his earthly life.''

He was making the point that one is hard pressed to find scriptural affirmation of the nuclear family and pointed out that Jesus, by far, did not play the traditional family role.

Blogger David Virtue caught wind of those words and accused the Bishop of saying Jesus was gay. The story spread like wildfire and many conservative news sources published the story. Virtue is convinced that the Bishop's comments are part of the "gay agenda" that will eventually homosexualize the Anglican Church and cause it to split.

Bishop Robinson's consecration in 2003 caused quite a turmoil within the Church that still bubbles today. Since his remarks on Feb 13, he has received many angry letters from around the world for saying Jesus was gay.

Ref
ABC News
Kansas City Star
Boston Herald

Mark's editorial comments:

Can the conservative Christians get any more ridiculous? The Bishop clearly demonstrated that Jesus, even for his time, led a nontraditional lifestyle. Nowhere did he say "Jesus was gay" or, for that matter, say anything about sex. Jesus traveled with a bunch of men - and women - that's what the Bishop said.

These conservative Christians are so hung up on sex they see it written in the salt of Ritz crackers. Believe me, I tried. I have yet to see "sex" written in the salt though some out there swear it's clear as day.

I say we track this blogger down - and all the conservative Christians who have twisted the Bishop's words - and send them coupons for free porno. After watching a few porno flicks, maybe sex won't be so scary to them.

Unless they happen to get one starring Ron Jeremy....

California Boy Suspended For Wearing Makeup

Only in California...

Sixteen-year-old James Herndon, a ninth-grader at San Bernardino's Pacific High School, received a five day suspension for wearing black lipstick and red eye makeup to school. He claims the makeup expresses his Wiccan faith. His mother is a priestess in the neo-pagan faith.

Herndon feels if he can't wear his makeup then the female students and staff shouldn't be allowed to wear theirs, either.

School officials wouldn't comment, citing student confidentiality rules, but did say their school policy states that makeup and clothing shouldn't be "excessive" so as to hide one's identity or be distracting to the learning environment.

Herndon, who is repeating his second year at the school, plans to return next week with his makeup on.

Ref:
AP

Mark's editorial comments:

At the rate this child is going, he'll be repeating his third year, too.

Oregon Tosses Gay Marriage Licenses

The Oregon Supreme Court nullified about 3,000 gay marriages performed by Multnomah County last year. The court decided that Oregon had statutes on the books limiting marriage to a man and a woman and last year, an amendment to the state constitution passed with voter approval to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Oregon Supreme Court maintained that while the county could question the constitutionality of the marriage laws, marriage was still a state concern and so the county had no authority to issue licenses.

The governor of the state, Governor Ted Kulongoski said he would push for anti discrimination legislation for homosexuals and for a civil union legislation that would grant many of the same rights to same-sex partners as marriage.

Currently, only Vermont has a civil union legislation and Massachusetts is the only state to grant legal marriages to same-sex couples. Massachusetts law, however, is up to voter challenge next year.

Ref:
Ap
SFGate

Mark's Editorial Comments:

Notice that in proposing civil union legislation, "many of the rights" of marriage would be extended to same-sex couples.

Not all.

Separate but equal never is. While civil unions are a step in the right direction, true equality won't happen until homosexuals can marry.

What is it that those conservatives say when a court case doesn't go their way? Yup. That's it: "Damn activist judges." They must've been at play here, too.

In the mean time, wouldn't it be cool if Multnomah decided to secede from Oregon and become the fifty-first state? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. The legal process is so long for that, that not only would same-sex marriage be legal nationwide before they could become their own state, but heck, it would probably be legal to marry Vulcans of any sex too.

Gay Dad Fights For Right To Live With His Partner

A gay father won custody of his child, but a Virginia court added the stipulation that his live-in partner would have to move out. The father has now moved to Maryland and is asking the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to overturn Virginia's stipulation.

Ulf Hedberg lived with his partner and his son for five and a half years while the custody battle was waged. Virginia sided with him in awarding custody of his son, but forced Mr. Hedberg's partner to move out of the household.

Mr. Hedberg claims that after living with him and his partner for five and a half years, the sudden change is a hardship on his son. Mr. Hedberg's son was four years old when his partner moved in and the relationship is the only family his son remembers.

Compunding the problem is he and his son had to move from a suburban home in Virginia to a smaller apartment in Montgomery County, Maryland. The move was necessary because with his partner gone, they were no longer a two-income family and Mr. Hedberg couldn't afford the lifestyle both he and his son had become accustomed to while his partner shared the household.

Mr. Hedberg claims that Virginia sodomy laws formed the basis for the stipulation, but since the US Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, he wants Virginia's order revoked and allow his partner to move back in with him.

The mother claims the order has nothing to do with same sex relationships and everything to do with setting decency standards for her child.

"What has come out is that the Virginia court considered the best interest and said: 'In this situation, we're not going to have two people who are not married living together,"' said Lindevaldsen, an attorney with Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit group that focuses on traditional family and religious liberties.

"This is not about the fact that they're in a same-sex relationship," she told reporters after the hearing.

The mother now lives in Florida.

Ref: Fox 45 News - Baltimore,MD

Mark's Editorial comment:

First, let's blast the news for not giving us the full story. The father wins custody. The mother is worried about decency standards. Why didn't the mother win custody? Why was the stipulation added and not challenged then?

Second, let's blast Mom. The whore fled to Florida and left her son behind. Oh yeah, Mom, you're the pillar of moral decency standards. You let your son live in a gay household for five and a half years. What's your beef now? I suspect you don't give a rat's patootie about the welfare of your son, but you do care about making life as miserable as you can for your ex.

Isn't that the real story, Mom?

The article does give one good example of why gay marriage should be legal. If Mr. Hedberg could marry his partner, there would be no issue before the court. And no, civil union agreements wouldn't do. Separate but equal never is. Knowing how uptight Virginia is about sex, civil union or not, this case would still be in front of a judge.

If gay marriage were legal, then the issue would become one of courts being able to approve of the moral decency of one's new spouse. Married heteros wouldn't like that so a case like this one will never happen in a hetero relationship.

Keep gay marriage illegal or separate as a civil union, the moral decency charge could always be brought up, custody battles could be lost, and as always, the real loser will be the child or children involved.

Introducing Little Guy Protests

Little Guy Protest is dedicated to fighting for gay marriage. Visitors of the site are welcomed to come here, read my ramblings, and sound off. Please stay tuned...once I have everything up and running, blogs here will be turned into material for the website.

Expected opening date: 01 May 05