Remember when I told you that Ken Blackwell was in the running to head the RNC? Right Wing Watch informs us that he's a major candidate with tons of fundie support now.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has now endorsed his candidacy, which is no surprise, considering Blackwell is a senior fellow at the anti-gay organization.
Said Perkins: "Ken Blackwell is a true advocate for the fiscal and social values that best uphold and strengthen families. Last summer, Ken served as vice chairman of the 2008 Platform Committee which adopted one of the strongest pro-life, pro-family platforms in history. His extensive campaign experience and commitment to conservative principles will serve the RNC well. Ken is the clear choice in this race and why I am proud to support him for RNC chairman."
Blackwell, who in 2006 was the Republican nominee for governor of Ohio, consistently spouts anti-gay rhetoric. When he was running for governor, he compared gays to arsonists and kleptomaniacs who can be "changed." In 2004, he compared gays to farm animals: "I don't know how many of you have a farming background but I can tell
you right now that notion even defies barnyard logic ... the barnyard
knows better," said Blackwell referring to the idea of same-sex
marriage.
‘Time for government to get out of wedding business’
Bob Barr, who sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act as a Republican congressman from Georgia, did a complete 180 last year when he sought and received the Libertarian nomination for president.
The law, passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, essentially keeps it illegal for same-sex marriages to be recognized at the federal level. So it was a welcome and pleasant surprise for gay voters here and across the nation to hear that perhaps their biggest adversary actually changed his mind, as he told Southern Voice in a June interview.
Now Barr believes the entire legislation — something he at one time felt was a feather in his legislative cap — should be repealed. Of course, it’s not because he’s become chummy with the gays and thinks we are pretty decent people deserving of equal rights, such as marriage. No, it’s all about federalism for Barr. But is that a bad thing?
“I’ve wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned,” Barr writes. “In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party’s presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.”
Barr goes on to write: “In effect, DOMA’s language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don’t want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws — including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran’s benefits — has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.
“Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.”
This is a far cry from what Barr said when arguing in favor of DOMA in 1996. “The very foundations of our society are in danger of being burned,” he claimed then. “The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit.
“We all must stand up and say we support this. Enough is enough. We must maintain a moral foundation, an ethical foundation for our families and ultimately for the United States of America,” Barr said at the time.
Barr’s decision to continually and publicly call for the repeal of a discriminatory law he authored some 13 years after it was passed is a sign for hope. Of course, it’s doubtful he’ll be leading any Gay Pride parades anytime soon. But if Barr can study the issue with reason and agree with us legally, that is a victory for our civil rights.
The Washington Post reports that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is going to be appointed the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, replacing Howard Dean.
In 2005, when Kaine was running for governor, he was the only candidate to respond to questions from the Blade regarding gay rights. Though he has said he opposes gay marriage and civil unions, he doesn't believe the federal government should regulate marriage.
The Marshall-Newman Amendment, which defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman, passed in Virginia in 2006. Kaine voiced his opposition to the amendment prior to its passage and voted against it, and signed the bill once it passed, but out of a requirement as governor and not his own personal feelings, according to the National Stonewall Democrats. His overall record on gay rights can be described as "mixed." He did sign a medical rights bill earlier this year.
A call for donor disclosure law change in wake of Prop 8
An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by John R. Lott, Jr., and Bradley Smith, calls for a change in donor disclosure laws in the wake of Prop 8's passage. They point out some people and businesses who are now facing boycotts due to the fact that their donation to the measure to ban gay marriage in California is public information.
"The larger point of this spectacle is its implications for the future:
to intimidate people who donate to controversial campaigns," they write. They wonder whether someone's financial support should be protected as private just as their vote is.
"In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As
anyone who has had their political yard signs torn down can imagine,
with today's easy access to donor information on the Internet, any
crank or unhinged individual can obtain information on his political
opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously.
When even donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard
to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one believes in," they conclude.
Maybe a higher limit could be set for public disclosure of donations. Say, anything under $200 can be listed anonymously. But if you're willing to contribute -- even just a small amount -- to a controversial cause, shouldn't you be willing to publicly defend that contribution to the public? And gays, with their spending power, have a right to know where NOT to spend their hard-earned money. Why line the pockets of a business when its owner is going to use that money to donates to take away your rights?
Joe.My.God. and Pam Spaulding both point out that Yes on 8 would have probably received more money from high-profile donors without these current laws.
Pam says: "This isn't about killing free speech, mind you; it's a matter of owning
your political positions -- you're free to support whatever you wish --
it's just that no one has to approve of them or sit back and expect a
cookie for working to revoke a civil right."
A snapshot of blind hatred, and the great divide within the U.S...
Here are almost all the arguments, both for and against, 'gay' marriage. You decide...
http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Aaron%27s+Story
More Rick Warren
The Rick Warren debate rages on. The latest is the "Rick-a-Thon," which will raise, the organizers hope, thousands of dollars during Warren's invocation at the inauguration. The group behind the effort, Driving Equality, is asking the pro-equality crowd to pledge an amount per second that Rick Warren speaks (or a flat rate), so that every second he stands at the podium, he is raising money for GLBT rights. More info here.
There are also two thought-provoking pieces on the Huffington Post today. In one, Bob Ostertag argues that gay marriage is the wrong issue, and that activists should be focusing their efforts elsewhere. He uses Rick Warren to explain that evangelicals aren't going away, and gays are going to have to learn to work with them.
In another, Charles Karel Bouley puts it simply: "If I hear one more pundit say that the choice of Rick Warren to deliver
the invocation at the most historic inaugural of a lifetime sends a
message of inclusion I will explode."
CNN released a transcript from Joe Biden's Larry King interview, which will air tonight. From the interview:
"King: There has been much controversy over the selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural.
He's been a guest on this show an awful lot, and he supported
California's Proposition 8, a measure that outlaws gay marriage. He is
also very opposed to abortion. I know the gay community in America
appears to be up in arms. What do you make of this?
Biden: Well, I'd make of it [as] Barack Obama keeping his commitment.
Barack Obama said you've got to reach out. You've got to reach a hand
of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country.
We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been. And he's made good on his promise.
And I would say to the gay and lesbian community, they have nothing to
worry about. Barack Obama, every aspect of his life, every aspect of
his public life, and every commitment he's made relating to equality
for all people, will be things that he will stick with and that they
should view this in the spirit in which he offered the opportunity to
-- to Mr. Warren."
Posted by 
