Aside from the myriad of letters disputing the PG's review of An Inconvenient Truth and those from the stalwart "Great Americans" defending the Cheesesteak Bigot, a few homosexual themed letters appear ...

First, Martha Perego of Oakland wants to give us homos our very own second class status word or term to describe our unions.  Her rational? No one objects to the usage of fraternity or sorority.  No one?  Huh.  Cause I do.  Of course, I'm more concerned about the elitism, snobbery, hazing, alcohol poisoning, date raping, exclusivity ...oh and that "frat boy" mentality that pervades adult life like stink on a dog. 

Bless her two-tiered little heart, she's willing to permit us the same social and financial benefits.  I'm not sure Martha has been reading up on all the latest homo-hitchin' up news b/c what she's describing is called a civil union.  And our good friends over at the AFA of PA are onto that approach. 

Next up is Bob Poropatich of Stanton Heights writing in response to the Post-Gazette's critique of the Pride Theate Festival.  (This is the prancing queens part of the post).  Bob takes affront at the PG's implication that the festival is too straight and minus the prancing queens.  He compares the lack of drag queens and lisping homos to Fiddler on the Roof:

To match her ignorance one could say that if you go to see "Fiddler on the Roof," you won't see any jewelers, lawyers or Park Avenue doctors either.

This is what the Post-Gazette actually said:

But for a festival that purportedly spotlights GLBT themes, the plays are pretty, well, straight. You'd think there might be a few theatrical conventions challenged, but there aren't, and bisexual and transsexual/gender characters are conspicuously absent.

I didn't attend the festival so I cannot comment.  But the lack of bisexual and transgendered characters is a common motif in most mainstream gay events, organizations, issues, causes, etc.  And the further we strive to demonstrate how normal we are (not necessarily a bad thing) the more likely we are to turn our backs on those who don't fit in quite so easily.  The Post-Gazette may have picked up on that. 

The trick, Bob, is that we get caught up in normalizing our community to a heterosexual ideal.  Perhaps we should focus our time, talent and art on how HUMAN we are regardless of where we fall in the alphabet soup acronyms. 

Get that man a toaster! 

Paul Fero of Monroeville, Repulican and former candidate for the State House of Shame er, Representatives in 2002, announced that the Rethuglican obsession with homosexual marriage has caused him to convert -- to a Democrat.   Proving once and for all that while you may be born a breeder, you choose to be an slavish idiot to a hate agenda.

Fero's writes that his decision is based on the political priorities of the Republicans.

A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- our elected Republican officials believe this is a priority?

This is absolutely ridiculous and I can't take it anymore. The endless positioning to support the conservative base of the Republican Party has truly hit a milestone.

Then he puts forth a clear statement of support

And I support the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry. Marriage shouldn't be about what sex you are but about love, compassion and caring for one another. Those qualities aren't exclusive to heterosexuals.

Fero's opponent in that 2002 election was incumbent Joe Markosek, one of the 20 House Democrats who voted in favor of the original constitutional amendment -- the really bad one as opposed to the hate-light bill that made it through the Senate. 

To be fair, if Fero had been elected as a Republican who knows where he would be now -- would he have joined that other convert Mike Divin (opposite direction) in opposing the amendment?  No way to tell.

Nonethless, hopefully this is one more vote for Bob Casey and one more sign that the Republican obsession with controlling my bedroom behavior is turning off the real party faithful.

According to the Trib, they want a constitutional convention.  And guess who supports it?  Wingnut grand poobah Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.  See what Pam has to say about him

Again, I'm beating a dead horse, but the Democratic leadership better wake up. The Right is not going to leave gay marriage alone. You are going to have respond with a real position on gay civil rights. These folks are relentless and will continue to mobilize against candidates that take a mealy-mouth "position" and win. They have the money, the boots on the ground, and most of all, commitment to their agenda because they believe that they are right. Where are the Dems?

The position of voting FOR amending the constitution to protect marriage from homosexuals is not "a real position on gay civil rights."  It is capitulation pure and simple.  They want to have their cake and eat it, too.  And Tony Perkins is going to continue pushing our regressive Democrats here in Western PA further and further back into a corner until they abandon homosexuals altogether.  And he has the $$ to do it.

From Sunday's Post-Gazette comes a little "Aside" by the PG editors putting Rendell's PrideFest visit into the context of the larger  movement by PA Republicans AND Democrats to write hate into our state constitution.

SOMETIMES A POLITICIAN will speak out as a matter of principle even though it might offend some constituents (hey, it happens, and it is refreshing when it does). With many lawmakers in full cry to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment that would serve no purpose other that than to write bigotry into the state constitution, the politically smart thing for Gov. Ed Rendell to do last weekend might have been to stay far away from the gay pride march in Pittsburgh. Instead, he was there to kick it off

It would appear that the Post-Gazette editorial board is as politically unsophisticated as me in thinking that the Senate's passage of a the amendment (even in its amended form) by DEMOCRATS and Rethuglicans is not the most stirring sign of support for the homos.

It is refreshing to have witnessed some political principle firsthand and to see the PG acknowledge it.

I know I'm beating a lonely drum on this.  I have been informed that the Pittsburgh Democratic Senators voted in favor of the marriage protection amendment.  I've also been informed that I'm being a bit of whiny bitch for not congratulating them like the mainstream LGBT political groups are doing. 

I get that the groups have to play politics.  But last time I checked, I'm allowed to have my own opinions.  And I opine these are yet another bunch of spineless Democrats who want to have their cake and eat it, too. Its sheer genius really - a vote in favor of the watered down amendment keeps the homos all happy while giving them the ability to say that they voted to uphold traditional marriage. 

It is a political solution designed to keep their social moderate voters happy and keep them in office.  Keeping the constitution of Pennsylvania free from discrimination is ancillary to the overall plan. 

And when I disagree, object, complain, speak out, speak up or speak my mind (NOT A MIND!), I get the brush off b/c I'm not a good little girl who plays nice with the boys. 

Honey, if I wanted to play nice with the boys, I wouldn't need to worry about the definition of marriage. 

So we narrowly avoid the amendment (hopefully).   Now we'll continue to avoid naming the propensity of Pennsylvania Democrats to treat my life, my relationship and my civil rights as political trading cards.

Roll call should be out tomorrow.

The Senate stripped the language prohibiting civil unions and passed the legislation 38-12. Now the amended amendment heads back to the House for approval. 

The wingnuts are up in arms about the changes, believing that permitting civil unions is marriage by another name which discredits the entire attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage from homosexual assault (PG). 

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said the "weaker" language of the Senate bill "won't give Pennsylvanians an opportunity to effectively defend the institution of marriage."

He claimed that civil unions "are marriages, for all intents and purposes," more often used by same-sex couples, and said both civil unions and gay marriages should be outlawed.

So some folks voted against it b/c it was too weak, while others voted against it b/c it was discrimination.

This is a good thing, don't get me wrong. I know the odds are very much against the two chambers passing the same bill by next Friday.  Which is a win for our side

But the issue still remains that some Democrats voted FOR the amendment in the first place.  Which demonstrates that there are too many spineless legislators who would sell us out -- sell our families out --- sell our civil rights out --- to pander to the right wing nutjobs.   

Still looking for roll call to identify said spineless cowards ... will post as soon as I find it.

You remember James Loney.  He was a Christian aid worker who was held hostage in Iraq by insurgents and freed by Coalition forces.  He is from Canada.  And he's gay.  A fact his family and partner kept quiet for fear for his safety while imprisoned. 

So he's freed by the troops and returned to Canada where his partner can end what could only be hellacious agony born in solitude without the "comfort" other spouses can seek from public support. 

And he finds that his summer camp program has been de-funded by the Canadian Knights of Columbus b/c the curriculum might promote homosexuality to kids according to Loney.

The good Knights deny this was their agenda.  

In an interview with the Toronto Star KC official Jack Clancey said Loney's allegations were "out of left field."

"We closed down that leadership camp because we needed to review the way we were going and the curriculum that we were teaching," Clancey told the Star

But of course.  The timing, and the fact that the Knights support anti-gay marriage amendments EVERYWHERE has nothing to do with it.  Its just business. 

Just Catholic bigotry as usual.

However, some in the LGBTQ community aren't that thrilled with Loney.  Particularly as he was engaged in "missionary" work in the first place.  From the UK-Ireland edition of gay.com comes this perspective:

While Loney has obviously suffered trauma at the hands of his kidnappers, it's not hard to question his presence in Iraq, preaching Christianity on behalf of an unashamedly homophobic organization.

Aside from putting his own life at risk, Loney undoubtedly endangered the lives of beleaguered US soldiers, already overworked with insurgencies and bomb threats.

It?s also highly unlikely that war-torn Iraqi citizens are in need of God-bothering missionaries attempting to convert them as gore and missiles rain from the sky.

Loney seems to have learned little form the experience as he?s considering the possibility of joining a Christian Peacemakers Team project in Colombia or the Palestinian territory next year.

He acknowledged his experience in Iraq could make it a lot more difficult, but seems oblivious to the inherent selfishness of such an act.

Big shout out to Sister Patricia McCann of Oakland who outed her Roman Catholic self as a believer that:

Building family depends on good, loving, generous, mature, self-giving and stable adults who are able and willing to parent. God makes those in a variety of patterns.

Amen, Sister Patricia.  You tell those who are glued to their pulpits in righteous indignation that they should get out in the world and actualy work with families before them jump to their hateful little conclusions. 

The well-being of children and young people is threatened by a family context of violence and dissension, by parental alcohol and drug abuse, by narcissistic behavior in adults, by parental neglect or lack of interest in their activities. I've seen young people, both rich and poor, raised by loving and devoted parents, grandparents, stepparents, foster parents, gay parents, single parents and adoptive parents who thrive and grow into mature adulthood because of loving and stable homes. And I've seen youths raised by adults who, through their own limitations, handicap children psychologically and morally for life.

Another PG luminary, columnist Reg Henry weigh in with his thoughts on how fortunate Pennsylvanias are that legislators are tackling real issues like gay marriage.

But how exactly will gays threaten traditional marriage? That is a good question, but only in the sense that no one has a good answer.

In ignoring the question, we need to heed our most prominent moral leaders, i.e., our politicians. Just because they are shifty characters you wouldn't lend a dollar to unless it was attached to a string, doesn't mean they can't thunder like Old Testament prophets.

Now that's deserves another cup of coffee ...

In response to the Post-Gazette's two-thirds hearted opposition to the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, two of the amendment's sponsors took the time to whine about the PG's mischaracterization of their bill.  You've heard it all before, but since the PG has been parsimonious in covering this issue of late, I'll take a stab at it.

State Senator Bob Regola (R-Hempfield) and State Senator Scott Boyd (R-Lancaster) have seen a future filled with married homos and it scares the living hell out of them:

No one can legitimately claim that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act will not be challenged in court. The testimony of gay-marriage advocates in Harrisburg confirms it is not a matter of if, but when. Prominent individuals from the ACLU and other organizations believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. Knowing there is little chance of accomplishing that goal legislatively, using the court to achieve this legislative agenda becomes an attractive tool.

They take to task stout-hearted fellows like Dan Frankel who have been pointing out that this legislation might actually hurt tens of thousands of unmarried heterosexuals, but Bob and Scott assure us that won't happen -- their crusade against homos won't have collateral damage.  Doesn't that sound familiar? 

And they call out those tricky legislators who took the political route to compromise the full degree of hate and fear that was embedded in the original bill.

Opponents are aware of this and have repeatedly tried to dilute the amendment in both the state House and Senate. A vote to weaken the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment by allowing civil unions is a vote that will kill the effort to protect marriage in this legislative session.

You are either for the original amendment or you hate freedom.   Something like that. 

These guys suck.

The Senate may vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment on Wednesday.  Here's what the AFA is seeking ... notice that they've not asked for either prayer or fasting ... so much for God's will ... 

ACTION NEEDED: 

1.)  Call your State Senator ASAP and ask him or her to support

 the original language of H.B. 2381 and to reject the Earll

Amendment.  Click here for contact information.   If you do not

know who your State Senator is, please enter your county or

nine-digit zip code in the upper right hand corner of that page

or call Commonwealth Directory Assistance at 717.787.2121. 

Please do not assume that your Senator will support the

Marriage Protection Amendment!  Contact them!

 

2.)  Feel free to forward this alert to other concerned

 Pennsylvanians.  If this alert is being forwarded to you by

a friend, please feel free to sign up by sending an e-mail

 to info@afaofpa.org

 

3.)  Please consider supporting the ongoing work of the

American Family Association of Pennsylvania.  Make

 an online donation.

 

In His service,

 

Diane Gramley

President

American Family Association of PA