DNC Chairman Howard Dean was in town this weekend to address the annual convention of the National Stonewall Democrats aka "gay Democrats."  Dean told the assembled faithful that Stonewall has made the party "stronger, more inclusive, more courageous, more tenacious." (PG)

Mr. Dean said DNC operatives had been instructed to work with the gay community and trained to discuss gay-rights issues with straight voters.

He told the Stonewall group, 'We need you to reach out to the straight community.'

Reach out to the straight community? What the hell does he think we do everyday - live in a queers only bubble? 

While reporter Joe Smydo was quick to get some comments from the Sanctimonious camp, he failed to even touch on some of the recent gay controversy swirling around Dean's leadership.  (Washington Blade)

First, Dean eliminated the LGBT outreach desk late last year as part of a strategic realignment, assuring the community that the DNC would continue to reach out to gays.

Then in February, the DNC published its annual grassroot activity report without a single reference to LGBT grassroots activities. 

Third, in early May, Dean fired gay outreach advisor Donald Hitchcock just weeks after Hitchcock's partner publicly criticized the DNC for failing to protect gay rights.

For his coup d'etat, Dean went on The 700 Club.  Yes, Dean made time in his schedule to reach out to the Pat Robertson crowd.  Later, Dean had to issue an apology for informing Robertson's viewers that the Democrat party platform stated marriage was between a man and a woman.  Gay groups responded in outrage.  Dean does intend to return to The 700 Club for future appearances.  Click here for Shakespeare Sister's recap of Pat Robertson's more outrageous (?divisive?) comments.

Did anyone from the media even ASK Dean about these issues?  Did anyone from Stonewall?   I couldn't because Stonewall didn't want bloggers covering their convention.  We aren't a "valid media."   I guess no one bothered to tell Dean that during the 2004 campaign, but whatever.  Or perhaps bloggers might ask actual questions that put Stonewall on the spot.  Wouldn't want that. 

It appears that the PG editors prefer to spin Dean's appearance as an anti-Santorum story than to do any concrete reporting on current gay politics.  To be fair, they have probably sent an intern into the bowels of the Boulevard to drag out and dust off the tired old gay cliches for the June 17 PrideFest article.  Last year's trivial little article by Caitlin Cleary is a good example of how little concern the PG has for accurate reporting on gay issues.  But I digress ...

h/t to 2 Political Junkies for a transcript of the entire Dean speech.

In an appearance on yet another right wingnut talk program, Ricky Sanctimonious played his oh-so-tired homo card.  Again.

This time he was on Janet Parshall's America (I wish I had my own America), a nationally syndicated talk radio program. I picked this up from the Raw Story. 

Read what Ricky has to say this time ...

It is. If you think about it, Janet, from everything from Brokeback Mountain to, you know, all the TV shows that you see promoting and affirming alternative lifestyles -- I guess to put it nicely -- you would think that the culture would eventually just move in the other direction. But I think these kind of debates are the chance for a public discourse to counter what Hollywood is purveying to our young people. Not just what Hollywood is purveying to young people, to all people. And it's an opportunity for us to get beyond, you know, 'We should treat everybody nicely.' I'm for treating everybody nicely, but that doesn't mean that we need to change the law to recognize a form of marriage that is harmful to our country.

Hey, hey --- I wonder if Santorum spokesfag Robert Traynham gets treated nicely when he's asked to spin yet another stupid lie to cover Ricky's ass?  You could say he's the right man for that job, but that would be an overly obvious joke. 

And, of course, there are still no details on how gay marriage will hurt the country.  Perhaps Ricky left that document in Penn Hills when he moved?  

I missed this, but on Thursday the Trib published a column by Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute (limited government, free markets, etc). 

Powell explains how federal regulation of marriage proved to be a bad conservative idea back in the days of Theodore Roosevelt. 

Polygamous families were producing more children than monogamous families and TR feared that polygamy would sweep the nation. He recommended a constitutional amendment banning polygamy. He came close to suggesting that there ought to be a law making it mandatory for monogamous families to have children.

Aside from the characters on HBO, do you know any polygamous families?  

Powell continues:

One big problem with the idea of federalizing everything is the assumption that the "right" people will always be in control.

<snip>

Mindful of historical reality, one has to consider the possibility that if the marriage amendment is ratified, it will strengthen precedents for the federal government to find new ways of interfering in people's personal lives. At least some of the interference will likely be abhorrent to the religious right.

All very excellent points.  But Powell fails to carry his argument to its logical conclusion -- its not so much federal control of marriage that's abhorrent as government control period.  Why should the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania exert that latitude of control over marital and, by default, nonmarital relationships? 

We've already seen examples of the damage that the amendments can do vis a vis blasting domestic violence convictions out of the water for unmarried couples.  People of faith should rethink this because its not just the great unwashed sinners who run into this wall of control.  If your engaged virginic daughter is beaten by her fiancee, she may have no legal recourse.  If he waits until they are married to beat her, she's all set.  That makes no fucking sense.

Powell wraps up with a call to the conservative faithful to live up to their own ideals rather than imposing them on others:

If they really want to promote traditional marriage, conservative people of faith should do two things:

First, they could marry someone of the opposite sex and set an example of how beautiful such unions can be.

Second, rather than working to close off the rights of gays, they should use their political efforts to abolish the obnoxious marriage tax penalty. Then all people of every sect and philosophy would owe them a debt of gratitude.

I'd go a bit further.  If the conservatives want to preserve the institution of marriage and protect families, they should put down their fetus signs and sign up as a foster family.  It is the best way to help put a family back together.

While he deftly minces closer to his own heterosexual-style wedding to the lovely and talented Roberta, our good friend and lesbian-lover John McIntire gave gay marriage a big old shout out in his local blog, MacYapper.com. 

In spite of his fondness for large-fonted bold-faced type (I always wondered what his type was), McIntire adroitly dissects the bigot-fawning behavior of Arlen Specter, Dubya and pretty much the entire Republican party (plus Democrat Ben Nelson).

Not to mention members of the general public who like to pussy-foot around their homophobic principles (type faced reduced for non-yelling like reading):

*To those who ask, "why, just because I'm against gay marriage, does thatmake me a bigot or a homophobe?" I extend my sympathies.
You're not necessarily either of those.*You could just be an imbecile.

Edith Bell of Highland Park has got it right:

Mr. Casey is also correct that Pennsylvanians' concerns are health care, the war in Iraq and a living wage, not gay marriage or abortion rights.

Yet both our federal and state legislative bodies are compelled to whip Americans into a puritanical frenzy over anti-gay marriage amendments.  There's no sense in unwhipping (dewhipping?) them.

What we need are constructive solutions to the real problems -- a health insurance plan, a withdrawal plan, etc.  Edith names our great fear:

It is imperative for Mr. Casey to take a stand on at least these important issues, so that we can vote for something positive and not just the "lesser of two evils," which still is evil. I believe, many people will sit out the upcoming election if there are no constructive proposals by the candidate.

We will be stuck with Sen. Santorum for another six years.

I heard Mr. Casey speak with John McIntire last week I wanted him to do well and was pleased when he worked up some passion on particular issues.  If only he could do that across the board.  I was listening for his solutions.  He said he'll be issuing policies over the coming months. 

In the meantime, keep in mind that protecting marriage from marauding homosexuals is not a priority for Pennsylvanians.  No matter what Darryl Metcalfe spews out his hateful little mouth. 

Good job, Edith.