At breakfast this morning Savannah’s The Olde Harbour Inn, I was joined by a couple from Connecticut who had just returned from the early service at Christ’s Church. Built in 1733, the Episcopal church is the oldest in Georgia.

When I asked how the service was, they looked troubled and upset. It turns out that on this very Sunday the church announced that it, like many other Episcopal churches, had split off to join with the Ugandan Episcopal church in order to avoid the American church’s fondness for gay priests and gay marriage.

My breakfast-mates were not happy; they’re of the school that Christ told us to love everyone.

“We’re having a vote next week on the church’s mission,” the gentlemanly husband of the couple told me. Then, with a smile, “It’s not going to be controversial.” The more liberal New Englanders won’t be following the more conservative Southerners on this one.

(What’s funny is that last night while Incredible Wife and I were waiting for the start of a walking tour, we were sitting in Johnson Square, next to Christ’s Church, and talking about the Episcopalian’s split — unknowing that it would split a bit more asunder the very next morning.

No Comments yet »

Bad days are ahead for the Anglican church, I’d say, as its Archbishop panders to the country’s most wealthy, liberal … and morally questionable … believers. Reports the Times of London:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is to hold a secret Communion service for gay clergy and their partners in London.

Williams will celebrate the Communion at the unfortunately named St Peter’s cathedral at tony Eaton Square, comparable to dishing up the wine and wafer in Cambridge or Nob Hill.

What’s really interesting about this article is how it shows the duplicitous, double standard ways of the liberals when it comes to homosexuality. There’s nothing wrong with gays, they say, but by all means, keep someone’s gayness a big secret … unless they’re conservatives, of course.

The event has been organised under Chatham House rules, which prevent any disclosure of the discussions. The event will take place at 10am on November 29. A list of the names of those who will be present will be seen only by Dr Williams. It will be shredded afterwards.

Shredded?!

Look, my dear old Archbishop chap, you’re either OK with gays or you’re not. They’re either just like us, or they’re not, so if you’re not shredding the names of clergy who attend your routine Communions, don’t shred the names of the folks attending the gay ones. And if you’re not offering a straight Lord’s Supper, don’t offer a gay one.

In this matter I am unusually in accord with the Rev Richard Kirker of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement who blasted the Archie for trying to pull off the ceremony in secret. I’m no fan of secrecy, if for no reason than it’s rarely a successful strategy. Kirker’s got some other problems:

“I don’t think it is a good thing in many ways. The conditions of secrecy are quite at variance with the openness of his meetings with a panoply of antigay church leaders. We are astonished at the attempts to make the meeting clandestine when it would be far better to have this in the open. The fact that he wants to go there without anyone knowing he’s going there makes it quite clear that he has an attitude towards the event that he doesn’t have at any other meetings.”

All and all, it’s trouble Williams doesn’t need in a church that’s barely holding together, pulled one way by those who believe the Bible is there for a living purpose and the other way by those who think the Book is a nice, but quaint and disposable, collection of literary imagery.

No Comments yet »

It was gay pride day in San Francisco yesterday, and you can see that it was a bit more colorful than the local conservative Republican pride day here in South OC — an event that is so conservative no one shows for it.

Look who showed up at the parade — Elizabeth Edwards, mom of two, wife of a somewhat girly presidential candidate.

Whatever she said to the members of the Alice B. Toklas (famous for hash-laced brownies, as I recall) Democratic Club in an effort to pander to whatever voters her odd husband might appeal to, it ultimately wasn’t noteworthy enough to make the SFChron’s coverage. But this did:

The parade included a retinue of politicians, from Mayor Gavin Newsom, who received applause and shouts of gratitude for his sanction of same-sex unions, to gay political leaders including Assemblyman Mark Leno, Sen. Carole Migden, and Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty.

There were also an array of corporations with contingents in the parade, such as Google, Wells Fargo, Delta, Bud Light, Bank of America, Kaiser, Comcast and Macy’s, to name a few.

And there were the more homespun groups — such as the lesbian midwives, with a dozen or so marchers — and the assorted drag queens, lion dancers, stilt walkers, balloon men and naked people. There was even a group holding a banner reading, “Straights for gay rights.”

And, of course, let’s not forget the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an offense to most right-thinking Catholics, who probably would not have found solace when the Catholic Gays and Lesbians marched by in bikinis and headdresses.

Thank God for San Francisco. Without it, where would all these folks feel normal?

Photos: SFChron

No Comments yet »

As reason number infinity minus one to not subject your children to public schools, I submit this photo from the June 25, 2005 issue of Teachers United, showing LA County Unified School District teachers participating in a gay pride parade.

Note the T-shirt of the guy on the left in the back: Buck Fush.

Note the sign he [?] is carrying: Teach Respect.

Note: You can’t teach respect; you can only earn it or deserve it, or neither earn nor deserve it.

hat-tip: Dennis Prager

No Comments yet »

Where’s GLAAD? They’re apparently too busy preparing for tomorrow night’s Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Media Awards to take note of some very real — as opposed to their usual perceived outrages — threats against lesbians.

Also mum: The ACLU, Human Rights Watch (both too busy bashing the U.S.) and the entire state of Massachusetts (taking off for a gay wedding). But BBC has the story:

A Nigerian lesbian who “married” four women last weekend in Kano State has gone into hiding from the Islamic police, with her partners.

Under Sharia law, adopted in the state seven years ago, homosexuality and same-sex marriages are outlawed and considered very serious offences. (Sing along with me, “Everybody, let’s get stones!”)

The theatre where the elaborate wedding celebration was held on Sunday has been demolished by Kano city’s authorities.

Lesbianism is also illegal under Nigeria’s national penal code. …

Islam says a man can take up to four wives if he is able to support them.

“As defenders of the Sharia laws, we shall not allow this unhealthy development to take root in the state,” the Hisbah’s deputy commander Ustaz Abubakar Rabo told Nigeria’s This Day newspaper.

Mr Rabo told the BBC’s Focus on Africa programme that if the women were found guilty of lesbianism they faced one of two punishments.

For a married woman the offence would be considered adultery for which the punishment is death by stoning. A single woman would be caned.

For moral and societal reasons, I’m all for not letting lesbian or gay marriages take root, but stoning or caning? Only Islam forces its beliefs on others with such brutality.

The gay community, dominated as it is by Libs, has not been completely silent on the issue, but you have to dig pretty deep into the GLAAD site to find only a little exposure of what goes on behind the Allah Curtain — and when you find it, it’s decidedly strange, like this story:

Human Rights Watch: Iranian Teens Were Hanged for Rape, Not Gay Sex But Questions Remain
by Rex Wockner

The two male teenagers hanged in Mashad, Iran, July 19 were executed not for having sex with each other, as has been reported, but for raping a 13-year-old boy, Human Rights Watch is claiming.

The New York Times and the Times of London separately reported the same thing.

Mahmoud Asgari, 18, and Ayaz Marhoni, 19, allegedly raped the boy at least 14 months prior to their executions, meaning at least one, and perhaps both, of them were minors at the time. …

So, if they were hanged for rape instead of being gay, is Sharia all right with the gay community? And if they were hanged for being gay, what’s’ GLAAD to do about it? The organization’s Web site is full of solicitation for funds and calls to action — but its Muslim/Arab American page includes no calls to action against Islam’s inhumanity to gays.

It’s a tough trap for the gay/lesbian/whatever community: Speak out against Islamic extremism and align with all the Bush-buddies, or let the Islamists kill the gays and keep your liberal banner waving proud.

Decisions, decisions …

No Comments yet »

Women’s Wear Daily knows a thing or two about gay men, dahling, so it gaily reported on a story in Out that alluded to a “gay mafia” at the NY Times:

Does a scattershot list of gay Timesmen a mafia make? According to Out magazine’s media-heavy Power 50 list, which ranked several New York Times reporters a collective seventh on the list, it does, even if many of its made men don’t actually know each other. “Yes, there really is a queer cabal in the Eastern elite media, and it works on West 43rd Street in New York City,” reads the accompanying text

Those outed (I won’t use their names) include the editor of T magazine, an assistant managing editor, a national correspondent, the advertising columnist, a style reporter a theater critic and a restaurant critic.

A theater or restaurant critic doesn’t have much influence over how the gay agenda is presented, but a national reporter, an assistant managing editor and a magazine editor certainly do. Out certainly thinks so:

As for the use of the ‘M’ word related to the assorted journalists, Aaron Hicklin, editor of Out, told WWD: “The Times still has an old-fashioned power that I think the Web has tried to replace but been less successful at. It’s still a cultural arbiter….Should we have used the word mafia? Only inasmuch as mafia is shorthand for people whose combined weight is fearsome.” And according to Out, these Timesmen are “one group you don’t want to run into in a dark alley.”

Agreed on that last point, for sure. Fortunately, Elliot suggests a defense:

“What are we going to do?” wondered Elliot. “Beat them with the Sunday Times?”

So much has been written over the years about gay teachers and their ability to influence (or, more sinisterly, corrupt or even abuse) the next generation, but little has been made of gays in the media, and the potential they have to position the gay agenda as mainstream.

Perhaps we should. Look at who’s who in the top ten of Out’s Power 50. People who worry about Jewish control of the media are whacked; people who ponder gay influence and control have reasons to be concerned. (All copy below is from Out except for my comments in brackets.)

1 David Geffen
What does $4 billion-plus buy for a Hollywood entertainment powerhouse? Your name on UCLA’s medical school; great American art (Pollock, de Kooning, Johns); and headline-making influence over Democratic presidential politics: When Geffen supported and later dissed Hillary earlier this year, the fur flew between the candidates’ camps. “If you’re his enemy, you might as well kill yourself,” Howard Rosenman once told The New York Times. And to think it all began in the William Morris Agency mailroom. [Note: Geffen has not given up on plans to acquire the LA Times.]

2 Anderson Cooper
Anointed an “emo-anchor” by The New York Observer for his coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the rise of Anderson Cooper heralded the simultaneous demise of the Dan Rather-Tom Brokaw era of dry efficiency. Despite an unfortunate side trip into reality TV in 2001 as host of ABC’s late, unlamented The Mole, his instincts have served him well: His annual salary at CNN was reportedly doubled this year, from $2 million to $4 million.

3 Ellen DeGeneres
With over 2.4 million viewers on a daily basis, The Ellen DeGeneres Show is an essential stop for any celebrity peddling their wares, and her breakthrough gig at the Oscars only elevated her Hollywood stature. The fact that seemingly everyone loves an out-and-proud lesbian makes her powerful—that and the $65 million she’s reportedly worth. [Lately, DeGeneres has played down her sexuality and appears a very different woman than she was in earlier days ... but things can change.]

4 Tim Gill
Gill is the country’s biggest gay political donor and “the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics,” according to a major story in The Atlantic. After founding and making his fortune at publishing software giant Quark, Gill moved on to philanthropy; in January he launched the Gill Action Fund. His guiding strategy: Giving to many key local and state candidates is more cost-effective than large donations to a few national candidates. [Gill has donated over $100 million to LGBT causes, and is a big Dem campaign contributor. The foundation is headed by a former Log Cabin republican, however.]

5 Barney Frank
When the Democrats took over control of the House and Senate this year, the outspoken, popular, and frequently quoted Massachusetts Democratic congressman assumed chairmanship of the House Committee on Financial Services. [I'm sure Frank is very popular with Out's readers, but I can't say that I share the feeling.]

6 Rosie O’Donnell
The View is much better since O’Donnell took over as moderator last fall. Her opinionated stances and battles with the Donald have fanned a huge ratings rise. Plus, her R Family Vacations have elevated the world of gay travel. [The View is much better? Yeah, and Bush blew up the WTC.]

7 The New York Times Gay Mafia Richard Berke, Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliot, Adam Nagourney, Stefano Tonchi, Eric Wilson
Yes, there really is a queer cabal in the Eastern elite media, and it works on West 43rd Street in New York City. Style editor Tonchi, style reporter Wilson, assistant managing editor Berke, national correspondent Nagourney, and advertising columnist Elliot can set agendas in their areas of expertise. In the case of restaurant critic Bruni and theater critic Brantley, the fate of fledgling enterprises rests in their hands. This is one group you don’t want to run into in a dark alley.

8 Marc Jacobs
One of the most recognizable names in fashion, Jacobs helms his own label and is also artistic director for Louis Vuitton. His empire extends beyond clothing (including his acclaimed spring shows in New York, London, and Paris) with new fragrances for Coty, home decor for Waterford, and watches. For his opulent holiday ball last December, he arrived disguised as a pigeon. [Wow, a pigeon.]

9 Andrew Tobias
He’s not just a personal finance guru (The Only Investment Guide You’ll Ever Need) and memoirist (The Best Little Boy in the World), he’s the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee and a major fund-raiser for the party. [Repeating, the treasurer of the DNC.]

10 Brian Graden
As president of entertainment for MTV Networks’ music channels, Graden oversees the programming on those arbiters of youth culture MTV, CMT, MTV2, and VH1. Since taking the reins at MTV in 1997, MTV has been the number 1 basic-cable network in the advertiser-coveted age 12-24 demographic, and after adding VH1 to his responsibilities in 2002, ratings have risen there an astonishing 95%. He championed the ever-expanding Logo—now in over 26 million homes—and serves as its president as well. [Woe, woe, ye of the next generation!]

Homophobe disclaimer: This article is about the gay agenda, not gays. Some of my best friends are gays. Really. All of these folks have every right to their jobs, but we also have the right to ponder the consequences of having pro-gay agenda powerhouses like these in positions that afford them so much opportunity to move that agenda throughout society.

No Comments yet »

Yesterday, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network was all worked up because Joint Chiefs of Staff prez. General Peter Pace called homosexuals immoral.

But when it turns out the gays, lesbians and whatever elses the Network represents are actually being treated better by the military, well, it’s Big Snit, Act Two:

The number of homosexuals discharged from the U.S. military under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy dropped significantly in 2006, according to Pentagon figures released today, continuing a sharp decline since the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts began and leading critics to charge that the military is retaining gay and lesbian personnel because it needs them in a time of war.

According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 who were discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001, but in the past five years that average has fallen below 730.

Well, that should make advocates of gays in the military happy, shouldn’t it? Even if it makes the guy in the foxhole a bit nervous.

Think again, Breeder. Here’s what the gay advocates at the Network say:

“It is hypocritical that the Pentagon seems to retain gay and lesbian service members when they need them most, and fires them when it believes they are expendable.” (WaPo)

So do I have that straight (if that’s the right term)? The gays want to be in the military as long as they’re not needed, but if they’re needed, well, they have a big problem with that?

C’mon, you emotional babies! You’re not representing gays well by acting like a bunch of sissies in a mad pout.

No Comments yet »

It’s been leaked by senior aides that Marine Gen. Peter Pace won’t apologize for calling homosexuality immoral — despite a lot of lip-flapping from homosexuality advocacy groups.

You’ve certainly heard Pace’s comment by now:

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

Hangin’ right out there with the truth, unafraid. Like he was a Marine or something. As expected, the reaction was swift:

“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,” the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site. (source)

Interesting … there are currently about 1.4 million people serving in the armed services, so this group appears to be going with gays being less than 5% of the population, not 10%. Cool … but I digress.

The Massachusetts Dem (natch!) who introduced legislation to replace the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy with full acceptance of gay, lesbian, transgender and who knows what else in the military also was having a hissy little snit over the General:

“General Pace’s statements aren’t in line with either the majority of the public or the military. He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing” and that the military is “turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination.” (source)

Is that so? Meehan didn’t bother to quote a source, most likely because he was, as Incredible Wife has noted of my opinions from time to time, talking out his butt. Verification of his butt-talk comes from Jim, the Johnny Appleseed of story-planting in C-SM, who sent these AOL survey results over a bit ago:

How do you feel about Pace’s comments?

Agree: 64%
Disagree: 33%
Not sure: 3%

Yeah, yeah, it’s not scientific — but considering that most polls that claim to accurately predict the national opinion do so on the basis of about 1,500 votes, let’s not kid overselves. General Pace’s comments are mainstream and acceptance of them is about on a par with votes in support of various states’ initiatives proclaiming that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

In an interesting sidebar to the noisiness of the gay lobby, it’s interesting to note that Pace also said this:

“As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior.”

So, where are the howls of protest from the adultry lobby? Anyone? Anyone?

No Comments yet »

Judge Mark Wolf’s decision in the most recent “What in the heck are they teaching our kids?!” case of Patrick v. Hurley opens a pretty wide door:

“The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children. Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”

In this case, two couples didn’t think teaching their gradeschoolers about homosexuality was a particularly good way of preparing their kids to become productive citizens of the American democracy. Tough, Judge Wolf tells them, you’ve just got to shut up and let educators, who know more than you do, take care of educating your children.

Under Wolf’s’ ruling, parents have no say whatsoever about any subject whatsoever. Protest schools teaching white supremecy? Too bad; you’ve got to let them teach. If the schools want to slam Bush and recognize Muslim holy days while banning all things Christian, parents better just put up and shut up.

Jeff Jacoby summarizes the the foolishness of letting someone as stupid as Judge Wolf — yes, he may be intelligent, but that doesn’t mean he’s not stupid — in the Boston Globe:

The only way to end the political battles over schooling is to depoliticize the schools. And the only way to do that is to separate school and state.

Parents should have the same freedom in educating their kids that they have in clothing, housing, and feeding them. You wouldn’t let the government decide what time your kids should go to bed, or which doctor should treat their chicken pox, or how they should spend their summer vacation, or which religion they should be instructed in. On matters serious and not so serious, parents are entrusted with their children’s well-being. Why should schooling be an exception?

The answer to that “‘why” is simple: Bad judges like Mark Wolf who cannot see the stupidity of giving decision-making ppower to educators who rely on “zero tolerance” programs because they don’t trust themselves to make sound decisions.

hat-tip: Real Clear Politics

No Comments yet »