Again, from the AJC
I'm a proud Southern boy. Born and raised in North Alabama; I'm not ashamed of it. The South has a backwards reputation, but a lot of us have worked our entire lives through the people we meet to change the perception that we're all two-toothed, barefoot hillbillies that expect our wives (if we had them) to be in the trailer-home taking care of the seven young-uns while she's pregnant with the eighth. I know it's hard for some people to believe, but some of us Southerners actually graduated from high school, went to college and got a degree, and actually hold jobs for more than three weeks at a time.
And, some of us even understand that the year is 2004. But the holier-than-thou, religious zealots who are hell-bent pushing their version of religion on me and on keeping this part of the country locked in 1904 irk my ass to no end.
For example, Zell Miller (D-GA) has introduced a bill into the US Senate that would essentially nullify portions of the 1st Ammendment:
Federal courts could not curb state court rulings that allow an "acknowledgment of God" under a measure two senators introduced Thursday as a response to the dispute over a Ten Commandments display in Alabama."I think it's a good time to have a debate on it," said Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.), one of the sponsors. "We'll run it up the flagpole and see how many salute."
Miller argued in a speech in the Senate chamber that the framers of the Constitution never intended a separation of church and state. Over the past few years, he said, the United States has undergone a "deficit of decency" and society needs a reinjection of God.
Much work on the bill was done by Roy Moore, ousted as Alabama's chief justice after refusing a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. Miller said he has "great respect and admiration for Moore."
The other Senate sponsor is Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). Rep. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican, is sponsoring the House version. Moore declined to comment until today's news conference.
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the proposal is just the latest attempt to punish courts for unfavorable rulings.
"It is itself an unconstitutional end run around the separation of powers," Lynn said. "It tries to subvert the role of the courts in the defense of fundamental civil liberties."
The full text of Zell Miller's speech is on his website in the form of a press release. Yeah, he sent this out as a press release. Some highlights:
[...] The Culture of Far Left America was displayed in a startling way during the Super Bowl's now infamous half-time show. A show brought to us courtesy of Value-Les Moonves and the pagan temple of Viacom-Babylon.I asked the question yesterday, how many of you have ever run over a skunk with your car? I have many times and I can tell you, the stink stays around for a long time. You can take the car through a car wash and it's still there. So the scent of this event will long linger in the nostrils of America.
I'm not talking just about an exposed mammary gland with a pull-tab attached to it. Really no one should have been too surprised at that. Wouldn't one expect a bumping, humping, trashy routine entitled 'I'm going to get you naked' to end that way.
Does any responsible adult ever listen to the words of this rap-crap? I’d quote you some of it, but the Sergeant of Arms would throw me out of here, as well he should. And then there was that prancing, dancing, strutting, rutting guy evidently suffering from jock itch because he kept yelling and grabbing his crotch. But then, maybe there’s a crotch grabbing culture I’ve unaware of.
But as bad as all this was, the thing that yanked my chain the hardest was seeing that ignoramus with his pointed head stuck up through a hole he had cut in the flag of the United States of America, screaming about having ‘a bottle of scotch and watching lots of crotch.’ Think about that.
This is the same flag that we pledge allegiance to. This is the flag that is draped over coffins of dead young uniformed warriors killed while protecting Kid Crock’s bony butt. He should be tarred and feathered, and ridden out of this country on a rail. Talk about a good reality show, there’s one for you.
I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Senator Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. And S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. And today I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways.
In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder not only with my Senate co-sponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama but, more importantly, with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us in.
Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that’s not so. And I’ll bet you most of them will say ‘Well, sure.’ And some will point out, ‘it’s in the First Amendment.’
Wrong! Read it! It says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Where is the word ‘separate’? Where are the words ‘church’ or ‘state.’
They are not there. Never have been. Never intended to be. Read the Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was Anglican or Catholic or some other.
[...]
Remember this entry from yesterday about the invited preachers into the Georgia House of Representatives pushing their own morality and political agendas?
Well, there's more:
Rhonda Cook at the Atlanta Journal Constitution tells us that
The "preacher of the day" in the state Senate this morning blasted last week's decision by Rep. Terry Coleman (D-Eastman), the speaker of the House of Representatives, to ask ministers appearing in that chamber to limit their comments to the gospel and to avoid voicing their opinions on issues before lawmakers — such as gay marriage."We are compelled to speak the truth about sin," the Rev. Bryant Wright of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church said during the time reserved at the beginning of each legislative day for a religious message.
Wright read the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which guarantees the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech — and said the restrictions suggested by Coleman a week ago were similar to those espoused by Communist Russia in dealing with the church.
"The awesome responsibility of the preachers of the gospel is to preach that gospel and hope people will be receptive," Wright said.
He praised the Senate for allowing guest ministers, rabbis, priests and imams the freedom to speak on any topic and for taking a stand against gay marriages, a proposed constitutional amendment that has passed a Senate committee and is awaiting floor action.
Last Friday, Coleman said he planned to warn guest preachers not to address issues pending before the Georgia House, after a gay lawmaker complained about a recent prayer there.
Richard Walker, senior pastor of Macland Baptist Church in Powder Springs, had told lawmakers they needed to seek guidance from God as they faced legislation that would limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
Drenner said if the daily ministers have a "moral agenda, it should be left in their churches for their own congregation."
The Legislature has been opening its day with a prayer since 1861. The "preacher of the day" usually is a constituent invited by individual legislators and usually is a Protestant.
from the Op-Ed section of the Atlanta Journal Constitution
Susan Wells is a member of the AJC editorial board and she says:
I'm a lesbian soccer mom and I'm fed up.If you want to talk family values, I'm one of the most family-oriented people I know -- and one of the strictest parents. I even drive an SUV, for crying out loud.
Yet I'm accused of trying to destroy the very fabric of American life.
"If we have homosexual marriage mainstream, I can't even describe to you what our culture will be like," Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America, one of the leading anti-gay-marriage organizations, told Time magazine.
Do we really have that much clout, to change the whole culture? And if we did, how bad would it be to add more loving families to the American mix?
I don't feel so powerful in the face of the hatred that the right wing of the straight world levels at gay folks. Sometimes I feel afraid.
Fifteen years ago, when I began serious pursuit of becoming a parent, I inten-
ded to adopt. I found, however, that then, as now, it is dehumanizing to adopt if you are gay because you often are forced to lie about the basics of your life, no matter how perfectly suited you are to rear children.
Friends who adopted back then had to eliminate all evidence of their partners from the house and tell the social worker that the right man hadn't come along yet. Adoption is only slightly less difficult today. Witness the families in Florida who bravely challenged that state's law against gay adoption -- and lost.
It turned out to be easier -- though certainly not easy -- to bear my own child. I did that while in a long-term relationship with a partner who parented our daughter just like I did. She walked a screaming, colicky newborn in the middle of the night and escorted a kindergartner to first days of school, just like I did. But she has never had a legally protected relationship with her daughter because we were not allowed to marry and have those rights that every straight family takes for granted. We are no longer together, but she continues to have a close and supportive relationship with our child, unlike many absentee fathers.
I read about men and women who beat their children to death to exorcize the devil, or just because the baby's cries are irritating. I know children whose parents' neglect leaves them open to the temptations of drug abuse and early sex. I see small children wandering the streets late at night in neighborhoods near my house and wonder, who loves them?
Yet I recognize with heartbreaking clarity that if a board were set up to license motherhood, my application would be denied, while these accidental parents can procreate with no more preparation than, "Hey baby, turn over."
My desire to form a family would be considered dangerous and subversive; their lackadaisical and unconscious efforts would engender $1.5 billion in government aid to encourage "healthy" marriage (see President Bush's budget proposal).
If the genders matched the stereotypes, my family might be considered model. My daughter is a lovely, popular, academic overachiever whose most worrisome problem on any given day is whether her favorite jeans are clean enough to wear to school. That and whether she will encounter anyone who wants to mess with her about being the child of gay parents -- a reflection of the hatred being spewed by the president, in Congress, the Georgia Legislature and the media.
Her reaction to such taunts warms my heart. The last schoolmate with such an epithet -- and interestingly, they have been rare -- was met with a withering stare and, "Yes, my mother is a lesbian. If you have a problem with that, I've got a problem with you." Whereupon, her phalanx of chums gathered around her, shielding her from further teasing.
One of my daughter's many adult friends, whom she refers to as "my aunties," once told her she was being reared by a "pack of lesbian wolves." She's fond of telling that story to anyone who will listen. In fact, introductions of the aunties often include, "You know the wolves? She's one of them."
I have taken many cues from heterosexual friends and family whom I consider to be excellent parents -- parents who teach love in their homes. My parenting philosophy has always been that if I'm proud of myself, my child will be proud of me and herself, too. Despite the usual mistakes along the way, it seems to have worked pretty well, even in the face of a society that still maintains open season on people like me.
My daughter is a thoughtful young woman, in large part because she has been brought up with the knowledge that she is beloved and that much is expected of her. She also knows she has a posse of fierce bodyguards on whom she may rely, as well as a large cheering section at her many soccer games.
She has always been told, "Sweetie, the more people who love you, the better off you are." That's our family value.
I would extend and amend that advice to those whose "family values" run to hatred and fear. "Folks, the more people you love, the better off you will be."
Thanks to madlife.net for pointing out this editorial in the NY Times by Paul Krugman.
In it, Krugman gives his take on this years federal budget - "one of the four most dishonest budgets in the nation's history - the other three are the budgets released in 2001, 2002, and 2003."
[...] By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.
[...]
Operation Flight Suit was only slightly more over the top than other Bush photo-ops, like the carefully staged picture that placed Mr. Bush's head in line with the stone faces on Mount Rushmore. The goal is to suggest that it's unpatriotic to criticize the president, and to use his heroic image to block any substantive discussion of his policies.
In fact, those 27 photos grace one of the four most dishonest budgets in the nation's history — the other three are the budgets released in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Just to give you a taste: remember how last year's budget contained no money for postwar Iraq — and how administration officials waited until after the tax cut had been passed to mention the small matter of $87 billion in extra costs? Well, they've done it again: earlier this week the Army's chief of staff testified that the Iraq funds in the budget would cover expenses only through September.
[...]
Still, we may be on our way to an election in which Mr. Bush is judged on his record, not his legend. And that, of course, is what the White House fears.
w_w_w.f*e,m/a_l/e/c/e/l/e/b/r/i/t/y/./n/e/t///n/o/n/n/u/d/e/