The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
At least the Italian court ruled that the discrimination in this case was outrageous.
An Italian court has ruled the government must pay 100,000 euros ($157,700) in damages to a man who was told to retake a driving test because he was homosexual.
When 26 year-old Danilo Giuffrida told doctors he was gay at his medical examination for military service, they passed the information to the transport ministry, who told him he must repeat his driving test or have his licence withdrawn due to his "sexual identity disturbance."
Giuffrida agreed to re-take his test, passed it for a second time, but the ministry renewed his licence for just one year rather than the usual 10 years because of his homosexuality.
OK folks, we have to think of some other delicious euphamisms to compete against "sexual identity disturbance."
After 8 years of effort on the part of hundreds of students, parents, educators and civil rights groups, The Florida Safe Schools Coalition celebrates the passage today of a statewide anti-bullying bill.
During today's unanimous vote, Senators zeroed in on the issue of whether the broad prohibition on bullying requires schools to address specific forms of harassment, including anti-gay bullying.
Senator Nan Rich asked, "Does the bill prohibit harassment based on a student's actual or perceived disability, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, physical appearance, sexual orientation or other distinguishing personal characteristic in the exactly the same way that it prohibits sexual, racial or religious harassment, which are specified in the bill?"
"Yes it does," said Senator Baker, the bills sponsor.
In so doing, sponsors in the House and Senate made clear the legislative intent requires schools to ensure those protections at the local level.
"Today's passage of the anti-bullying law represents the culmination of an eight-year effort by a strong coalition of over 100 organizations dedicated to the safety of Florida's students," said Nadine Smith, Executive Director for Equality Florida. "The legislature has made clear that any school that fails to prevent and respond to anti-gay bullying and to protect every student will be in violation of this law and will face the consequences. We will hold them accountable."
Good news here as signatures came up short, but the fundies will still get a chance to turn in more sigs to get the measure on the ballot. From Fairness for All Families:
Apparently the "glitch" at the Division of Elections caused an over count of 27,000 signatures for the marriage petition. Instead of hitting the 611.009 mark, the opposition is at 589,020 as of Jan 10th.
HOWEVER, they have until Feb 1st to turn in signatures and that means the Jan 29th Primary gives them an obvious focus to ID the last wave of signatures. In addition, there will be legal battles if they fall short to place this on the ballot that will leave this an open questions and one we will have to continue to organize against. Many states that put all their hopes in defeating this via legal intervention ended up ill prepared when an 11th hour ruling placed it before voters.
Primary day is January 29th, and Fairness for All Families is asking for volunteers to work the polls and explain the ramifications of the amendment to voters.
With widespread participation by you, your friends and family, we will take full advantage of this chance to talk to voters face-to-face about the harmful consequences of the deceptively named "marriage protection amendment."
NAACP Chairman Julian Bond on why the amendment must be defeated.
Of course this amendment doesn't protect anyone's marriage. However, it does take away protections and benefits like healthcare from all unmarried couples - gay and straight. This amendment goes far beyond marriage by banning civil unions and dismantling domestic partner benefits that seniors, teachers, police officers and firefighters rely on in more than 17 communities across the state
On January 29th Fairness needs your help at a morning (6:45-9:30 am) or afternoon (4:00-7:00 pm) shift, or both! We'll provide you with training and the materials to work wherever you are. Defeating this amendment will require action from Key West to Pensacola and everywhere in between.
Register here, contribute to Fairness for All Families here.
Frank Cerabino, in a Palm Beach Post article that all but calls Florida governor Charlie Crist a closet case, points out why the proponents of an amendment that would bans gays and lesbians from marrying are going to have a tough time finding public right-wingers to jump on the hate bandwagon.
Most other states brought out their gay bunker-buster artillery during the George W. Bush midterm election three years ago.
And next year's election bogeyman has already been booked. We're supposed to be afraid of that horde of foreign-tongued, brown-skinned invaders from the south who mow our lawns, tar our roofs and clean our toilets for bargain-basement wages.
But Florida, as it is in so many endeavors, is behind the curve. So we're still dealing with the gay menace, which is apparently a threat to my 27-year marriage.
The movement to place the amendment on the ballot was led by Sunshine State fundies, but it was also bankrolled by the Florida GOP. With that backing, the required number of signatures has been obtained to put the measure on in 2008.
Charlie Crist, who was supportive of the need to discriminate against the state's gays and lesbians when he was running for governor, has, all of a sudden, found himself withdrawing waffling, seemingly uncomfortable with the idea of taking a firm stand to protect heterosexual civil marriage. I wonder why...
...Three years ago, when the initiative started, Florida had a married governor.
But now we have Charlie Crist, whose one marriage lasted for six months, and who, despite his good looks, position of power and occupancy of a big, empty mansion in Tallahassee, can't seem to land a steady girlfriend.
He's no help at all. And even though he signed a petition to support the same-sex-marriage ban while he was running for office, he says he's not interested in pushing the issue anymore.
"It's not something that moves me," he said last week.
Maybe what moves him is the possibility of some new information hitting the MSM that could be, well, politically unsavory, who knows?
Not one to take Ann Coulter's forked tongue-lashing laying down (how's that for mental imagery?) the Huckster has come out with a response to her article accusing him of not hating the beloved gays enough via his response to the Lawrence v. Texas ruling.
Ann Coulter's comments are based on a response I made during a radio call-in show in which a caller asked what I thought about the Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas. At the time I had not read the ruling and was basing my opinion on the summary by the caller. After reading the decision I believe it is obvious that the ruling was wrongly decided.
Lawrence v. Texas is an extreme example of judicial activism. It could, in fact, be inappropriately used to attack our marriage laws nationwide.
I am in agreement with the dissent by Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas:
"[The ruling] dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'?"
Furthermore, As Justice Thomas said, we might disagree with the wisdom of a law, but that is the province of the Legislature, not unelected judges. No such activist Justices will be appointed as long as I am President.
I wish Ms. Coulter had contacted me or my campaign to discuss my position in detail before writing her column. I would have appreciated the opportunity to clarify this matter.
Such a promsing candidate that Huckabee. Hat tip, Good As You.
Every state in the Southeast, save North Carolina and Florida, has voted to amend their constitutions to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. However, the Sunshine State now faces the prospect of joining that discriminatory club as the rabid fundamentalists have managed to obtain enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot for the November 2008 elections.
The amendment says, "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
Florida requires 611,009 valid signatures to place an item on the ballot. Florida4Marriage collected 612,192 according to the Secretary of State, some of those signatures till require verification. Florida4Marriage said it will continue to collect and submit signatures right up until the January 29 deadline.
The ballot measure was written by the conservative Christian law firm of Liberty Counsel. "This is an historic day and the next big step to permanently protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said its chair Mathew Staver.
Equality Florida and other LGBT rights groups plan to challenge the results of the right-wing petition drive, and mount a campaign to turn the tide. A ballot measure must garner 60% of the vote to pass. Nadine Smith of Equality Florida is ready to marshal the forces -- and knows that this hate amendment can be turned away, noting that "They picked a fight in Florida in 2008 for one reason- Florida is a must win Presidential battleground."
No one believes this will protect anyone's marriage. And it doesn't simply affirm Florida's longstanding ban on marriage equality for gay couples. It goes much further by taking away existing domestic partnership protections essential to unmarried Floridians - gay and straight. In Michigan, domestic partnership benefits have been stripped away and similar efforts are underway in Kentucky as a result of passing similar language.
That is why more than 200 state and local organizations including civil rights organizations and seniors, faith, business, campus and community groups across the state have banded together to form the Fairness for All Families Coalition.
We can win in Florida. We can defeat this in a battleground state with the whole world watching.
We can win by driving fairminded voters to the polls. We can win by harnessing this issue to motivate young voters who turnout in record number when these measures are on the ballot. We can win because Floridians are rejecting prejudice and they are waking up to the simple fact that they have a personal stake in keeping the government from becoming an obstacle in caring for the people they love.
And look at which GOP Clown Car occupant is on board with the "family values" crowd in the state for enshrining discrimination into its constitution.
I applaud the work of Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage. Their efforts will give the people of Florida a voice on this very important subject. I strongly believe in the time honored principle of marriage being a union between one man and one woman, the foundation of any civilized society. Florida's Marriage Amendment will have my support in 2008. As President, I will appoint judges who apply the law, not make it up from the bench. We should not be held subject to judicially created social policy, and I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to defend the institution of marriage.
Nadine's call to action in light of this kind of blather:
Get your friends, retired relatives, ex-girlfriends, classmates...who live in Florida to sign the Pledge To Vote NO petition.
Send a note of encouragement to the students, seniors, staff, phone bankers, canvassers, and all the volunteers working hard to drive a final stake through the heart of these meanspirited political wedge issues that make it harder for our families to protect and care for each other.
Last August, two members of the Board of Trustees of Palm Beach Community College killed a proposal which would have granted the college's full-time employees the ability to purchase health insurance for their domestic partners.
But soon, the college's employees will be able to purchase health insurance for their pets.
On November 16, Dr. Ellen Grace, PBCC's Director of Human Relations notified the college's full-time employees that "the college has added pet insurance as an available option to employees through payroll deduction." [A copy of Dr. Grace's e-mail is below the fold.]
"When it comes to providing health PBCHRC Logoinsurance, Palm Beach Community College prefers puppies to partners," said Rand Hoch, President of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.
The Council, a local nonprofit civil rights organization, has been encouraging the college to provide domestic partnership benefits since 2005.
"While many pet owners consider their dogs and cats part of their families, there is a basic disconnect when an employer will insure an employee's pet but not an employee's partner, said Deidre Newton, a PBCC graduate who serves as Vice President of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.
"The college's offer to insure pets within months of denying insurance for domestic partners is unbelievably insensitive," said Hoch.
"Last summer's decision not to offer domestic partner health insurance is irrational, since the college does not have to pay any portion of health insurance premium to insure an employee's partner," said Newton.
"The cost to PBCC of covering a domestic partner is the same as covering a pet," Newton added. "Neither costs the college a single dollar since the employee is responsible for the cost to add their partner or pet."
In response to the college's pet insurance announcement, Hoch sent a letter to PBCC President Dennis P. Gallon.
And look at which GOP Clown Car occupant 
