FollowUp 6: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

The latest allegation against those endeavoring to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is from Evan Wynn, a Republican state legislator from Whitewater, in Southern Wisconsin.  He talked about writing legislation to make it illegal to pay for recall petition signatures with World Net Daily.

"I had a person, a constituent, who called and told me a friend had received $10 for signing the petition," he said. "The Government Accountability Board responded in a letter to me and said the statute doesn't say anything about recall petitions."

"But they'd like that changed," he said.

His short bill would do just that, adding a prohibition to state law against paying for those signatures.

"It's common sense that bribery's not a good thing," he told WND.

He said the bill could be considered as early as next month and adopted on a fast track shortly after. But he said the change would not impact the organized campaign to recall Walker, as those 540,000 signatures are due in January.

As I wrote previously, the groups organizing the petitions to recall the Governor say that they are not paying for signatures.  Channel 3000 has been covering the allegations.

WISC-TV followed up with the governor, to ask if he had proof of any recall circulators being brought in from out of out of state or paid to gather signatures.

"I haven't talked to any of the circulators, not at all," said Walker. "My assertion was that if they did what they did in Ohio, which was they paid circulators along with activists and they got close to a million there in a state about twice our size, if they do that, they'd be more than likely to get enough to get on the ballot.

"United Wisconsin and the Democratic Party assert they're not paying anyone except supervisory staff.

So, Mr. Wynn's contention appears to be off base.  At the end of the Channel 3000 article they confirm that the state has nothing.

The Government Accountability Board said Tuesday that it hasn't received any complaints or contact about any circulators being paid.

It wouldn't really matter if those circulating the petitions or those signing the petitions were paid, neither would be illegal under current Wisconsin laws.  But, this is just one of many ways that Governor Walker and his party are endeavoring to mislead voters in Wisconsin.  Mr. Wynn continued.

The governor then will have time to challenge individual names – and likely will be busy as state officials already have confirmed they would not arbitrarily remove signatures such as Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler if they were accompanied by a valid Wisconsin address.

This was picked up by Fox News and refuted by Talking Points Memo.

Fox News reporter Eric Shawn told viewers on Thursday that signatures from “Mickey Mouse” and “Adolf Hitler” were “allegedly on petitions in Wisconsin in the recall for Governor Scott Walker.” Fun little story with the potential to go viral? Absolutely. True? Not so much.

In fact, the original story that Shawn evidently built his report off of is about a strictly hypothetical situation discussed by members of the Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board who were asked what would happen if someone signed the petition as Mickey Mouse. There’s been no actual allegation that anyone actually signed the petition against Walker that way.

So, Mr. Wynn is continuing to play off of that hypothetical situation.  There are neither paid signatures on the petitions nor is there petition bloating in an attempt to fake enough signatures to recall the Governor.  There were threats from supporters of Governor Walker to destroy petitions which would be a felony offense in Wisconsin.

For those familiar with World Net Daily (famous along with Donald Trump for refusing to believe that President Obama has produced his real birth certificate), it is not surprising that their article gets a bit crazy.

Wynn told a Wisconsin television station the idea of activists paying for petition signatures is "outrageous."

Critics have said the attacks on conservative legislators and the governor are a typical "Alinsky" fight. Saul Alinsky was a radical who developed the confrontational political tactics that were used during the 1960s.

Barack Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Gamaliel Foundation.

Mr. Alinsky is an interesting choice to use for this comparison.  While he was an early Chicago community organizer, like Mr. Obama would be many years later, Mr. Alinsky was known as a leader of the "nonsocialist left".  That's not the way conservatives usually characterize Mr. Obama.

Sadly, this has become a national fight.  Conservative publication, Human Events, has a recent article which interviews Governor Walker.

“And don’t forget that here in Wisconsin, you don’t need a reason to recall someone from office,” Walker told us, noting that in the last two recall elections of governors—North Dakota’s Lynn Frazier in 1921 and Gray Davis of California in 2003—the former was for malfeasance in office and the latter for clearly breaking campaign promises he had made the year before.  The recall facing Walker, he noted, “is because I made promises of reform and have kept them.”

Walker also noted that while state law requires 25% of registered voters to have signed petitions, it is not required that they be voters in the last election, just that they are eligible to vote.  This means that college students who are just turning 18 and becoming eligible to vote may sign petitions to force a recall election.

The governor freely acknowledged that he will be outspent by his enemies, recalling how in recall elections against Republican state senators earlier this year, the union-backed opposition spent nearly $40 million, or twice as much as the GOP and its allies.

Again, this is meant to mislead.  Mr. Walker claims that the legislation that he has pushed through the legislature is what he promised during his campaigns, but that was one of many lies.  One Wisconsin Now has a press page that documents the malfeasance of Mr. Walker's term so far.

The last lie to point out in this post is on spending.  Mr. Walker complains that "union-backed opposition" is outspending him two to one.  But, that's not how it is seen from the perspective of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

At the outset of Wisconsin’s historic recall fight, GOP Gov. Scott Walker and his allies are outspending the other side on television by a margin of roughly 4-to-1, an advantage he’s expected to maintain in the weeks ahead.

The governor has already aired more than $1 million in broadcast ads since he hit the airwaves in mid-November, according to the ad-tracking firm Kantar Media CMAG.

When you include cable ads and time bought for spots that haven’t aired yet, Walker’s TV spending easily exceeds $2 million, according to two political sources tracking media buys.

Walker’s ability to dominate the opening phase of the race on television could be a key factor in a contest with huge national overtones -- America’s third-ever gubernatorial recall election, taking place in a battleground state in a presidential year.

The recall organizations are not paying for signatures, despite the allegation that they are.  Micky Mouse and Adolph Hitler are not signatures that have been found on the petitions as of this writing, despite the allegation that they are.  Those working to recall Governor Walker are not outspending him two to one as he alleges, he is outspending them four to one.  Mr. Walker needs to be forced to find other employment.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.

13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Repudiation: Republicans on Energy Production

We all remember the chant from 2008, Drill, Baby, Drill.  This year the Republican contenders are of the same opinion, if not using the same words.

The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power. -- Mitt Romney.

As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs. -- Ron Paul.

Today's high gas and energy prices are entirely a function of bad government policies. -- Newt Gingrich.

We believe that U.S. transportation energy should be addressed through increased domestic oil exploration and production, incorporating other energy sources as they become more economically competitive. The level of delay in the current leasing and permitting system is unacceptable, and prevents American companies from developing American resources. -- Rick Perry.

[W]e must start by eliminating the Obama Administration's roadblocks to oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, along the Outer Continental Shelf, and onshore - including in ANWR.  Furthermore, no new natural gas regulations, such as those being debated by Congress, should be enacted. -- Rick Santorum.

Those are today's top five according to recent polling.  Effectively, we are not producing enough domestic energy, so drill baby drill.

The problem with this fervor, aside from the devastating impact on our environment, is that we are producing domestic oil.  In fact, according to an article at today's Stars and Stripes, petroleum is the biggest 2011 export from the United States.

Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.

To be clear, we are also still importing vast amounts of fuel.  But the global energy markets are complex and petroleum is a fungible commodity.  And there is a price to pay for such exports.

There's at least one domestic downside to America's growing role as a fuel exporter. Experts say the trend helps explain why U.S. motorists are paying more for gasoline. The more fuel that's sent overseas, the less of a supply cushion there is at home.

Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says.

Refining companies won't say how much they make by selling fuel overseas. But analysts say those sales are likely generating higher profits per gallon than the fuel sold in the U.S. Otherwise, they wouldn't occur.

The price is a price that we, American consumers, pay while oil companies rake in the profits.

The five Big Oil companies earned over $32 billion in profits in the third-quarter of 2011, bring their overall profits for 2011 to a staggering $101 billion.

All of the Republican contenders are opposed to additional regulations for oil companies.  They want fewer regulations, more environmental degradation, and we pay at the gas pump.  Drill baby drill.  Enough!

Repudiation: Montana Wolf Kill Bounty

The mythology of the dangers of wolves is usually focused on the dangers to human beings.  Little Red Riding Hood and other fairy tales warn us of the likelihood that we will be attacked and killed by wolves.  In 2010, for the first time in a century, a human was killed by a wolf in the United States.  We are not prey that wolves prefer.  In fact, wolves are even more afraid of us than we are of them.  Here are some pages on facts about wolves from the Timberwolf Preservation Society and Defenders of Wildlife.

In all fairness, the Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife do not argue that wolves need to be killed to protect humans.  Rather, they are concerned about an imbalance of wolves and deer (including elk and moose).  The imbalance is real.  It is also fair to say that wolves have relatively few predators, notably humans.  Without humans hunting the wolves, nature would see the deer herds reduced further and then the wolf packs would reduce due to starvation.  That is the way of nature.

One might think that this move, to hunt wolves instead of allowing them to eventually starve to death is a laudable and humane response to an imbalance that we, humans, helped create.  There is a little bit more to the story.  The real goal of Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife is to increase sport hunting in Montana.  To be clear, hunting wolves is for sport and trophies, not for food.  The head of the group, Keith Kubista, was interviewed by the Missoulian.

"This contest is one way to encourage folks to get out and harvest wolves," said the organization's president, Keith Kubista of Stevensville.

So far, hunters have killed 110 wolves of the 220 quota set for the state's second wolf hunting season.

Kubista said the group is worried that the quota won't be met this year because hunters aren't focusing their efforts on wolves. Wolves do not have the cultural and resource values that elk, deer and moose have for hunters, he said.

"You have to encourage people to do it," he said. "You can't eat a wolf. There's no food value."

Digging a bit further into the Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife website, one finds a page bemoaning strict regulation of hunting in Montana.  They want to be more like Idaho, where hunters are not required to wear orange, baiting and snaring (a cruel process that can leave animal suffering for extended periods) are allowed, and there are no quotas on killing wolves.

This is a publicity stunt more than aught else.  This is a stunt to free restrictions on hunters.  Disgusting.

Praise: "Teens React" Takes On Rick Perry

Teens React is a series of videos that have teens reacting to various popular music and videos.  This video and the bonus video, below, are interesting perspectives on politics.  My observation in the classroom leads me to believe that some teens reflect tightly what their parents believe, a slightly larger number are oblivious to all politics, and the majority are good reflections with a slightly progressive leaning of where the populace as a whole is.

While I dislike the idea of staying oblivious, I must agree with the young lady who referred to Mr. Perry as one of the "slimy politicians".

So, we have a clear loser for the teens ... who don't get a vote.

Repudiation: AFA OneNewsNow Misquotes AP News

The American Family Association's "News Network" ran a story today Andrew Welsh-Huggins under the Associated Press source.  The catch is that AFA altered and perverted the meaning of the original.  It begins with paragraph one (italics added where story was adulterated).

Girls seeking abortions in New Hampshire must first tell their parents or a judge, employers in Alabama must verify new workers' U.S. residency, and California students will be the first in the country to receive mandatory pro-homosexual indoctrination under state laws set to take effect at the start of 2012.

Here's the first paragraph of the original (underlining added where AFA made changes above).

Girls seeking abortions in New Hampshire must first tell their parents or a judge, some employers in Alabama must verify new workers' U.S. residency, and California students will be the first in the country to receive mandatory lessons about the contributions of gays and lesbians under state laws set to take effect at the start of 2012.

The changes are subtle.  I almost missed them when I first read the article.  But these change the meaning of what Mr. Welsh-Huggins wrote.  The first change obscures the fact that the employers are those who do business with the state (see section 9 of the Alabama Immigration Law).

The second change is standard for those who seek to maintain a caste system, with homosexuals on a lower tier.  There is no indoctrination component to California's Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act.  I've covered SB-48 a few times, most recently here.

The distortions regard FAIR continue further down (italics added where story was adulterated).

Also in California, a new law will add homosexuals to the list of social and ethnic groups whose contributions must be taught in history lessons in public schools. The law also bans teaching materials that reflect poorly on gays or particular religions.

Again, here's the original (underlining added where AFA made changes above).

A California law will add gays and lesbians and people with disabilities to the list of social and ethnic groups whose contributions must be taught in history lessons in public schools. The law also bans teaching materials that reflect poorly on gays or particular religions.

By excluding people with disabilities, AFA wants proponents of FAIR to seem heartless.  In fact, distorting facts is what is heartless.

Falsification of data, misquoting, and plagiarism are among the guarantees that a student earns an 'F' in my classroom.  AFA is alters information to sway those who don't catch the subtleties.  This was not an accident.  Had they simply copied the story, there would be no adulteration of the original.  This was deliberate and they should be ashamed.

7 January 2011, FollowUp 1.

Repudiation: NOM Hypocrisy on Out of State Money

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is complaining, again, about out of state money influencing the New York legislature in its approval of marriage equality.  They feature this YouTube interview of New York State Senator Jim Alesi.

A NOM staffer writes:

When asked why he intends to run for re-election after voting for same-sex marriage and losing the endorsement of the NY Conservative Party as a result, Sen. Jim Alesi responds: "I have to run as a Republican because I have to be able to say 'you can vote for marriage equality as a Republican and you can survive."

Say to who? His constituents? Or the out-of-state millionaires who paid him off for his vote?

NOM's contact address is in Washington, D.C. and they have a post office box in Philadelphia.  Both are out of state for New York.  That did not stop them from committing two million dollars in October, out of state millions, to overturn marriage equality.

Hypocrisy!

Praise: AFER and Matt Baume

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is on the front lines of the battle for marriage equality.  Matt Baume, in the above video, put 2011 in perspective and projects into 2012.  Well worth eight and a half minutes.

In this young blog (started at the end of September), I've endeavored to look at the benefits of marriage, the work of AFER on Perry v. Brown, love and commitment, more on love and commitment, the Respect for Marriage Act, as well as refuting the lies of bigots.  Mr. Baume asks that this video be shared and I am happy to do so.

Humor: Rick Santorum Office Next Door To Gay Leather Bar

Mr. Santorum is, sadly, best known by the redefinition of his name (Google Santorum if you are not at work) by fans of Dan Savage's weekly column.  The history of the redefinition, from the history link of the not-work-friendly site begins

In April 2003, Republican senator Rick Santorum made some asinine comments in defense of laws banning gay sex. While this in itself may seem unremarkable, many people were amazed at how much detail he went into. Rick wasn't satisfied to call it 'degenerate' and move on. He really, really wanted to talk about sex, so he told the Associated Press: "If the Supreme Court says that you have a right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." Well, little did he know that two months later the Supreme Court would rule anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional... whoops!

Since then, Mr. Santorum has continued to double down on his tirade against homosexuals.  Here's one example from last month.

Rick Santorum believes that gay marriage could doom the U.S.

"We have to fight the battles in the states," he said Saturday night at Iowa's Thanksgiving Family Forum (hat tip: ThinkProgress). "We cannot defer. We can't say, 'The 10th Amendment, they can do what they want.' This is too important for that. There's a basic and central value. The family is the bedrock of our society. Unless we protect it with the institution of marriage, our country will fall."

So, it is quite ironic that the National Memo published a tidbit about Mr. Santorum's Scranton senatorial office.

But more important than fiery rhetoric is his experience on the ground, where he, or at least his staffers, have seen the consequences of the gay agenda up close. After he made those comments in 2003, reporters discovered that his Scranton office at 527 Linden Street was located a door away from The Silhouette Lounge, a gay leather bar that had won local awards. A bartender named Johnny reportedly delivered a message for the Senator, according to a news report published in The Hill: "Come on over sometime."

Santorum doesn't talk much about his official stay near the leather bar, especially now that the two venues in question have disappeared from the map.

The thought of Rick Santorum in leather is more than a little disturbing.  Even next to leather ... ick!

FollowUp 1: Sailors Embrace

Randy Thomasson is featured in a column for the American Family Association deriding the lovely kiss of Ms. Gaeta and Ms. Snell that graced newspapers across the country.

A pro-family leader says a public embrace between two lesbian sailors proves that homosexual activists are taking every effort to celebrate the federal government's repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

Here I have to agree with Mr. Thomasson.  We should celebrate the repeal of DADT.  Ms. Gaeta and Ms. Snell are a noteworthy couple for their normal kiss.

A public kiss between two lesbians in the U.S. Navy is being dubbed "the kiss heard 'round the world.'" The Los Angeles Times reports that homosexual activists who sought a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy are applauding Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta's kiss with her girlfriend Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell. The couple embraced on a Navy dock in Virginia following Gaeta's return last week from an 80-day deployment to Central America aboard the Oak Hill.

Heard 'round the world overstates the kiss and the applause.  It was good but not revolutionary.

David Bauer, commanding officer of the Oak Hill, told The Associated Press that the kiss was "going to happen, and the crew's going to enjoy it." The couple's kiss marks the first time that a same-sex couple has been chosen to have the first kiss tradition for Navy ships returning home.

And the C.O. of the Oak Hill was right.  There was cheering on the dock ... just as there always is for the first kiss when a ship returns to its home port.  Just as there always is because for the sailors of the Oak Hill and their families, this is just normal.

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com is familiar with the tactics of homosexual activists in California, home to both Gaeta and Snell.

Mr. Thomasson has been active attempting to protect some families from other (gay) families for a long time.

"San Diego, being the top Navy port on the West Coast, has an aggressive homosexual activist community which is just applauding this big time, saying 'it's delightful,' saying, 'it's fantastic,'" he laments.

Celebrating a couple coming together after three months apart, celebrating a kiss that made headlines, celebrating equality.  Yes, we are and should be celebrating.  Mr. Thomasson must be a very sad man to lament such celebration.

Sailors purchased $1 tickets at a raffle to raise money for a Christmas party for children whose parents are in the military. Gaeta purchased $50 worth of tickets, and the lesbian couple was chosen to have the first kiss.

It is common for sailors to purchase even more than fifty tickets.  Since the money goes to charity and the tickets can be used by the returning sailors who don't win as part of the message, "I love you even more than this."  By random draw, and fifty tickets does not overly change the odds, Ms. Gaeta and Ms. Snell won.

Thomasson argues that is not what the military is for. "It's about a fighting force to defend our shores, to defend our interests, and to advance the cause of the United States' security in the world," he tells OneNewsNow. "I would not make it social engineering that the Navy has done it, and now perverse social engineering."

One of the reasons that DADT was hurting the military is that it interfered with ordinary morale boosters, like the first kiss tradition.  Maintaining morale is a crucial element of keeping our fighting forces the best in the world.

The purpose of DADT was not to improve the fighting force, it was to protect soldiers and sailors from unwanted homosexuality.  This was not a real issue and still is not.  Homosexuality is not contagious.  Without DADT, rape is still illegal and always will be.

Allowing Ms. Gaeta and Ms. Snell the first kiss is not social engineering, they were already lesbian and that wasn't going to change.  Their kiss and the repeal of DADT do not create new lesbians or gays.  These events allow expression of a reality that has Mr. Thomasson very uncomfortable, but does not change that reality other than removing legislated discrimination and moving toward acceptance of our fellow citizens.  Maybe one day Mr. Thomasson can move beyond his hate and accept human beings as the Golden Rule says we should.

22 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

28 February 2012, FollowUp 2.

5 March 2012, FollowUp 3.

Praise: Mark Dayton on Marriage in Minnesota

Minnesota politics are in flux following the infidelity of the leader of the State Senate, Amy Koch, which led to her resigning her leadership position a week ago.  This adds to uncertainty for the 2012 vote on an amendment to the Minnesota state constitution to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.  The polling had the state almost evenly divided even before Senator Koch, who led the fight to get the amendment onto the ballot, revealed her adultery to the state.

Governor Dayton gave an interview to Minnesota Public Radio just before Christmas, noting the blatant hypocrisy of Ms. Koch regarding the sanctity of marriage.

Dayton told MPR News that former GOP Senate Majority leader Amy Koch's "inappropriate relationship" with an unidentified Senate staffer makes it harder for Republicans to claim the moral high ground on the issue.

"The bible says, 'Before you take out the speck in your neighbor's eye, take the log out of your own eye.' My mother used to say, 'It the shoe fits, wear it," Dayton said. "If it's befitting for somebody whose own conduct doesn't measure up to what they're professing to believe in, or prescribing for others, then they should be called on that."

Mr. Dayton said that he is hoping that the Republican legislature will remove the amendment from the ballot.  Given national politics, it would be quite a surprise if the Republicans agree to do so.  Nonetheless, the Governor is quite correct on all counts.

Praise: North Carolina Psychological Association On DOMA

In September the North Carolina legislature voted to place a referendum on the May 2012 ballot that would add a ban on same sex marriage to the North Carolina constitution.  State Senator Forrester explained that he sponsored the amendment because he believes that gays die twenty years earlier than straights (which is not true) and was unable to explain how same sex marriage would harm opposite sex marriage.

There is a major religious push to pass this amendment, led by North Carolina evangelicals.  Not all religious organizations agree and the Unitarian Universalists have come out against the proposed amendment.  In mid-Spetember, the North Carolina Psychological Association (NCPA) took their stand against the amendment.  Here is the list of NCPA reasons.

1. There is no empirical evidence that supports the denial of marriage rights to people in same-sex relationships.

A person’s sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom he or she is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic and intimate relationships that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of personal identity (D’Augelli, 2000; Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991; Herek, 2001, 2006; Peplau & Garnets, 2000);

Mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships. Such functioning includes the capacity to form healthy and mutually satisfying intimate relationships with another person of the same sex (American Psychiatric Association, 1974; American Psychological Association, 2007; Conger, 1975, National Association of Social Workers, 2003).

Married individuals generally receive social, economic, health, and psychological benefits from their marital status, including, but not limited to, numerous rights and benefits provided by private employers and by state and federal governments (Badgett, 2001; Brown, 2000; Chauncey 2005; Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983; Gove, Style, & Hughes, 1990; Kiecolt-Glaser, 2001; Murray, 2000; Nock, 1995; Previti & Amato, 2003; Ross, Mirowsky, Goldsteen, 1990; Stack & Eshleman, 1998; White & Booth, 1991; Williams, 2003;

Many gay men and lesbians, like their heterosexual counterparts, desire to form stable, long-lasting, and committed intimate relationships and are successful in doing so (Gates, Badgett, & Ho, 2008; Herek, Norton, Allen, & Sims 2010; Kurdek, 1995, 1998; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007; Simmons & O’Connell, 2003).

Empirical research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships, and an emerging research literature suggests that legally recognized same-sex relationships may also be similar to heterosexual marriages in these psychological and social aspects (Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008; Kurdek, 2001, 2004, 2005; Mackey, Diemer, & O’Brian, 2000; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).

Thus, the only reason for according same-sex relationships a different legal status than heterosexual relationships is ultimately the fact that the relationship is homosexual rather than heterosexual. This differentiation based on sexual orientation is an expression of prejudice and leads to stigma.

2. There is empirical evidence that denial of marriage rights to people in same-sex relationships is damaging to their psychological health.

Individuals with a homosexual orientation are often subjected to minority stress, that is, additional stress beyond what is normally experienced by the heterosexual population, as a consequence of stigma, discrimination, and violence (Badgett, 2001; Berrill, 1992; Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 2990; Herek, 2009; Herek, Gillis, Cogan, 1999; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995; 2003; Meyer, Schwartz, & Frost,  2008);

The experience of minority stress may create somewhat higher levels of illness or psychological distress in the sexual minority population, compared to the heterosexual population (Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; Dohrenwend, 2000; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995; 2003);

Emerging evidence suggests that statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian and gay residents of those states and may have negative effects on their psychological well-being (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010; Rostosky et al., 2009; Russell, 2000);

Research suggests that this denial has pervasive negative effects not only on the members of same-sex couples who seek to be married, but on all homosexual persons, regardless of their relationship status or desire to marry (Badgett, 2009; Herek, 2006; Hull, 2006).

3. There is empirical evidence that opposing denial of marriage rights initiatives has beneficial psychological effects.

Policies supportive of lesbian and gay people’s human rights may have positive effects on their psychological well-being (Blake, Ledsky, Lehman, Goodenow, Sawyer, Hack, 2001; Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, Hasin, 2009).

4. Psychologists have colleagues and we have clients for whom this issue is relevant and important, and who appreciate representation. From a social justice perspective, significant benefits accrue to all of us when diverse families are legally and socially sanctioned.

Thus, it is resolved that, based on the available empirical evidence, the North Carolina Psychological Association is opposed to the May ballot initiative that would alter the North Carolina Constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman the only legal domestic union recognized in the state. This position will be communicated to NCPA members, and NCPA may be listed with other organizations opposing the amendment, such as Equality NC. NCPA may also seek to make coalitions with other mental health associations and agencies for the purpose of opposing the amendment.

In addition to the in-line citations, there are two additional pages of reference material at the linked pdf.  The science is clear and the NCPA letter is based solidly on science.  The NCPA serves the well being of the people of North Carolina.  Their conclusion, that the proposed "mini-DOMA" should be opposed, is what is best for everyone, gays and straights alike.

Thanks to Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters for the heads up.

Repudiation: Linda Harvey's "Gay Abuses"

Linda Harvey runs Mission America, a supposedly Christian organization countering the dangers of witchcraft and homosexuality.  I've written previously about an item she wrote objecting to protecting homosexual students from discrimination.  She recently wrote an article for World Net Daily on the "Top 10 'gay' Abuses of 2011".

So, No. 10 on my list is the growing number of incidents where homosexuals are trying to put Christians out of business, get them fired, get them expelled from college programs and so on. Example: A bed and breakfast owner in Illinois is being sued for refusing to rent out his facility for a homosexual civil union ceremony and reception.

The link provided by Ms. Harvey is to Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, a Southern Poverty Law Center designated hate group.  The law in Illinois is that public businesses must not discriminate.  Mr. Walder, the proprietor of the bed and breakfast admitted to the Chicago Sun Times that he does discriminate.   Please note that Mr. Walder does not run a church and was not being asked to officiate at any ceremony.  Ms. Harvey, like Mr. Walder, does not believe in equality and does object to the laws of Illinois.  This is not about trying to put Mr. Walder out of business, it is about fair and equal treatment.

No. 9 is the assault of the sex change agenda on our children. Two lesbian women in California are raising their adopted 11-year-old son as a girl, a process they started when he was just eight. These twisted adults with their own apparent issues have lined up tragically misguided doctors to give this boy hormone -blocking drug therapy. We should all pray for this young boy and his adoptive parents.

The assumption that Ms. Harvey is using is that the parents are forcing this on the child.  The assumption is that lesbians only want to raise lesbians and thus want their son to be a daughter.  This assumption is belied by the article to which Ms. Harvey links that indicates that there are two older sons.  There is even a picture of Tammy, the trans-girl, with her older brother and both parents.

To understand more of what is happening for such a youth, begin with the American Psychiatric Association's Facts, with information on transgender persons beginning on page 46 of the pdf.  Then continue with the American Psychological Association's Helping Families.

My No. 8 incident of homosexual abuse is Macy's Department Store and its cooperation with sex-change anarchy. The clothing store fired an employee in San Antonio, Texas, who refused to let a man use the women's fitting room. She claimed her religious rights under employment law; Macy's claimed transvestite rights superseded faith. What happened to the Constitution? And what's happening to America? I hope America avoids Macy's after this anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-woman decision.

I've already addressed this issue and the lies told by both the employee and Liberty Counsel.

No. 7 includes a new arrow in the "gay" activist quiver: unapologetic violence. Vandals were caught on the security camera in an Oct. 15 attack against the pro-family group, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, or AFTAH. Chunks of concrete with a threatening note were hurled through the window of the Christian Liberty Academy in suburban Chicago the morning before an AFTAH conference was held at the school. A homosexual radical claimed responsibility on the Internet, yet no arrest has been made. This frightening incident would have been headlines if the victims had been homosexual, but the media mostly ignored it.

The means the LGBTQ Community uses to combat bigotry are verbal, written, and sometimes loud.  Not violent.  The attack was by an anonymous individual or group ... probably not a gay or lesbian.  I wrote more on this at the time.

And abuse No. 6 is the slander and libel against New Jersey teacher Viki Knox. Last fall, special education teacher Viki was very troubled by a pro-homosexual bulletin board display at the high school where she taught. She shared her dismay based around her Christian principles with a few close friends on Facebook. Before she knew it, her comments were headlines in the New York Times, she was suspended from her job, and state and national homosexual pressure groups were leading anti-"hate" demonstrations at the school calling for her dismissal.

A teacher who discriminates in the classroom should be suspended from her job.  I wrote more.

Now, here's No. 5: the passage of S.B. 48 in the state of California. This fact-free legislation that no one ever thought we would see in America, calls for sweeping pro-homosexual indoctrination in the public schools beginning Jan. 1, 2012.. Children will be compelled to learn about homosexuality, and those lessons must affirm this negative, high-risk lifestyle. California parents are outraged at such a discriminatory mandate, but short of repeal, their option is to remove their children from the schools or exit the state.

No, the legislation is not fact free, does not include indoctrination, and homosexuality is not just a lifestyle.  See my earlier writings on SB-48.  The law is positive and good for all students.

No. 4 on my list is the global homosexual agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Just a few weeks ago, the White House and Secretary Clinton announced that United States foreign aid and support will be related to how well a country pushes homosexual behavior as a so-called "human right." This agenda is not backed up by U.S. law, and is another example of warped priorities and inappropriate use of authority by this administration.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are heroic defenders of human rights.  See my earlier writings on Secretary Clinton's speech.  Also my repudiation of Michael Brown's arguments against Ms. Clinton.

No. 3 is the deceptive "It Gets Better" video campaign organized by Dan Savage, a homosexual writer known for his sleaze and vulgarity, extreme even for a "gay" activist. This campaign exploits vulnerable children, as celebrities, regular folks and teens themselves post videos with the goal of discouraging suicide. That would be a worthy objective, if not combined with "gay" rights mythology. Kids are encouraged to stay the course, adopt a homosexual identity and thereby expose themselves to lifelong risk. Even the president has jumped into this effort, mischaracterizing this propaganda as an "anti-bullying" effort.

To understand the importance of Mr. Savage's It Gets Better campaign, it is probably best to read about the impact on children.  I wrote about this in reviewing the All Children Matter report.

No. 2 is the attack on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have announced they won't defend this federal law against lawsuits initiated by homosexual activists. Who knew that presidents get to choose which federal laws to protect and defend? Obama even told the "gay" pressure group, Human Rights Campaign, that he favors repealing DOMA.

I have written quite a bit on the importance of repealing DOMA.  President Obama is correct in not wasting taxpayer dollars in defense of a law that is obviously unconstitutional.

And the No. 1 abuse of homosexual activism in the United States in 2011, was the implementation of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing open homosexual behavior in our military. No one can yet know how damaging the repeal of the ban on sodomy will be – we can only guess – but there's no question that it will damage the character of our armed forces and undermine their effectiveness.

Again, this is an area where I have written a lot.  Let's clear up a few details here:  Sex is still private in the military.  One simply no longer must hide whether one is heterosexual or homosexual.  The initial reports are all good, the repeal of DADT is strengthening our mililary.

Ms. Harvey and other bigots will continue to work against equality.  She will continue to denounce anything that brings me on legal par with her as somehow hurting herself.  It is a big set of lies that she will continue to tell, continuing to break the 9th Commandment.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Repudiation: Newt Gingrich Lied About First Divorce

Today seems to be one of revelations about lies and hypocrisy among the 2012 Republican contenders.  CNN reports that Mr. Gingrich has been lying about his first divorce.

On the "Answering the attacks" page of his campaign website, Newt.org, which "(Sets) the Record Straight: Newt's Positions on the Issues and His Record," the campaign discusses Gingrich's first divorce.

"It was (Jackie Gingrich) that requested the divorce, not Newt," the campaign website said, referring readers to an online column written by Gingrich's youngest daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, last May.

According to the court documents, provided by CNN, it was the other way around.

5.  Defendant shows that she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce, but that she does not desire one at this time.

There is a lot more in the CNN article that shows that Mr. Gingrich had lied on a few more items regarding the divorce.  Normally I think that this should be a private matter and not for public scrutiny.  Except, Mr. Gingrich is not asking for privacy, instead he is actively a liar.  From Mr. Gingrich's campaign website:

Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.  The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce.  You can read it here.

Newt Gingrich championed the second Impeachment of a President of the United States because, Mr. Clinton had lied to a jury.  He said he wasn't a hypocrite.

[I]t wasn't hypocritical of him to lead impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, even though he was having an extramarital affair at the time, because the impeachment case was "not about personal behavior."

Mr. Gingrich is a hypocrite and a liar.

FollowUp 1: Rick Perry Double Dipper

Let me confess now that Governor Perry is the candidate that I like least of all of the 2012 contenders.  This has nothing to do with disagreement over issues, and we disagree on most issues.  This is about liars and cheaters.  If Mr. Perry were one of my students, I would be documenting every time he lied and every time he cheated to make sure the "F" would stick.

It is bad enough that many candidates don't understand certain issues.  Mr. Perry alters data when facts don't match his agenda.  He is hypocritical about government spending.  The most recent example is one of hiding information and hypocrisy regarding travel expenses.

In June, the Governor asked the legislature to hide travel expenses related to his security entourage.  The Houston Chronicle reported the story.

Gov. Rick Perry's office has asked lawmakers hammering out details of a school finance bill to include an unrelated provision that would keep secret the expenses of the Department of Public Safety team that provides security when he and his wife, Anita, travel.

This is not necessarily about trivial amounts of money for a state.

Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News writer Peggy Fikac reported last October that Texas taxpayers had spent close to $1 million for security during 23 foreign trips taken by the Perrys over a seven-year period.

In August, the Washington Post reported that legislation was passed and will keep the public from knowing the travel costs the Governor Perry accrues during the campaign until after the November 2012 election.  The article also discussed more of the burden that Mr. Perry is on the Texas taxpayer.

Although security around public officials has been tightened considerably since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the secrecy that surrounds Perry’s travels is unique, according to Ken Bunting, executive director of the Missouri-based National Freedom of Information Coalition.

And the governor’s critics contend that it has as much to do with politics as safety — especially after the embarrassment for Perry when taxpayers learned that they had been paying for scuba gear and golf cart rentals for officers who accompanied Perry and his wife to the Bahamas in 2004.

On Christmas Day, the Texas Tribune reported that Mr. Perry's security contingent is now costing Texas taxpayers as much as $400,000 each month.

Aside from President Obama, Perry — the only sitting governor in the 2012 race — has the largest security contingent, and apparently the only one on the Republican side financed by taxpayers.

Weeks before he officially announced his presidential bid, Perry said it was appropriate for the Texas Department of Public Safety to pay for his security and called any criticism of his government-provided protection a “diversion.” He also said that Texans would benefit from his travels.

“I’m going to be promoting Texas,” Perry said in July, as he began to traverse the country. “I’m going to be traveling to places where the Texas story needs to be told, and we will tell it.”

If the state of Texas is to benefit from their governor's travels, they are in need of a better spokesman than Rick Perry.  Aside from fumbling at numerous speeches and his failure to place his name on the Virginia primary ballot, Governor Perry calls for smaller government and tightening government expenditures while simultaneously spending large amounts of Texas tax dollars for his national campaign and endeavoring to hide much of that information from the public.

Rick Perry is a liar, a cheater, and a hypocrite.  He is not worthy of the office of the President of the United States.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

18 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

History: 1973 and the APA Changes the DSM

One of the assumptions that some people are making about me as the author of this blog is that I have spent my life as a homosexual activist.  While I have been a quiet supporter for equal rights for all of my adult life, I have not been an activist.  The research that I do as part of writing here has me learning about homosexuality all the time.  I was recently challenged in a private dialogue regarding the change in 1973 of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of the American Psychiatric Association to no longer list homosexuality as a disease.  The challenger, prominent in one of the hate groups that I sometimes rail against, claimed that the change was fraudulent, brought about by homosexual activists without any science behind the change.  So, it was time for me to learn about what happened before and during 1973.

The best single resource I found is a 2002 episode of This American Life, titled 81 words.  If you have an hour to listen, I would encourage you to enjoy the entirety of it.  Based on this and a few other references that I will link in, I think I have a better understanding of the history of the change and why it is correct.

Prior to the 1973 change, most psychiatrists based their treatment of homosexuals on the works of a medium size group of experts, among them Edmund Bergler, Irving Bieber, Sigmund Freud, and Charles Socarides, all of whom had a significant flaw in their methodologies.  The homosexuals that these doctors studied tended to come from either prisons, those released from the military dishonorably, or men who hated their sexuality enough to seek treatment to change who they are.  There were no well-adjusted, normal, gays among those studied.

There were two researchers before 1973 who studied homosexuals with less or different bias.  The better known is Alfred Kinsey, who released a report in 1948 that was incredibly controversial.  The most controversial aspect was, perhaps, that he found that 37% of men had experimented with sex with other men and is the source for the claim that 10% of the population is homosexual.  It is, of course, more complicated.  Far more complicated because the two largest groups of participants in the Kinsey studies were prison populations, similar to the studies by Dr. Bergler and the others cited above, and a second group being male prostitutes.  Like those who found homosexuality to be a pathological condition, Dr. Kinsey used biased samples, not quite as normal as one might have hoped.

The second researcher was Evelyn Hooker, who wrote a paper in 1957 based on homosexuals who were functioning in ordinary society.

She administered psychological tests to groups of self-identified homosexuals and heterosexuals and asked experts, based on those tests alone, to select the homosexual people. The experiment, which other researchers subsequently repeated, demonstrates that most self-identified homosexuals are no worse in social adjustment than the general population.

This experiment was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and was probably the first study of homosexuals conducted without obvious bias.  In blind studies, researchers found an equal percentage, about two-thirds, of homosexuals and heterosexuals to be well-adjusted.

Dr. Hooker and Dr. Kinsey provided the foundational science behind the activists who did disrupt APA meetings in the early 1970s.  Disruption tends to alienate, not to attract allies.  So, claiming that the change was forced by disruptions alone is absurd on its face.  There was also first person testimony from a gay psychiatrist, John Fryer.

Dr Fryer's speech started with the words "I am a homosexual. I am a psychiatrist" and continued to describe the lives of the many gay psychiatrists among the American Psychiatric Association who had to hide their sexuality from their colleagues for fear of discrimination, and from fellow homosexuals owing to the disdain in which the psychiatric profession was held among the gay community.

A year after Dr. Fryer spoke under the pseudonym Dr. H. Anonymous, the change was made.  Homosexuality was no longer considered an illness.  Other medical organizations studied the change in policy at the APA and made changes to their policies over the following twenty years. 

81 words, which I cited near the top, is by the granddaughter of John Spiegel, who was president-elect of the APA at the time of the change.  His granddaughter, Alix Spiegel, bases her piece on an interview of her grandfather and she also interviews many of the major players.

My conclusion is that there was a great deal of activism in the early 1970s, without which the studies of Dr. Hooker and Dr. Kinsey would not have been considered.  There was also a generational change in progress, with younger psychiatrists who had other concerns than the status of homosexuality challenging the older conservatism.  Science traditionally changes slowly and painfully, as seen from Galileo Galilei to Charles Darwin to Hooker and Kinsey.  That people are upset by the changes does not make the science wrong.  In this case, the APA was correct to change.

Let me conclude by personalizing this.  I have never been incarcerated and am honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy.  My relationship with my parents is fairly normal.  I was neither excessively beaten as a child nor was I overly coddled.  I have never been raped and never been molested (other than by the TSA, as is the case for many when flying these days).  Most people passing me on the street would probably guess that I am straight as I don't tend to lisp or swish or any of the other stereotypical behavior associated with homosexuals.  I was born under Eisenhower, thus I have well exceeded the life expectation of disproven studies like that of Paul Cameron.  Neither my partner nor I have any sexually transmitted diseases.  We have been together since 2005. 

In other words, the reasons to consider homosexuality a pathological condition are not apparent in me, in my partner, or in any of our friends.  The only problems with our relationship as I type this are that we cannot be recognized legally.  The problem is discrimination, not who we are.

Praise: Sean Chapin on Ex-Gay Therapy

The music is not exactly to my taste, but the message is solid.  Ex-gay therapy, also known as conversion therapy or reparative therapy, does not work.  It is against the ethical codes of the National Assocation of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and nearly all other medical professional organizations.

Prediction: Ron Paul on Racism

It is all over the news that Dr. Paul wrote, or had written in his name, newsletter articles in the 1990s that were racist.  The story was broken in 2008 by James Kirchick at the New Republic.  This is rediscovered news, not new news.  They have a collection of the newsletters online from that time if you want to wade through the vitriol.

The Republican Party was the party of Emancipation at the end of the Civil War.  Sometime since, they swapped sides with the Democratic Party.  By the time of Nixon, the GOP was using what is called the Southern Strategy.  As one who grew up and lived in the South at that time, I remember racism as normal.  Some people were less expressively racist than others, but it was pretty common.

Side note:  if you have never seen it, watch Everyone's a Little Bit Racist.

My guess is that Dr. Paul is a lot less racist today than he was a few years ago.  But, he is a product of his time and growing beyond being outwardly racist is not always easy.  I am not saying this by way of apology, but of explanation.  Racism, particularly when legislated, is wrong.

Back to the concept of the Southern Strategy.  We have been hearing Republican debates that are not racist in words.  The scapegoat this time is homosexuals.  This was perhaps most clearly evident by the booing of Captain Stephen Hill.  The flavor changed slightly, but the Southern Strategy is visibly in full play. 

There are a lot of White Americans who want to think of themselves as not racist but who would rather not see a Socialist, Muslim, Kenyan, Communist, Gay-Loving President.  (Mr. Obama is many things, but none of the aforementioned are accurate descriptors).  In other words, and they wouldn't say it in these words, but they don't want to continue having a Black President.

So, here's my prediction.  Dr. Paul will continue to disclaim without denouncing the newsletters until he is the Republican nominee.  (I am not predicting that he will win the nomination, but it is possible).  It is only after securing the Republican nomination that Dr. Paul will renounce the racism of those old letters.  Even then he will couch his words so that it is obvious that he has nothing against Black people and yet can do a better job in office that someone who is Black.  He will denounce overt racism in a way that appeals to that little bit of racism in Southern Whites.

I really hope that my prediction is wrong, but there it is.

Praise: Barack Obama -- One Year Anniversary of Repeal of DADT

Today the White House sent out a note commemorating the signing of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).

The e-mail included links to the following videos:

Until her retirement in 2007, Retired Navy Commander Zoe Dunning was one of the only openly gay service members in the country, having successfully fought an attempted discharge in 1993.  For many of those years, she served on the board of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network as an advocate for the repeal of DADT. 

Retired Staff Sergeant Eric Alva joined the U.S. Marine Corps when he was 19 years old.  He served honorably for 13 years until 2003, when he became the first American soldier wounded in Iraq.  SSgt Alva was subsequently medically retired, and for his heroism, received a Purple Heart.

Retired Colonel Grethe Cammermeyer , RN, PhD, is a Vietnam Veteran and Bronze Star recipient who spent much of her life advocating against the original ban on gays in the military and later against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Her autobiography, “Serving in Silence,” was recognized by the National Education Association and later made into an Emmy Award winning movie starring Glenn Close and produced by Barbra Streisand.  Today, Col. Cammermeyer also serves on the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS).

Former Army Captain Jonathan Hopkins graduated at the top of his West Point class and was deployed three times to Iraq and Afghanistan, earning three Bronze Stars, including one for valor.  Fourteen months after being outed, he was honorably discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in August 2010.

Former Army Captain Sue Fulton graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1980 – the first class to include women.  Today, she is the Executive Director of Knights Out – an organization of West Point LGBT alumni, staff, and faculty – and she also serves as a Member of the West Point Board of Visitors.

The White House offers the LGBT updates upon request.

You can sign up for email updates here , and don’t hesitate to drop us a line with your comments, suggestions, and ideas.

It is a great pleasure to share the videos of these American heroes.  Many thanks to President Obama for keeping his promise on DADT.