Mushy libertarianism vs the religious impulse.

One of the themes that I periodically pay attention to is what I call the mushy libertarianism of the American mainstream. I wrote that the mainstream politics in this country is libertarian but "not consistent" and "not principled." I have called this mushy libertarianism a revival of the Mugwumps.

A new poll from Associated Press backs up my general analysis. Over and over the dominant opinion, among Americas, leans in a libertarian direction. Here are some of the details:

Three-quarters of the public say that the US Constitution "is an enduring document that remains relevant today." Sixty percent say that that the "rule of law" should come first, even if it does at the expense of public safety.

The Religious Right regularly argues that the rights of gay people should be subjected to a majority vote. The majority doesn't agree. Just 35% say, "If a majority of people want something to happen, the rights of a few shouldn't stand in the way" and 62% agree that "the rights of everyone should be protected, even when that means saying no to something majority of people want to happen."

Only one in four Americans would support giving the president more power, even if it would improve the economy. Three-quarters of the public opposed the idea. Half the public say "it is up to each individual to secure health insurance" and less than half say the government ought to provide it. But 83% oppose the central feature of Obama's health care plan, government mandates requiring people to buy health insurance.

Half of all Americans say they favor a way for illegal immigrants, already in the country, to legalize their position, while just under half oppose the idea. Seventy-percent agree that "people should have the right say what they believe even if they take positions that seem deeply offensive to most people."

A clear majority, 58%, now believe that same-sex couples are entitled to same benefits as opposite-sex couples and that government should not distinguish between them. In 2008, 51% agreed, in 2009 it was 54%. While support rose by 7 points opposition declined by 5 points. Even more encouraging, from a libertarian point of view, is that a majority of Americans now believe the federal government ought to recognize gay marriages: 52% to 46% opposed. This is the second national poll in recent weeks showing a majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

Fifty-one percent of Americans say that gun control laws "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms. A plurality, 42%, say that the government restricts too much information from the public.

One area where the majority goes wrong is that 64% do not thinking that banning minors from violent video games is a proper function of government. One thing you can be sure of is that if people are afraid their children are at risk they turn into raving maniacs willing to lynch anyone. This is the sort of irrational fear that the National Organization for Marriage relies upon with their anti-gay scare commercials.

Other results of interest include the fact that 43% of the public are not confident in the federal government, only 10% are strongly confident in the feds. Similarly 37% are not confident in state governments, where 10% are, and 49% are not confident in Congress, where 7% are. Other areas with high levels of distrust are: banks, 52%; large corporations , 42%; labor unions, 41%; the media, 38%; blogs, 54%; organized religion, 35%; and public schools, 37%.

Other matters of interest is that 36% of the public consider themselves to be born-again Christians and 24% say they don't belong to a religion.

A different poll indicates that almost all opposition to equality of rights for gay people is rooted in religion, and not based on other concerns. Sixty-percent of conservatives admit that they oppose same-sex marriage because of their religion. All the evidence shows that opposition to legal equality exists because people want their religion legislated onto others:

Almost six-in-ten regular churchgoers (59%) say their clergy speak out on the issue of abortion, higher than for any other issue in the survey except hunger and poverty (88%). Despite divided opinions on abortion among Catholics as a whole, seven-in-ten Catholics (70%) who attend church at least once a month report that their clergy speak out on the issue of abortion. Similarly, 65% of white evangelical Protestants and 55% of black Protestants who attend services at least once a month report that their clergy talk about abortion, while fewer mainline Protestants (39%) say this.

Among those who attend religious services at least once a month and say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, two-thirds (66%) report having heard about the issue from their clergy. Among regular worship attenders who think abortion should be legal in most or all cases, fewer (50%) report having heard about this issue from their clergy. Half of those who say their clergy speak out on abortion cite religion as the most important influence on their views on abortion, compared with 29% of those who do not hear from their clergy about the issue.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, about four-in-ten Americans (41%) say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 48% are opposed. A slight majority of Democrats (52%) favor same-sex marriage, while independents are evenly split (44% favor, 45% oppose) and two-thirds (67%) of Republicans are opposed. Democrats are divided sharply along racial lines; 63% of white Democrats favor same-sex marriage, compared with just 27% of black Democrats and 46% of Hispanic Democrats.

This sort of theocratic viewpoint applies even to laws forbidding gay people to openly serve in the military—something the Republican Party just killed in the U.S. Senate with unanimous support from their caucus. In other words, not a single Republican Senator voted to allow gay people to serve in the military.

On the matter of gays in the military 60% of all Americans support equality. Even a slim plurality of Republicans, 47-43%, support equality. Of all the various subgroups the only group to oppose allowing gay people to serve in the military are white evangelical Christians, where a plurality 47-43% oppose the measure. Most blacks support equality here, most conservatives do, most independent voters do—only white born again Christians oppose the measure and that appears to be the ONLY group in American politics that Republicans listen to.

From Whackjob to Weasel

Christine O'Donnell, a rising star of the so-called Tea Party movement, was shown to be a whackjob during the primary. We, along with many other sites, showed the video of her preaching how masturbation is adultery and sinful. The pathetic Republican Party in Delaware, however, nominated her to be their Senate candidate, something which makes Democrats very happy. Previously there was no way for the Democrats to pick up this seat from the sitting Republican. But as the Republican Party has become more extreme—and not in the pursuit of liberty—it is replacing electable Republicans with whackjobs like O'Donnell. This race alone may be sufficient to prevent the Republicans from gaining control of the Senate, which is something that they wanted very badly.

O'Donnell now has GOP handlers advising her and someone wrote a well-crafted "weasel" statement about her anti-masturbatory campaigns of the past. I call it a weasel statement because it actually evades the issues entirely. It sounds good, and the average member of the public, who isn't used to dissecting material for real content, may be assured by it. But anyone who actually thinks about, for a second, shouldn't be fooled. Allow me to quote the statement that O'Donnell made and then dissect it for you. Here is how the LA Times reported her statement:

"Yes, I have my personal beliefs," she said when asked about her views. "These are questions from statements I made over 15 years ago. I was in my 20s and very excited and passionate about my new found faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured. And when I go to Washington D.C., it will be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs."

Let us go through this statement to see what she is actually saying and what she isn't saying. She says the statements were made when she was young. At that time she had a "new found faith," which means a belief system she adopted wholesale from dead books without any intellectual scrutiny. But "I can assure you, my faith has matured."

What does that mean? Previously she held beliefs without reasons, on the basis of faith. Now she has a mature faith, which means what? How does the mature faith differ from the youthful faith? Faith is faith, it is still not reason. Was she previously a young fool but is now just an old fool? All she said is her faith is mature. People say that they have "faith" when they merely adopt a view without rational reasoning behind it. They hold the belief on the basis of "faith." All this does is tell us how she comes to her beliefs, not what those beliefs are. And both are rather critical here.

She does not indicate at all that her views on masturbation, sex and abstinence have changed at all. In fact, she rather strongly hints that she has NOT abandoned her beliefs whatsoever. She begins her statement saying: "Yes, I have my personal beliefs." This is present tense, not past tense. At best she is hinting that she now understands that there are other ways for her to express the same viewpoints without creating a firestorm. She has not repudiated her "personal beliefs" nor has she said that they have changed, only that her "faith" is now more mature.

Reporters are notoriously bad at interviewing politicians and allow them to make weasel statements all the time. But someone needs to ask O'Donnell: "Do you now believe that masturbation is not adultery?" I'd bet you a doughnut that if she were asked this she would evade the question entirely.

The first half of her statement is meant to address the issue of her past beliefs in contrast with present day beliefs. But nowhere does it actually indicate that these beliefs are now different, only that she has a more mature faith—and what that means is never explained by O'Donnell.

The second half of her statement is meant to address how she would vote on issues. It too avoids indicating anything of substance. She says that she will base all her decisions on the Constitution. Whoopee! What a meaningless statement!

If there is one thing that most politicians agree upon it is that they all think they vote according to the Constitution. Believing the Constitution is like believing the Bible. It means nothing. Why is that?

We can all debate what the Constitution means and we each come to our own conclusions. O'Donnell can happily vote for moralistic legislation, if offered the chance, and still proclaim she is within the Constitution as she sees it. The problem is that we have no idea how she sees the Constitution.

She campaigned for abstinence education within the state school system. Nowhere does the Constitution actually authorize a system of government education, nor does it sanction using tax monies to preach abstinence. In the Constitutional litany of government powers granted neither of these powers are listed. Remember the Constitution was meant to be a specific grant of powers to government with individual rights broadly interpreted. The Constitution quite clearly says that all individual rights could never be itemized, but government powers can, and should be.

So O'Donnell's abstinence campaign promoted two unconstitutional powers: government preaching about sex and state schools. Does she now think that this was unconstitutional? I would bet you she doesn't. Since we have no idea what she believes the Constitution sanctions or doesn't sanction we have no idea what she means by the statement.

A lot of statists want local tyranny via a "states rights" doctrine. Is this her view? It is certainly not a libertarian view which argues for individual rights. Conservatives argue that the separation of church and state is a myth and that the real Constitution sanctions government-mandated religion on the state level. Is that what O'Donnell means? We don't know and she isn't saying.

Invoking the Constitution is meant to have the appearance of substance without actually saying anything specific. Most the Congresscritters that voted for Obama's health care debacle will say that it is within the confines of the Constitution. Few will acknowledge that it is not. Many simply assume that anything they vote for is Constitutional and anything they oppose is not.

This is how the Constitution, like the Bible, is essentially meaningless when it comes to defining a person's beliefs. I can line up Christians who are absolutely convinced the Bible sanctions gay marriage and find others who say the Bible demands we kill all gay people. I can find politicians who say that nationalized medicine is constitutional and those that say it isn't.

It is easy to say: "I believe the Bible," as long as one is allowed to interpret it personally. Similarly the Constitution can be interpreted in very widely differing ways. We can fight about which is the "correct" interpretation but that is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is what the individual, in this case O'Donnell, means when she says she will vote according to the Constitution. For most conservatives it means that any morality that dominated 200 years ago can still be imposed by the State today.

Here are the sort of questions that O'Donnell needs to be asked before her invocation of the Constitution has any merit whatsoever.

Does the Constitution permit government schools imposing religion on students in state schools?
Are sodomy laws regulating the private sexual lives of consenting adults constitutional?

Do the states have the right, according to the Constitution, to violate individual rights, in ways that the federal government does not?

Were state laws forbidding interracial marriage constitutional?

Are state laws forbidding same-sex marriage constitutional?

In what ways are these two issues constitutionally different?

Does government, at any level, have the constitutional power to ban sexually-explicit material?

Does government, at any level, have the constitutional power to wage a war on drugs?

Answering these questions will give us some idea of what this whackjob means when she invokes the Constitution as the litmus test she will employ. But without specifics all she has done is issue a weasel statement that tells us absolutely nothing.

Worse yet, such weasel statements are ingenious because each person interprets them according to their own personal opinions. So the reader who thinks government has no right to mandate school prayers will be assured by it equally as much as the reader who thinks the Constitution allows mandatory prayer.

When a public person says they believe the Bible every person who invokes the Bible them self, no matter in what way, feels a bit reassured. Each assumes that this at least means some agreement with them self, when it may mean no such thing. Similarly, invoking the Constitution is meant to reassure everyone because most listeners will assume that by "constitutional" O'Donnell means pretty much what they mean when they use the term. As long as the politician doesn't get forced to be more precise these weasel statements do a wonderful job of pulling the wool over the eyes of the voting public.

The Tea Party Facade Falls Away

One of the first claims I heard about the nascent Tea Party movement was that it had no desire to focus on social conservatism. I was highly dubious of the claim given what I've seen of the conservative movement in recent years. What I've seen is theocratically-inclined biblical bigots who want to use the stick of government to beat people up. I saw the anti-immigrant fervor at the one rally I attended and I saw the very cold reception that Gov. Gary Johnson got when he tried to enlighten them on the dangers of the war on drugs.

But some of the media was spreading the claim that the Tea Party movement was made up of conservatives who wanted to focus on economics.

Now we have several successful "Tea Party" candidates who have secured the nomination of the Republican Party for office. Guess what? I have yet to hear of one such candidate who isn't a flaming moral fascist demanding that government enforce their views of morality.

Here is Christine O'Donnell, the Theopublican candidate for Senate in New Jersey, a Tea Party activist. This is a woman who campaigned against masturbation as a form of adulterty.

Can anyone point to a successful Tea Party candidate running for major office who IS NOT a social conservative? I know of none who are actually libertarian and that especially includes Rand Paul.

March of the Theopublican Loons

I read the current issue of Reason magazine today, where Brink Lindsay, from the Cato Institute, makes the case for why libertarians shouldn't ally themselves with the Right. I agree whole heartily. He pointed to the bigoted Tea Party types as one example of why this strategy is bad for libertarians. Matt Kibble tried to pretend that Brink's view is merely based on "liberal" media distortions. Sorry Matt, it is precisely the sort of rampant bigotry that I personally witnessed at one of the largest Tea Party rallies in recent months.

The other day I was invited to speak to a small group of people. The host was a friend, who was at the Tea Party rally as well. He made a point of telling me how disgusted he was with what he witnessed there. His observations were the same as my own, as were two other libertarian friends at the same meeting. All four of agreed that the Tea Party is not for libertarians.

And neither are Republicans. Consider this tidbit from the Theopublican Party of Texas, in their 2010 platform. They claim to believe that "Realizing that conflict and debate is a proven learning tool in classrooms, we support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories, including, evolution, Intelligent Design...." Intelligent Design is theology not science. But that aside, do the Republicans of Texas really believe in debate and equal treatment of all sides? The same platform says: "We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage."

So they want open debate when theology pretends to be science, but demand closing all debate and conflict as a "proven learning tool" when it regards sex. They are the typical conservative frauds, the typical conservative hypocrites. They only want open debate for their side until they control an agenda and they want to stifle debate and discussion entirely.

They claim to believe in, "the sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization until natural death." So, all human life is sacred and must be protected until natural death? Well, no. "Properly applied capital punishment is legitimate, is an effective deterrent, and should be swift and unencumbered." Hell, why even bother with a trial? Clearly not "all human life is sacred" and some lives must be ended unnaturally by execution though all life must be protected "until natural death." Of course, they are Republicans. They see it completely natural for governments to kill people.

As for sex offenders, well, they want to turn a large percentage of teens into criminals. First, they demand that an "'affirmative defense' when there is less than 36 months of age difference" be abolished. That way all teens who have consenting sex with one another are deemed sex offenders if they are the same age. Second, they demand that age of consent in Texas be raised to 18, so that even more kids will be classified as sex offenders. And they claim to be pro-family. It's enough to make one vomit. This is under they "sexual assault" section and the first thing there says they demand punishment options "should include death." More of that all life is sacred bullshit.

Yet, while they are busy demanding laws to incarcerate kids for sex, and perhaps execute a few of them, they claim they are in favor of limited government. Really? Limited by what principle?

How limited is the small government they claim to believe in? Here are a few more clauses from the platform showing exactly how big they want government to be.

We encourage state and federal governments to severely prosecute illegal dealers and manufacturers of addictive substances and pornography.

We urge the Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws.

We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. Note: notice that they claim that adoptions, buying insurance, having retirement benefits voluntarily offered, are "special rights" in their view.

We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and operation of sexually–oriented businesses.

We urge the FDA to rescind approval of the physically dangerous RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability.

We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”

We believe rental of a woman’s womb makes child bearing a mere commodity to the highest bidder and petition the Legislature to rescind House Bill 724 of the 78th Legislature.

We support legislation that requires doctors, at first opportunity, to provide to a woman who is pregnant, information about the nervous system development of her unborn child...

Furthermore, criminal penalties should be created and experimenters prosecuted who participate in the cloning of human beings...

We support a ban on research that alters human DNA in living human beings at any stage of life, including the altering of artificial, manufactured, and natural genes and chromosomes.

We support raising the age of consent for consensual sex to 18 years.

We also believe that no homosexual ... should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.

Moreover, we oppose any further legalization, government facilitation, or financial guarantees relating to any type of gambling including casino, riverboat, video lottery terminals (VLTs), slot machine, video keno, eight-liners, multi-state lotteries, and other games of chance including on Indian reservations.

The real kicker is that these morons claim to support individual rights and individual freedom.

Republican: Separation of church and state is Nazism!

The Republican in this video is Glen Urquhart, a Republican running for Congress in Delaware. Listen as the history teacher said that the phrase "separation of church and state" came from a letter. Urquhart denies this, says it isn't true, and then makes the claim that Hitler originated the term! Actually the letter Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptists said: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Where did this theocrat get this idea? From another theocrat, of course. They rarely think for themselves. The source for this claim is Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association. You will remember we had a video of him claiming the Nazis were really all gay because Hitler couldn't get straight people to be so violent and vicious, only homosexuals are so nasty as to push Jews into gas chambers.

Fischer outrightly says that the slogan "separation of church and state" does not come "from Thomas Jefferson or from the mind of the Founding Fathers" but "straight from the mind of Adolph Hitler" Jefferson's authorship of the term "a wall of separation between Church & State" is not questioned by any historians.

Another Republican, seeking the same office, Kevin Wade, said: "My jaw dropped when I heard it. And he was emphatic about it—it was not like a slip of the tongue. He got applause from half the crowd, and that disturbed me. I'd say half the room was stunned and the other half applauded." This was to a Republican audience and indicative of just how uninformed and ignorant Republicans are these days. They welcomed fundamentalists with open arms and are ow controlled by morons.

I wonder what Mr. Urquhart would say about these photos:

How surprising is this? Not much, really.

California State Senator Roy Ashburn, a Republican, "has reportedly voted against every gay rights measure in the state senate since taking office", says KGPE news in Fresno, the local CBS affiliate. Ashburn was arrested last night for drunk driving. Of course, there's more.

Ashburn was pulled over, driving a state issued vehicle (as if State Senators can't afford their own cars). Ashburn was pulled over because of erratic driving. It was around 2 am. He failed a field sobriety test and his alcohol level later was shown to be .14. Ashburn was not alone. He had another man in the car with him, who has not been identified because he was not arrested.

Various media outlets are reporting that Ashburn, and apparently his male friend, had just left a well-known gay club in Sacramento. However, the manager of the club says she doesn't remember seeing him there. Ashburn, a divorced "family values" Republican, has admitted he was drunk. He has said he was sorry for his actions. But so far, he has not said a word about the reports that he and his male friend had just a gay club together. Ashburn didn't show up on the floor of the legislature today and is not returning phone calls. As of this morning, Monday, March 8, Ashburn admits he is gay.

UPDATE: Apparently we need to look at the Vatican, which is now tangled in another gay sex scandal. Angelo Balducci held the Vatican post of The Gentleman of His Holiness, an elite position within the Vatican. Balducci apparently used Ghinedu Ehiem, a member of the choir for St. Peter's Basilica, within the Vatican, to secure prostitutes. Actually it appears that the young men so procured were not necessarily prositutes but did prostitute themselves. Some of the men were studying for priesthood, others appear to have been choir members, and others were immigrants desperate to secure legal status in the country.

Other sources say that Ehiem, and his assistate at the choir, Lorenzo Renzi, both helped secure males for sexual purposes. One wiretap, set up during a corruption investigation, has Renzi telling one male "You'll get up to 2,000 euors... Do not touch his balls. You need the money. Put on some music, take out the [inaudible], swallow the Viagra, and adelante." European papers are reporting that Ehiem has admitted he pimped men for Balducci and instructed "to do it in great secrecy."

Bigot backdowns, admits lack of evidence.

A couple days ago this blog reported on the absurd lies of State Rep. Nancy Elliott, a conservative Republican in New Hampshire. Elliott is one of those newfangled "libertarian" Republicans who thinks bigotry is "libertarian" and gets applauded by the Republican Liberty Caucus for doing so.

Elliott made claims in the state legislature that the Nashua school district, as a result of same-sex marriage, was given 5th grade children naked photos of gay men having anal sex—for the record, Elliott is obsessed with anal sex, it is one of her favorite topics. I presume from her conversations on it that she assumes it is not something that heterosexuals couples ever do. To top things off, she claims the school told the kiddies that they might want to try anal sex themselves.

This blog noted that Elliott had zero evidence. Her entire proof for this absurd claim was that some unnamed individual told her it had happened at some unspecified school. After being told of the story, Elliott was never curious enough to verify it. She sought no evidence to substantiate the story but then shot off her mouth making the claim public. Now she admits there is NO evidence for it.

Elliott said she wants to apologize and that if the future she "will try much harder" to "verify fully my statement." Well, that should be pretty easy since she made no effort at all to verify the first claim. She says she went back to her unnamed source and "found that I could not confirm the accuracy of the information."

Elliott, the fake libertarian, said: "I was told shortly before the hearing on HB 1590 that what I later said had happened and I firmly believe it to be so." Really? Why "firmly?" Considering that she was told an outlandish story, with zero evidence offered, exactly why was she so firm in her belief? She never says why she was so firm in her belief about this ridiculous claim.

Let me tell you why she was so firm. She was firm in her belief for precisely the same reason that any derogatory claim about a black man is considered true by the Klan. She was firm in her belief for the same reason that Julius Streicher was firm in his belief about the evil nature of Jews. Elliott was firm in her belief that the statement was true, not because she had evidence, but because it confirmed a pre-existing prejudicial viewpoint that she holds firmly. She didn't try to confirm the story because she didn't care if the story was true. It told her what she wanted to hear and that was good enough for her.

The only reason she has backed down was that she created a storm with the claim which was harming her career. She could have backed down quicker but didn't. I suspect her prejudicial beliefs are so firmly entrenched that she was also firmly convinced that the claim would be confirmed. I would even bet there is a decent chance that she still believes it was true, just that the evidence was covered up so she can't find it. She's probably a "Gay Truther:" that's someone who believes absurd and silly claims about gay people the same way the lunatic fringe believes absurd and silly claims about 9/11.

Will this hurt Elliott's career? In a rational world, it should. But she's a Republican and the GOP is far from a rational world these days. It is the last refuge of Neanderthal fundamentalists, Truthers, Birchers and other bigots and morons. So, within the dark recesses of the Republican Party her lying claim will probably help her. Her challenge will be convincing voters in general that she isn't crazy, while convincing her Republican constituency that she is.

The Nanny State: It's not just for Democrats anymore.

If you thought that when the Republicans got their claws into regulating marriage, to stop those nasty gay people from committing themselves legally to each other, that the GOP would stop there, then think again. The theocratic agenda of the Religious Right doesn't stop with some old fashioned queer bashing. Nope, they want to regulate every marriage.

Now that they have people scared, mainly by falsehoods, about gay marriage and "saving the family" they are turning their guns on heterosexuals who marry, or more specifically, on heterosexuals who want to divorce.

Rep. Nancy Barto, a Republican from Phoenix, has introduced legislation in the Arizona state legislature to have government step in to try and stop people from divorcing. Under Barto's bill couples wanting to divorce will have to wait an extra four months for their divorce to take effect legally. And, if the couple have children, Barto wants to force them to attend government-run indoctrination classes on why they should not divorce.

Barto's legislation was spoon-fed to her by a Religious Right outfit known as the Center for Arizona Policy. While the name sounds policy oriented the group is actually a front for fundamentalist Christians wanting to use state law to impose fundamentalist morality on everyone. They are part of the American Taliban. They promote Focus on the Family, the outfit that recently called for the forcible incarceration of gay people into sexual reeducation camps, where Christian "therapists" will covert them to being heterosexual. CAP has nothing but a moralistic agenda and that means that the Theopublicans are lining up to sponsor their Big Government agenda.

A local family court judge has lashed out at the bill saying that in her experience this sort of legislation will lead to more abuse of women. Apparently the Christians weren't happy with laws stepping in to stop people from marrying they do love and now want to force people to stay married to people they don't love—or worse, to people they fear.

Deborah Sheasby, who is paid by CAP to lobby for laws giving government more control over people's private lives, chimes in with the claim that the new restrictions are only: "Allowing couple more time to work out there differences..." The current law doesn't place any restrictions on how much time people take to "work out there differences," so Sheasby is being dishonest—a common trait among fundamentalists. People have all the time they want to work out differences but this legislation forces people to wait for a divorce. A couple, for instance, might be in counseling for two years voluntarily and then decide to divorce. The law would delay that divorce by an extra four months, on top of the current two month waiting period. And, if the couple have children, they would effectively be sentenced to mandatory sessions with a bureaucrat for the state who is supposed to change their mind.

This is what freedom looks like when the theocrats sink their fangs into the neck of liberty. The Republicans won't be happy until their regulate every aspect of your private life in the name of Jesus.

When you lack facts—LIE!

I am always astounded at how the Religious Right will resort to open deception and dishonesty in the name of morality. Apparently, in their stinted, little world, morality is exclusively focused on what one does with one's own genitals, and has little to do with the old fashioned virtues of truth, honesty, kindness, etc.

This was most recently obvious in the campaigns against marriage equality, where Christian conservatives ran television ads that were filled with blatant lies and distortions, as part of a strategy to scare voters into supporting Bible-based bigotry and religiously-induced hate.

Now the Republicans, having abandoned any desire to fight for limited government anymore, in New Hampshire are trying to repeal marriage equality there. One Republican legislator, Nancy Elliott, was speaking in favor of a bill to repeal gay marriage and she made some astounding claims in the process.

She claimed that fifth-grade students in Nashua were show photos of naked men and taught how to engage in anal sex, presumably by their school. Of course, this is unrelated to the marriage issue, even if it were true. But what evidence did Elliott have to substantiate this extreme claim.

Her entire evidence was that she claimed to have a phone call from a Nashua parent informing her of this form of sex education. That's it! She didn't make any effort to verify whether the claim was true or false. It was extreme, it was scary to parents, and it was politically useful. Why should truth matter when you have political battles to win? This is Republican, Christian morality at work.

Elliot was quite clear. She told the legislature that kids "were given as part of their instruction naked pictures of two men showing a presentation of anal sex." Elliot went on to explain why she made this unsubstantiated claim: "Because we have made a marriage of same sex, they are now teaching it in public school. They are showing our fifth grades how they can actually perform this kind of sex. And they are condoning, they are saying this is normal and this is something you may want to try." Of course, since male/female marriage is allowed we have the schools showing kids how to give blow jobs or use a vibrator on a woman. Get real. The logic is pathetic and Elliot has no facts. So she lied.

The only evidence she offered was a claim that an unnamed person told it happened in an unspecified school. But Elliott, finding the claim useful, made it public without any attempt to verify it. The Nashua school district was shocked by the claim and superintendent Mark Conrad says he has contacted every school principal asking them about the incident. He says he has been unable to find evidence that this ever happened and that not a single parental complaint has been received.

Conrad also called Elliot and left a message for her, as well as emailed her, asking for any information. So far she has refused to reply. Conrad said: "As a state representative, if she became aware of a concern from a parent about inappropriate subject matter, I would think she would have a responsibility to call us. To my knowledge, she hasn't done that."

Consider Elliot's actions: Is she acting the way a person would who has evidence? She is acting the way a liar acts. She makes the claim, refuses to substantiate it, and then refuses to answer questions about the claim. If pornographic photos were being shown to children, because gays are allowed to marry in New Hampshire (a totally bizarre claim) then why didn't Elliott report this to the school district itself?

Conrad says that the entire claim is strange since the school district doesn't have any classes that deal with sexuality or marriage at the elementary school level. He says they have health and nutrition classes but nothing on relationships.

Based on the evidence, I would have to suggest that any sex involving Elliott would be, by definition, anal sex. After all, an ass is an ass.

By the way, you may remember we have discussed the so-called Republican Liberty Caucus, which purports to promote libertarian ideas within the GOP. They list Elliott as as "Republican Liberty Caucus Elected Official" on their web site. I've argued before that this Republican group is not libertarian. Apparently the "libertarians" in the Republican Party aren't much better than Republicans in the Libertarian Party—just witness Root and Barr as examples.

The state of Republican thinking.

I am convinced that the religious right is nuts, quite literally nuts. I don't mean mentally ill. They are not ill, they are just crazy. Here is a top add to Republican Senator Tom Coburn. This is the sort of wacky theorizing that religious lunatics use. Here is Coburn's chief of staff, Michael Schwartz, explaining to the Values Voters Summit how all erotica is inherently homosexual. Add together a heaping cup of antigay bigotry, along with a lot of big government censorship, mix in a little bit of Jesus, and this is what comes out.



For some idea of the kooky ideas of Schwartz, and his boss, read this.

Politician, "family values" man, sex fiend.

Mike Duvall is one of those Theopublicans, that combination of a Republican and a theocrat. Duvall had a reputation because he was strongly opposed to equal marriage rights for gay couples. Duvall shouted that his position was because he supports traditional family values. The Religious-Right group, Capitol Resource Institute, praised Duvall as a “consistent trooper” who “has voted time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California.” Remember, that in Christianese, that family doesn’t mean family, not in the sense most people mean. It only means hetereosexuals. Apparently gay people are without families.

Duvall was, as expected, a supporter of the hateful Proposition 8. He is a Christian, who would have prayer in public in the state assembly. He was also something of a sex fiend and a pervert, as least by “family values” standards.

Mr. Duvall was sitting a meeting room at the state capitol chatting with someone. The microphone in front of him was on as the hearing was about to be broadcast. Duvall launched into a bragging sessions about screwing two women, neither of whom are his wife. To make it worse, it appears that one of them, and possibly both of them, are lobbyists in Sacramento. So, instead of giving Duvall inappropriate cash bribes to vote their way, they apparently were giving him a horizontal rumba instead. Duvall bragged about cheating on his wife and, in the same conversation, bragged about cheating on his mistress as well. But hey, they’re women, so he’s still a “family values” kind of guy.

Duvall got caught. Of course many “family values” politicians just haven’t been caught—yet. Duvall apologized, but not for the affairs, not for the inappropriate relationships with a lobbyist, not for cheating on his wife, but for “the comments I made in what I believed to be a private conservation.” So he’s sorry he said something and got caught but not sorry about lying to his wife, lying to his mistress, or any the violtions of common sense ethics for a politician. He’s just sorry he said something, not sorry he did something.

Duvall whined: “This is a private matter and I asked that everyone respect the privacy of all involved.” Really! What cheek!

Duvall is a conservative and today’s religiously-obsessed Right do not believe that one’s sex life is a “private matter.” Mr. Duvall has regularly voted on policies making the private lives of others a matter of state concern. You would think that whether two people marry one another is a “private matter” that ought to be left to “all involved.” Mr. Duvall said it wasn’t. He wanted state legislation banning some couples from making that “private” decision.

This is typical of conservatives. Their sex life is a private matter. Your sex life is a matter of state regulation.

I’m glad this moralistic, two-faced, lying theocrat has resigned his office. He deserves the shame and the ridicule. But, since he chose to use his state office to bed a lobbyist who was employed to secure his votes, I suggest that much more ought to be coming. Duvall ought to face legal charges. No one seems to think these female lobbyists were screwing Duvall because of his looks or physique—he’s fat and old. But he had what every lobbyist wants—a vote in the state assembly. And that changes the dynamics. I suggest the lobbyists traded sex for influence and Duvall traded influence for sex. It was an act of prostitution with both Duvall and the lobbyists all playing the whore.

I just wish some of these Republicans would start talking about how sex is a “private matter” before they caught in some scandal.

Photo: Duvall: it was Brad Pitt looks that got him screwed.