When you spend a lot of time on the internet, where news of petty cruelties travels at the speed of light, you get jaded pretty quickly. You find yourself thinking things like, “Well sure, that video of a policeman tazing an 80-year-old nun who was leading an orphanage field trip is pretty bad, but it’s nothing compared to that jackass ‘artist’ who starved a dog to death for one of his ‘exhibits.’” In other words, it becomes more and more difficult to be impressed or shocked by the random idiocy and violence that’s out there.

But once in awhile, you come across a story that far exceeds the internet’s usual standards—a story that replenishes your faith that humanity has yet to plumb its deepest depths, that we still have miles to go.

Good Afternoon Representative Kern. My name is Preston Mitchum and this email is in regard to the disrespectful and discriminatory remarks about the homosexual community.

I am offended by your rude remarks about the homosexual community and believe you should apologize immediately. As a State representative, you are supposed to be of integrity, intelligence, motivation, and perseverance. I cannot believe that you uttered hatred words about GLBT's. I am sure there are other issues that State representatives and members of Congress can worry about, besides sexual orientation. For instance, the wiretapping bill, the Iraq War, issues with Guantanamo Bay, etc. You made really harsh comments and I for one am deeply offended.

Comments such as: "Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country." Additionally, "I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat." 

If you believe homosexuality poses more of a threat than terrorism, you should reconsider your position. God forbid (yes I said God) that someone is gay or lesbian. I would hate if they touched you because I hear that this "disease" is contagious. Furthermore, I am bothered that you are an educator. Excuse me for assuming, but I hope you are not telling children that homosexuality is an abomination. This will force children to hate the GLBT community and whether you believe it or not, they  are not born to hate. They grow up in a society that teaches them that homosexuality is wrong and believe it so much, they murder other children who are comfortable enough to “come out.” Case in point - Lawerence King -a 15-year-old Junior High School students that was shot in the head for being openly gay.

To make it worse, you also compare being gay to "toe cancer." How can a woman with such stature, be so unkind to a group of individuals who were born into a lifestyle? Why would one person choose to be gay and ridiculed by people in high positions like you? No one questions why you are a straight woman, and therefore, you have neither the right nor authority to question another's sexual orientation.  

Our nation is supposed to be progressive and dedicated to improving the lives around us. Progressives believe that narrow self-interest should not be what defines America. Something that the Center for American Progress mentions on their website is that a progressive is NOT: naïve, short-sighted, narrow minded, selfish, arrogant, and xenophobic. I can only hope that today's youth listen to your comments and get as offended as I am and writes numerous emails. There are no facts behind your words. It is simply frustration for an opinion that will never be changed.  

Honestly, I appreciate the work you are doing as a State representative, but this in no way overweighs your criticism of the homosexual community. I am personally disappointed that we have representatives speaking for constituents, especially if they are as discourteous as your words.

I just spoke with someone who's close to the situation Rob just blogged about--turns out it's Sally Kerns, teacher and Oklahoma state rep, who told supporters at a county Republican meeting that gay people are more dangerous than terrorists.

Check out the recording here. Let Kerns know what you think of her hate speech by emailing her here, or contact the Oklahoma Speaker of the House. 

The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund posted a video on its YouTube page today that features audio of an Okalahoma state legislator talking to a gathering about the threat to America posed by gays and lesbians.

Some highlights:

"Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country."

"I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat."

"They're going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle."

"Gays are infiltrating city councils."

She also compares homosexuality to toe cancer, nach.

Exciting news for a variety of historically marginalized groups: Denise Simmons, the country's first black, lesbian mayor, was elected this week to serve Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Simmons, a member of the council since 2001, is the second consecutive mayor who is black and openly gay. She is the first woman to serve as the city’s mayor since Sheila Russell held the office from 1996-1997. 

... 

“It feels really great,” Simmons said. “When I first came to the School Committee, one of the things I always said was that I wanted to be mayor.”

“Today is a day to celebrate another broken glass ceiling,” said Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, a national organization that supports openly GLBT candidates seeking national and local office. The Victory Fund’s blog, incidentally, has one of the best URLs I’ve come across recently: www.gaypolitics.com.

Arizona is poised to grant domestic partner benefits to state and university employees—but guess who’s holding up the proposal? The Center for Arizona Policy, an organization that calls itself “one of the leading organizations in Arizona actively fighting in the legislature and media for conservative, traditional views on gambling, homosexuality and pornography,” filed objections with the state on Monday.

Unsurprisingly, the Center for Arizona Policy is part of a coalition of Family Policy Councils “selected and endorsed” by James Dobson himself. These councils exist in 36 states, and not just the ones you’d expect—everyone from Massachusetts to Minnesota is getting in on the fun.

This is one of many examples of organizing that made the Right so powerful in the past 20 years—just getting their names on Focus on the Family Action’s website is enough to galvanize conservative groups into doing Dobson’s bidding across the country. And though the Center for Arizona Policy conveniently copy/pasted Focus’s declaration that the groups have “no corporate or financial relationship” onto its own site, it’s unwise to assume that the grassroots capital of the Right is spent—groups like this are going to keep popping up and wielding influence well into the future.

Or at least that's what homophobes said about Vermont when my state legalized civil unions for gay and lesbian couples over seven years ago.  In fact, Vermont is stronger today for doing the right thing in the battle for equality in America.  

Yesterday, a judge in Polk County, Iowa overturned the state's ban on gay marriage and instructed the county to allow same-sex couples to marry. The decision will certainly be appealed and may be overturned; but for now, at least, there is some justice in the first-in-the-nation-for-now caucus state.

That is an actual quote from a Brazillian judge's decision in a widely-publicized slander case (AP coverage here). Basically, Plameiras club director Jose Cryillo Junior hints that midfielder Richarlyson, who plays for rivals Sao Paulo, is homosexual. Richarlyson (odd name, even for a Brazilian soccer player) sues for slander, and the judge rules against him. In his decision, he also wrote that  it would not be "reasonable to accept homosexuals in Brazilian soccer because it would hurt the uniformity present," and suggested that allowing homosexuals into a "virile" sport like soccer would lead to affirmative action and quotas for homosexuals. 

 At first glance, this story does not look like it has a good ending - Richarlyson is jeered, other Brazilian soccer players who pose in gay magazines (apparently not unheard of in Brazil) are harassed even by their own fans, and there are no openly gay players in the top league. However, a deeper look reveals some positive signs. Tales of closeted players have recieved sympathetic airings, the judge has had to withdraw his ruling after being confronted by the ethics board that oversees such decisions, and has taken a "leave of absence," and, most importantly, at some players seem to be pushing for change. Here's to hoping it continues, for, as Richarlyson said, "This is a disrespect not only to me, it's a disrespect to Brazil. All that matters is if the player can do his job on the field."

Although I found the questions and answers on marriage equality last night to be very interesting (particularly Bill Richardson's shrewd answer that he'd get the lesbian couple from Brooklyn "everything I think is politically feasible" thus hinting that he has no problem with full marriage equality but avoiding taking the political risk of saying so outright), I thought all the time spent on it was sort of a waste. Of all the important issues facing the next president, gay marriage simply isn't one of them. That's not to say it isn't an important issue. I think full marriage equality is a crucial civil right that no one should be denied. But since I've been following its progression I'm well aware of the fact that marriage laws are set by the states, and the conflicts between state laws will mostly be adjudicated in the courts. The one major national proposal on gay marriage is a constitutional amendment to ban it which stands no chance of passing, wouldn't be supported by any of the Democrats running for president, and the president has no power to vote for or against anyway.

So why is it that so many debates in the last couple elections, both in the primaries and the general have featured questions about this? My best answer is that it fits broadly into the characterological preference of the mainstream media. They ask about gay marriage for the same reason they ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama how they respond to inane allegations that they aren't feminine enough or black enough, respectively. It's because they're more fun to ask, and because it allows the media to create supposedly non-ideological narratives about the candidates. I'd rather see more questions on how the candidates would actually govern the massive federal bureaucracy, but maybe I'm not the typical voter.

Also on TAPPED.

Young Americans appear to lean slightly more to the left than the general population: 28 percent described themselves as liberal, compared with 20 percent of the nation at large. And 27 percent called themselves conservative, compared with 32 percent of the general public.

 

Forty-four percent said they believed that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married, compared with 28 percent of the public at large. They are more likely than their elders to support the legalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana.

This would seem to suggest, as I've argued before, that Democrats would be wise to take more forthrightly progressive stances on questions like gay marriage and reforming our draconian drug crime laws. Young people are voting in greater numbers than ever before, and they're open to sensible policies that were heretofore off-limits to mainstream politicians.

cross-posted on TAPPED

At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.

Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.

The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.

Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.

On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.

I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.

With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.

A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.