Now, I don’t usually bother reading the replies I receive from my elected sheeple, especially by my ultra-conservative Senators, because it’s just too depressing an exercise in futility. That, and the letters are mostly lengthier versions of their bullshit talking points anyway. This morning, though, I happened upon an email from Senator Roberts that was (ahem) addressed to someone else. Fucking idiots.

It was about Teh Homosexual Agenda ™ so….I just had to reply.

Here’s Homobigot Roberts speaking to fellow Homobigot Brittany:

November 28, 2006

Brittany Dirksen
Goessel, KS 67053

Dear Brittany:

Thank you for contacting me about amending the Constitution to define marriage. I appreciate hearing from fellow Kansans on this matter.

Recently the Senate debated S. J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Act. The resolution proposed to amend the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am an original cosponsor of S. J. Res. 1 and voted in support of the measure because I believe it is wrong for a select minority to impose their definition of marriage on the nation. However, the Senate failed to pass the procedural motion requiring 60 votes to end debate and take up the proposal for final passage. This procedural motion failed by a vote of 49-48 and effectively killed the proposal in the Senate. I was disappointed by this outcome and the lack of support by many of my colleagues.

It is important to remember that, while not impossible, amending the Constitution was intentionally made a difficult process by our Founding Fathers. Despite this recent setback, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) remains federal law (Public Law 104-99). The Act defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and a spouse as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Kansas adheres to a longstanding policy that does not recognize same sex marriages. Most recently, seventy percent of Kansans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the April 2005 ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Rest assured, I will continue to support efforts that preserve the institution of marriage.

patsig.gif *

With every best wish,

Sincerely,

Pat Roberts

My reply:

Senator Pat Roberts
109 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1605

Senator Roberts:

I received the following reply to a Ms. Brittany Dirken in my inbox this morning. Since I have not recently written to you in regards to amending the Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, this bit of Tuesday morning bigotry was quite unexpected. After reading through the entire email, however, I felt a sudden urge to reply to your talking points, even though said email was not intended for my “imposing minority” eyes.

You said:

“I am an original cosponsor of S. J. Res. 1 and voted in support of the measure because I believe it is wrong for a select minority to impose their definition of marriage on the nation.”

Which minority would that be, sir? - Christian homobigots? In the case of “gay marriage”, homosexuals merely want the same rights that heterosexuals currently enjoy - the right to legal ties with the partner of their choosing (and all the benefits that come with it). Homosexuals are not forcing otherwise straight men into gay marriages. They’re not “imposing” their lifestyles on anyone. They’re simply asking for an end to the discrimination that is, state by state, being codified into law. Christians and homophobes, on the other hand, are imposing their beliefs about homosexuality onto the entire American population; because they think gay sex is icky, it must be outlawed for everyone! Your claim that “the gays” are shoving their beliefs down America’s throats is absurd, when really Christians are the ones doing the shoving.

You also said that:

“Most recently, seventy percent of Kansans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the April 2005 ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.”

I don’t see how the number of Kansans - or Americans or Congresspeople - who voted in favor of a ban on gay marriage is relevant. Discrimination is discrimination. Tell me, could you get behind a return to slavery if 90% of Kansans wanted their very own brown person?

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Kelly Garbato

PS - While I applaud your use of the email - because, surprisingly, some of your colleagues still reply to my internet inquiries via snail mail - your interns’ work is sloppy at best. There’s no reason I should have received a reply meant for someone else; the only way it could have been worse is if you’d included her full mailing address in your reply! Privacy, people, privacy.

OK, off to do some kickboxing. All of a sudden, I’ve got a lot of anger to vent.

* He includes a photo of himself in email correspondence? Is this guy for real?

—————–

Tagged: gay+marriage senator+roberts pat+roberts kansas discrimination homophobia the+homosexual+agenda marriage defense+of+marriage

Another doozy from the Catholic Church:

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops adopted new guidelines for gay outreach Tuesday that are meant to be welcoming, while also telling gays to be celibate since the church considers their sexuality “disordered.”

In other words, come and gawd-bag with us, brother, and do be sure to tithe at least 10% (because, let’s be honest, you interior designers sure are paid well, and it’s not like you’ll ever have a quiver full of yung ‘uns to support anywho), just don’t look at me funny, or else I’ll have to throttle you like some Peruvian mistress.

———–

Tagged: vatican catholic catholic+church gay homosexual glbt homophobic godbaggers

Because, this week, I made my election picks. The eroticism of voting has its detractors, but I’ll tell you this: the mere thought of heading over to church (!) this Tuesday, saddling up behind a massive Diebold machine, and punching buttons with a frantic sense of purpose totally gives me a boner. I’ve been fantasizing about this for two years, baby.

Granted, the experience hasn’t quite rawked my world nearly as hard as I’d hoped, at least not thus far. I’d love to be able to cast at least one vote for a third-party candidate, but the only parties represented on the Kansas ballot - in addition to the Dems and Rethugs, of course - are the Libertarian and Reform parties. Now, I can get behind the Libertarians’ social agenda, but their cozy relationship with the big corps just leaves me cold. Even Shane - who actually registered as a Libertarian this year - breaks with them on enviro and animal welfare issues. On the other side of the aisle is the Reform party of Kansas, whose web site got me all hot and bothered, if only for a moment.

They start off fairly strong with their so-called Constitutional Principles platform:

* We shall seek to reform our electoral, lobbying, and campaign practices to ensure that our elected government officials and our candidates owe their allegiance and remain accountable to the people whom they are elected to serve rather than other influence-seeking agencies.

* We shall require ethical conduct by all our government officials with respect to the acceptance of rewards from special interests seeking to influence government during or following their terms of public service.

Cool, cool. Throw ‘public funding of federal elections’ in the mix, and you’ve got me.

Next up - Social Issues/Civil Rights:

The Reform Party of KS supports passage of legislation designating English as the official language of the United States.

We, the Reform Party of KS, wholeheartedly support Second Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and as given to us by Almighty God.

The Reform Party of KS strongly supports the traditional family as ordained by God and built upon the marital union of one man and one woman.

Um, stop right there. Say no more. What we’ve got here is one sorry case of redneck, godbagging sheeple in wolves’ clothing. Fuck that.

So, yeah, with the Reform party out of the way, my choices became that much simpler.

Once I made my picks, I just about ended up with a straight Dem ticket. The only race in which I’m venturing over to The Dark Side is that of State Treasurer - where the Dem challenger doesn’t seem to have many math skillz. Compare that with incumbent Lynne Jenkins’ mad crazy CPA xperience, and even Larry has to admit that she’s better qualified for the job.

As far as the Dems go, none exactly ignite a fit of passion in the cockles, but I can live with ‘em. Dennis Moore (US Rep, 3rd District) received the endorsement of Humane USA, the Humane Society’s Legislative Fund, and NARAL, and scored a 90/100 on the Secular Coalition for America’s scorecard (conspicuously absent, though, were the thumbs-up from the League of Conservation Voters and NOW). Governor Kathleen Sebelius scored with NARAL, as did Paul Morrison, who’s challenging resident perve Phill Kline. You know the guy - the one who currently abuses his position as Kansas AG to harass women who’ve had Teh Sex, as reflected in their abortion records. Bitch is going down. Like, Rick Santorum down. Hard and angry.

And we can’t forget about the State Board of Education race for my esteemed 3rd District. John Bacon is among the fucktards who voted to teach (un)Intelligent Design alongside evolution in Kansas public schools. While this was, in keeping with the man’s nature, absolutely fucktarded, I suppose I owe the godidiots of Kansas a touch of gratitude, for it is they who filled the pot that would cook His Noodliness. Without the anti-science zealots, I never would have tasted such saucy deliciousness. So, thank you Johnny boy, but an atheist’s gotta do what an atheist’s gotta do: don’t let the church school doors hit your ignorant ass on the way out.

While the general races were fairly easy to decide, the to-retain-or-not-to-retain questions for Kansas court judges were less so. Aside from the full-text judgments in previous cases, there’s very little info available on the judges themselves. And who the fuck has the time to read 2+ decisions for eighteen judges? Not this featherhead. Ultimately, I voted to retain Judge X unless I uncovered some unsavory fact about a past ruling. My final number of yeas was twelve.

This was by far the most bo-ring part of my civic duty. However, two judges did manage to raise my hackles: Henry W. Green, Jr. and Tom Malone, both of the infamous (and infamously bigoted) Matthew Limon case:

In 2000 teenager Matthew R. Limon was convicted of having consensual sex with another, younger teenage boy. Both adolescents were developmentally disabled. A Kansas court sentenced Matthew to 17 years in prison. Attorney General Kline noted that this type of offense merited a tough sentence.

However, in 1999 Kansas adopted a so-called “Romeo and Juliet” law. This law specified that when an older teenager engages in consensual sex with a younger teenager, and the age difference is less than four years, the maximum prison sentence that can be applied to the older teenager is 15 months. However, the law specified that this only applied to heterosexual adolescents. When Matthew’s attorney’s appealed his conviction, on the grounds that stiffer penalties for homosexual teenagers than for heterosexual teenagers were unconstitutional, a Kansas appellate court disagreed.

Appeals court Judge Henry W. Green, Jr. ruled that the sentence given to Matthew encouraged “traditional sexual mores” and the “traditional sexual development of children,” as well as marriage and procreation. Judge Green added that the ruling helped protect teenagers from sexually transmitted diseases, which he said were more common among homosexual teens that heterosexual teens. Another appeals court judge, Tom Malone, also supported the latter reasoning. Thankfully, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected the appeals court ruling.

The Kansas Supreme Court found that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the court found that homosexual sex between adults was not a crime, applied to Matthew Limon’s case. Marla J. Luckert, a Kansas Supreme Court Justice, wrote the unanimous ruling which advised, “The moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest.” The court found that the Romeo and Juliet law violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Thank gawd the Kansas Supreme Court had more sense than the appellate court. What happened to Limon was, well, appalling. So it gives me great pleasure to vote against the two dickwads who helped to steal 4 1/2 years of a developmentally disabled teen’s life. Pass this one along to fellow Kansans - Kline may be the fundie xian receiving the lion’s share of deserved liberal wrath, but Green and Malone are just as evil.

But back to Kline for a moment. Our little Creepy Peeper was complicit in the whole Limon affair as well:

However, Attorney General Kline disagreed with the court. In a brief filed in support of Matthew’s 17 year prison term Mr. Kline argued that reversing Matthew’s sentence would threaten traditional marriage. He illogically warned that if the court ruled in Matthew’s favor this would ultimately force Kansas to recognize bigamist and incestuous marriages, as well as other “less-than-desirable couplings.” The latter presumably referred to marriages among homosexuals.

You read that right: “less-than-desirable couplings”. As if his seed’s the cream of the fucking crop or something. Douchebag.

Man, I so cannot wait for Tuesday.

Up tomorrow: links to voting guides to help y’all out with your picks, as well as a link dump of election coverage.

———–

Tagged: vote voting elections mid-term+elections ballot matthew+limon phill+kline dennis+moore henry+green tom+malone kansas john+bacon don+weiss discrimination

Is today.

Celebrate with Amnesty International:

May 17 marks the International Day Against Homophobia. In solidarity with Amnesty International sections in Mexico, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Spain, Puerto Rico and others, OUTfront will be campaigning against the existing sodomy laws in Nicaragua. Take action with OUTfront and AI sections around the globe to celebrate this day of international solidarity against homophobia.

Demonstrations have already been planned to take place in front of Nicaraguan Embassies in Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Paraguay, Spain and Mexico.

Look for updates and events for the International Day against Homophobia at www.idahomophobia.org

You can also take action online! Visit this link to send a message to the Nicaraguan authorities that sodomy laws are a grave violation of human rights that must be abolished.

More Amnesty International alerts are available here.

If so inclined, you can also send your Senator a nifty eCard via the Human Rights Campaign:
 
 

 
 

SPOKANE, Wash. - Mayor James E. West was recalled from office Tuesday in a special election over allegations he offered jobs and perks to young men he met in a gay Internet chat room. […]

The campaign to recall him began last spring after the Spokesman-Review newspaper reported that West was a closeted homosexual who visited gay chat rooms using his city-owned laptop computer, and offered internships and other favors to young men he hoped to have sex with.

West, a former Boy Scout executive and sheriff’s deputy, was elected mayor in 2003 after serving more than two decades as a conservative Republican in the state Legislature, where he voted against gay-friendly bills.

Better yet, our Closeted Crusader plans to sue the newspaper for revealing his unethical and hypocritical conduct. Good luck with that, shithead.

Read the whole story here.

- K

…that America would be less progressive than South Africa in regards to a certain social policy issue?

Today, South Africa’s Constitutional Court declared that a ban on gay marriage violated their Constitution’s guarantee of “equal rights” (like, duh!). The decision was unanimous, to boot, and makes South Africa the fifth country - the fifth fucking country, in 2005! - to allow same-sex marriage, along with the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada (commie pinko fascists, them all!).

How sad that America’s sentiments towards homosexuality are more Neanderthal than those of a country that practiced legalized apartheid until fifteen short years ago. Unreal.

Interestingly, this ruling doesn’t necessarily reflect the tolerant attitudes of many South Africans:

Few expect Parliament to resist, even though Africans are generally intolerant of gay relationships and many South Africans are conservative on social issues. Among political factions here, only the tiny African Christian Democratic Party, whose positions carry a strong religious undercurrent, called for a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriages.

Even so, the highest court in the land had the balls to extend equal rights to an unpopular minority. Imagine that! The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can’t even protect atheists’ rights without receiving fatwas from all sides, Repubes and Dems alike.

And to make matters worse, we may soon be shafted with a paternalistic, First Amendment-hating Sam Alito. Ugh. Can it get any worse!?

- K

Queers, take note: today is National Coming Out Day. Appropriately enough, this year’s theme is “Talk About It” (is it just me, or does the HRC’s marketing department seem to have phoned it in this time around?).

Hey, at least National Coming Out Day didn’t coincide with National Porn Sunday this year - they missed each other by a mere 48 hours. A GLBT’s gotta know that s/he can at least come home and crack one off (flog the log? paw off? wank the crank? polish the pearl? - Wiki and I can go for hours!) at the end of the day. Doubly so on National Coming Out Day. Helps takes the edge off, no?

Sorry. Guess I’ve still got sex on the brain. Mike and Craig just got me so hot with their Extreme Evangelicalism. That, and all this Benadryl is making me loopy. Fucking allergies.

- K

Today, we have an interesting - if not depressing - article from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Gay advocates partly positive on Bush’s nominee; White House shifts tactics, emphasizes Miers’ credentials as evangelical Christian

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Washington — Harriet Miers is finding friends, or at least sympathy, in strange places.

Gay and lesbian advocates are providing some of the rare positive response to President Bush’s new Supreme Court nominee, who finds herself under a barrage of hostile fire from nearly the entire conservative establishment in Washington. […]

Joe Solmonese, president of the gay Human Rights Campaign, said Miers’ answers [to a questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas] more than 15 years ago indicated “at the very least maybe she’s sort of open to the idea of fairness.”

In other words, the mere possibility that Bush’s latest Supreme Court pick isn’t a raving fundie bigot should be seen as a positive. Scary! Maybe Miers is “sort of open to the idea of fairness”? I should fucking hope so - if confirmed, the lives of millions of queers, women, and minorities are in her hands.

As always, the chilly reception Miers has received from the right gives me hope - but can Bush ram her through the confirmation process without the support of his conservative base?

Miers’ overtures to the gay community may sow doubt on the right without winning endorsements from gay advocacy groups. […]

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which has withheld its e