sexuality

Via AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth:

So many people so insecure about their sexual orientation that they demand a Constitutional Amendment! So Rudy Giuliani has flip-flopped his position and now finds room for Constitutional homophobia in his vision of a police-state America:

Still liking Giuliani, all you moderates out there? Giuliani was against bashing gays in the US Constitution before he was for it. What a freaking hypocrite, the man is pretending on every single issue to be a "real" conservative when he's simply lying. Giuliani just might give Romney a run for his money as the biggest phony and flip-flopper among the GOP candidates....

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, told The Hill Saturday that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I suppose that's one way for social conservatives to prevent themselves from "choosing to be gay."

While the Larry Craig scandal post-mortems move over all sorts of Via arcane, almost pointless speculations, I'm left wondering whether this is at all a political win for progressives.

Yes, the GOP is imploding over its holier-than-thou right to hate ______________ (fill in the blank), but is giving the "crime" of Craig's sexual orientation such political validity through all the chest-thumping really a "win"?

Yes, Craig seems to be a cheat. But cheats led the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. What's so different now? Because Craig is gay?

This is part of the sad spectacle of American politics that goes back in my memory at least to the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, when a clearly unqualified not-quite-a-judge was challenged not over his lack of qualifications but rather over sexual misconduct. Anita Hill may have suffered, and I'm inclined to believe her, but was her suffering really to the point? Clarence Thomas sits on the bench, writing inane opinion and dissent, one after the other, like some grumbling old curmudgeon clinging to the dogmas of his angry view of the world, all because the Democrats would not challenge him on the issue at hand: competence.

And now we see the crowing over the fall of Senator Craig, who is all too typical of the fragile conservative male who needs to pass law after law to prevent him from being himself. And we crow over his fall.

But isn't it a bit tragic? War, bloodshed, corruption in the billions of dollars, domestic and abroad, and the only casualties we see are over sexual "deviance" as defined by a bunch of fearful men afraid of their own shadows.

Some victory. Like standing on the top of the hill that's falling into a deeper and deeper hole.

Via TalkLeft, it seems Joe Klein is tilting windmills. As one of "those bloggers" who mainstream media and Beltway insider types just love to paint with just such a label, I thought I'd run through the checklist.

A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:

--believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

Nope.

--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

Ha!

--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

Utterly stupid, by an imperial fundamentalist president.

--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

Not!

--doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

That would be silly.

--believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

On the contrary.

--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

Haven't seen a cure for these in any system.

--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

Still is so far, I think.

--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

That would be a problem, considering I am a part business owner.

--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

No, though corporate interests do carry a lot of weight.

--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

Why?

--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

I do have a problem with people who insist on controlling others' private lives. If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against gay marriage, don't marry a same-sex partner. That seems "straightforward" to me, and not at all a matter of faith. (If it is, let's revisit the First Amendment, shall we?)

--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

Once upon a time I was a moderate. Now I don't know what these terms mean. "Conservative" used to mean Barry Goldwater, but today he couldn't get elected dog-catcher via the Republican Party. After all, "conservatives" used to be for limited government, but now they seem to want the government to control every aspect of everyone's lives.

In comments, Acid Jones writes:

Wow. It's immensely telling that many of those "extremist beliefs" are right-wing caricatures of left-wing positions.

Cut to Ann Coulter.

By now, many of you have probably already seen this, or at least heard about this: Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot." (Why, I have no idea. If the epithet fits anywhere, it's on the homophobic politicians who so obsess over other people's sex lives. But anyway...)

What's truly telling is the reaction of the audience. These are conservatives -- or at least the loudest conservatives out there.

I'm quite certain there are many people who see themselves conservative and don't suffer from trembling homophobia.

Links:

• C&L run-down
• Think Progress on Mitt Romney's praise of Coulter
• Pam Spauling, on Pandagon, lacerates the Democrats for failing to confront how the conservativist agitators debase the entire political dialogue:
  

  I can’t even begin to address the fact that the Edwards campaign used this as an e-fundraising tactic right out of the box. It cheapens the message beyond all reason. This required a separate response not tied to an ATM request.

And yet, as the likes of Bill Donohue, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and James Dobson continue to get loving camera time from mainstream media -- you know, the people that like to crow about how superior they are by focusing on "what's important" and all that -- there seems to be precious little push-back.

Must see: the (not quite) official Bodygroom website. (Warning: Adult material. Not recommended for children under 13 -- or men with sexual orientation anxiety disorder, unless they're safely protected by healthy doses of righteous homophobia, in which case they actually might enjoy some vicarious pseudo-homosexual visioning in a safe and totally virtual and completely heterosexual manner. If you are a man who has felt onset of effeminate symptoms, there are treatments available. Ask your doctor, but only after you've put your clothes back on. Not valid in Canada or the Virgin Islands.)

[via Suzanne Reisman]

Really some things in the news are just ridiculous.

Prince's acclaimed performance included a guitar solo during the
"Purple Rain" segment of his medley in which his shadow was projected
onto a large, flowing beige sheet. As the 48-year-old rock star let
rip, the silhouette cast by his figure and his guitar (shaped like the
singer's symbol) had phallic connotations for some.

A number of bloggers have decried "Malfunction!" — including Sam
Anderson at New York magazine's Daily Intelligencer. Daily News
television critic David Bianculli called it "a rude-looking shadow
show" that "looked embarrassingly rude, crude and unfortunately placed."

You know, I noticed that. In fact, it was pretty obvious, when he changed guitars to use this wacky axe shaped like is Prince symbol, complete with an arrow point at the head--

Oh dear! A phallic symbol!

It's funny how there's all this fuss about this when the Super Bowl broadcast was littered with ads for violent television shows, violent movies -- and ads that were just violent.

The AP story by Jake Coyle tries to make the claim that the phallic imagery was accidental. Ha! He also claims:

Always eccentric, he famously changed his name to The Artist Formerly
Known as Prince, then to simply a symbol and finally back to Prince.

I suppose you wouldn't expect the Associated Press to point out that he did this because his record contract forbade him from using the name "Prince" when recording with a different label.

Bucking pressure from the radical wingnut contingent that runs so strong in down there, Texas Governor Rick Perry decided to get sensible about cervical cancer prevention:

By issuing an executive order, Perry apparently sidesteps opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way parents raise their children.

Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade — meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 — will have to get Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base. But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio.

This of course goes against the fundamentalist orthodox thinking that claims girls need the spectre of cervical cancer in order to keep their legs closed and wait until marriage before having sex. Of course, they don't consider flaws in their logic, such as child molestation, rape and other ways that even "good little girls" could get cervical cancer.

The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.

The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.

--that is, except for agitated wingnut phobias of anything to do with women's health, especially when it comes to those sexual organs that supposedly got Man kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

And that makes Governor Perry's act so un-radical it's almost shocking.

Then again, it's almost difficult to be a "radical" conservative when conservatives are even claiming that condoms cause cancer.

Every day is a Blog for Choice day here, but this post is a few days late.

When it comes to abortion, there are a lot of nutters who believe that a woman's only proper function is as a baby factory. Many, if not most, of these folks would deny it, but when you get down to their opposition of birth control and sex education, and their calls for government-enforced pregnancy, it becomes pretty clear that a woman's right to her own body -- and even her right to her own life -- is at best contingent upon absence of the presence of sperm within a stone's throw of her womb.

Then there are those folks who find abortion to be "icky" and just don't like to think about it.

The big buzz phrase now in this current period of ephemeral desire for "bi-partisan" solutions is "common ground." Find "common ground" on abortion.

Can there be common ground? Really?

The fundamentalists pushing for criminalization are not just against abortion, they're against birth control and sex education. To them, the problem isn't that teenagers are getting pregnant, it's that teenagers getting pregnant should be punished for getting pregnant. Heck, not just teenagers -- let's throw in adult women. Let's throw in married adult women. Let's throw in married adult women who've already borne familes.

They're against pharmacists even providing birth control. They're against Plan B. They're against the HPV vaccine.

What they don't talk about, but what is the obvious result of their ideological

How do you find "common ground" with such people?

Links to other posts I saw:

PunditMom writes:

As a young adult in the late '70s and early '80s, trying to juggle two or three jobs, a full college classload and an unstable husband (now ex-husband), I hoped and prayed that I would not find myself pregnant or that I would ever have to make a decision about what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

But I felt safe knowing that, even with the precautions of birth control, that if one little sperm got through, the government would not be able to intrude in my personal decisions about my body, whatever I decided.

Jessica Valenti puts it plain on HuffPo:

Today--on the 34th anniversary of Roe v Wade--I have a request. Instead of writing about the legislation, the rhetoric, or the politics surrounding reproductive rights and justice, let's keep it simple. Let's just trust women.

Seems easy enough, I know. But given that over 30 years after Roe women are still fighting the same battles, maybe we need a remedial course.

A better run-down is over at Fetch me my axe.

In this the new and improved socially conservative Republican version of "I did not inhale"?

The Rev. Ted Haggard said Friday he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a male prostitute. But the influential Christian evangelist insisted he threw the drugs away and never had sex with the man.

Puh-leez!

Is this credible?

Haggard, a vocal opponent of gay marriage, resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals on Thursday after being accused by a male escort of having had a sexual relationship with him and using meth.

"I did call him. I called him to buy some meth. But I threw it away. I was buying it for me but I never used it," Haggard, who looked uneasy as he sat in a car with his wife, said in an interview with KUSA TV in Colorado broadcast on CNN.

Asked if he had sex with his accuser, he replied tersely, "No I did not." He said he had sought the man out at a Denver hotel for a "massage."

This is just one leader among many who demand laws and Constitutional Amendments to keep them from being gay.

Imagine what Ted Haggard might have done had he been allowed to marry the man! No wonder there oughta be a law!

Stories like this seem to be very common in the past few years.

The leader of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, resigned Thursday after being accused of paying for sex with a man in monthly trysts over the past three years....

...Mike Jones, 49, of Denver told The Associated Press he decided to go public with his allegations because of the political fight. Jones, who said he is gay, said he was upset when he discovered Haggard and the New Life Church had publicly opposed same-sex marriage.

"It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," said Jones, who added that he isn't working for any political group.

Jones, whose allegations were first aired on KHOW-AM radio in Denver, claimed Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years. Jones also said Haggard snorted methamphetamine before their sexual encounters to heighten his experience....

...He said that he last had sex with Haggard in August and that he did not warn him before making his allegations this week.

Jones said he has voice mail messages from Haggard, as well as an envelope he said Haggard used to mail him cash, though he declined to make any of it available to the AP.

"There's some stuff on there (the voice mails) that's pretty damning," he said.

For the record, Haggard denies everything.

Yet this is hardly the first time a staunch, some might say rabid, opponent of civil rights for homosexuals has been outed as secretly homosexual, which is a shame -- or which seems to be shame itself transformed into nationwide politics. Hate -- self-hatred or hate projected towards others -- is a terrible thing.

Does this describe Haggard? I have no idea. Maybe Jones is a crank. This incident seems to fit the pattern. Perhaps time will tell.