Monday, July 02, 2012

Anderson Cooper Comes Out

Anderson Cooper sent an email to Andrew Sullivan where he explained why he has never publicly acknowledged his sexual orientation, and why he felt it was time now.

I don't think people are surprised by the fact that Cooper is gay, and I think his handling of this is excellent.

The entire email is very well written, the words are candid and carefully chosen. Here is the email in its entirety:
Andrew, as you know, the issue you raise is one that I've thought about for years. Even though my job puts me in the public eye, I have tried to maintain some level of privacy in my life. Part of that has been for purely personal reasons. I think most people want some privacy for themselves and the people they are close to.

But I've also wanted to retain some privacy for professional reasons. Since I started as a reporter in war zones 20 years ago, I've often found myself in some very dangerous places. For my safety and the safety of those I work with, I try to blend in as much as possible, and prefer to stick to my job of telling other people’s stories, and not my own. I have found that sometimes the less an interview subject knows about me, the better I can safely and effectively do my job as a journalist.

I've always believed that who a reporter votes for, what religion they are, who they love, should not be something they have to discuss publicly. As long as a journalist shows fairness and honesty in his or her work, their private life shouldn't matter. I’ve stuck to those principles for my entire professional career, even when I’ve been directly asked “the gay question,” which happens occasionally. I did not address my sexual orientation in the memoir I wrote several years ago because it was a book focused on war, disasters, loss and survival. I didn't set out to write about other aspects of my life.

Recently, however, I’ve begun to consider whether the unintended outcomes of maintaining my privacy outweigh personal and professional principle. It’s become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something - something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true.

I’ve also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible. There continue to be far too many incidences of bullying of young people, as well as discrimination and violence against people of all ages, based on their sexual orientation, and I believe there is value in making clear where I stand.

The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud.

I have always been very open and honest about this part of my life with my friends, my family, and my colleagues. In a perfect world, I don't think it's anyone else's business, but I do think there is value in standing up and being counted. I’m not an activist, but I am a human being and I don't give that up by being a journalist.

Since my early days as a reporter, I have worked hard to accurately and fairly portray gay and lesbian people in the media - and to fairly and accurately portray those who for whatever reason disapprove of them. It is not part of my job to push an agenda, but rather to be relentlessly honest in everything I see, say and do. I’ve never wanted to be any kind of reporter other than a good one, and I do not desire to promote any cause other than the truth.

Being a journalist, traveling to remote places, trying to understand people from all walks of life, telling their stories, has been the greatest joy of my professional career, and I hope to continue doing it for a long time to come. But while I feel very blessed to have had so many opportunities as a journalist, I am also blessed far beyond having a great career.

I love, and I am loved.

In my opinion, the ability to love another person is one of God’s greatest gifts, and I thank God every day for enabling me to give and share love with the people in my life. I appreciate your asking me to weigh in on this, and I would be happy for you to share my thoughts with your readers. I still consider myself a reserved person and I hope this doesn’t mean an end to a small amount of personal space. But I do think visibility is important, more important than preserving my reporter’s shield of privacy.

Anderson Cooper: "The Fact Is, I'm Gay."
Nothing to add. I think this worked, I think it was good for Anderson Cooper to build his reputation and build his audience, without his sexual orientation mattering. People who watch his show trust him and like him, and now they know a little bit more about him.

40 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one is surprised.
It's not news.

July 02, 2012 10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

personally, I've always liked AC. he has a smooth interviewing technique and isn't afraid to go into risky situations.

I've also heard many times that he's gay and never doubted, it makes sense

still, I think our society is better off with gays staying in the closet. heterosexuality should be viewed as the ideal and homosexuals are better off living in discreet situations. it's worked for millenia, why change it?

July 03, 2012 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

agreed

Anderson, keep it to yourself

remember, your Mom's bottoms are the tops!

July 03, 2012 3:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "still, I think our society is better off with gays staying in the closet. heterosexuality should be viewed as the ideal and homosexuals are better off living in discreet situations. it's worked for millenia, why change it?".

Actually society is worse off when gays live in the closet. Hiding who you are is very stressful and depressing, makes you less productive and thus you contribute less to society. Gays trying to hide are encouraged to enter into harmful opposite sex marriages. Gays being open about who they are doesn't harm heteroesexuals and benefits society so society is best off when all gays are out of the closet. Living the sexuality you are should be viewed as the ideal and gays are better off living as part of society. Gays in the closet has been a failure for millenia, its time to do something positive.

Bad anonymous said "agreed Anderson, keep it to yourself".

Its pretty pathetic when you have to pretend to be more than one person to fake affirmation of your bigotry.

July 03, 2012 8:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

All that's missing now is for bad anonymous to make his typical idiotic comment about how this is going to help Romney win the election.

July 03, 2012 8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the only thing Romney needs to win is not to blow the VP selection

if he picks Huckabee, Obama should start planning what he's going to do after January

July 03, 2012 11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

agreed

Huckabee's the man

July 03, 2012 11:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney is celebrating the Fourth of July today by marching in a parade in Wolfeboro, N.H., where he owns another vacation home and has been relaxing for the past few days. He’ll be honoring the holiday by competing in the “Romney Olympics,” a grueling test of athletic prowess that includes hammering nails into boards and hanging onto poles. Romney brings his entire family to New Hampshire these summers, but he hasn’t always spent his Independence Days in the Granite State, or even the U.S.

Growing up, Romney actually spent most of his Fourths in Canada, at his family’s cottage on Lake Huron where they would light off their own fireworks. George Romney, Mitt’s father and the former governor of Michigan, jokingly called himself a “Summer Canadian.” Campaigning for his father in 1962, a 15-year-old Mitt told a Fourth of July gathering in Michigan, “It’s really fun to be here in the United States for the Fourth of July for the first time!”

July 04, 2012 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unlike the rest of factually challenged right wing echo chamber, which is spreading lies Obama will be hosting a fundraiser in Europe today, the Weekly Standard got its facts right and reports the Obamas will celebrate the Fourth of July at the White House with some of America's military heroes and their families at the White House.

Obama to Celebrate July 4 with Naturalization Ceremony at White House

"President Obama will celebrate July 4 tomorrow at the White House with a naturalization ceremony, the White House announced today. The president will be joined by Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano.

"On July 4, President Obama will deliver remarks at a naturalization ceremony for active duty service members in the East Room. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas will present the countries of the candidates for naturalization and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will deliver the oath of allegiance," a White House press release reads.

The event takes place just a few weeks after President Obama announced that his administration would be using prosecutorial discretion not to go after young illegal immigrants in this country who are in good standing.

Additionally, "the President and the First Lady will celebrate the Fourth of July by hosting military heroes and their families for an Independence Day celebration with a barbeque, concert and a view of fireworks on the South Lawn. Staff and their families from throughout the Administration will also attend this event for the concert and fireworks viewing," the White House previously announced.

The president is currently at Camp David with his family, where he's been since Saturday. He'll be returning to the White House tomorrow, July 4.

And on Thursday he will kick off a campaign bus tour across Ohio and Pennsylvania."

July 04, 2012 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huckabee was supposed to be elected President in 2008, at least that's what Anon used to say.

1. 100207 "Looking past 2008, President Huckabee's views will be similar to the current administartion [sic]."

2. 110407 "BTW, hope everyone caught the article in the Post Outlook section today about the next President of the U.S., Mike Huckabee."

3. 122007 "If you don't like it, go ahead and dissent when President Huckabee nominates Bush for the next Supreme Court vacancy."

4. 062808 "Huckabee's first act as President is to negotiate a gay NAFTA with Canada and Mexico making same sex marriage illegal anywhere in North America."

July 04, 2012 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I don't think Freddy Mercury ever came out. Does anyone know?

rrjr

July 04, 2012 7:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Wikipedia

Sexual orientation
Mercury was an acknowledged bisexual.[18][66][67] While some critics claimed he hid his sexual orientation from the public,[7][28][68] others claimed he was "openly gay".[8][69] In December 1974, when asked directly, "So how about being bent?" by the New Musical Express, Mercury replied, "You're a crafty cow. Let's put it this way; there were times when I was young and green. It's a thing schoolboys go through. I've had my share of schoolboy pranks. I'm not going to elaborate further." Homosexuality was legalised in the United Kingdom in 1967, only seven years earlier. In the 1980s, he would often distance himself from his partner, Jim Hutton, during public events.[64]
In 1992, John Marshall of Gay Times expressed the following opinion: "[Mercury] was a 'scene-queen', not afraid to publicly express his gayness but unwilling to analyse or justify his 'lifestyle' ... It was as if Freddie Mercury was saying to the world, 'I am what I am. So what?' And that in itself for some was a statement."[70] A writer for a gay online newspaper felt that audiences may have been overly naïve about the matter: "While in many respects he was overtly queer his whole career ("I am as gay as a daffodil, my dear" being one of his most famous quotes), his sexual orientation seemed to pass over the heads of scrutinising audiences and pundits (both gay and straight) for decades".[71]

July 04, 2012 8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

who cares if he came out, Robo?

the point is the world is better off if gays stay in the closet

truth is, when gays are unrestrained and openly out, they lack discretion and embarass themselves, doing things like giving the finger to presidential portraits in the WH and cavorting naked in public parades

ever see an Adam Lambert concert?

we'd all be better off with him in the closet

DADT was Bill Clinton's best idea

it should be brought back and instituted throughout our society

btw, everyone, Huckabee is easily the best choice Romney could make

Huckabee appeals to both evangelicals and the general public

I thought he had a good shot in 2008

he didn't do bad and clearly would have been a better nominee

if only Obama would drop Biden and pick an out gay politician like Barney Frank as a running mate

that would be a dream within a dream

then, even the gays would say "let's go back in the closet"

July 04, 2012 9:46 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Is commenting anonymously the blogging equivalent of being in the closet?

July 05, 2012 7:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, Robo, gay sshould shut up even if they are anonymously posting on blogs

we're just sick of hearing about homogaeity

July 05, 2012 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who claims to be "just sick of hearing about homogaeity" but can't manage to stay away from the Vigilance blog.

Robert, I do believe you are onto something about Anon being in the closet where gay homophobes hang out.

July 05, 2012 3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

unfortunately, TTF is not the only place we're hearing the gay agenda crap

it's just a good place to talk back to it

the gay agenda is not passive

it is an aggressive gangrene eating away our society

in the last few years, they've moved to control the education of children, the military and the institution of marriage

responsible parties need to be vigilant in resistance

Robo, stop trying to encourage GSA activity and do your job: teach

as for your other interests:

in the armoire

July 05, 2012 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, it is not clear why it concerns you that some people are gay, or why you think they should stifle themselves in order to accommodate you. Gay people coming out do not require you to do anything different, but it liberates them as people to live and love freely.

You may choose not to express your true sexual feelings, that's fine, but I can't figure out why you think other people should do it. As has been noted here, you are obviously obsessed with the topic, why don't you just go ahead and accept it and learn to live with reality.

July 05, 2012 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look, Jim brought out the topic of coming out and how wonnerful it is

I disagree

I think heterosexuality should be a healthy society's default setting

homosexuality can't be permitted under a discreet basis but every time restraint is not placed on public homosexuality, our society is debased

there's ample evidence of this fact, why don't you just go ahead and accept it and learn to live with reality?

btw, Obama said today that Roberts is wrong and that the penalty is not a tax

Romney said it is a tax, but only because he accepts the Supreme Court as the final word

most observers also say Roberts' reasoning is wrong

and, if it is not a tax, five SC justices agree the mandate is unconstitutional

what a mess!

the law should be revoked and Roberts should be impeached

July 05, 2012 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, you're not an extremist at all, anon.

Heterosexuality is our society's default position. That does not mean every citizen should be required to pretend to be heterosexual when they're not, there is plenty of room for variation, or as the Americans call it, "freedom."

There is nothing debasing about homosexuality, it is just different from the default setting. You are obsessed with it for some reason -- you have been hanging around this blog for years, talking about gay people and how deviant and disgusting they are -- and the rest of the world has moved on.

If you have a personal struggle to deal with then you should deal with it honestly, not try to act like other gay people are your problem. Nobody is forcing you to be something you aren't, and it is not right for you to try to force others to pretend to be something that is simply not in their nature.

July 05, 2012 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wow, you're not an extremist at all, anon."

you're right, I'm mainstream

"Heterosexuality is our society's default position."

yes it is. the goal of the very active gay agenda is to label that "bigotry" and eliminate it as a default

"That does not mean every citizen should be required to pretend to be heterosexual when they're not, there is plenty of room for variation, or as the Americans call it, "freedom.""

how about just not addressing it?

that's not pretending anything, it's just not making sexual preference central to one's identity

Anderson Cooper was living a perfectly free life and said himself he preferred not to go public with such things but finally gave in to gay activist pressure

"There is nothing debasing about homosexuality,"

you wouldn't think so at first but it seems to be the result every time tha gay agenda takes another step

could be that lack of moderation is integral to the emotional make-up of homosexuals

"it is just different from the default setting. You are obsessed with it for some reason --"

this blog is more about the abuse of science to advance the liberal agenda

it's a strategy that is relatively new and very harmful to society

you may notice I only discuss homosexuality when that is the topic Jim has introduced

I sometimes try to broaden it even then, which angers everyone

"you have been hanging around this blog for years, talking about gay people and how deviant and disgusting they are --"

well, I'm honest about it when countering the nonsense espoused here

it's basically in the context of the advocates here who insist on pushing a fairy tale vision of homosexuality and want that taught to children at a time in their life when many experiment and may wind up making a fatal mistake as a result

"and the rest of the world has moved on."

you must be kidding

this is a constant diversion from actual important issues

right now, there is a current Maryland referendum and the President actively trying to get the courts to declare DOMA unconstitutional

gay advocates are the aggressors and the ones who need to "move on"

"If you have a personal struggle to deal with then you should deal with it honestly,"

thanks for the advice

I don't have one

"not try to act like other gay people are your problem."

as I said, they are constantly trying to make new problems

they have a whole list of court cases and legislative initiatives designed to push Americans to endorse their normality

"Nobody is forcing you to be something you aren't, and it is not right for you to try to force others to pretend to be something that is simply not in their nature."

you can show restraint and discretion without pretending to be something you aren't

your statement actually proves my point

you apparently think unless sexual preference is a continual topic of conversation, gays are being forced to pretend they are something they aren't

July 06, 2012 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You made two revealing comments in your insipid self-defense.

"Heterosexuality is our society's default position."
yes it is. the goal of the very active gay agenda is to label that "bigotry" and eliminate it as a default


No one is opposed to heterosexuality. More than ninety percent of the population is heterosexual and there is no movement or pressure to change that or to affect those people's sexual identity. It is, in fact, the default position, we assume someone is straight until there is reason not to. But not everyone is heterosexual. I don't know why, you don't know why, and it doesn't matter, because it does not affect you or me in any way. To say that other people should hide their true feelings because they make you uncomfortable is bigotry by definition.

Your second statement:
they have a whole list of court cases and legislative initiatives designed to push Americans to endorse their normality
They have court cases because discrimination is illegal. But the seriously wrong part of your comment is the idea that anyone has been asked to endorse anything. You don't have to endorse anyone in order to agree that they have the same rights as you. You don't have to like gay people. But they exist, they are in fact normal people who live normal lives, and they are entitled to the same rights that you have.

One more thing, your last claim:
you apparently think unless sexual preference is a continual topic of conversation, gays are being forced to pretend they are something they aren't
I don't recall there being any discussion of "sexual preference" anywhere on this blog, ever. But the fact is that, yes, gays have been forced to pretend they are something they aren't, and they are tired of it. This is a country that values freedom for all, and the test of that is whether you can accept freedom and equal rights for people who are different from you, people who you actually don't understand very well. Gay people aren't hurting you, they pose no threat to you and your family at all. But you are a threat to them. You really should question your own motives, you don't have to tell us here on the blog about it, but you should seriously think about why this bothers you so much. What do you care if two people who love one another marry, even though they are the same sex? What do you care if two men kiss or hold hands in public? How in the world could that possible affect you? You need to think this through.

July 06, 2012 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't "reveal" anything new

my views have always been forthright and consistent

it's not "bigotry" to say homosexuality should remain discreet

"bigotry" is irrational conclusion about certain individuals, without basis

homosexuality is a behavior with clear consequences, and there is good reason to restrain it

yes, homosexuals are asking for society's endorsement

they want their behaviors, alone among behaviors, to be protected and beyond criticism

they want anyone who speaks a word against their behaviors to be sanctioned and driven from society

they want schools to teach that their behaviors are normal and want the government to recognize and give preferences to their partnerships of this behavior

they have taken the language of those denied rights because of a physical characteristic and applied it behavioral characteristics

the implications are broad, if we start saying behavior should be protected from social disapproval

MLK Jr: "I look forward to a day when my children will be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin"

do behavior and desire have anything to do with character in your world?

finally, you're wrong

gays aren't being forced to pretend they are something they're not

we're suggesting that they don't imply that the central part of their identity is who they want to have sex with

we're suggeting they keep that to themself

I read the interview with Anerson Copper and this is the position he always held

gay advocates kept pushing and he gave up

he was right to begin with

July 06, 2012 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's not "bigotry" to say homosexuality should remain discreet
It is bigotry to believe that other people are so disgusting that they need to suppress their affection in public.

homosexuality is a behavior with clear consequences, and there is good reason to restrain it
1. No it's not, it is a sexual orientation. Many homosexuals never have sex with anyone, ever, or only with members of the opposite sex.
2. Sex with a same-sex partner has no consequences that sex with an opposite-sex partner doesn't also have.

they want their behaviors, alone among behaviors, to be protected and beyond criticism
You can criticize all you want. They want their legal rights as free Americans.

they want anyone who speaks a word against their behaviors to be sanctioned and driven from society
Anon, Jim hasn't even driven you off this blog. Nobody has been or will be legally sanctioned for expressing an opinion, and there is no such thing as "driving someone from society."

they have taken the language of those denied rights because of a physical characteristic and applied it behavioral characteristics
That's just stupid. Disabled people have special protections, Christians have special protections, racial minorities have special protections, to make sure they are given the opportunities that all free Americans receive.

we're suggesting that they don't imply that the central part of their identity is who they want to have sex with
Do you think heterosexuals should give up expression of their sexuality, too? Our sexual orientation just happens to be an important part of who we are.

July 06, 2012 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inappropriately hillarious tweet:

@JasonBiggs

Jesus, Obama. What's next? You gonna support gays being allowed to drink at straight water fountains?

July 07, 2012 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Romney appeared at a press conference in 2006 and offered a defense for Massachusetts' weak job numbers during his only term in office.

"You guys are bright enough to look at the numbers. I came in and the jobs had been just falling like off a cliff. And I came in and they kept falling for 11 months. And then we turned around and we're coming back. And that's progress.

"And if you're going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected, somehow jobs should immediately turn around, well that would be silly. It takes a while to get things turned around. We were in a recession; we were losing jobs every month, we've turned around, and since the turn around we've added 50,000 jobs. That's progress.

"There will be some people who try to say, 'Well governor, net-net you've only added a few thousand jobs since you've been in.' Yeah, but I helped stop. I didn't do it alone, the economy's a big part of that, the private sector is what drives that, up and down, but we were in free-fall for three years and the last year of that I happened to be here and then we've turned it around as a state, private sector, government sector turned it around and now we're adding jobs.

"We want to keep that going to the extent we can. We're the, you know, we're one part of that equation but not the whole thing. A lot of it is out of our control..."


It's almost as if Romney 2006 is endorsing Obama 2012.

July 07, 2012 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Is religion a behaviour?

July 08, 2012 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, Robo, it's a belief and commitment, and it gets special protection to compensate for the discrimination it suffers under our Constitution

alone among beliefs and ideas, it's establishment may not be respected by the government

as a Judeo-Christian country, we adhere to the teachings of Jesus, that church and state should remain seperate

but, also, the government may not prohibit the free exercise of it

thanks for being honest about your lack of understanding on this issue

"ST. PETERSBURG, Russia -- Russian police have broken up attempts to hold two gay rights rallies in St. Petersburg, which this spring adopted a law against spreading "homosexual propaganda."

Three rally organizers were arrested Saturday at a park in Russia's second city, and five others were detained at a later rally attempt near the landmark Smolny complex.

Only six people showed up for the second rally, and the three arrested at the first attempt were the only participants.

Although homosexuality was decriminalized after the fall of the Soviet Union, disdain for gays remains strong in Russia. Some rally attempts provoke violence by opponents.

St. Petersburg passed a law in February calling for fines of up to 500,000 rubles ($15,000) for spreading "homosexual propaganda.""

"BOSTON, July 7 (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic Representative Barney Frank wed his longtime partner, James Ready, on Saturday, becoming the first sitting congressman to enter into a same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick officiated the ceremony and added some levity by saying Frank, 72, and Ready, 42, had vowed to love each other through Democratic and Republican administrations alike, and even through appearances on Fox News, according to Al Green, a Democratic congressman from Texas.

"Barney was beaming," said Green, who attended the ceremony. He added that Frank, a champion of gay rights, shed a tear during the ceremony."

July 08, 2012 12:39 PM  
Anonymous ANOTHER PERK FOR THE RICH said...

Here we go again.

Since when are the rich entitled to freedom of speech in secrecy? Freedom of secret speech is not in the First Amendment anywhere.

If rich folks have something to say, why are they too scared to get up on their soapbox in public like other Americans do and say what they have to say? Are they so insecure they can't take any criticism from their fellow Americans who might disagree with their views?

"Outside groups are going to extra lengths to keep their donors secret, worrying that public disclosure could open up their supporters to harassment.

Bob Biersack, senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks outside group spending in federal elections, says that groups will change their election strategy to keep donor names protected.

“There’s been very little electioneering communication since that Van Hollen decision came out,” Biersack said in reference to a recent court decision that may require groups funding issue ads to disclose their donors.

In the court case, "those seeking to block disclosure “provided no evidence that their contributors would face threats, harassment or reprisals if their names were disclosed, and thus they fail to demonstrate how the disclosure requirements prevent them from speaking,” according to the appellate court ruling."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been a dominant force in Senate battleground states, has signaled it will switch from issue ads to independent expenditures to keep its donors secret.

The Chamber has poured millions of dollars into issue ads but in the wake of the court ruling has put money into independent expenditures, which allows it to better protect donors’ identities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in May denied a motion to stay a lower court ruling requiring outside groups engaging in electioneering communication to disclose their donors, handing proponents of campaign finance reform a major victory....

...“This demonstrates to what degree groups want to remain behind a cloak of anonymity. They feel what they’re doing can’t stand up to public scrutiny or the blowback will be too great,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a group that promotes greater disclosure of campaign fundraising.

Democrats who track issue ads in Senate races say the Chamber has been a major player this year.

For example, as of mid-June, the Chamber of Commerce had spent $993,000 to support Republican candidate George Allen’s bid to win Virginia’s Senate seat, according to a Democratic source tracking media in the state.

At the end of April, the Chamber had spent $2.7 million in Ohio to defeat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D), $988,000 in Missouri against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) and $581,000 in Montana against Sen. Jon Tester (D), according to the source.

Chamber officials say their donors could become the targets of harassment if their names became public...

...Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spoke out on the need to protect donors to third-party political groups in a recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute...

...McConnell and leaders of outside advocacy groups fear their donors could become the targets of such harassment.

But McGehee says these concerns are overblown.

She said the public criticism that political donors might face is not on the same level as civil rights groups such as the NAACP during the 1950s.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1958 that the state of Alabama could not compel the NAACP to reveal the names and addresses of its members.

“The harassment has to be real, substantial threats,” she said. “The NAACP was worried about Molotov cocktails being thrown through windows.”

She said the high court has otherwise consistently rejected arguments that donors’ names should be kept secret."

July 08, 2012 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Since when are the rich entitled to freedom of speech in secrecy? Freedom of secret speech is not in the First Amendment anywhere."

if you don't have the right to secret speech, you don't have any

that's obvious

it's also obvious why certain people are obsessed with the identity of speakers

not being able to counter certain arguments, they want to launch personal attacks against them in an effort to suppress their speech

it's not complicated

think about it

after you've received some remedial education


"Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) has requested that the Supreme Court overturn a ruling that allows state employees to keep their same-sex partners on their benefits, including health insurance.

Brewer filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on July 2, requesting that the high court overturn the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's September 2011 ruling in Diaz vs. Brewer."

July 08, 2012 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Dissent spreads among homophobes said...

Exodus Loses 11 Ministries After Renouncing 'Ex-Gay' Therapy
BY CARLOS SANTOSCOY
PUBLISHED: JULY 07, 2012

"Eleven affiliated ministries have quit Exodus International in protest over President Alan Chambers' announcement that the group would no longer support “ex-gay” therapy.

According to The New York Times, Chambers has been criticized for shifting the group from promoting so-called reparative or conversion therapy to emphasizing how gay Christians can manage their same-sex attractions. For some gays that could mean celibacy.

Only a few years ago, Exodus promoted the therapy in advertisements featuring Chambers and his wife, Leslie, along with the slogan, “Change is possible.”

Chambers now calls such claims “bizarre.”

“I do not believe that cure is a word that is applicable to really any struggle, homosexuality included,” Chambers told the AP. “For someone to put out a shingle and say, 'I can cure homosexuality' – that to me is as bizarre as someone saying they can cure any other common temptation or struggle that anyone faces on Planet Earth.”

Gregg Quinlan, president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), a support group for “ex-gays,” is among Chambers' critics.

“I think Mr. Chambers is tired of his own personal struggles, so he's making excuses for them by making sweeping generalizations about others,” Quinlan told the Times.

Robert Gagnon, who writes about homosexuality and the Bible, has called on Chambers to resign.

Exodus' move comes as “ex-gay” therapy comes under increasing assault. For example, lawmakers in California are looking at outlawing the practice in certain situations. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) last month filed its first lawsuit against a physician accused of attempting to alter the sexuality of a gay man without his consent. And Dr. Robert Spitzer has apologized for his own 2001 study which concluded that highly-motivated gay people could alter their sexuality.

David Pruden, chief operating officer with the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), insisted the treatment works.

“To hold out the idea that one's homosexual attractions can diminish, that the possibility of heterosexual attractions coming forth over a period of time – those things are possible,” he told the AP.

Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out, a group opposed to the “ex-gay” movement, countered that “the notion that one can change is the centerpiece of the religious right's argument for denying us rights.”"

July 09, 2012 8:31 AM  
Anonymous Celebrate diversity!! said...

Congratulations Barney Frank for making history by being the first sitting US Congressman to marry his same sex partner

July 09, 2012 8:40 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Congratulations Barney Frank and Jim Ready, on your brand new MARRIAGE!!!

Big hugs all around!

Cynthia

July 09, 2012 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: it is the height of hubris to assert that this is a Judeo-Christian country. Please, if you will, point out the specific provisions in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that make that stipulation.
You have the same mind-set as those who, in the 1930's, attempted to change their society into a mythical, Nordic, Valhalla by proclaiming that anyone who was not a true "Aryan" was worthy of death at the hands of the government!

July 09, 2012 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

But don't people speak of "practicing" religion?

Going to meeting, sacraments, prayer, etc., all remind me of behaviours.

Could someone have belief and commitment (i.e. faith) without having religion?

Conversely, could one have religion without having belief?

How is the law to tell the difference?

July 10, 2012 4:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Extreme right-wing preacher [and Anon touted] Bradlee Dean must pay the court costs of cable news host Rachel Maddow, Minnesota reporter Andy Birkey, MSNBC, and defunct website The Minnesota Independent, a Washington, D.C. judge has ruled.

Dean’s You Can Run But You Cannot Hide ministry sued Maddow, Birkey, MSNBC, and the Independent last July for slander, and sought damages of $50 million. Though Dean’s attorney confidently predicted that the suit would end Maddow’s career, it appears the suit is not going as well for Dean as he expected.

Dean’s ministry will have to pay $24,625.23 in court and attorneys’ fees. While the suit has not yet been dismissed, legal experts have found the case to be largely without merit.

Dean rose to prominence in Minnesota after founding his own “rock and roll” ministry. His group has proudly admitted to using deception to gain access to public schools in order to preach to children. The ministry preaches an extremely conservative version of Christianity, arguing in favor of proscribed gender roles, against homosexuality, and against the separation of church and state. Nevertheless, the group has received support from prominent Minnesota Republicans, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and former Secretary of State and current State Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake.

Dean received opprobrium after giving the invocation at the Minnesota House of Representatives, in which he questioned the religious faith of President Barack Obama. House Speaker Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, struck Dean’s appearance from the record, later telling the House, “I am offended at the presence of Bradlee Dean on the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives. I denounce him, his actions and his words. He does not represent my values or the values of this state."

In his lawsuit, Dean said that Maddow and Birkey took him out of context when they used a quote from his radio show:

"Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination … If America won’t enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that."

Dean denies that he supported violence against homosexuals.

What comes next for Dean is anyone’s guess. While his lawsuit appears to be dead in the water, Dean has been very good at using controversy to support himself. But it’s questionable whether major political figures, even ones as extreme as Bachmann, will be fundraising for Dean anytime soon.”

July 10, 2012 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous: it is the height of hubris to assert that this is a Judeo-Christian country. Please, if you will, point out the specific provisions in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that make that stipulation."

there are five basic principles which are the bedrock of our society and are straight from the teachings of Jesus

I'm pressed for time but will detail them tonight

"You have the same mind-set as those who, in the 1930's, attempted to change their society into a mythical, Nordic, Valhalla by proclaiming that anyone who was not a true "Aryan" was worthy of death at the hands of the government!"

sad

to liberal lunatics we can't have any heritage of ideas because that mean someone's ideas are wrong, and we can't have that

that would just be fascist, right?

July 10, 2012 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have the same mind-set as those who, in the 1930's, attempted to change their society into a mythical, Nordic, Valhalla by proclaiming that anyone who was not a true "Aryan" was worthy of death at the hands of the government!"

uh, Judeo-Christianity is a world religion, found throughout the world, currently growing most rapidly in the Southern hemisphere, and most other world religions pay deference to it

Aryan, on the other hand, is a race

July 10, 2012 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe the folks you hang out with think "Aryan" is a race. Go read what Wikipedia says about it and maybe learn somthing, such as:

"Aryan is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('Noble'). In present-day academia, the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European" have, according to many, made most uses of the term 'Aryan' minimal, and 'Aryan' is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term "Indo-Aryan" to represent (speakers of) North, West and Central Indian languages."

Western notions of an "Aryan race" rose to prominence in late-19th and early-20th century racialist thought, an idea most notably embraced by Nazi ideology (see master race). The Nazis believed that the "Nordic peoples" (who were also referred to as the "Germanic peoples") represent an ideal and "pure race" that was the purest representation of the original racial stock of those who were then called the Proto-Aryans. The Nazis declared that the Nordics were the true Aryans because they claimed that they were more "pure" (less racially mixed with non-native Indo-European peoples) than other people of what were then called the Aryan peoples (now generally called the Indo-European peoples).

...Rosenberg – one of the principal architects of Nazi ideological creed – argued for a new "religion of the blood", based on the supposed innate promptings of the Nordic soul to defend its "noble" character against racial and cultural degeneration. Under Rosenberg, the theories of Arthur de Gobineau, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Blavatsky, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and those of Hitler ("the exact opposite of the Aryan is the Jew") all culminated in Nazi Germany's race policies and the "Aryanization" decrees of the 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s. In its "apalling medical model", the annihilation of the "racially inferior" Untermenschen was sanctified as the excision of a diseased organ in an otherwise healthy body, which led to the Holocaust.

July 11, 2012 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

really fascinating

point is that to advocate and argue for the superiority of judeo-Christianity is nothing like arguing for the superiority of the Aryan race, even if that race is not clearly defined

when we stop believing that certain ideas are correct and others aren't, we are basically lost in relativism

July 13, 2012 11:12 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home