Arkansas Blog

If this issue was say, mandating the sales of alcohol on Sunday and removing any local option, you can double darn guarantee that Jerry Cox would be out yelling for names. It's only a problem when you might find something wrong, like here. I bet you might find a few signatures that look a bit too close to the one above them for children and such.

Oh and Jerry, you have to be 18 to vote. I am pretty sure I noted a petition that the Cox himself signed as true that had a 17 year old at the time of the election signed up. Too much passing around at Fellowship I guess.

I'm very pleased that knowthyneighbor published the information. I appreciate Max giving us the link. I was saddened and ashamed to see the names of people I know on the list, and surprised to see the names of some local businessmen. It's their right to feel however they want about gay marriage, but it's my right to stay out of the business establshments of those who would deny equal rights to their fellow men and women.

Religious bigots......and gun nuts......birds of a feather it seems.

I noticed on Cocks Website there is click to sign a petition AGAINST EFCA. Birds of a feather, again.

It hasn't worked out the way they thought! They thought they could just stamp their foot at gay people and we'd run screaming into the darkness. Nope, we've had enough. You've hounded us, molested us, made fun of us, beaten us, killed us, raped us (and then denied it), fired us, forced us to move, thrown us out of our familes, set us on fire, and then said Jesus supoorted you.

So, how does it feel to be outed as a homophobe? A bigot? Are you racist as well?

Gosh, we queers even know where you live. That'll be fun. I think we'll have drag queens show up and protest on the street in front of your house or where you work. If we're lucky you'll pull your concealed carry weapon and try to shoot somebody and we'll lock you up too.

Oh, not only that, but since your signature is online you can look for employers to see if your name is on it--just like they're doing with the conceal/carry list. I mean, would YOU want an unstable homophobe carrying a concealed weapon working for you? Nope. Good luck on your job hunt in the "new economy."

I'm predicting there'll be a WHOLE LOTTA people pissed at the Family Council. A lot of those petition signers are probably gun nuts too, so the Family Council better circle the wagons and bar the doors. And the Family Council is gonna lose some money.

Dragging bigots into the light and dangling them in front of the rest of the nation and the world so their power withers like a slug in salt...gotta love the internets.

If you're one of those folks who are GLAD your name has been revealed to the world, then good for you! I'll say this though: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!!"

Pro-Choice Americans: 1, Anti-Choice Movement: 0

Katherine Sebelius Confirmed to Health & Human Services,

Specter helped.

clicky.

Oh NOW! Jerry Cox is for equal protection.

I see Jody Carriero, a school board emmber, is a gay basher. He just lost my vote. And there's Phil Wyrick. He never had it.

From an earlier thread:

"Nearly all of the proprietors of the Country Village (operated by members of the "Church At Star City") signed off to the petition. Needless to say, I'll never step foot there again . . ." --Ms_Haley_1965

Lordy mercy, Ms_Haley! I'm with you, but don't know if I could stay away from the Baugh boy's steaks and all the goodies at that fabulous bakery down there at the village. The fishin' trips to Cane Creek and Twinkle Town would never be the same!

Thank you, Max! For both publishing this link and about my alleged attack at the LR Airport a couple of weeks back when I was returning to San Francisco.

I am very dissappointed to see many names I know on the list. As a doting father who happens to be a transsexual lesbian in a legal samesex AR marriage, it is so hurtful to know that people judge my wife and I's ability to raise our children based on judgemental religious generalizations. I suspect that this is the same motive for both my alleged attack at the LR Airport by the National Car Rental employee and later indifference from the LR Police until publication of my letter to Chief Thomas.

Thanks again!

Yes, spunkrat. There are homophobes, bigots and racists on the list of petition signers. There are also men and women honestly and openly avowing what they believe and what they have been taught in their religious congregations. My niece and a couple of other relatives are among them. I think they are wrong, but I know they will be honored by being listed as having signed the petition.

You can not change people who have been "carefully taught" over a long time instantaneously. I guarantee you that "in-the-face" gloating and threats of personal highlighting will harden their attitudes, prevent them from thinking about the unfairness of their position, prevent them from recognizing their abuse of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and almost guarantees that they will never change their position. I don't think that is what you ultimately want.

I know you and SisterToldJa and a lot of others are frustrated and tired of being treated, at best as second class citizens and the gay abuse and bashing. However, restraining the release of that frustration will work better for your goals. I think the two leading lights of civil rights movements that went before and were successful (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr) would tell you the same thing. Once the rights you are seeking to ensure are gained, you still have to live in our society and inciting higher levels of hatred and resentment will not assist your efforts.

hey spunkrat,maybe if you didnt engage in such heinous behaviour you might not be so persecuted,sure violence and bigotry are wrong,but if you insist on fisting and filching and dressing in drag and being lewd and lascivious in our state parks and trying to get married and telling my kids that being GLBT is just another "choice" and that anyone who thinks its disgusting for one man to have another mans penis in his mouth is "homophobic" or a "hater" my god man,dont you think you might draw some heat? Try living in the middle east,they'll just hang your a##

Doc,

First of all, I think you're a wise and caring man. And, I agree with you. The "in-your-face'' approach never works. MLK's genius was in his seemingly-passive approach as opposed to say, Malcolm X. He allowed the American public to see how blacks were persecuted via the television lens (i.e., Sheriff Bull Connor turning his attack dogs and fire hoses on groups of innocent black folks). The public saw these pictures and were horrified, thus paving the way for the acceptance of Civil Rights reform.

This fight seems to be different because we're not 'removed' as blacks are to whites. We are in every family, school, workplace, etc. You think it would be easy because we've 'infiltrated' every walk of life, but for some reason, it's harder. We've been cast out of our own families, communities, workplaces because - as you described from your own family's belief - it was the "right thing to do based on religion.'

Doc, don't you find it ironic that these people are embracing hate to achieve their ultimate goal - which is HEAVEN?! This one beats the crap out of me.

I feel Spunkrat's rage and my knee-jerk reaction is just as his. But we're just venting...our plan is to hit them in the pocketbook because we can. Think about it...how many homeless gay people you see walking around?

Gosh, truckmetal23...you're no doubt a Mensa member! I'm sure you and Libertus run into each other at meetings.

Gee Doc,
I think you and I have agreed on some things in the past and I respect your thoughts.

Doc said: "You can not change people who have been "carefully taught" over a long time instantaneously."

If we took your advice here, we might still be waiting on freeing slaves or giving women the vote. Or waiting on Orval Faubus to move out of that doorway at Central (I have a vision of a dusty skeleton leaning on a lecturn in the doorway). I cannot take your advice here. Sometimes, the law must be used to change people "instantaneously." After all, the law is what these folks have been using against us all these years to change gay families "instantaneously." So gays are using whatever legal means we have at our disposal to fight back.

Eventually it will probably take the might of the federal government to change Arkansas law regarding civil rights for gay people. And when that happens, their opinions will change "instantaneously." How slow are we supposed to go Doc? Another 300 years? This state has not even endorsed equal rights for women (I think I'm correct, here) or the ERA yet.

Your advice would be more important if other parts of the US were not already allowing adoptions, marriage, civil unions, work place non discrimination, retirement benefits for gay couples, etc. But other states ARE. And these other states are better educated, have higher paying jobs (excepting the current economy, of course), better universities, healthier citizens, and things of this sort. Arkansas is still in the lowest scores in the nation in most of these areas.

It's not just about us as gay people. Gay Arkansawyers stayed here because we like it here. But, we want our state to move forward, to be an example to other states in the country. Because we know the value of freedom as expressed by human emotion in search of dignity. Often the same Arkansawyers who attack gays are also those who create a climate which prevents the state as a whole from moving forward culturally, socially, and economically. These people have a choke hold on our state. We've been following their ideas since the 1860's, and where has it gotten us, Doc? 49th out of 50?

There's MUCH more at stake in this than gay civil rights.

It's the future of Arkansas. Will we still be 49th out of 50 in ten years? Arkansas gays want Arkansas to be in the top 10. And working WITH gay people is part of the solution. Trying to legislate us back into the closet only adds to the "Arkansas as 49th" reputation.

truckmetal:
feck off, punter.

Folks, Just because somebody signs a petition, most likely at church, does not mean they actually voted for this hateful amendment.
I was surprised to see some names of people I know who signed the petition, because they have gay relatives whom they love unconditionally. But I'll bet money they did not vote for it.
The canvassers are the ones we should direct our anger toward, not the signers. The canvassers are the ringleaders for hate.

Spunk,

I think you and Doc are talking about two different things - he's talking 'acceptance' while you're discussing 'law.' And I agree with your point. If it were put to a vote today in 49th-ranked Arkansas, black folks might not have any rights at all....women may eke out a 52-48 percent win in the 'getting the vote' issue. But the latter may go the other way when the churches get involved.

So yes, let's change the law and then work on acceptance.

Not buying it, Miss Kizzy.

Why would you want discrimination to be on the ballot in the first place? Let's say a petitioner wanted me to sign something that read "Women Can't Be Writers.''

I'm not going to think to myself, "Well, of course women can be writers but I want this to come up for a vote.''

Nope, the signers are the haters.

I DO understand Kizzy's point. I think the people should have the right to vote on major issues. I've signed petitions for measures that I didn't support just to put them up for a vote. Heck even the troglodytes get to vote.......there just too many of them.

I would have been here earlier (missed me?) but I was busy copy and pasting the names on this list from Fort Baptist. Just in case the list disappears, I'll have my copy. What are my plans for all these names, you may ask? I have absolutely no plans for 62 pages of names of my friends and neighbors. But as long as Huckabee never crushes my hard drive.....I'll have this list and I'll know who was naughty and not nice.

I certainly understand spunkrat's outrage. God...I'm sick of it and I've suffered not a bit of anti-gay behavior from informed-NOT people like truckmetal. If I was gay, I'd be madder than words can describe. The bottom line is everyone of us are just trying to get by. Unless you're a Rockefeller or a Walton, and maybe even for them, just getting thru the slings and arrows of life takes a toll....no wonder old people look like hell! I've never understood wanting to marry some fat Nazarene girl with her silly hair piled on top her head...I think I'd take a man over that...but I figured out that a part of our population love their fat Nazarene girls...silly hair and all. And until some goons come to my door and force me to tongue-kiss a fat Nazarene girl.....it's no skin off my nose. Grab that ole fat girl and love her up like no tomorrow......I won't understand the attraction.....BUT I DON'T HAVE TO!

I'm sure people look at my wife and I all the time than thing, boy.......uh......wait....let's not go there.....What I like or dislike ends at my property line. I don't care who you love as long as they want to be loved, are over 18, and aren't chained in your basement. Love your sheep......as long as it's not in my yard....love your damn sheep! It's no one's business.....our Constitution says you can love who you will. Churches may never come around, but their an optional activity anyway. Our Constitution guarantees you never ever have to go to church.

However, this anti-gay Act 1, which is even uglier than that since it prevents any unmarried people caring for foster children, be they your sister's kids or your grandchildren....or what....If you're crawling in bed at night with someone you're not married to and caring for children other than your own....you are in the exact same boat as a gay couple. Unless of course the state of Arkansas chooses to only snatch kids away from gay couples and turns their head from Aunt Edna and her boyfriend Vlad raising those kids without the benefit of marriage.

This stupid Act 1 very well could impact the lives of a lot of the same people who signed these petitions. Of course one quick way around this law for gay couples, is for Arkansas to hurry up and pass a law recognizing gay marriage. Talk about nipping something in the bud in a hurry! This is the unmarried act.....when gay couples can marry...they'll be perfectly legal to be foster parents.

You say it will never happen in 40 years? Well...who went to bed last night thinking we'd have a new Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania named Arlen Specter this morning?

Who'd of thought we have a new Health and Human Services Secretary named Sebelius all of a sudden today after weeks of Republican blocking?

Looks to me like things happen fast in ObamaWorld. I read today the average age of the Hate Radio-Rush listeners is 67 years old. Add to that the rise of people who are dumping their religion and turning their back on church hocus pocus. When the dinosaurs are gone and the churches are starved down the size to put back into their bottles.....we'll live in a nicer, more fair world where people will only be judged by the content of their character, not their religion, or sexual orientation or skin color or birth origin. It won't be a perfect world...but it will beat the hell out of what we got right now.....as right now beats the hell out of 50 years ago.

So keep the faith and keep your list of names and be a little nicer to strangers you meet tomorrow unless you recognize their names on this list of course, and grain by grain the sands of time will bury the haters and hopefully no one will live behind the 8 ball in the future.

Oh, DBI, you hot, sexy man...if I only played for the other team.

Mudturtle, what was the last major social issue that Arkansas voters passed without benefit of the Federal Government?

Was is Women's Suffrage? Nope.

Was it Civil Rights? ......Do I have to ask that question?

How about bi-racial marriage? You kidding me?

Was it a woman's right to choose? Never in one trillion years.

So, do you think any issue related to gay rights needs to come to a vote by one of the most uneducated states in the Union?

If so, please explain why.

The Arkansas "Hate" Council doesn't know if any laws were broken because there WERE no laws broken.
Democracy is great when it suits their agenda but when we use the law to try to advocate for our side...we're breaking the law.
I'm sure once we have something on the ballot that helps the glbt community in AR, the Arkanass "Hate" Council will want to be granted an exception to see who voted for the issue.
Cox knew this was public knowledge, he just didn't want it to be THIS public.
I <3 Randi Romo because she speaks the truth.

Sister,
I am on your side, completely, but I still maintain that some signatures (probably most) are on the petition due to church pressure. The canvassers are the bad guys.
I have been involved in some petition drives over the years and we always said "Hey, you are just signing a petition to get this on the ballot, because we live in a democracy. When it gets on the ballot, you are free to vote for or against."
So, all I am asking is that we don't judge the people who signed the petition, because we don't know how they voted.

I do understand your point, Miss Kizzy. But by your rationale, isn't the church squarely to blame as opposed to the canvassers? Or, are they one in the same?

The 'church' can get you to do a lot of things. Look at Jim Jones. If you're right about people being pressured to sign, there was a whole lot of kool-aid drinking going on.

I'm just not sure I want to be around these sheep.

Publication of the names of the petitioners is a good thing, and so is spreading the news of the publication.

Maybe now those who were ill-informed, or whose decision was ill-considered, will think twice about the logic of putting invidious discrimination up for a vote. Maybe their friends and loved ones can gently or forcefully make the point that empowering some one else to discriminate is not a commendable course, or even a neutral one.

Maybe instead of salving their consciences with the fact that they didn't vote for Act 1, people of good will who signed the petition (and I assume there are some) will be forced to own their roles in the injustice. And maybe they will do better next time.

TAP, as always, you make SO much sense.

"There's MUCH more at stake in this than gay civil rights. - spunkrat"

That is the most important statement made on this entire page of comments.

When will we EVER learn?

Dear DBI,
Sheep are lying little tarts.

When was this petition circulated ? I saw the name of a friend / co-worker in my hometown who died at the end of 2006. Just curious.

I'm sorry to say that I never had the opportunity to sign the petition. Unfortunately the petitions were never circulated at my church. I would have signed. I was inspired by the words of Max Brantley on this forum who stated that he wanted the item on the ballot, so that the good people of Arkansas could reject it.

I guarantee you that "in-the-face" gloating and threats of personal highlighting will harden their attitudes, prevent them from thinking about the unfairness of their position, prevent them from recognizing their abuse of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and almost guarantees that they will never change their position-Posted by: docholliday
********
I agree with Doc's comments about changing the position of those you disagree with. The constant branding of your opposition as "Haters" only serves to turn them off from the get-go.

If you want to make faster progress, find a common ground without demonizing your opponents.

But if you find it more satisfying to name-call and vent, go right ahead. I guess the plus side for you will be you get the dark satisfaction of more time to spew your own form of bigoted hate speech at others instead of progressing toward a more difficult goal - the enlightened satisfaction of persuading them to accept you and your viewpoint.

Jerry Cocks and his ilk are just changing the protective tools of bigotry. He wants his ilk to be hidden under non-disclosure cloaks which simply replace their former sheets and dunce caps.

It's ironic how so many of you accuse the Family Council of being "hateful" and "bigoted" without first looking in the mirror at your own hate and bigotry.

For general information-sharing purposes, here's the article on this issue from the Arkansas News Bureau: http://arkansasnews.com/2009/04/28/group-discloses-adoption-ban-petition-signers-online/

There are more quotes from Jerry Cox in this one than in the others (as opposed to just quotes from the press release), so I thought you'd find it interesting.

I think it is PERFECTLY FAIR to hate on those who hold their warped, cherry-picked interpretation of the Bible over the Constitution, and use their "religious" beliefs to intentionally inflict harm on those they don't/won't know or understand - simply because they are different from them. They are un-American bigots (like Sev, Lib and truck) and deserve to be called out, "nicely" or not. Turds and assholes, as someone famously noted...

And as tidy and solid as Doc's viewpoints are, there is NOTHING that will change the minds of these bigots, but they WILL die out and are not being replaced at anything approaching 1:1, so liberty and justice for ALL will eventually win out. In the meantime it is WAY more fun/satisfying to nail these Morons than to make nice.

On another note I was VERY pleasantly surprised by the absence of petition-signer names I recognize up here in the hills!!! In fact I'd be shocked were it not for the famously apolitical nature of my neighbors... Even their fear/hatred of gays didn't motivate them to sign; their votes are probably a different story, but we'll never know, will we? I'm still courteous and pleasant to all of them, and they to me - even though MY views are widely known via LTE's.

"I think it is PERFECTLY FAIR to hate on those who hold their warped, cherry-picked interpretation of the Bible over the Constitution..." - Larry

And this is exactly why folks with common-sense will never take to your cause -- because they see you (and other hate-mongers in the gay rights movement) as total hypocrites. You have no moral ground to stand on when you become exactly what you're trying to fight against. This all goes back to that tried and true saying: "Those who preach tolerance the loudest tend to be the most intolerant people of all."

P.S. I voted YES on Act 1 and I'm proud of it.

I think we need to do all we can to legalize gay marriage and adoption. We need to find ways to make it easier to identify gays and lesbians for government planning and scientific purposes. If you can't identify gays and lesbians, you can't really know whether they make good parents. You can't tell which ones need intervention to help reduce the medical costs of HIV/AIDS. We can't tell how their health care costs differ from non-gays. The scientific community has a difficult time identifying gays/lesbians, since scientists don't have DBI's ability to identify gays/lesbians by sight. Perhaps questions should be added to the census to better understand this population. One would think that the government would want to know how many citizens identify as gay/lesbian/bisexual/transexual.

I really wish there was someway to start a list or a website where those who signed the petition but wished they hadn't, could now sign. Of course, verification could be a problem. Before you attack me for saying this, hear me out. I see quite a few names of members of my small town church. I know some of these people personally and I know the canvasser personally. The canvasser is a small minded bitter person. I have a feeling she didn't fully explain the petition, just played on peer pressure and fear. Of course, you should NEVER sign anything you don't support. I think that there are more than a few people who signed that petition who learned that lesson the hard way this week. I'm sure there are some of them of really wish they could take that signature back. I'm sure there are many foster kids who wish the same. I am not excusing the signing of the petition, just wishing there was some way for some of the signers to find redemption.

That's a fair statement, Fay. I agree with you: those who wish they would've never signed it should be able to make that public in an easy way. And it's a good principle, no matter what you believe, to never sign something you don't support. But I understand some deciding to sign a petition just so the people can vote on an issue -- if it makes it to the ballot, that is.

However, you saying that you're "sure there are many foster kids who wish the same" is slightly dishonest; DHS already had a policy in place that didn't allow unmarried, cohabiting from adopting or serving as foster parents. Act 1 just made that policy law. So, kids ready to be adopted or needing foster parents aren't any more limited than they were before Act 1 was enacted.

Error correction: *unmarried, cohabiting couples...

Severus said: "We need to find ways to make it easier to identify gays and lesbians for government planning and scientific purposes. "

Where the hell have YOU been? That's been going on since the early 1900's. All those shock treatments to cure queers. Geez, waterboarding was probably used too.

Oh, and stop this "oh poor Christian petition signer me" bullcrap. I don't hate the petition signers. I hate that they signed the petition. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Libertus: Didn't DHS only start saying unmarried co-habitators were ineligible in the past few years? Wasn't it a Huckabee thing? And didn't DHS abandon that rule last year before this act was passed? Also, you must have never spent much time in juvenile or family court. I have. I've seen plenty of unmarried cohabitators take in foster children. Yes, many times it was a relative, but still unmarried cohabitators just the same.

spunkrat: My earlier post may have sounded too sympathetic. I have no sympathy for those who hate and for those who sign things without fully understanding what they are signing. I am very angry at those who signed. Maybe even more so at those who signed just because the preacher told them to sign. However, I am thinking about the future and know that there are probably people on that list who would like a public forum to announce their mistake. Plus, I would like for some of the techniques of those canvassers to be exposed. I actually would like to see a master list of the canvassers.

* * * NOTICE - FALSE INFORMATION ABOVE! * * *

Act 1 did NOT simply implement DHS policy, though that is what the "Family Council" would have had us all believe. Truth is:

Act 1 is the first ban on cohabiting or gay couples adopting children in Arkansas -ever. This is new.

Act 1 is the first law to tell parents that their judgment about a couple being their first choice to care for their children will be overridden by Act 1 without exception. This is new.

DHS could waive their old restriction if it was in a child's best interests to do so - there are NO exceptions under Act 1.

DHS said that their cohabitation policy was not in the best interest of children so they repealed it. Act 1's foster care bans are new and only because of Act 1.

Act 1 changed a lot and will hurt a lot of families. If it doesn't hurt yours directly, that is great, but it is hurting other families in Arkansas.

Act 1 will exacerbate the problem of children that need families going without them, and instead being shifted between inadequate foster homes, group homes, reformatories, family that is also bad for them -the whole works. This has an impact on our state far beyond any debate about gay or umarried folks and it is a crying shame that adults' prejudice about other adults is hurting these kids.

As for scientists identifying gay people, I won't even address what a horrible, offensive idea this is. I'll just say be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. The more science studies gay folk, the more it undercuts the "gay is a choice" rhetoric. Think what you want to, but don't hurt children while acting on those thoughts, please.

InLivingColor: Well stated!

Research is done all the time making adjustments for race, gender, income, smoking status, drug use, etc. It only seems logical to include sexual persuasion in some research. Gays may be at higher risk for some diseases or behaviors or psychological issues like depression.

If we legalize gay marriage, we will have the benefit of being able to identify gays for research purposes. No I'm not talking about torturing gays. Companies like Acxiom will want to study their spending habits. Insurance companies will want to know if they should charge them higher premiums. If it's fair to charge smokers higher taxes and life insurance costs, then perhaps gays/lesbians should pay higher or lower rates based on their risk profiles. There are a lot of benefits to getting gays/lesbians out of the closet and counted. We will truly know how large/small a voting block they really are.

Regardless of whether being gay is a genetic trait, participating in risky gay sex is a choice. Some gays choose to have public sex in bath houses or restrooms. Some likely choose to stay loyal to a smaller number of partners.

Severus makes a very good point.

I think that there are more than a few people who signed that petition who learned that lesson the hard way this week. I'm sure there are some of them of really wish they could take that signature back. -Posted by: Fay
********
Fay:
There is a lesson here for ALL petition signers. If you haven't read or don't understand the petition, DON'T SIGN IT!

Most people have made this mistake before - I know I have signed at least one before figuring out that I shouldn't have. Petitions use title words like "For", "Against", "Pro", "Anti", "Choice", "Freedom" and others that are catchy and, if you don't read the text, may deceive you.

Hopefully, the folks you are concerned about have learned a lesson and will be better informed next time. But I doubt that there error made any difference.

The problem isn't the canvassers, the churches or the people who signed the petitions.

The problem for those who oppose Act One is that 579,695 Arkansans supported it.

Thanks, SisterToldJa, I will be trying to change the minds of those I know on the list, as I have before. But, when you are dealing with the perceived foundation of someone's religion, it is not a simple problem.

I am sorry, spunkrat, that you didn't get the points I was trying to make. There are many states that had overt and covert laws and customs against racial equality that ultimately had to accept equality by law, but did not and still have not ceased covert racism. However, it is my observation that where direct confrontation between protesters and racists did not result in quicker ending of racism or less covert or overt racism after Supreme Court rulings, legislations, etc. But, you are a private citizen with the freedom of speech and action as long as your actions do not break the law. I hope however, you will recognize the danger of vindictive outing as Richard Mohr defined it . . . Clik

Thank you for the kind words also, Don Kehotay. It rare that you and I find ourselves in agreement on much of anything.

Severus and Liebertus, you two are pitiful. I could say more, but consumed by your own hatred and fear; you are doing more to hurt yourself than words would ever accomplish.

The posting of these names is great! "It's human nature to want to do mean and embarrassing deeds in secret. Ask the nightriders. Sunshine is, as ever, a disinfectant for such poison."

I was deeply ashamed to see the names of some people I know - closet haters are the worst! Those who go to church and claim to be "Christians" while secretly promoting an agenda of hate should be exposed. At least Jerry Cocks has the nerve to be honest about his bigotry.

Jesus said, "Love one another as I have loved you." You know, Jesus? Jesus "Christ"? The ones "Christians" are supposed to follow?

I think we may have determined that Severus IS Libertus, or else they're "cohabiting," as when one posts, the other magically appears and makes supporting/flattering commentary...

I'd like ONE of you to refute my "those who hold their warped, cherry-picked interpretation of the Bible over the Constitution..." statement, rather than just tsk, tsk! There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of this FACT. THEY have taken away the rights of fellow CITIZENS. I do not subscribe to taking away ANYONE'S rights, just exposing them for the bigoted hypocrites they are. They are free to be that. They just shouldn't hold sway over public policy based upon their warped "religious" viewpoints, here in the portion of the Bible Belt that is about 10" behind and 7" below the buckle, depending on anatomy...

This issue is NOT about Gay Marriage! Although this Amendment 1 actually provides ANOTHER reason to support non-traditional unions and same sex marriages. As long as ALL Americans have equal rights to help these children. By voting in this law, now unmarried cohabitating couples will have one more right taken away that they will want to push Marriage as a way for them to regain this right to adopt and provide foster care. Bestowing privileges for a special group of citizens (Married couples only) is a dangerous territory because it does open up the opportunity for discrimination. Many (but not all) would agree that an "ideal" family situation for raising children is for them to have both a positive male and positive female role model in their lives. However, there are MANY more needy children who remain with institutions because they can not find enough families and homes. Ask these kids how they feel. Until you actually can identify a face with a child they don't seem real. Most would tell you they just want a loving family and secure home. They want a chance to make their life a success. The key is that kids need a positive environment and there must be guidelines to avoid abusive homes.
In this day and age there are many other non-traditional families that can still provide a great home for deserving children who need an adoptive family or foster home. All scientific research has proven that a child is no less likely to be straight just because they are raised in a Married straight traditional home. It is also proven that kids are no more likely to be homosexuals just because they are raised in a homosexual single OR coupled home. So it seems that we conservatives (and yes I am one) have a fear of a God given sexual identity. The unknown or the preconceived stereotype of what we might think the homosexual lifestyle represents is homophobia. I do believe that same sex attraction is God given; just as God has instilled this trait in the "law" of nature. Nature, with all the beauty and wonder is also created by the hand of God.
I am also a Christian; although by some narrow definitions made by some individuals I may not be. I believe in God and I believe that Christ died for the redemption mankind. I have to ask why not let unmarried cohabitating adults adopt or provide foster care. Why not same sex couples and/or homosexual couples. There is no law preventing single homosexuals from adopting or fostering kids. This divisive Amendment 1 stirs up controversy only to rally us conservatives to fight to protest marriage between a woman and a man. Again this vote only supports the opposite. Homosexuals and any unmarried American couples now have another reason to want Marriage.
I believe The Bible was directed by the hand of God. But it was still written and translated throughout the ages at the hands of mankind. The Bible can not be interpreted as the literal English translation. Do we stone bad mothers? Do we go to hell for eating shellfish? I think not. Be prepared to explain yourself on Judgment Day when you have to answer for depriving children of a good home and family.

Call HRC!

Call Walmart @ 1-800-WM ETHIC!

Call anyone you know to gain their support against Mike Duke and Walmart.
You know the grassroots Christian right is voicing their opinion. We must be heard or we lose our voice.