A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

McCain has a long history of flip-flopping on gay marriage Yet veers to left in Senate reelection campaign by hiring homosexual lobbyist to run campaign

Looks like John McCain is veering back to the left already on gay marriage, having hired an openly gay lobbyist to manage his campaign, Mark Buse. This is more in line with his wife and daughter’s views, who openly opposed California’s Prop. 8 ballot initiative which stated that marriage is between a man and woman. Cindy McCain has a photo of her opposing that initiative as her Twitter profile picture, and both women have campaigned against it. It is clear McCain doesn’t want the Christian conservative vote.

This is definitely going to leave a mark with social conservatives.

I wonder if Sarah Palin has been informed that the McCain family has now joined the “politically correct” crowd?

Here is the link to GaySocialites.com.

Here is the text on the website:

That’s Senator John McCain’s wife, Cindy, in her NOH8 campaign photo shot by photographer Adam Bouska.

If you’ve been living in the closet, NOH8 is a photo campaign to support marriage equality for the LGBT community.

In a blog entry on the his website, Bouska wonders if Cindy McCain’s support for the NOH8 campaign might be a sign of changing times.

“The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot,” Bouska said.

Cindy’s daughter Meghan, a vocal advocate of gay rights and marriage equality, was the first member of the family to join the NOH8 campaign. No word on whether Senator McCain will follow in his family’s footsteps and take his mouth as well.

This is from the NOH8 campaign website:

by Gayle Plato

President Obama’s “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings, is a gay man who openly counsels students and other educators regarding gay and lesbian issues, bullying. He has had a long history of up front and detailed work helping people. He’s written a book detailing  his counsel he offered to a sad, gay boy in a desperate sexual relationship, with a much older man.

“In a statement, Jennings said: “Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities.”‘ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-admits-bad-handling-teen-sex-case/)

Here’s the real problem with the situation. This boy was obviously reaching out and in a desperate situation as he was emotionally distraught.  I grasp the sexual activity problem, but I see other issues here.  Anyone who worked with Jennings back then can probably identify the kid, remembering the boy. Why is Jennings disclosing this? Oh and by the way, in 1988, I was working with youth-at-risk, kids doing drugs, having sex, and talking about it.  We were all trained, worked as a team to help the kids.  There were thorough guidelines in every state in the country back then, explaining the reporting of underage sexual activity. This educator broke the law- period.

My big issue screaming out is this: why was he letting this boy come in and tell such lurid stories? Was he a classroom teacher, talking 1:1 about sex with this kid?  Um HUGE RED FLAG!  Any teacher in 1988, and I was one then, would know this was wrong.  It was beat into teachers heads, even back then- do not talk alone with kids about deeply personal issues without a) telling a colleague and b) involving  a referral for therapy.  It is also very wrong to USE THE CHILD as some personal stimulus!

One of the gravest errors, truly heinous, is the adult buying in and allowing the child’s lurid story to titillate the adult. I do not buy the story that the boy kept coming in to chat about his life and pain. Not one counselor I know would let the story telling ramble on- not one.  It is the first mistake any therapist makes, and you cannot get out of grad school without nipping the tendency to let the client ramble.  Yet, it is the core problem with all therapy.  It is not the therapeutic disclosure for sake of healing, and solution-focused development.  I could go on and on as I am highly suspicious of this dude, Mr. Safe School.

The boy was also, clearly at-risk and sending up the red flags for potential suicide–I am sorry but ALL HOMOSEXUAL children in desperate relationships are high on the suicide risk scale.  That is not an opinion (http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/1/57).

Homosexuals live with the pain of being; it is not good, nor fair.  It hurts my heart as I am not a conservative who feels homosexuality in and of itself is evil.  I think promiscuity is the issue, not loving relationships.  But nonetheless, a gay teen, struggling, in a sexual relationship with a significantly older man is a high-risk.  This boy needed help and the guy knew it. He knew it then or he wouldn’t have let him talk so much.  He was projecting his own angst onto the kid.

What if the same story, same boy, now disclosed that the older lover was  a priest and he is going to sue Mr. Jennings for not helping him back then? Hmmm.  If I met Jennings, I would say one sentence to him, and I am dead serious in this: “When you heard the boy, thinking of his issues and problems, did you ever fantasize about having sex with the boy?”

I wouldn’t put this guy, Kevin Jennings, in charge of any child safety program, safe schools, safe nothing.  He is not qualified.

Sacramento, CA – Schools across California may soon be devoting an entire school day to honor homosexual icon Harvey Milk, if Governor Schwarzenegger signs a bill passed this week by the California legislature.

The bill, SB 572, requires that the Governor proclaim every May 22 as Harvey Milk Day, “and would designate that day as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions and would encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.”  The bill offers no opt-out provisions for parents who might not want their children to focus on sexual issues.

Some believe that Governor Schwarzenegger might sign the measure this time because of recent honors bestowed on Harvey Milk by Hollywood and President Obama.

[On August 12, 2009 Barry Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk.]

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, urged Californians to contact Governor Schwarzenegger and express opposition to the bill, stating, “This is one of the most blatant attempts yet to bypass parents and push homosexual indoctrination on young students.  In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, our youth cannot afford to have classroom instruction time wasted on politically correct propaganda.”

To express opposition to SB 572, citizens can call Governor Schwarzenegger’s office at (916) 445-2841.  Please note that the phone lines are often busy, so persistence may be necessary in order to communicate your opinion. Gay rights groups are also urging their constituents to call the Governor in support of the bill.

Pacific Justice Institute is working alongside other leading California pro-family groups, including Capitol Resource Institute, California Family Council and Concerned Women of America of California, to defeat SB 572.

Footnote: San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, (with the mustache)  served 11 months in office and on November 27, 1978, Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by former SF Supervisor Dan White.  Harvey and Dan began their relationship as friends and political colleagues, their relationship soured when Harvey withdrew his support for a measure very important to Dan.

Unable to support his family, Dan resigned from the Board of Supervisors, but later changed his mind.  When Mayor Muscone wouldn’t allow him to return, Dan crawled through a basement window at City Hall to avoid the metal detector, and shot Mayore Moscone.  He then went to Harvey’s office and shot and killed him too.

It is well established, the assignation of Harvey Milk had nothing to do with his pioneering of Gay Rights in California.

For Immediate Release
Contact: President Brad Dacus (916) 857-6900

Legal Analysis of Today’s Prop. 8 Ruling

Sacramento, CA – Attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute have reviewed today’s highly-anticipated decision from the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8. PJI submitted several legal briefs to the Court in defense of Prop. 8, and offers the following assessment of the 186-page opinions.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald George, who also wrote last year’s opinion declaring unconstitutional Prop. 8′s predecessor, Prop. 22. Today’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin, and Carol A. Corrigan. Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar reluctantly agreed with the majority’s conclusion, but not its reasoning, so she wrote separately to express her own views. Justice Carlos R. Moreno was the lone dissenter. Chief Justice George’s majority opinion alone carries the force of law.

The 136-page majority opinion begins by emphasizing that the Court was not called upon to decide whether Prop. 8 was wise or sound as a matter of policy, but only whether Prop. 8 was a valid amendment to the state Constitution, rather than a revision, which would have required additional approval by the legislature.

The court considered numerous prior decisions that discussed the distinction between amendments and revisions to the state constitution. The court determined that a revision “referred to the kind of wholesale or fundamental alteration of the constitutional structure that appropriately could be undertaken only by a constitutional convention.” The Petitioners in the present case had argued that Prop. 8 was a revision because it altered a fundamental aspect of the state constitution-equality. The court disagreed, holding that Prop. 8 does not “fundamentally alter” basic equal protection guarantees, or for that matter, the rights of same-sex couples to privacy or due process in choosing relationships that have the “incidents of marriage.”

The court also rejected the novel arguments offered by Attorney General Jerry Brown that Prop. 8 should be struck down because “inalienable” constitutional provisions – such as the right to privacy – should supersede other constitutional provisions, such as Prop. 8. The court noted that there was no legal authority to support this theory.

The court then addressed the validity of the gay weddings conducted after its opinion last summer, and the enactment of Prop. 8 on November 4. The court held that Prop. 8 was not retroactive, and therefore those same-sex unions would continue to be considered valid marriages. On this holding, all the justices agreed. The court specifically did not decide the validity in California of same-sex marriages entered into in other states, such as Massachusetts.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennard, who previously voted to strike down Prop. 22, emphasized that this case was different because the court had previously been interpreting a statute in light of the state constitution, whereas it now was dealing with the enactment of a new constitutional provision. She explained, “Interpretation of existing statutory and constitutional provisions is a fundamental power of the judicial branch, while alteration of existing statutory and constitutional provisions – by addition, deletion, or modification – is a fundamental legislative power that the people may exercise through the judicial process.”

In another concurring opinion, Justice Werdegar reluctantly agreed with the majority’s conclusion, but disagreed that the amendment/revision question should turn on whether an initiative affected the structure or framework of government.

In his separate opinion, Justice Moreno concurred with the court’s unanimous decision that Prop. 8 was not retroactive, but he dissented from its holding that Prop. 8 was a valid constitutional amendment. He blasted the majority – and the voters – writing, “Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification.” Justice Moreno warned that today’s decision endangers the rights of “all disfavored minorities.”

Pacific Justice Institute has advised hundreds of churches as to their legal rights to adhere to the definition of marriage prescribed by their faith. PJI has also offered legal assistance to individuals who have been blacklisted, terminated from their jobs, or had their property defaced by anti-Prop. 8 activists.

ADF files suit against radical group that invaded Mich. church
Group that openly advocates ‘riots,’ ‘crime,’ ‘insurrection’ targeted church for its views
Press Release
Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 11:10 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit in federal court Wednesday against a radical anarchist group that openly advocates the use of riots and crime to further its views in favor of homosexual behavior. ADF attorneys filed the suit on behalf of Delta Township’s Mount Hope Church against the group “Bash Back!,” which invaded the church’s building during a worship service on Nov. 9 of last year.

“The use of violent threats and criminal behavior to make a political point should never be acceptable in America,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “Bash Back! revealed how dangerous the homosexual agenda is to our First Liberty, religious freedom. ADF filed this suit to stop Bash Back! and other activist groups from invading churches, disrupting worship, silencing pastors, and terrifying adults and children who attend religious services.”

The Bash Back! Web site, which features a banner photo of members dressed in terrorist-like garb and wielding various objects as weapons, states on one page of the site that the group’s activities include “Riots, Sex Work, Crime, Insurrection, you know the fun stuff we do.” The Lansing chapter of the group targeted Mount Hope Church because of the church’s well-known Christian views on marriage and homosexual behavior. Through another page of its Web site, the group covertly recruited participants for its plans on Nov. 9, seeking some who would be willing to maintain “a more ‘militant’-looking presence out side [sic] of the building.”

“I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment,” the page said. “However, we cant [sic] give you really any detailed information due to the cop who’s [sic] ridiculous job it is to do surveillance over this blog…. ‘ONLY ONE DIRECTION! TRANS AND QUEER INSURRECTION!’ – Bash Back! Lansing”

On Nov. 9, members of the group dressed in militant garb staged a protest outside the church during a worship service to distract security personnel, blocking access to the building and parking lot at various times. Other members of the group dressed in plain clothes then deceptively entered the building. At a coordinated time, they sprang up to disrupt the service, terrifying many attendees. The group shouted religious slurs, unfurled a sign, and threw fliers around the sanctuary while two women began kissing near the podium. The group pulled fire alarms as they ran out of the building. After the incident, the group bragged about its activities on its Web site and, on a separate page, explained its choice of Mount Hope: “This church is nothing short of a disease in the community, and in the minds of those who attend.”

Federal law imposes penalties upon anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”

* Sample of images from Bash Back! (WARNING: Content may be considered highly offensive)
* Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan in Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!

For Immediate Release:

School District Seeks to Re-Educate
“Homophobic” Kindergartners

Alameda, CA – The Alameda Board of Education will consider supplemental curriculum tonight which seeks to eradicate “homophobia” from students barely old enough to write their names.

The curriculum is being touted by officials in the Alameda Unified School District as necessary to “create safe schools for all children,” but it focuses almost exclusively on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a recent question and answer memo defending the proposed curriculum, the District lamented that “homophobia is still very much present in many of our schools and communities” and insisted that “students of all ages must be given an opportunity to learn that the words ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ are adjectives that should be used with respect to describe people in their community, not words used in a negative way…” The District further claimed that “using anti-gay slurs starts as early as kindergarten,” and therefore all students must be drilled with positive portrayals of gays, lesbians and transgender people.

PJI staff attorneys have written to the Board in opposition to the curriculum and will address the Board meeting to point out that the so-called “Safe Schools” effort does nothing to counter the most significant sources of school bullying and harassment, such as race, religion, gender, physical appearance, and socioeconomic status. Instead, the supplemental curriculum focuses exclusively on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “It is both risky and wrong to ignore the real causes of school bullying in favor of a politically correct propaganda program. If anyone needs a lesson against name-calling, it is those who are labeling our kindergartners as homophobic.”

Contact: President Brad Dacus (916) 857-6900

Why should innocent precious children be exposed to this?
Is this what public schools are for?

Tolerance – the power or capacity of an organization or society to put up with that which the majority considers an unfavorable condition or behavior.  Used in a sentence:  The guests graciously tolerated the undisciplined behavior of their host’s child.

When it is a two way street, it works.  When tolerance is enforced one way it, it becomes tyranny – a tyranny of the minority in this case.

Historic note, “Gay” is a meme specifically chosen to achieve an outcome not available with the then existing vocabulary for the behavior.

Parents Sue School District Over Secrecy Surrounding Lesbian Minister’s Visit
City: Sacramento, CA
May 6, 2009

More than twenty parents filed suit yesterday against the Castro Valley Unified School District, after the District refused to comply with a public records request. The parents are represented by staff attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute.

The parents sought more information after learning from their children that a lesbian minister had been invited by the school to speak to math and science classes at Castro Valley High School. According to students, the minister spoke about her lesbian wedding and similar events under the heading “Out for Good.” Pacific Justice Institute sent a public records request to the school on the parents’ behalf, seeking all records related to the minister’s presentations, as well as any records demonstrating the connection between the minister’s talk and the math and science curriculum.

In response, the school district flatly refused to provide the records. To the astonishment of PJI attorneys, the District invoked the clergy-penitent privilege – ordinarily used to shield ministers from testifying in court about confessions made to them in private. PJI filed a writ petition yesterday in Alameda Superior Court to compel release of the records.

“It’s a mystery to us why the district chose to take such a hard-line approach with these parents who simply wanted all the information they are entitled to about this minister’s visit,” noted PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider. “But the parents have a strong right under California law to examine the curriculum and materials associated with in-class presentations, and we intend to vindicate that right.”

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “Parents are the first and foremost educators of their own children. Castro Valley’s refusal to honor these parents’ request for basic information reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the school’s proper role as helping – not replacing – parents.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.
P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827-6600
Phone: (916) 857-6900 Fax: (916) 857-6902 Internet: www.pacificjustice.org (more…)

Summer vacation is coming and parents are planning.  Lets see how they’re doing it on Diversity Lane …

Here is the latest news from the Phoenix-based Alliance Defnese Fund:

U.S. House Creates Special Legal Status for Gay People

Despite intense opposition from family advocates – including more than 5,000 e-mails from CitizenLink readers – the U.S. House voted 249-175 today to create a new class of crimes based on the traits of the victim, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Eighteen Republicans voted for the bill, while 17 Democrats voted against it. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced a similar bill in the Senate on Tuesday.

Under the “hate-crimes” legislation, pastors could be prosecuted for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. and abroad.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, hosted a special meeting last night to highlight the dangers and concerns related to the bill.

“Under this legislation, justice will no longer be equal,” he said before the meeting. “Instead, justice will depend on the … protected status of the victim, setting up different penalties for the same crime.

“I support continuing the American tradition of equal justice under the law, and I oppose this unconstitutional ‘thought crimes’ bill.”

Let’s get something straight (excuse the pun). I don’t have a problem or hate people who happen to engage in homo/bi/trans-sexual activities. Yes, I know plenty of people who have engaged in all kinds of behaviors that my beliefs and values consider wrong or sinful. I love them all the same and can do so with God’s grace. Besides, God does not see one sin greater than another.

What I do have a problem with is “the state” granting legal status and protection of homosexual behaviour – especially at the expense of an individual’s conscience and faith.

What is the difference in someone demanding that Congress protect their hygenic orientation or dietary orientation or any other behavioral-orientation?

As someone who believes in the rule of law and justice, I was always under the assumption that most crimes are an act of hate. Why are some crimes more hateful than others?

If this bill is signed into law, will the homosexual community demand that all religious institutions that believe homosexuality as a “sin” be required to redact all those passages from their scriptures?

What exactly does the homosexual community want that they don’t already have that using the power of federal law will give them at the expense of someone’s beliefs and values?

I agree. “Hate” is not a family value and believing that something is wrong or immoral is not “hate.” So what is the purpose of outlawing beliefs and values that homosexuality is wrong? Is someone beats up someone who just so happens to practice homosexuality, why can’t they be prosecuted under the full extent of the law for assault and battery? Why the added emphasis?

How will this be enforced?

by Gayle Plato

My SA brethren seem overly concerned about sex lately. I just wanted to note that I’m finding the chat off point. Taking this to the truly conservative perspective, I feel discussion of sexual choices does not belong in any public workplace, forum, or societal gathering. That reality is a con game from the left. We are all buying in friends.

As a conservative, I truly feel that the trending to discuss sexuality is a liberal rights movement trick, coming out of the National Organization of Women, and much ado about freedom of choice. This whole thing is about getting it all out there and talked up. If we talk freely, then we must allow choice.

Perez Hilton is a gossip columnist with a foul mouth, and I have no clue why he would ever be invited on any pageant to be a judge. That fact alone adds to my distaste of pageants. I also think this was all basically planned. It’s worked and the lack-luster pageants, losing ratings and interest, just received a ton of free press.

The sexism of the stupid judge, is equal to the sexism of the young women who go through months of training, spray tanning, double-stick tape in unmentionable spots, and lots of question prep to sound like a person with depth.

The girls are accomplished and some fairly intelligent. This is a huge scholarship competition and I truly understand the desire to try out. The adulation is real; and the pull for all girls to be Barbie never ends.

But as a school counselor, seeing lots of pre-teens, and teens, with eating disorders, suicidal over boyfriends or their acceptance, sexually active as early as 4th and 5th grade, and worried that they would be too ugly, I see the sexism promoted as vile an act as the stupid judge pushing his activism.

Miss California deserves credit for standing up for her beliefs. I am saddened though that she paraded a round in a tiny bikini, letting the world judge her body not as an athletic aspect of a wellness campaign, but as a sexual entity. Do not tell me that any of those girls would win a thing if each had all the same skills and beliefs and came out a size 14, wearing a bikini. NEVER. Yet, a size 14 IS the most typical of American women. Regardless if the size is good or bad. For some that would be big, but for others, it would be healthy. Pageants are not about healthy though are they? If they were, then the girls would offer athletic competition in work out clothes, or exhibited skill in an athletic area of expertise.

If the pageants are going to push sex, then do not get all uppity when sex sells. Do you think the pageant didn’t know Perez Hilton would ask a controversial question? Does Anderson Cooper like tea bags?

Good for Miss California, but next time you preach ‘values’, try a competition about brains, fitness, talent, and poise. Until the bikinis verging on pornographic with camera shots from a peeping tom angle are dumped, I am not going to get all hot and bothered about this entire media scam.

As for gay rights, as a true conservative I say this: Keep your bedroom yours and do not involve me. I do not tell you if I am gettin’ some, and frankly, do you really want that broadcasted or even referenced over the Xerox copier or Bunn coffee brew? Why does anyone need to discuss orientation at all? I am oriented to want Clive Owen or Russell Crowe to show up, but I don’t think that really matters to your day now does it?

Provocative talk, push of agenda, and even the fact that one blip of space was wasted about pseudo-wholesome girls or queens with gossip blogs, shows me that the NOW nags got their way and we are sexualizing every day talk.

I am going back to writing of economics, something rambling like usual, and maybe a political topic or two. But you know what, if I type it all in my slinky jammies, I promise not to tell.

The only thing more intolerant than a Liberal is a gay activist. Our most current example of heterophobic bigotry is provided by the flamboyant Perez Hilton a celebrity judge for the Miss America Pageant. During the question-and-answer portion of the pageant Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, the following question: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

To her credit Miss California answered: “….I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Her honest answer probably cost her the crown according to Hilton (imagine a teenage Barney Frank voice): “The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!”

In an interview with Larry King Hilton commented: “I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct….Miss USA should be all inclusive.” How does he square these two comments? Apparently being “all inclusive” does not include those who object to gay marriage.

Hilton isn’t the only celebrity with a double standard weighing in on this. Brittany Spears joined Perez Hilton’s “Twitter rally for gay marriage” (I don’t know why, but the words “Twitter rally” and “Perez Hilton” go remarkably well together) saying: “Love is love! People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!” Should people who oppose gay marriage be allowed to do what makes them happy?

So, a beauty pageant contestant gives an honest answer to a question put to her by a pageant judge and for that answer she is discriminated against by that judge who openly admits that he did so. Hilton probably thinks that he’s prettier than Miss California (he’d probably rather be a contestant than a judge too) but shouldn’t someone ask him if he violated her civil rights? Would we allow the pageant to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity? Then why allow it for personal beliefs?

Gay activists are thoroughly committed to forcing society to accept their abnormal behaviors. They are willing to disrupting religious services, file law suits, intimidate church attendees, spray paint graffiti on church buildings and tear up pictures of the pope on late-night television shows—the usual things they do when they get angry. They’re intent on forcing their will on the rest of us.

We don’t have to look any further than our own state for examples. In 2003 Governor Janet Napolitano signed Executive Order 03-22 (she didn’t think that the voters or their representatives in the legislature could be trusted enough to consult on the matter) directing that no state agency “….shall discriminate in employment solely on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation…” The purpose of the executive order was to “Affirm the State’s commitment to the elimination of all barriers to employment that artificially restrict hiring, promotion, recruitment, compensation, and tenure on the basis of any status or characteristic that is not directly related to the performance of a job….” (Note to Governor Brewer: could you please rescind this order?)

The next time that Napolitano isn’t busy annoying the Canadians maybe she could, in the spirit of her own executive order, ask the DOJ to investigate the pageant and its discriminatory practices.

To many of us Carrie Prejean is the winner of the pageant.

Long after the 2009 Miss USA contest is over, everyone will remember the real winner of the Miss USA contest, Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

She was denied the crown because she spoke her values, faith, character and committment to traditional marriage.

The BGLT community should be ashamed of itself and unfortunately, will experience a backlash against bigots like “Perez Hilton.”

As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman,” said Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, “I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit …

Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. aka Perez Hilton speaking about Miss California in his own words

GLBT individuals comprise less than 10% of the adult US population.  Of that 10%, less than 25% actually support what has come to be known as “Gay Marriage”.  This overall lack of interest within a minority segment of the population has been the frequent subject of Gay activists lamentations for years now.  It seems however, that one activist, Mr. Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton) cannot reisist inserting his politics into an apolitical event, the Miss USA competition.

A couple of questions came to mind when I viewed this video of Mr. Lavandeira:  Is this what we can expect from Megan McCain’s “Progressive Republicanism”?  Is this what John Shadegg has in mind when he speaks of “the Big Tent”?  Is Mr. Lavandeira a tolerant man?  Is he representative of GLBT activism?

Tolerance is defined as: the act or capacity of enduring; endurance.

Here’s my question, shouldn’t tolerance be a two way street?  It seems to me, that when tolerance is demanded and not offered it becomes something more sinister, tyranny.

Perhaps when a minority within a minority can demand and command a nations attention, its time to rethink the question, what is tolerance and how far does it extend?