Larry Craig: Another Appeal Denied

I noted yesterday that the appeal by former Florida state representative Bob Allen had been denied. While Allen's pretty well known in some circles, few cases of conservative politicians soliciting sex in men's bathrooms had garnered as much interest as that of Idaho Senator Larry Craig (R). As you may recall, Craig entered a guilty plea after his infamous "wide stance" solicitation in a bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport and then said that he'd resign only to later not only fail to step down but to file an appeal seeking to retract his guilty plea.

A decision has just come down in the last couple of hours and, like Bob Allen, Larry Craig's appeal has also been denied. The full decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals has been released, but the gist of it is that Craig's guilty plea will stand because he lacks any legal basis on which to retract it. Or, if you prefer your legalese undiluted:

To be valid, a guilty plea must be "accurate, voluntary and intelligent." State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1994). For a plea to be accurate, it must be supported by a proper factual basis. Id. Appellant argues that the plea was not accurate because it lacked a full record of supporting facts.

Appellant did not appear in person when his plea was filed, but a guilty plea is not invalid merely because it is entered in writing. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.03, subd. 2...

But, because appellant did not appear, the written plea petition was the only account given to the district court of appellant's version of the offense. The relevant paragraph of the petition states:

"I am pleading guilty to the charge of Disorderly Conduct as alleged because on June 11, 2007, within the property or jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Hennepin County, specifically in the restroom of the North Star Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal, I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment or [sic] others, which conduct was physical (versus verbal) in nature."

...Appellant argues that because the paragraph lacks a description of the alleged conduct it fails to provide an adequate factual basis.

Appellant's argument is unsupported by the record. A verbatim record was required to be made of the August 8, 2007 proceeding at which appellant's petition to plead guilty was filed and he was sentenced. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 6(A) (requiring verbatim record of sentencing proceedings). A defendant is responsible for providing a record adequate for appellate review, including a transcript if necessary. See State v. Anderson, 351 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Minn. 1984) (holding claim of trial error could not be reviewed without transcript). Appellant did not order a transcript of the August 8, 2007 proceeding...

— Source

And it goes on from there, as legalese does, to set out why Craig's appeal simply doesn't hold water.

Larry Craig is still guilty by his own admission. More importantly than the legal offense he committed, though, is his hypocrisy in the whole matter, one that he maintains to this day. Craig, like Bob Allen, could remedy this by simply coming out of the closet and explaining his errors while maintaining that gay men can legitimately hold conservative political views and ideas that don't extend to curtailing the rights of other gay men in order to bolster their standing amongst the homophobic segments of society. He could point out that he served as a Senator in ways that otherwise represented his constituency and that his homosexuality, like all homosexuality, is at most a coincidence that, absent social stigmatization, has zero bearing on the fitness of an individual to serve in office, vote, serve in the military, or otherwise enjoy the rights and fulfill the responsibilities incumbent upon all of us as members of American society, no matter whom we might prefer to twiddle our dangly bits now and again.

Will he continue in his hypocrisy, though? I'd bet on it.

Sphere: Related Content

Bob Allen Update: Gay Conservative Racist's Appeal Denied

It's been more than a year since we caught up with Bob Allen. You might remember old "Twenty Dollar Bob." He used to be a Florida state representative and outspoken right-wing voice in the state. Then he got busted.

On July 11, 2007, Allen was arrested in a men's bathroom for soliciting an undercover cop for sex. During his interrogation, Allen came up with a rather creative excuse for his... errr... activities:

Audiotape of a July 11 police-station conversation between Allen and Titusville Assistant Chief John Lau reveals Allen's excuse for discussing sex with an undercover officer at a park men's room.

He felt intimidated by the "stocky black guy" in the restroom (whom he didn't know was an officer) and several other "stocky black guys" sitting in the park (also, apparently, plain-clothes officers) and thought he was about to be robbed, Allen said. The officer first mentioned oral sex for money, and Allen simply went along with discussing the transaction to avoid becoming a "statistic," he said...

At one point, Allen asked [arresting officer] Kavanaugh: "You're not a cop, are you?" Kavanaugh replied, "Nah. If I was a cop, why would I be hanging around here?"

Allen's "I'm so scared of black men that I offer them money to allow me to perform oral sex on them" defense didn't work out very well (big surprise!). On November 10, 2007, Allen was convicted by a jury of solicitation and sentenced to six months' probation.

Today comes word that Bob Allen's latest appeal has been denied. Frankly, I don't think Bob Allen has any appeal to much of anyone these days, so denying it seems a bit redundant.

Bob really ought to come out of the closet about now and just admit to himself and everyone else that he's gay. The racism thing could definitely use some working on, but if he's honest about both things then he'll be the better man for it. Besides, it's not like there's much risk of anyone thinking less of him than they already do. Apologizing and remedying the hypocrisy can only do good.

Sphere: Related Content

AFA vs. Hallmark: Gay Marriage Greeting Card Flap Illustrates Fundamentalist Stupidity

It really makes my day when I receive a "Dear Manmeat" letter from Don Wildmon, and the one I received yesterday afternoon was a particularly fun one. The American Family Association is in a lather because Hallmark has started selling greeting cards for same-sex marriages. Now, the friends of gay people can send the same sort of overpriced cardboard bits of sentiment that the friends of straight people can send. The horror!

Hallmark defends gay marriage cards - Urge your local Hallmark store to refuse to carry them

Take Action!
Urge your local Hallmark store owner to join others in refusing to carry Hallmark gay marriage cards in their stores.

You can find your local Hallmark store contact information here. [Note: I have changed the link to one directly to Hallmark; the one in the email tracks the clickthrough to give the AFA numbers it can claim as people objecting to Hallmark's policy even if the person clicking supports Hallmark's decision.]

Please be polite, but firm when you contact your local store.

August 25, 2008
Dear Manmeat,

Hallmark is reinforcing their decision to carry gay marriage cards with a message to supporters of traditional marriage – buzz off!

According to their website, corporate emails, and in response to phone calls, Hallmark is telling those who contact the company it will carry “cards that use specific language and images appropriate for same-sex wedding ceremonies.”

Same sex marriage is not recognized in 48 states, but Hallmark has chosen to become a corporate advocate in advancing homosexual marriage.

However, some local Hallmark store owners are refusing to carry them. Earlier this week, Jordan's Hallmark, which owns seven Hallmark Gold Crown stores in Idaho, announced its stores will not carry gay marriage cards in their stores.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?

Sincerely,



Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Ah, the dumbness, how shall I count the ways?

Let's start with the assertion that Hallmark shouldn't sell gay marriage cards because same-sex marriages aren't recognized in 48 states. How many states recognize bar mitzvahs with legislation that recognizes 13 year old boys as adults? And the survey says... zero. Precisely no states consider thirteen year olds as something other than minors, despite the fact that Jewish religious custom proclaims them to be adults. Hallmark had better stop selling greeting cards for that occasion. The same number of states also recognize officially your daughter's third birthday, your wedding anniversary, or the fact that your nephew got an A in math last year. In short, whether or not a given state has a law recognizing something is absolutely meaningless in this context. Hallmark is in the business of selling greeting cards, not of marking the passage of laws.

But let's pretend for a moment that Hallmark only sells greeting cards for occasions that are sanctioned by state laws. If this were the case, then Hallmark would sell same-sex marriage cards only in states where such unions were recognized, which is only a few. Not the two states which this latest "Dear Manmeat" letter asserts, however, but fourteen states in all which recognize gay marriage in some form or another, whether it is called "marriage" or "civil union" with the same rights as different-sex marriage or with some more limited number of rights. That's nearly a quarter of all the United States; a redundant statement to make, I know, but since the AFA's Grand Poobah appears incapable of distinguishing between two and fourteen, we shouldn't take for granted that he knows how many states there are.

But let's sink deeper into the AFA's fantasy world and pretend that there really are only two states — Massachusetts and California — that recognize gay marriage in some form. Should Hallmark not sell appropriate greeting cards for gay weddings in the other 48 states? Well, I don't know. Do people sometimes mail cards from one state to another? Hmmmm... anybody have statistics? This one's a real head-scratcher. I mean, it's not like someone living in New Mexico might have a gay friend in Massachusetts, right? Nobody from Florida could possibly know anyone in California! Surely, God has commanded that there shall be no mixing between states upon penalty of smiting.

Perhaps the most shocking news to Wildmon and Co. might be that (gasp) same-sex weddings take place even in states where gay marriages aren't recognized. Believe it or not, for a lot of people who get married, the main thing is commitment to one another, not the question of legal status. The fact that there are states heartless enough to deny the right of one human being to sit at the hospital bedside of a sick or dying loved one notwithstanding, people who happen to be of the same biological gender still have ceremonies to declare their mutual commitment in places that don't provide legal recognition of that commitment. Note that none of Hallmark's cards, for this or any other occasion, include phrases like "Congratulations on the government recognition of your relationship." Greeting cards mark personal occasions, not changes in legal status.

Case in point: a few years ago, two gay friends of mine and LL's had a wedding ceremony and reception in St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, and their official civil union had actually taken place in Vermont. They did that in full knowledge of the fact that they would not have anything like the rights and privileges of other married couples when they returned to Florida... but they did it anyhow, as a statement to one another. As the majority of this couple's friends and family lived in America's nethermost realm, however, they also had a purely symbolic ceremony and reception when they got back home. Finding an appropriate greeting card for the occasion was a matter of some deliberation, and having had cards like those Hallmark now sells at that time would have been quite helpful. So, whether Florida had or had not recognized the legal status of this couple at the time, I would have bought such a card to go along with the very nice picnic set that LL and I gave them as a wedding present. You see, there's a difference between a committed relationship, a marriage and a wedding. I don't suppose that a bunch of dunces like the AFA, who apparently can't even count up to 14 successfully, would understand a concept as abstract as that.

So if Hallmark is really telling the AFA's deluded Paul Reveres, galloping clumsily through our cultural countryside and shouting their fool heads off that "The homos are coming! The homos are coming!", to "buzz off," then all I can do is mark the fact that they've made the right decision in this instance. I would have used a different four-letter word than "buzz," and it's quite possible that Hallmark did, too. The AFA's membership likes to pretend that they're too timid to use the more appropriate word "fuck" for "buzz," although any of us who have been on the receiving end of a fundienutter's vitriol knows what kind of language they really use when they think nobody's looking (and they can always pray for forgiveness, which they "know" they'll get... which is a big part of what makes them such immense pricks in the first place).

And about the graphics that accompanied today's daily dose of Donald Wildmon's "meanmeat" fantasy life; am I the only one confused by this? Is an image of two tuxedos too horrible to contemplate? Is that all it takes to shock the flock? Is the email implying with the second graphic that the 12 apostles were involved in gay marriages? I mean, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were, and I wouldn't think less of them if it were the case that John had jammed his joystick up James. It's hard to think less of something than not at all. Nonetheless, I'm a bit surprised that Don Wildmon would be promulgating that sort of thing as historical fact. Then again, I was a bit surprised when I got an email from him asking me to make his dreams come true on a Saturday night in March, too.

In the end, like most of these moon-faced assassins of joy, Wildmon just needs reassurance that even with gay people getting married, he'll someday find the right man to fulfill his failingly-suppressed needs. He's got the same basic problem that all Christian literalists have. They've signed on to a cult that, on the one hand, is filled to the rafters with homoerotic imagery and on the other hand tells them to disregard the attraction they feel toward it, a conflict sloppily tied up with the promise that if they can just wait for it long enough that they'll get to sit back and watch the pain they've inflicted upon themselves all their lives acted out as sadistic fantasy by stern judges and bloodthirsty horsemen who will torture and behead those who actually enjoyed life. Without the sadism of the apocalyptic vision, which they demand we all believe is a truth rather than the product of asceticism driven to the point of hallucinatory madness, none of this pays off in the end. It is only through the infliction of suffering upon the other that they can derive meaning from the torture they inflict upon themselves.

Attacking greeting cards is no big deal when you're determined to spend eternity lending a hand at driving red-hot pokers into the eye sockets of real people, after all.

Sphere: Related Content

Gay Marriage Irks the Most Concerned Woman in America

It has been a few hours now since the California Supreme Court overturned that state's ban on gay marriage, having ruled it unconstitutional and generally an affront to human dignity and, when you get right down to it, what it means to be a rational and empathic human being capable of co-existing in a pluralistic society. We hear already the scratching of fingernails from within the plain pine coffin in which the increasingly and rightfully marginalized right wing cognotscenti are entombing themselves. Those of whose who side with humanity and a hope for the future expected it, of course, from these moral troglodytes who side with their putrefied tomes of outmoded Middle Eastern tribal laws to which they cling like leeches upon the belly of their vengeful daddy in the sky.

Leaping head-first into the front of the foray is the most concerned woman in America who, ironically enough, might be surmised to actually have male genitalia. I don't know that for sure, but the most concerned woman in America goes by the name Matt Barber, and I assume that Matt is short for Matthew and not Matilda. Matt is the Policy Director for Cultural Issues of the Concerned Women for America, and she is pissed. Matt is demanding mob rule and calling the Supreme Court of California — which, by the way, is comprised of six Republican appointees out of seven members — "judicial activists" bent on overturning the "will of the people." That's what courts do; just because people want something doesn't make it legal. That's the difference between a system of representative government with checks and balances and rule by crowds of angry villagers carrying on stonings in the streets. But here, let's allow Matt to have her say, as she has been quoted extensively in a piece published in ChristianNewsWire for whom the media contact is given as Natalie Bell, Media Coordinator for CWA (202-488-7000 ext. 126):

California Supreme Court Betrays 'We the People' on Marriage

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said "The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It's absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called 'same-sex marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered....

Of course, the framers of the California state constitution would also have "laughed their smocks off" over the idea that women should be allowed to vote, that Chinese railroad laborers should be entitled to safe working conditions, or that blacks should be able to hold public office. I suppose that the courts should only be allowed to interpret laws that have been written by people with a proven capability to see into the future. Ms. Barber dwells in a very strange sort of reality, as demonstrated by the fact that Chief Justice Ronald George, the man who wrote the court's majority opinion, is a lifelong Republican and was appointed to his post by Republican governor Pete Wilson. His first appointment, in fact, was to the Los Angeles Municipal Court by none other than Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, Ms. Barber and the other Concerned Women for America have no compunction about turning on one of their own when he dares exercise reason over malice. It's not too unlike what happened to Judge Jones after the Dover trial.

But wait, Barber isn't finished yet:

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman...

The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called 'same-sex marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies...

Actually, marriage has also been between a man and several women and between a man and a little girl or five, too, depending on where and when you look into history. I don't recall Ms. Barber releasing an angry statement like this in reference to the recent polygyny case in Texas, nor has CWA come out with such a "defense of marriage" statement about members of the same polygynous sect in Colorado or Canada. No, the Most Concerned Woman in America isn't nearly as concerned with that.

Nor does Ms. Barber realize that the cornerstone of a healthy society is not marriage. The cornerstone of a healthy society is the ability to its members to empathize, to not be locked up in the kind of loops of psychosis and steely, glaring opposition to the best that human nature has to offer — love, in whatever form it takes — in favor of slavish adherence to the doctrines of religions that nobody believes in anymore.

Homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies? Don't look now, but according to this statement, Republicans are either gay or gay-friendly. Gee, what a terrible thing to contemplate. Who will speak on behalf of the Most Concerned Woman in America? Nobody. Good.

If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.

I don't know about you, but it certainly makes me feel really, really good about Leviticans like Barber when they take to conflating a sexual relationship and children like she does here. What could be more appropriate than a little revelation of the pedophilia of fundamentalists than this kind of statement? One can only wonder what Ms. Barber has in her own closet when she feels like this is an appropriate thing to say. Considering the alternative, I'm more than happy to be an "extremist left-wing ally" of "homosexual activists." Buy me the t-shirt and I'll wear it. I'd rather be that any day than even a nominal supporter of people who go about with images of little kids in adult situations flitting about in their short-circuiting neural pathways, thank you very much.

On a positive note, the Court's decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I’m certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman.

What part of "unconstitutional" don't these people understand? What did Chief Justice George write again? What was the ruling? Oh, yeah, here it is:

Absent a compelling justification, our state government may not deny a right as fundamental as marriage to any segment of society. Whether an unconstitutional denial of a fundamental right has occurred is not a matter to be decided by the executive or legislative branch, or by popular vote, but is instead an issue of constitutional law for resolution by the judicial branch of state government...

Here, let's make this a bit easier to understand for the Most Concerned Woman in America. You don't get to interpret the Constitution in order to make law; that's the job of the judicial branch of government, whether at the state or federal level. Getting another proposition on a ballot, even if a majority of voters support it, doesn't make it anymore constitutional. Conversely, the courts are not supposed to be swayed by public opinion and polls based thereon. They don't rule based on whether voters agree with something or not, they rule based on the law of the land. Pass another proposition and watch it get knocked down just like the last one.

The Most Concerned Woman in America and her cohort need to find something productive to be concerned about and get their heads out of everybody else's pants. There are real issues that real American women (unlike Ms. Matt Barber) are concerned about. Oh, and guess what?

Some of those genuinely concerned women are even gay. Imagine that. And what's one of the things they're concerned about? Not being treated like straight concerned American women. Not being allowed to marry partners with whom they've formed lifelong commitments. The Most Concerned Woman in America is clearly not concerned with those women. Their commitment, their emotional well-being, their right to equal protection under the law, is no more than "dressing up and playing house" to someone like Matt Barber. In her mind, those women can never have anything real with one another. They're not fully human, not fully adult, not quite as equal as some people.

Matt Barber is, if nothing else, living proof that George Orwell was an optimist in some regards. Not only is she a man pretending to be a Concerned Woman, but she's a pig pretending to be a human being. Viva Napoleon!

Sphere: Related Content

AFA Has a Beef with McDonald's: Another "Dear Manmeat" Letter

I received another "Dear Manmeat" letter from Don Wildmon in this morning's email. I suppose he's accepted that I'm never going to make his dreams come true, but now he wants me to send email to my local McDonald's or something and ask them why they're supporting something called the "gay business agenda."

I'm not exactly sure how the "gay business agenda" differs from the "straight business agenda," though. Maybe something about a place where teenagers spend much of their day slipping meat between buns is making him uncomfortably tingly in his naughty bits. I'm sure it's a personal thing judging by the tone of the email I received:

McDonald's CEO: Company will put full resources behind gay agenda
McDonald's has signed on to a nationwide effort to promote "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures.

Dear Manmeat,

According to McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner, McDonald’s will aggressively promote the homosexual agenda. In remarks on McDonald's Web site concerning the company becoming a member of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), Skinner wrote: "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world … and we do."

The company gave an undisclosed amount of money to the NGLCC in return for being recognized as a major promoter of the homosexual agenda. In return, NGLCC placed Richard Ellis, vice president of communications of McDonald’s USA, on the NGLCC Board of Directors.

Ellis was quoted as saying: "I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work. I share the NGLCC's passion for business growth and development within the LGBT community, and I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward."

McDonald's refused to comment to World Net Daily on the placement of its executive on the board of the "gay" advocacy organization but did send an e-mail confirming the corporation's support for the agenda of the homosexual business lobby.

"McDonald's is indeed a Corporate Partner and Organizational Ally of NGLCC. Our vice president of U.S. communications, Richard Ellis, was recently elected to its board of directors," said Heidi M. Barker, senior director of media relations for McDonald’s. NGLCC describes itself as promoting the LGBT community first and always, including same sex marriage.

NGLCC gives credit to sponsors such as McDonald's for its financial and other support that helps in its work. "Through the commitment of our corporate partners, the NGLCC has been able to advance the ideas and causes of the LGBT business community," the Chamber said.

Take Action
Send an e-mail to McDonald's

I've never been a big fan of McDonald's myself. I find their food to be bland, mushy, awful stuff that I'll only eat in a pinch. For the next couple of weeks, though, I'm going to make it a point to have lunch there a few times. Promoting equal opportunity for all people is something I can and will support, even if it means lowering my standards for a few days. I would encourage readers of this blog to do the same.

The email link at the end of Wildmon's letter will take you to a form on the AFA's website that has a pre-written email to be sent to the CEO of McDonald's. I clicked through and changed that text to one supporting McDonald's decision not only to stand up for equal rights, but against the fundamentalist nuttery of the AFA and their homoerotically-aroused chairman, Don "Make My Dreams Come True on Saturday Night" Wildmon. Again, please take a moment to do the same. I don't know if the AFA pre-screens the emails coming from that page somehow, but even if they do, having a few thousand extra emails to screen will make their lives harder. In fact, please pass the word around and encourage others to send supportive emails to McDonald's through that link.

The "homosexual business agenda?" What exactly is that? It's code; anything a gay person does, in the tiny minds of Wildmon and his followers, is automatically different from what a non-gay person does. Somehow, being gay imparts some weird essential quality to everything one touches, apparently. This is code, of course, for "exterminate gay people." Wildmon and his bunch simply want them to disappear, to go away quietly somewhere and drop dead. In fact, here's the verbiage from the e-mail that the AFA wants people to send to McDonald's:

I am surprised to learn that McDonald's has decided to put their entire corporate strength behind the promotion of the homosexual agenda. I'm asking McDonald's to remain neutral in the culture war. Your efforts should be in providing the finest fast food products possible, not in a political battle - especially helping promote an aberrant and destructive behavior.

This is, of course, almost entirely Orwellian. The AFA doesn't see anyone as "neutral in the culture war." You're either with them or against them, and what they're demanding McDonald's do in this very e-mail is to stand with them. After all, as the e-mail points out, this is war.

For lunch today, I'm getting a quarter pounder. I don't relish the thought, and I'm not generally a fan of McDonald's practices, but for a couple of weeks I'll make an exception. For today, since there's a "war" on, I'll shell out a couple of bucks to pay for some ammo. Right now, it's burgers vs. bigotry, and I'd rather eat a crappy hamburger than even for one moment play along — even unintentionally — with a fundamentalist would-be dictator.

Sphere: Related Content

Don Wildmon Wants Me to Make His Dream Come True on Saturday Night

By now, everybody is aware that there's a good chance that one's favorite right-wing militant fundamentalist Christian nutjob is gay. It happens a lot, and as I've said before, I don't care about the being gay part, just about the reaction-formation hypocrisy part. If you're gay, be gay and don't hate yourself and all the other gay people for it. This goes for Ted Hagee as much as Benny Hinn (I mean, c'mon, if Benny Hinn isn't gay then Elton John is a breeder!)

Still, I wasn't really prepared for the steamy proposal of man-on-man action I received yesterday from the American Family Association's Don Wildmon. It's so blatant that I had to reproduce it as a screen capture lest nobody believe that I received this email signed by Wildmon and addressed... well... the salutation is the only part I'll reproduce. I don't think the rest of the content would be suitable for any children that might wander by here. Won't somebody think of the children?

It's not every day I get an email from the head of one of the country's largest theocratic social engineering organizations addressing me as "Manmeat" and telling me that I can make his dreams come true on Saturday night. The screenshot has been cropped and resized to fit in this format, but it's otherwise reproduced exactly from the email I received, which I note is signed in a most familiar way. The email is apparently from just "Don." Not only that, but the guy wants me to forward the email to my friends and family. Clearly, not only is Wildmon coming out of the closet at last, but he wants the whole world to know about it.

Now, I can understand Don's lust for me. I am, after all, a hunkahunka hot mycologist. In fact, for the majority of people who read this blog I am almost certainly the sexiest mycologist they know. If you ever caught a glimpse of me out in the forest under the hot sun, the sweat glistening on my hairless pate as I scraped a resupinate off a decaying tree stump, you'd want me, too. I can't help having been cursed from birth with this great fungal magnetism. I can even appreciate that Don wants me to make his dream come true on the eve of my birthday. It's kind of sweet.

Still, there are a few problems here. First, I'm just not into guys in that way. Second, I'm very happy with the partner I have in my life and she wouldn't be happy if I were to make an exception regarding the first problem for my little Donsy-Wonsy. Third, I think Don should really be more concerned with what would happen to his reputation if he and I and a bottle of massage oil were to be found naked together in a motel room on a Saturday night. I mean, look what happened to Ted Haggard! Don't these guys ever learn?

So while I appreciate the leader of the AFA offering me the opportunity to make his dream come true on Saturday night, I'm going to just have to pass, even though, as Wildmon concludes in his steamy little email,

I am thrilled because we are using TV and the Internet to spread the truth that the mainstream media so often ignores. Yes, this is a first step--a small first step. But it is a beginning. We can take this beginning and let it grow to become a mighty tool for the Lord.

How you make it grow to become a mighty tool is your business, Don, and I have no problem with it. That you want to make the media stop ignoring it and put it on TV and the Internet is a little weird, but whatever you're into. Still, all things considered, I must pass on the opportunity to "make your dream come true" on Saturday night. This is one "Action Alert" that's never going to happen.

Besides, you're making LL jealous.

Sphere: Related Content

Florida Gay Conservative and Racist Bob Allen Convicted

Bob Allen, former chairman of the John McCain campaign in Florida, Republican state representative and all-around shmuck who tried to defend his arrest on soliciting gay sex in a men's room by claiming that he was so afraid of black men that he had no choice but to pay them for the honor of performing oral sex on them, has been convicted on all charges.

Jury finds Rep. Bob Allen guilty of sex solicitation

VIERA — Republicans pressured a Florida House representative to resign after his conviction for trying to pay for gay sex with an undercover police officer.

A three-man, three-woman jury deliberated nearly 3½ hours Friday before finding state Rep. Bob Allen, R-Merritt Island, guilty of soliciting prostitution, a misdemeanor. Allen was accused of peering over a stall at a young, black undercover police officer, then agreeing to pay $20 to perform oral sex on him.

Florida law provides automatic expulsion for legislators convicted of felonies but not misdemeanors.

Speaker Marco Rubio, who already stripped Allen of his Energy Committee chairmanship, said the House would act further if Allen didn’t resign.

Allen listened to the verdict, watched the jury leave and reached into the gallery to touch his wife, who sat behind him all week.

“We’re going to continue to seek justice,” Allen said. “I am innocent; I’ve done
wrong.”

Allen’s defense said all along he wasn’t soliciting sex but instead suspicious of Titusville officer Danny Kavanaugh.

Yes, after what he said in August, I'm sure he was suspicious:

Audiotape of a July 11 police-station conversation between Allen and Titusville Assistant Chief John Lau reveals Allen's excuse for discussing sex with an undercover officer at a park men's room.

He felt intimidated by the "stocky black guy" in the restroom (whom he didn't know was an officer) and several other "stocky black guys" sitting in the park (also, apparently, plain-clothes officers) and thought he was about to be robbed, Allen said. The officer first mentioned oral sex for money, and Allen simply went along with discussing the transaction to avoid becoming a "statistic," he said...

Make no mistake, Bob Allen absolutely should resign — not because he's gay, but because he's a liar, a hypocrite and a racist whose best defense when he got caught doing what comes naturally for him was that he's scared of black men. I wonder if any of the people he's so afraid of have ever voted for him? Being gay doesn't make Allen a bad person. That's not what makes him immoral and so one who is not to be trusted in a position in which he can affect the lives of thousands of people. It's that he lied to everyone. He lied to his wife, to his constituents and to the police. Who knows what else this fraud of a man has been lying about over the years?

Ah, but I'm sure Bob will sign up with one of those "pray the gay away" woo-ministers and try to make a comeback somehow. That's because, as pathetic as it is to have to admit this, there are more people in his constituency who will have a problem with him being gay than they will with his having deceived them. It's a shameful state of affairs; sexual orientation has nothing to do with being a good servant of the people. Dishonesty certainly does, though. This is why there are so many deceptive politicians holding office in America but so few honest gay ones.

That might change someday, but I doubt I'll live to see it.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Closeted Republican Bites the Dust

Yet another gay Republican scandal seems to have come to the fore:

DiFatta twice detained for lewd conduct in mall restrooms

St. Bernard Parish Councilman Joey DiFatta, who on Thursday withdrew from the 1st Senate District campaign, has been stopped twice since 1996 for suspicion of engaging in lewd behavior in public restrooms in Jefferson Parish, records obtained by The Times-Picayune show.

DiFatta, 53, acknowledged that reports he had been stopped are true, but he denied any wrongdoing in both cases. He said he was not prosecuted in either case and has no arrest record...

Earlier Thursday, DiFatta called reporters to announce that he planned to withdraw from the Senate race. He said he has been having chest pains for a few weeks, and elevated enzyme levels indicate he might have had a minor heart attack in the past few days. As a result, his doctor advised him to slow down and make some changes in his life.

DiFatta, who has served on the St. Bernard Parish Council since January 1996 and is currently its chairman, denied he is stepping down from the Senate race for fear that the reports would become public. In fact, he said he did not know the reports had surfaced when he made his decision...

View police reports

In the second incident, Jefferson Parish deputies working an undercover detail in a men's bathroom at Dillard's at Lakeside Shopping Center in March 2000 stopped DiFatta after he indicated a desire to engage in sex with an undercover deputy in an adjoining bathroom stall, according to an interoffice memorandum written by Sgt. Keith Conley, one of the deputies involved in the investigation.

The report said DiFatta slid his foot into the deputy's stall and tapped the deputy's foot. In the report, Conley noted that such activity is common among men to indicate a willingness to participate in sex.

The deputy inside the stall, Detective Wayne Couvillion, responded by tapping his foot, and DiFatta reached under the partition and began to rub the deputy's leg, the report states.

The detective asked DiFatta, "What do you want?" according to the report, and he replied, "I want to play with you..."

I know I keep saying this, but it bears repeating: the Republican party bills itself as being opposed to equal rights for gay people, but it seems to contain a large contingent of the very people whose equal rights it opposes. Why don't they just drop this silly contention that somehow gay people are less moral, less deserving of every right and privilege routinely afforded heterosexuals, anti-family, etc? I bet that if the right-wingers weren't busy trumpeting the stigmatization of homosexuals, people like DiFatta, like Larry Craig, like Ted Haggard (and the list goes on) could just be who they are openly, find a mate with whom to form a committed relationship, and go about everything else that life entails outside of sexuality which, if one is honest about such things, is one of the least important aspects of what makes us a decent, moral, useful member of society. People's sex lives shouldn't even be a factor in deciding whether they can hold public office, have a family, or serve in the military. It just doesn't matter, and it's long past time that the state get its nose out of the whole business of deciding which adult can have consensual sexual relations with which other adult without incurring some penalty.

The problem with people like Craig and DiFatta and Haggard isn't that they're gay, it's that they're liars. Why are they lending their support to the very people who want to make their lives miserable, who want to maintain a society in which their sexuality is relegated to public restrooms? I don't get it. Just be honest. Everybody, just be honest about what you are, and everybody else just leave them alone.

It's time for the Republicans to grow up, and it's time for every single gay man and woman in the GOP to kick open their closet doors and step out into the light. It's better than looking for a lover in some department store or airport bathroom... isn't it?

I mean, this is coming from a straight guy who has never even tried to pick up a woman in a bar, so I could be wrong about all of this. Still, I've known gay men in long term relationships and they don't go cruising men's rooms looking for dates.

Sphere: Related Content

Yet Another "Family Values" Conservative Busted in the Boys' Room

Surprise, surprise, surprise... another conservative Republican, anti-gay equality politician has been caught soliciting sex in a public men's room. This time around, it's Idaho's Senator Larry Craig.

Idaho senator pleads guilty after men's room arrest

A Republican U.S. senator confirmed on Monday that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct earlier this month after he was arrested in June in a men's' toilet at a Minnesota airport.

Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was arrested by a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in the men's public restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, according to a police report cited by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

In a carefully worded statement, Craig gave no details of the incident that prompted his arrest on June 11 but confirmed that he had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

"At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct," Craig said in a statement...

In a June 2006 Senate vote, Craig voted in favor of an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage in the United States as a union between one man and one woman. The amendment was defeated by one vote.

Craig is a strong advocate for the rights of gun owners. He has a close association with the National Rifle Association and at one time sat on its board of directors.

In October last year a gay rights activist claimed in a Web log that Craig had had several gay relationships. Craig's office denied it, saying the allegations were "completely ridiculous" and had "no basis in fact."...

Craig has also voted against extending federal hate crimes legislation to include homosexuals.

It occurs to me that if these guys were honest both with themselves and with the electorate, they could use this to advance their self-loathing agenda. Craig could have come out and said, "As a gay man, I don't think hate crimes protection should include homosexuals and I am opposed to same-sex marriage." He would have spoken with an additional air of authority, as it were. That wouldn't answer the question of why people like himself and the rest of the growing list of his colleagues caught out in gay and heterosexual misconduct expend so much energy making the lives of people just like themselves, and ultimately their own lives, miserable. Still, one must use the tools that you have at your disposal at the moment. Wasn't that what Senator Craig was trying to do on June 11? It describes the activities of Bob Allen and Glen Murphy quite well, too. In fact, at the rate these guys are going down, perhaps the right-wing should consider combining their apparent proclivities with their religious bent and a bit of humor and announce their new slogan for the upcoming elections: Using the tools God gave us to bring on the Rapture.

Well, maybe not. Just a thought.

What I and many, many others would like to see seems even less likely than a humorous new slogan for the right. That would be a society in which people didn't feel the need to dissemble about their orientation in the first place, one in which sex wasn't such a terrible boogeymen hiding in the dark of the closet in the first place. What is it we're so afraid of as a culture? Or is it something other than fear that's behind our creation of the taboos? Could it be that what we're doing is getting off on the secretive nature, the possibility of "getting caught", acting like furtive sex-junkies for the sheer thrill of it?

I'd like to see a society in which every person could be open about their proclivities. I'm not talking about anything that doesn't involve informed consent here; exactly the opposite, in fact. We should open enough about it that sex education, and not this silly "abstainance only" nonsense pushed by the very guys who keep getting caught picking up anonymous partners in public restrooms, starts at a young age. By the time some hypothetical child has to come to terms with his or her sexuality, that child should be well-equipped to do so head-on and comfortably. That child should understand what's happening to him when puberty hits. There shouldn't be any veil pulled over this particular peculiarity of human biology.

Wouldn't it be better to stop passing judgments and definitions on people based on what they prefer to do with their genitalia? That we should even have to talk about it, that anyone should care in the first place about the sexual orientation of someone with whom they share no intimate involvement, turns any talk of "morality" into a mockery in the first place. Nothing can be called moral that sets up a choice between dishonesty and social leprosy for someone like Larry Craig. We can look down on Craig for his hypocrisy but we must also understand that his hypocrisy is exactly the same as that advanced by our sexually confused culture in the first place. We can despise him for his lying and cheating on his married partner, but we must then be honest ourselves and realize that if it weren't for our culture's ostracizing of gay men in the first place he well might have never married a woman in the first place in his long-term effort to repress and/or disguise his true orientation. We cannot, and should not, separate recognition of wrong-doing with that of the pitiful plight of men in Craig's position.

The irony here is that there's nothing inherently non-conservative about being gay. That there should be any conflict of these concepts is a superficial social construct at best. I am not about to endorse conservatism because I am not a conservative, and I am not endorsing homosexuality because to do so is just as stupid as it is to condemn it for the same reason it would be stupid to condemn a preference for green apples over red. That our culture ties sexuality to political philosophy in the first place is a non sequitur, though, and one we'd best be rid of. There is nothing inherently conservative, liberal, or Marxist about a particular sexual orientation. It says nothing about the values and priorities of a particular person that they prefer one gender over another as a partner. Larry Craig is living proof of this, I think, though precisely because of the necessity of his dishonesty we will never be able to sort out how much of his socially conservative ideology was him and how much of it was a reaction against what he knew himself to be. As long as sex is taboo, this question will never go away.

So while we point derisive fingers at men like Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Bob Allen, we need to see in them what our culture doing to millions of people who live their lives far out of the media's bright eye. Every day, these people have to make choices about whether they will be able to advance in their careers or be truthful about whom they love. This is not a healthy situation for our society, and more importantly it's a punishment inflicted upon people who've done nothing wrong, who are good and decent people and useful, contributing members of our society whether or not we ever find out what's in their hearts.

America needs to grow up. These people aren't criminals, they're not vectors of contagion anymore than anyone else, they're not even different. Sexual orientation only matters, it only becomes a problem, when we as a culture make it so.

In the meantime, all these conservatives looking for love in men's rooms and on street corners and who knows where else could do their country no greater service than to get together and come out as what they really are en masse. They could be leaders and take the risk instead of being cowards and hypocrites who advance themselves through self-flagellation and, even worse, the unjust and unwarranted denigration of so many others. All they need do is be honest for once; wouldn't that be better than being caught out by some blogger, cop, or investigative reporter in the first place?

Sphere: Related Content

Young Rape-public-can

Is today National Republican Coming Out Day? You'd think... but this is something worse. Bob Allen may have been a cowardly, sniveling, racist, closeted maggot, but now comes word of a cowardly, sniveling, closeted gay rapist. Seriously, I couldn't make this stuff up.

Glenn Murphy Jr., chairman of the Clark County, Indiana Republican Party, president of the Young Republican National Federation, and considered to have been a rising star in the party, credited with getting 23 Republican officials elected in a region that had none prior to his taking the helm, is resigning his post. Why?

...Clark County Sheriff’s Department on Friday began investigating Murphy for alleged criminal deviate conduct — potentially a class B felony — after speaking with a 22-year-old man who claimed that on July 31, Murphy performed an unwanted sex act on him while the man slept in a relative’s Jeffersonville home...

In 1998, a 21-year-old male filed a similar report with Clarksville police claiming Murphy attempted to perform a sex act on him while he was sleeping. Charges were never filed in that case...

Wilder said that Murphy met with the alleged victim and the alleged victim’s sister after the incident occurred. Wilder said that conversation was taped without Murphy’s knowledge. The attorney said he has already listened to the tape and that Murphy contends throughout it his belief that the sex act of which he has been accused was consensual.

According to a pair of police reports, the alleged victim and his sister claim Murphy contacted them several times after the alleged incident occurred to inquire as to whether they were going to file a report with police...

— (Source)

To be clear on this, Murphy hasn't been charged with any crime yet and is being investigated for something called "criminal deviate conduct" which, while not as bad as rape, is still a class-B felony. Nonetheless, performing an unwanted sexual act upon an unconscious individual is what most sane people would consider rape — and this isn't even the first time for Murphy.

Honestly, what is it about conservatives and homosexuality? Why can't they just admit to themselves their own nature and be real and honest about it instead of sneaking around to solicit strangers in public bathrooms and sexually assaulting the unconscious? Look, let's clear this up, Repubs... it's fine to be gay. No problem. You can be absolutely 100% openly gay and still be fiscally conservative. You can be gay and be a good parent. It's just not that big of a deal.

You know what you can't be, though? You can't be a liar, you can't be a coward, and you can't run around denying that gay people deserve exactly the same rights and privileges that heterosexual people get in this country. You can't go around spouting religious nonsense that gay people have to be deprogrammed and "turned straight" like they were in some kind of cult (just what the hell is "leaving homosexuality"?). All of this is just nonsense and you know it because there are proportionately as many gay conservative Republicans as there are gay liberal Democrats, Socialists, Communists and Libertarians.

See, if you were just honest about it instead of being a bunch of cowards pretending to be something you aren't in order to benefit from people's ignorance, we could actually make some progress in this society of ours. It's called transparency and, even though the current administration is as afraid of it as you are of facing up to your natural sexuality, it's a good thing. Honesty in politics is good for America. You can't be honest with America, though, until you start being honest with yourselves.

So hey, closeted gay Republicans, how about this; instead of sneaking around and paying for anonymous sex, try something new. Admit to yourself and to the world what you are and then find somebody you love. Settle down and build an honest and open relationship with each other. Heck, you might even try getting married to one another if your party will ever pull its head out of its own ass (and everybody else's, I guess) and let you. Once you've got your own life sorted out, then you can get into politics and worry about helping others sort theirs out, too. Who knows... you might even change your minds about a few other things you currently espouse once you're all snug and happy in an accepting, caring relationship.

It's OK. The rest of us can wait. We'll all be better off for it.

Good luck getting it right, and let's all hope that the new honesty, the real American Republican glasnost that results, screens people like Glenn Murphy and Bob Allen right out of the political process in the future.

Sphere: Related Content

Bob Allen Says: I'm So Afraid of Black Men That I Pay Them for Oral Sex in Public Restrooms

Did I read this correctly? Did Florida state representative and former John McCain state chairman Bob Allen really claim that he offered to pay to perform oral sex on a man in a public bathroom because he was afraid of him... because the man was black? It sure sounds like he did. Let's see...

...Court records made public last week gave more detail to the solicitation charges state Rep. Bob Allen faces.

Allen, R-Merritt Island, was arrested July 11 after authorities say he offered an undercover police officer $20 to perform oral sex on him. He faces one count of solicitation for prostitution.

Audiotape of a July 11 police-station conversation between Allen and Titusville Assistant Chief John Lau reveals Allen's excuse for discussing sex with an undercover officer at a park men's room.

He felt intimidated by the "stocky black guy" in the restroom (whom he didn't know was an officer) and several other "stocky black guys" sitting in the park (also, apparently, plain-clothes officers) and thought he was about to be robbed, Allen said. The officer first mentioned oral sex for money, and Allen simply went along with discussing the transaction to avoid becoming a "statistic," he said...

— (Source)

Yes, it still sounds like that's what Allen was saying. Let's pause for a moment and consider the scenario painted thus far. One walks into a bathroom and finds some "stocky black guys" therein. One of them says, "If you give me $20, I'll let you give me a blowjob." Let's assume for the moment that you, like me, don't find this to be an appealing proposition. What do you do?

Personally, I would say, "No, thanks." I certainly wouldn't assume it was the case that I was about to be robbed. Why would anyone leap to that conclusion... unless, of course, they were simply a spineless, sniveling little bigot who thought that anytime a black man talks to a white man the interaction carries with it a necessary threat of violence. That's certainly what I'm getting from Allen here. It hasn't been my experience that this is the case, but maybe Rep. Allen simply doesn't know any black men personally. It's entirely possible. But wait, let's go on, shall we?

Other details released include:

At one point, Allen asked Kavanaugh: "You're not a cop, are you?" Kavanaugh replied, "Nah. If I was a cop, why would I be hanging around here?"

Cpl. Erich Barrett wrote in his supplemental police report that Allen asked if his position as a state lawmaker would "help."

As he was getting into Barrett's marked cruiser, Allen allegedly asked, "I don't suppose it would help if I said I was a State Legislator, would it?" Barrett said, "No."

Greg Eisenmenger, who with Phillip Lupo is representing Allen in the criminal case, denied the lawmaker tried to use his position to get himself out of the charge.

Allen told Titusville Assistant Chief John Lau he felt intimidated by the undercover officer in the restroom and was trying to get away from him because he feared the officer would rob him.

I find it very interesting that Allen asks the man in the bathroom whether or not he was a cop. If things really did happen the way that Allen claims, if the undercover cop was the one who first approached Allen, why would Allen ask this question? The only reason a cop would be in that bathroom would be if it were a known location for transactions of the sort with which Allen has been charged in engaging. His asking of the question implies that he went to that bathroom with the intent of soliciting a little hot man-on-man action; he knew exactly what he was doing when he walked in.

Personally, the only problem I have with two men, or a man and a woman, or two women, doing this is that they were going to have sex in a public place. I'm of the belief that prostitution laws are antiquated things and history has shown them time and again to be useless and ineffective. I don't even see them as desirable. But for Allen, a noted "family values," anti-gay Republican crusader to be busted raises the question of why it always seems to be one of that crowd getting snagged in their own hypocrisy. I don't care if someone is gay, straight, or anywhere in between, but for them to lie about it, for them to target people who do exactly the same things they do in order to make political gains, is nothing but nasty piled on top of evil. Why is it always the Ted Haggards and Bob Allens getting caught with male prostitutes? Did this ever happen to Barney Franks?

Getting back to the racial overtone that Allen has painted this with now, a Floridian civil rights group is now calling (I think justifiably) for Allen's resignation:

Now comes this statement from the desk of J. Willie David III, president of the FCRA:

"The comments by Representative Allen perpetuate the racial divide, and no one with this view should hold public office. If the situation was the same, but with white men in the park and a white police officer, would Representative Allen would have made the same statement?"

"Representative Allen alleged comments are sending a disturbing message to the black community. Now is the time for House Speaker Marco Rubio, Florida Black Lawmakers, other Civil Rights Groups and Community Leaders to call for Representative Allen to step down."

I disagree with this insofar as David suggests that Allen's message is disturbing to the black community; it should be disturbing to all of us that someone as essentially dishonest as Allen should be placed in a position of public trust. I don't know a thing about Allen's district, but if it's like most of Florida there are black people there, and probably a lot of very conservative people of African, European and Caribbean descent. Everything Allen has done here is wrong, wrong, wrong. He was elected under false pretenses, by misrepresenting himself. Should it really be surprising that someone who got elected, even in part, by capitalizing on other people's fears and ignorance about homosexuals should himself be revealed to be fearful and ignorant about some other portion of society?

Personally, I'm not a bit surprised. Are you? Is anybody out there simply blind-sided by the revelation that a guy who has made a career of bashing gays turns around and blames yet another demographic for what's "wrong" with him when it comes to light what he's really into? A scapegoat is a scapegoat; gay, black, Mexican, Jew... a fundamental piece of modern conservative social thought is that it's always somebody else's fault. If you can't find a job, it's because illegal immigrants took them all. If your society is a semi-suicidal mess, it's because we're not keeping the homos in their closets. If some blabber-mouthed talk show host gets busted with illegal prescription drugs, it's because that lousy liberal media is trying to conduct a witch hunt. Of course Allen is now going to turn around and talk about how he was oh-so-afraid of those scary, scary black men. Such talk appeals to the base!

What a sniveling little coward. Bob Allen shouldn't be sent to prison. He shouldn't even take up time in court for his misdoings. He should be sent home to his mommy, paddled and sent to bed without supper. If he was still living with mother, the scared little boy would never have been threatened into offering those dirty, dirty black men money to perform oral sex on them!

By the way, I find the comments to the story in the Tallahassee Democrat almost as mind-bogglingly moronic as Allen's own contentions. I'll quote just one here that I think typifies the sorts of opinions folks in the Tallahassee area have put up on the newspaper's website:

I too find this one of the better written stories and have no commetts [sic] either I just have a question. What was 'racially insensitive' about this?
The only thing I could find is he used the term "black" and not the correct term African-American. While in handcuffs and being intoregated [sic]

Posted by: popcornisgood on Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:02 am

Catch that? The reader can't figure out what's "racially insensitive" about Allen's contention that it was his fear of being robbed by a black man (who never made any sort of threat) that forced him into soliciting prostitution. Genius, sheer genius. Having lived in Florida for five years (two in Tampa, three in Tallahassee), I find myself asking now what I often asked myself then... is there something in the water down there?

Sphere: Related Content