Just to confirm what I wrote recently about the continued parental rights of the Heene family in Colorado (“Balloon Boy Family”) — now comes news that a rap video has been uncovered where the boys in this family rap about the “pussification” of America.

SheWired.com – ‘Balloon Boy’ and Brothers Perform Offensive, Anti-Gay Rap.

I often find it humorous, if not a little disturbing, watching the reaction of others when it comes to news reports covering certain events. Last week we were all inundated with news coverage around the little boy who rode a helium balloon across the skies of the Denver area. Only to be told later that it was a hoax.

Fine Example of Parenting

And I wonder why it is that no one is speaking out to place this couples children in protective custody. Why is it acceptable for this couple to maintain their parental rights when they have clearly endangered the psyche of their children? Yet it is acceptable to reduce the rights of so many based solely on their sexual orientation.

If a gay couple had carried out a hoax like this couple in Colorado did with an adopted child, the news media and right-wing bigots would have spent the entire weekend talking about the very reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry or adopt children. I know plenty of gay people who would make wonderful parents. Not because they are gay, but because they are have a tremendous amount of unadulterated love to give each other and their families. But because they do not love who or what the Bible tells them to, they are banished to the sidelines and repressed by the masses in state after state.

I contend that there is a bigger issue at play today in America. The issue is one of racial, sexual and religious superiority, that is unlike anything we have ever seen in this country and possibly the world.

Another recent event is an interracial couple in Louisiana that wanted to get married. The Justice of the Peace refused to marry the couple because he has concerns about their offspring, and the fact that he does not believe interracial marriages work. This is 2009, some 45 years after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill. So one lone JP in Louisiana determines what is and is not acceptable based on some guided notion that he is far more wise than any law?

Louisiana Couple

The truth of the matter is that the JP in Louisiana is simply following some prescribed notion that he has received divine direction to honor nature’s wishes. I suspect that if we peer inside many of our political institutions, or churches, or schools, or places of employment — we will find many more people that subscribe to the same notion.

And that is the duplicitous nature of our society. We allow people to thumb their noses as people who are different from what they have been programmed to believe is right, while excusing those who clearly don’t know right from wrong, and never understanding that there is a difference.

A science research project in England has come under a storm of criticism for trying to determine the physiological reasons why roughly eight percent of male sheep prefer the company of other male sheep. Many can infer from this research that scientists are attempting to understand where homosexuality occurs in the brain, making it easier to predict markers of gay tendencies, and possibly develop a treatment for the disorder — in sheep.

Many have inferred from the project that scientists would like to eventually eliminate gay sheep all together, with further speculation that any treatments for sheep could eventually be developed for humans. The lead scientist has been quick to point out that homosexuality in the human brain is far more complex than that for sheep, and that any “treatment” for humans is highly unlikely.

What enrages me about this story is that the project is being funded by the National Institutes of Health, a federally funded entity. What possible benefit is there to this nation or the world in eliminating gay sheep? Does the NIH not have more important scientific research to fund? Have we cured Cancer, Alzheimer’s, AIDS or Lou Gerigh’s disease yet? No.

To me, it proves that this goverment (run by Republicans for the last 12 years) is out to define homosexuality as a disorder, and to further control nature to please the delicate sensitivities of small minded individuals who are threatened by the mere existance of homosexuals. Perhaps the NIH should be more concerned with solving issues related to ignorance in this country, first.

I think what bothers me the most about Mark Foley is not that he is perhaps a ‘closeted’ gay man, or that he is an elected representative who abused his power and access to take advantage of the innocent, or perhaps even the fact that his leadership covered his problem. My issue with Mark Foley is that he lacked the moral direction that he and his party have so often used to point this country in a direction that it did not need to go, clearly highlighting the absence of real moral judgment and values that we require of our leaders and that this group of leaders has so often ‘claimed’ to have. Take his lack of good moral judgment and couple it with blaming a drinking problem and you have the classic ‘I’m so weak, I couldn’t help myself…’ excuse and you really get my blood boiling.

Do you think God looks at someone with a drinking problem and says, ‘well, I forgive you for all that you did under the influence’, but refuses to forgive a soul who just made stone-cold errors in judgment? Well it does appear that the theocons within the GOP believe that God does react in that way. Remind you, these are the same people who believe that because a man loves another man our entire nation is on a course to hell. The difference is that Mark Foley did not talk ‘dirty’ to another man, he talked ‘dirty’ to underage boys, and he used his position to open that dialog. Gay or straight, conservative or liberal, Christian or Muslim, that is just wrong. There is no moral justification for his actions — period.

In a speech delivered on Friday to the gathering of Christian political operatives at the “Values Voter Summit”, Jerry Falwell said that he hoped Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. According to the L.A. Times, Falwell says that no other candidate could mobilize the GOP “base” (the neo-conservative religious base) like Clinton. Falwell went on to say that Clinton has a “war chest” of $300 million (a complete exageration, she has $47 million according to recent filings), and that Republicans should be prepared to give until it hurts.

“I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate,” Falwell said, according to the recording. “She has $300 million so far. But I hope she’s the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton.”

Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: “If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.”

At that moment in the recording, Falwell’s voice is drowned out by hoots of approval. But two in attendance, including a Falwell staff member, confirmed that Falwell said that even Lucifer, the fallen angel synonymous with Satan in Christian theology, would not mobilize his followers as much as the New York senator and former first lady would.

And there it is — the GOP strategy for 2008 and beyond. It is a very simple plan, one that has been in the works for decades — Christians vs. non-Christians (perceived or real). Drawing the connection between someone who has diligently served others to the devil.

And what does Falwell say about the 2006 mid-term elections and the challenges facing Republicans across the country?

Falwell predicted that this year’s midterm elections would go in the GOP’s favor, despite polls showing Democrats in position to make gains.

“I think we’re going to keep the House and the Senate,” he said. “I think the Lord will take care of that.”

I am so sick and tired of hearing someone say that the Lord will do this or that, or has done this or that to punish anyone not aligning themselves with the neo-conservative Kool-Aid brigade. Do people really believe this stuff? I mean, doesn’t the Lord have more important things to worry about than who wins a congressional election?

Wal-Mart did the unthinkable last month when it announced that it was joining the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The move by the company is designed to help it reach a goal of attracting more urban consumers to its stores.

But as you can imagine, the religious right is not happy. The Washington Blade provides the following quote:

Peter LaBarbera, founder and president of the fundamentalist Americans for Truth, is decrying Wal-Mart’s move, accusing the retail giant of “thumb[ing] its nose” at its “God-fearing Middle American customers.”

“It seems to me that Wal-Mart should reconsider its unsavory alliance with these extremist homosexual activists in today’s heated and polarizing culture war,” he said in a statement posted on the group’s website.

Why is everything and everyone considered an “extremist” when they actively oppose the views of others? And why is the word “activist” used in a negative context to describe someone’s stance on protecting or promoting an alternate position? Jesus, afterall, was an activist. And given that Jesus was persecuted, some might even say he was an extremist. So, again, I ask, why does the religious right always seem to draw this kind of language when talking about the LGBT community?