Cardinal O'Brien, Gay-Hating Closet Case

Keith O'Brien, Cardinal of Sin?

Details of the Vatican Homosexual Scandal are breaking faster than New Year's resolutions the past few days.

Allegedly, Cardinal O'Brien, put the moves on some hunky young seminarians. It all came out, along with much more, in a big honking red-bound report now stowed away in the Pope's private safe, whose combination may be soon forgotten. He has instantly resigned and won't be sending up any white smoke in the coming conclave, but can he really disappear in a puff of black smoke?

For us on this side of the Atlantic, let us take a fond look back. It was only a year ago when the Telegraph printed him thusly as he spake against gay marriage in his very own op-ed, placidly entitled "We Cannot Afford to Indulge This Madness":

... Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs

In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.

Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

So, it's the gay people doing the repressing, eh? Gay folks like you, Cardinal? Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe this man's blather about "the children, the children!" and all the other usual nonsense. He pens this in his closet while he sexually harasses his subordinates.

The man's more bent than a psychic's spoon.

UPDATE, March 3, 2013: Cardinal O'Brien's revolting non-apology apology.

"However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.
"To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise.
"I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland."

What's this "to those I have offended" BS?  Meaning anyone reading the news? I guess it applies not specifically to the guys he put the moves on, apparently, but just to anyone out there even slightly disgusted by the actions of this creep. That would be, I don't know, any non-sociopaths out there. Predictable from the "moral leaders" of our era, I guess, but still revolting.

See also: DOLAN'S DARK DOINGS AND PAYOFFS

Obama's Second Inaugural Address - in praise of riot

Okay, we can put aside for a moment that his actions don't always mirror his rhetoric and call this one a damn good speech. I enjoyed watching Eric Cantor look like his head was going to explode (Boehner was already blubbering by Battle Hymn of the Republic, so he wasn't as fun to watch).

I'm delighted to watch the TV punditocracy tie itself in knots, baffled by Obama's full-throated progressive manifesto. (He wasn't supposed to say that, was he?)

Yes, he defended Social Security, after offering to cut it a few short weeks ago. I say, bravo and well done. No backpedaling now, the world heard you say it.

But I was struck by this bit, which made me sit up, take notice, and get all chokey-uppy:

And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice - not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes:  tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths - that all of us are created equal - is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

Yes, he went on to defend the equal rights of gay people, all people really, but the mention of Stonewall stands out. That was a riot, a real riot, a violent retribution for police brutality, a we-can't-take-it-anymore moment in history. Polite society is not supposed to endorse such uncouth behavior... well, maybe not until 40-odd years later, when the rioters are proven right after all.

I also loved that he mentioned Seneca Falls, the convention that gave birth to all women's rights movements throughout the world, not just America's own. The connection of the two to Selma is also key, and slams progressives who for decades have been happy to consider glbt people as other and undeserving. The left has some 'splainin' to do on that score! No matter, we can all proceed now if we drop the squabbles.

It's clear in this speech that he believes we must commit ourselves to extending progressive ideals all over the world. That is visionary, especially as we see ourselves mired in state-by-state or law-by-law fights for equal marriage, voting rights, equal pay, etc., etc. He declared that we can't stop with securing basic human rights for ourselves. And it's true, peace and security can't happen while barbarism flourishes. It's the proverbial tall order, but there you have it.

DOMA RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY U.S. 1ST CIRCUIT COURT? NOT SO FAST...

MSNBC has the same story everyone else does, saying that DOMA is struck down:

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

Not so fast! It's true as far as it goes, but this one's going to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we know the rotting composition of that fallen branch of government.

Second, the U.S. 1st District Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against FEDERAL discrimination against same sex marriage. What's absurd in this road show is that the actual constitutional language that bears on the law was never at issue. I speak of course of the "full faith and credit" clause, which binds states to recognize the acts and proceedings of other states.

I know, I know. We'll get the usual, "This one helps the cause, because it heaps up more arguments on our side." Yes, but this particular Supreme Court has an absolutely dismal record of applying law and logic to much of anything that appears to be a political issue. Socially just they are not. So, let's be ever hopeful, but watch with caution.

So, hurray, a bit, maybe, sort of... Again, where are these "strict constructionists" when the word-for-word reading of the constitution would simply make same-sex marriage instantly, as in NOW, legal throughout the land? Thunderous silence.

So, pop only yesterday's flattening champagne and make a mimosa. Leave the new bottle on the shelf.

See also: MITT FUNDED OPPOSITION TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY

INTERVIEW: BAN ON BACHELORETTE PARTIES

CNN interviews David Cooley, owner of the Abbey in West Hollywood. He makes a strong statement for equal rights, going beyond the ban to draw the larger picture. Bravo.

Follow-up to: BAN ON BACHELORETTE PARTIES

See also: DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL? NOT SO FAST... 
GAY, SORTA, DISCRIMINATION AT A STRAIGHT CLUB?

THE ABBEY BANS BACHELORETTE PARTIES

West Hollywood gay bar, The Abbey, bans bachelorette parties:

"Every Friday and Saturday night, we're flooded with requests from straight girls in penis hats who want to ogle our gogos, dance with the gays and celebrate their pending nuptials. They are completely unaware that the people around them are legally prohibited from getting married," David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey said in a statement.

Thanks to Steven T. for alerting me to this story.

I wish more bars would institute something of the sort. Around my neighborhood, mentioned in the article, crazed drunken women take over gay establishments every weekend because, as they all ways put it, "It's safe."

Ah for the bad old dangerous days.

UPDATE: THE CNN INTERVIEW

Catholic Priest Stands Up Against Archbishop in WA Antigay Petition Drive

Via Think Progress:

But at least one Catholic leader — Father Michael Ryan of St. James Cathedral — is resisting the effort and refusing to “circulate petitions inside his parish for the campaign to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law”:

Dear Friends,
Archbishop Sartain has written a letter in which he has expressed his support for Referendum 74 and for the collecting of signatures in parishes. Media reports regarding this are somewhat misleading. While the Archbishop has given his support to the effort, he has wisely left it up to each pastor to decide whether to allow the collection of signatures in his own parish.
After discussing the matter with the members of the Cathedral’s pastoral ministry team, I have decided that we will not participate in the collecting of signatures in our parish. Doing so would, I believe, prove hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.
Father Ryan

This statement took guts, and he received a standing ovation in his church upon his appearance. Read the details. It looks like people are not just falling in line with bigotry any more.

P.S. Isn't this the Church getting directly involved with politics? How is it not, when it's a directive from the archbishop? Enlighten me.

Cross-posted at Flaneur: "Does The Soul Not Feel Better, When The True Church, Does Something Risky and Truth-Filled"

See also: ARCHBISHOP DOLAN'S ABUSING PRIEST PAY-OFFS

Romney PAC: 10K to NOM

Ah, yes, thanks to HRC for getting the goods:

Financial documents obtained by HRC reveal that Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage in 2008 ...

Romney's group was something called the Free and Strong America PAC. Not the Subdued and Wimpy America PAC, mind you.

In sudden high-alert defense mode, the Romney campaign shot back:

“Gov. Romney believes marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and his PAC made a donation to a group supporting that view,” campaign spokesman Andrea Saul said Friday. - Washington Post

What timing, just as NOM's divide-and-conquer African-American-and-Hispanic-people-vs.-gays strategy is revealed:

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”

Another passage:

"The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."

I would like Romney to open his mouth, yet again, and speak from the heart regarding this news of the week. It's another episode in the Perils of Mitt. How will he escape the quicksand pit? Did he know about this strategy, which NOM was apparently cooking up at about the same time? Who were his or his PAC's contacts in the group? Will he offer details about the dates and times of their meetings and conversations?

Come back next week!

Related:
Romney the Erasable
Romney: Russia, Our Biggest Foe

Two Men Protest at Little Rick's Rally by Kissing

Go look.

Welcome Maryland to Marriage Equality

Maryland has done it, and that's pretty damn good.

Let's add Delaware and dump the NJ Gov., and we're working on a solid Northeast.

Fairly soon we're going to stop calling it "gay marriage" and just call it "marriage." As it should be.

A quick travesty of Little Ricky Santorum to amuse you on Mardi Gras.

Rick d'Arc

Washington State Legislature Passes Gay Marriage Bill

Some better news.

Gay marriage will be signed into law by the governor of the state.

The earth-shattering result? More people will get married.

Meanwhile Little Ricky is in a lather over those hateful bigoted leftists who want gay people to marry. He calls it "a religion unto itself."

The NY Times:

He went on to attack Democrats, for what he called their “intolerance” of people of faith, saying their “assault” was a “religion unto itself, like atheists in the Soviet Union.”

Of course, the Gray Lady is wrong. He was attacking the "Left" as witnessed in this Reuters video.

Great. We've got it. The Religion of the Left. That means anyone progressive finally gets religious freedom under the Bill of Rights, right?

I don't think that's what he's after, but that's what you're getting. Now I have to figure out my outfit as official High Priest. Then there's the choice of shoes, incense, symbols, music... Endless possibilities!

I'll put that order in for the stained glass window of Darwin as the captain of a pirate ship firing on Noah's ark.

Californians Foolishly Celebrate Victory Over Prop 8

In a haze of folly, California's anti-Prop 8 forces today swooned over a prematurely declared victory over Proposition 8. Alas, this just means the case gets bumped from the 3-judge panel of the circuit court to the entire 11-judge body. Then it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it's anyone's guess whether simple logic can prevail. It hasn't so far (see Citizen's United).

On the bright side, perhaps same-sex corporations will be allowed to marry.

Yes, yes, I know the argument here: more heaps of paper with eloquent reasoning will eventually tip the balance. Maybe, but not usually, and not so far.

Again, always happy to be surprised.

Rick Santorum: Marriage a 'Privilege' Not for Yous Gays

Little Ricky sticks his foot in his mouth yet again. Listen through for the compendium of right-wing arguments against gay marriage to date.

He carefully argues for only hetero marriage based on birthin' them babies. Never mind that lesbians do this at an alarming rate! Children born to them would not be allowed a second parent, no way, no how.

If you follow his "logic" all opposite-sex couples would have to prove fertility to get married. Vasectomies will be outlawed in his very strange kingdom.

[video: looks to be CNN with a Think Progress overlay. How do they get away with slapping their stamp on it, when it clearly says CNN?]

Washington Gay Marriage Rolls Forward

I know it's a good thing, but it looks like the adversaries are not giving up. Opponents are determined to pull ANOTHER REFERENDUM, as they have done in so many other states.

And, as before, the majority will be given the chance to vote on the rights of the minority. That always works out well, huh?

While the odds on the referendum rollback are long, the problem remains that so many other states will have to re-referendum their laws and constitutional amendments, guaranteeing a constant state of this reprehensible type of voting for 20 to 50 years to come.

Unless some bolt from the blue, a federal shade of blue, should strike, prepare for a long slog through swampy voting. That's what the opponents want, since it keeps them funded and in the limelight. No one would give them a moment of their attention otherwise.

Another Hypocrite Anti-Gay Closet-Case Lawmaker Flushed Out in Indiana

He voted for an anti-gay-marriage bill, but then offered, allegedly, money to an 18-year-old male for his companionship.

Is this getting to be a dog-bites-man story?

Via indystar.com:

Emails shared with The Indianapolis Star suggest that state Rep. Phillip Hinkle -- responding to a local posting on Craigslist -- offered a young man $80 plus tip to spend time with him Saturday night at the JW Marriott hotel.

The emails, sent from Hinkle's publicly listed personal address, ask the young man for "a couple hours of your time tonight" and offer him cash up front, with a tip of up to $50 or $60 "for a really good time."

 The guy, who said he was 20 in his ad, gets offered hush money via his sister, who somehow "intervenes." Those details look VERY dodgy, since the sister goes to meet the guy's daughter in a hotel, apparently to prove she has the e-mail evidence.

Obama Admin Set to Kick Out Married Gay Partner

First we heard they'd hold off on these expulsions, now they're going right ahead. Via SF Gate:

 Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse.

"Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, were married seven years ago in Massachusetts. They have lived together 19 years, mostly in an apartment in the Castro district. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Makk's application to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse of an American citizen, citing the 1996 law that denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples.

So, let me get this right. The administration is refusing to defend DOMA in court, saying to the world that it is unconstitutional. WHILE at the same time, using it against a couple where one is the primary caretaker for his in-need spouse?

Rhode Island Civil Unions. Is the Good the Enemy of the Perfect?

Rhode Island will have civil unions, but marriage advocates are not celebrating. They see this as a "less than" approach, an untenable compromise, and they are right.
 
Office-holders are touting this as "incremental progress" that will lead to a later, better outcome. They may be right, too.

I say, in classic "Let's Make a Deal" fashion, "Take the Civil Unions." Nothing is nothing, and if this doesn't go through, any marriage bill is likely to collect dust on the shelf. Not good enough? Certainly. Progress? Yes.

Gay Marriage in New York: Dates to Know and Where to Go.

July 5th is the first date that you can obtain a marriage license. The City Clerk's office has the details of what to do to get one. We hear they've been running the presses to get gender-neutral language copies printed, whatever those might look like. I don't think they will be available in colors or anything. Note that the license requires a wait of 24 hours afterward for the actual marriage ceremony, and it is only good for sixty days, unless you are in the military (in which case, DADT has not been implemented, so you can't actually invoke that provision without another kind of headache). Marriage itself becomes legal on July 24th, 2011, 30 days after the signing of the bill by Gov. Cuomo.

That's why, perhaps, you should look into scheduling the actual ceremony to fall within that scope. You can line up for a marriage ceremony at the same office of the City Clerk. No reservations are required or accepted. There are fees that seem to add up to about $60, but please read any details for yourself.

There's also a fun option I heard about. The Pop-up Chapel, which will do weddings for free, with some trimmings, in Central Park. It looks like it's only serving cupcakes during the first weekend after marriage becomes legal. Read up on this option, since I have no idea whether this will be slammed with couples who heard about it on twitter.

Do whatever you like, where gay marriage is concerned, whenever you want to, but do some research first. Rushing into these things is for drunken celebs in Vegas!

In New York, Marriage Has Always Been a Function of the State. Period.

Even in early Euro-American history, marriage was regarded as a state function. Churches, even official ones, married couples, but only under the laws of whatever colony it was. Other officials were also allowed to marry people.

No one could just go around marrying people without recognition by law, and that is true to this day.

I know of at least one case where a very minor official tried doing it. It was beyond his office and he was immediately up on charges. The marriage was also considered null and void.

Nontraditional forms of other-sex marriage also had to gain approval over time.

At least in this country, marriage has always been a function of the state to define by its own rules. Anyone pretending otherwise is lying to you.