The Central Front

RCane is Blowhard

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:03:00 +0000

The Central Front has completed its merge with the Blowhard blog. The Central Front will no longer be posting. Check out Blowhard for all the latest.

Gay Texans Support Miers

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:09:00 +0000

From AMERICAblog: "Dallas gay leaders are a-okay with Miers serving on the court" Seems others are hearing some of the same things I did in regards to Harriet Miers. I agree completely that this is the best we could ever hope to do from a Republican President and I am still firmly in her court.

Miers Submitted Report in Favor of Gay Adoption

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:54:00 +0000

Harriet Miers apparently submitted a report to the house delegates for the ABA that said:

"Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. Sections of Family Law and Individual Rights and Responsibilities." [hat tip David Drum]

Just because a lawyer argues on behalf of a client on any issue, does not mean a lawyer personally believes that point of view. John Roberts had in his background as a lawyer work which also was gay supportive. Conservatives used the "not necessarily his opinion" defense to deflect criticism within their ranks. Is it simply coincidence that both of Bush's nominees have seemingly worked in support of gay rights in the past or is it evidence that Bush truly isn't as socially narrow minded as he is often portrayed? Obviously President Bush realizes the impact on the future of this country both of these choices will have for many years to come. He did the FMA "dance" to get elected knowing full well that its chances for going any further than rhetoric were slim. Gay marriage has rarely left his lips since the election except when really pressed on the issue from the far right. I have always thought he was much more a centrist and political opportunist than people gave him credit for. Now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, maybe he has nominated people that really are what they seem without either side's spin... an intelligent man who believes in equality and a good friend who is from all accounts very bright and at first blush, also seems to favor equal rights for all americans.

Wild about Harriet

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:26:00 +0000

Unlike some of my more knee-jerk bretheren who seemingly expect everything President Bush does to be a sign of the apocolypse, I am quite delighted with the nomination today of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice. True, she has very little paper trail but from the scuttle butt I hear out of north Texas, she seems possibly to be very in the mold of O'Conner, a Justice I admire. I also have to admit to a smile or two at seeing the uber right wing's knickers more than just a little in a twist. A couple of ramblings this morning have centered on the points that she is a 60 year old unmarried woman and a close, personal friend of George W's. These to me, have some interest. A blog I follow closely, Gay Patriot had this to say:

"After all isn’t every strong, single woman with no kids a lesbian?"

He was referring to the left's reaction and estimating that it wouldn't be long until someone made this leap of logic. Lesbian status or no, being 60 years old and never having married does bring up some fascinating questions. What we have before us is either a 60 year old virgin or (at least at some point) a sexually active un-married woman. I couldn't give less than a care about whether or not she is a lesbian although I will admit to a few well placed calls this morning to Dallas A-List sisters who lean rightward asking if anyone had ever seen her say... maybe... at the Moon for a little night out with the girls or at some of the better parties. But, this is a woman who would have spent her twenties in the late 60's early 70's era of free love. While certainly not everyone had the same experiences through that time frame, I find the thought refreshing that she just might not have been as uptight as some of the more conservative of our species would like. And, if she isn't certified nunnery ready, then it will be refreshing to have someone sit on the bench who could possibly understand the complexities faced by today's women in the areas of birth control, responsibility and yes, choice. Also, having supported Lloyd Bentsen at one point in her life with at least her checkbook, says to me that she has possibly experienced the world from different points of view. Others such as Power Line have talked widely about the fact that even though to most people Harriet Mier is an unknown quantity:

"The only positive spin I can think of is this: President Bush knows Miers well"

Some are using this statement to streghthen her conservative creditentials. I too think that the one person who knows exactly what kind of Justice she will be is George W. Bush. I just don't think this makes her as socially conservative as some folks would like. I base this largely upon the fact that I don't think George W. is all that socially conservative. I mean he talks a good soundbite, but then what politician doesn't. I feel most of his more arch conservative utterances are more political expediancy than actual heartfelt belief. Look at his life. He himself has acknowledged that he had a wild youth until his conversion, which I am quite sure, was sincere and hearfelt. However, those "youthful transgressions" he is so quick to talk about, at least in general also give him insite into how the fair bulk of America lives. Most of us aren't red, blue, black or white but live in the lovely world colored some shade of purple and gray. President Bush has acknowledged having gay friends. He has a pretty good record of diverse appointments, though some are a little too hard edge ideologue for my tastes. I think he is much more centrist at heart than either side likes to believe and I truly feel this nominee reflects that centrist philosophy. That my friends, is why I am "wild about Harriet."

Interesting Test I found at GayPatriot.org

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:13:00 +0000

You are a Social Liberal (60% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (41% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

It Was Bound To Happen...

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:21:00 +0000

This is just disgusting.:

"'We must help and pray for those ravaged by this disaster, but let us not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long,' Marcavage said. 'May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God,' Marcavage concluded."

Update...

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:39:00 +0000

I apologize for being away so long from the blogging world. I have been working on the opposition to the marriage amendment in Texas, plus working on finishing up a book. This has kind of eaten my time. Though fear not (or be afraid, very afraid depending on your point of view), The Central Front will be relaunching in September with a new look, new format and hopefully fresh, intriguing and thought provoking postings. See you all soon... R

Betty Naylor, Our Champion

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:24:00 +0000

From The Austin Chronicle:

"Our government is totally participatory. If you don't participate, your opinion means nothing. How many people do you know even know who their representatives are ... or their council members? That's pathetic, in my opinion. If we all knew, then the people, not the elected officials, would run government.' " -- Betty Naylor

This is a great feature story on a true Texas legend. Betty Naylor is a gift to our community. She is an intelligent, deligent advocate. A great lady and a great friend.

Billy Graham On Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:15:00 +0000

From 365Gay.com:

"Cautious even in his more active years, Graham now seeks to shun all public controversies - preferring a simple message of love and unity through Jesus Christ. Asked about gay marriage, for instance, Graham replied that "I don't give advice. I'm going to stay off these hot-button issues.'' "

This is from Billy Graham, a minister one can respect. Certainly he has had his moments, for we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But over all, a great religious leader. The sentence below sums it up. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all in the religious community adopted this simple premise.

"I don't throw rocks at anybody,'' he said. "That's not my message. My message is the Gospel of Christ.''

Swaggert Endorses "Gaycide" From The Pulpit

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:13:00 +0000

From 365Gay.com:

"According to a transcript of the program, Swaggart said: 'I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.' "

It's nice to see that Jimmy has mellowed in his old age.

Forgive me for my absence...

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:44:00 +0000

Just wanted to put a little post up concerning my absence. I have been busy working on the ground to help stem the tide in Texas regarding the Marriage Amendment. That has kept me hopping with little free time to post. Thanks for all the emails of concern. But I haven't dropped out, simply taking a vacation to use some good old fashioned elbow grease in the fight. Anyone wishing to join in or would like resources they can use visit the Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas' website at http://www.lgrl.org. Some great information is up there. I will be back!

In Support of Civil Unions Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:11:00 +0000

As events in Connecticut unfold, I become more convinced that Civil Unions are a logical, achievable step along the path toward gay marriage. There are some in the struggle who seem determined to continue an all or nothing stance. In my view, this is not the correct position to take. According to the latest Gallup poll concerning gay marriage there is growing opposition to the concept of same-sex relationships being recognized as a "marriage." As I wrote here, only 45% of those surveyed believed that neither gay marriage or civil unions should be recognized. This would appear to show that there is majority support for civil unions since when asked 71% of Republicans and 51% of independents opposed gay marriage. Only 45% of Democrats support gay marriage. Achieving gay marriage through judicial fiat may for the time being institute gay marriage but the reactions to the events in Massachusetts shows us that this methodology only fuels opposition. The results of this have been obvious as more and more states have pending or passed state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. (see full map here) The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), though talked about prior to the Massachusetts decision, hadn't garnered the traction needed in the majority of citizens to pose much of a threat. Once more and more individuals, whether they be judges, councilmen, mayors, etc. began to institute or impose gay marriage if you will, the backlash began to grow. The FMA is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is why the path to gay marriage should not be through the courts. As we have seen, this route only fuels the support necessary to implement a constitutional amendment that would be very difficult to prevent and harder to overturn. The FMA, in it's current form, would not only ban gay marriage but could also strip away rights already in place as we have seen in Ohio, Michigan and other states. As more states act in this manner and more court cases are filed which challenge the constitutionality of current state amendments, the issue will eventually land with the Supreme Court. To many, this makes the case for the FMA. Courts should not be allowed to overturn the will of the people. Some of this is due to an outright hatred of gay Americans but not all. Some accepting and tolerant people oppose this action because of the undemocratic nature of the acts themselves. Gay marriage, in their view is being imposed upon the citizenry. True conservatives can oppose gay marriage based simply on these grounds without being homophobic. True liberals can oppose it based upon the same reasoning. It is time to turn this tide and relinquish the fight for gay "marriage". We must change the debate. As with any civil rights movement, there are discussions going on about the impact to society, the imposition of moral values and the will of the people. I spoke today with John Hanson, the host of In Black America, about the parallels between the civil rights movement and the movement for gay equality. While the two are not necessarily the same, there are commonalities and much can be learned from looking at the history of the civil rights movement in regards to African Americans. In our conversation we spoke about the concept of separate but equal. We both agreed that this is a misnomer because it never is but there is substance to the argument that it might have been and can possibly be a positive step along the path. To quote John, "people's attitudes have to change and when you move too far too fast you can end up moving backward instead of forward." Separate but equal can force people to interact at a level in which they are comfortable at the time. It allows people the room to explore the concepts without having them thrust upon them. It gives people the space to change while making things markably better for those being discriminated against. It should never be the ultimate goal, and I am not suggesting that, but as a first step, it can be an important one. Our focus now as gay Americans should be the realistic approach of civil unions. From polling data this appears to be a battle that can be won and it would be a major step to securing the sanctity and rights of gay relationships. Connecticut passed legislation which was signed into law recognizing civil unions. It is the first state to do so without a mandate to act from the judiciary. Reactions have been mixed but not overwhelmingly negative. GayPatriot reports today:

"... only about 3,000 opponents of the state's civil union law showed up at a protest of this groundbreaking legislation. This a pretty pathetic turnout, especially since many of those there were bused in from out of state. Pat Trick also observed a number of cars parked near the rally with out-of-state license plates. This limited opposition seems to be a sign that a broad consensus of the citizens of the Nutmeg State are comfortable with the actions' of their state's legislature. And a sign perhaps that the Connecticut legislation may be a model for other states. It may not be a perfect, but it's one huge step on the right direction."

In reviewing the Connecticut bill (read the fully copy here), a couple of sections stood out:

Sec. 14. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. Sec. 15. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Wherever in the general statutes the terms "spouse", "family", "immediate family", "dependent", "next of kin" or any other term that denotes the spousal relationship are used or defined, a party to a civil union shall be included in such use or definition, and wherever in the general statutes, except sections 7-45 and 17b-137a of the general statutes, as amended by this act, subdivision (4) of section 45a-727a, sections 46b-20 to 46b-34, inclusive, and section 46b-150d of the general statutes, as amended by this act, the term "marriage" is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition. [emphasis added]

This law grants equal status under the law to gay couples entering into a civil union as is granted to a heterosexual couple entering into a marriage. The difference is in a word -- marriage. Reserving the word marriage to mean a heterosexual union between one man and one woman seems to be a small price to pay at this moment to achieve equality under the law. If the Connecticut law were used as a model for other states, there is one passage I would modify:

Sec. 6. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Any person authorized to join persons in a civil union pursuant to section 4 of this act, who fails or refuses for any reason to join persons in a civil union shall not be subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal."

This would appear to open a loophole in the law. If all persons authorized to join persons in a civil union could refuse to do so without penalty, then no one could enter into a civil union. While this situation is highly unlikely, this language in the law does open the possibility. Civil Unions, such as the above, should be our focus. They appear achievable, palatable to the majority of Americans, and offer us the opportunity to demonstrate our relationships can, under legal recognition, be a positive asset to the fabric of life in this country.

GOP Retreats From Ban on Gay Foster Parents

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:45:00 +0000

From oregonlive.com:

"Leading Republicans in Texas are distancing themselves from a proposal to make the state the only one to prohibit gays and lesbians from being foster parents. It appears the plan will die without becoming law. The Texas House approved the plan last week, despite concerns that as many as 3,000 children could be removed from their homes. But amid a groundswell of anger and criticism, conservatives backed away from the proposal Friday. " [via gayorbit]

It appears this amendment will die a quiet death in committee. Even the sponsor of the amendment is keeping quiet.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, who proposed the ban, said he no longer wishes to discuss the issue.

Gay/Lesbian Lobbiest Kept at Bay

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:09:00 +0000

From the Houston Chronicle:

"When Rep. Robert Talton learned that the gay and lesbian lobby was coming his way last month, he had state troopers posted at his office door to keep them from coming in. " [snip] "It's a waste of both of our times," Talton said. "They have their position and I have mine, so I made a decision not to talk to them." [hat tip to Gay News Blog]

It is obviously hard to reason with someone who has taken such a stance. Talton's actions are nothing new for him. Why fight a losing battle. Energies should be focused on lawmakers who can and will at least speak to all citizen's of Texas, not just those with whom one agrees.

In Support of Civil Unions

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:01:00 +0000

A new Gallop Poll released on April 19, 2005 seems to show support for the federal marriage amendment increasing. Support is greatest among Republicans (71%) and those identifying themselves as independents (51%). Only 45% of Democrats surveyed support the amendment. An interesting point is that when broken down over an age demographic the greatest support for gay marriage came from those in the 50-64 age group. Also those possessing post graduate degrees were the only demographic where there was a majority support for same-sex marriage. This survey seems to tell us that there is broad support for the federal marriage amendment. The bright spot in this survey, for those who believe that same-sex relationships are as valid as their heterosexual counterparts, is that when asked about civil unions, only 45% believed neither gay marriage or civil unions should be recognized. In Connecticut, a civil unions bill which granted same-sex couples rights as married individuals, passed both houses of the legislature and was signed into law by the Governor. This is the first time a legislative body has enacted such protection for same-sex couples without being prompted by the judiciary. This is a major step. The race to civil rights is a marathon, not a sprint. Great societal change, without violent force, does not occur overnight. The United States is still grappling today with issues of equality regarding gender and race. There is a difference in achieving equality under the law and acceptance in society. As with any moral belief, morality cannot and should not be legislated. One gains acceptance by winning the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens. To change attitudes, people must become comfortable with ideas. This takes time and visibility. We as gay Americans need to realize this lesson. While separate is certainly never equal, it can be better than nothing at all. There is support for our relationships to be recognized though not with the word marriage attached. Equality under the law, regardless of what it is called, would protect our families and show others that our relationships are valid. If you will pardon the sports metaphor, those in the struggle for gay equality are focusing more on the touchdown than on the plays necessary to move us along the field to victory. Civil Unions are a logical first step and one that would seem to be achievable. This is where our efforts should be focused at this time. We should un-fuel the scare tactics being used as a weapon to pass even harsher restrictions upon gay citizens by embracing and endorsing the concept of same-sex civil unions.

Bacteria Fights HIV

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:59:00 +0000

From 365Gay.com:

"Scientists have identified good bacteria already living in some humans that target and trap HIV and may protect against infection. They reported their findings at the 2005 American Society for Microbiology Beneficial Microbes Conference, at Lake Tahoe, Nevada." "The major roadblock in the development of this technology is the lack of financial support. Drug companies and venture capitalists are not interested because the beneficiary populations are infants and women in poor countries," says Tao. He is currently seeking sponsorship from charities or philanthropists to develop this technology.

An interesting development.

Republican Makes Party Line Clearly The Issue

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:06:00 +0000

From Lloydletta's Nooz and Comments:

"If his personal preference for the homosexual lifestyle sways his vote incorrectly and against the Republican Party platform, then I would take issue with that and I would think other people on the (county) executive committee might take issue with that and citizens in Crow Wing County and District 12," Lehman said. - Brian D. Lehman, Crow Wing County Republican Party chair

The Republican party a big tent? This seems to make it clear that anyone is welcome as long as you stick to party lines. Forget independent thought or voting one's conscience is you are Republican.

An Activist Judge is One Who Doesn't Agree

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:41:00 +0000

From The New York Times :

"When it comes to judicial activism, conservative judges are no better than liberal ones - and, it must be said, no worse. If conservatives are going to continue their war on the judiciary, though, they should be honest. They do not want to get rid of judicial activists, a standard that would bring down even Justice Scalia. They want to rid the courts of judges who disagree with them."

This says it all.

Non-Republican = Godless

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:58:00 +0000

From The New York Times:

"As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as 'against people of faith' for blocking President Bush's nominees"

Democrats are no longer just the dreaded evil word liberal but now they are against people of faith. It seems some in the Republican party are using God and religion as the new political litmus test and tying it directly into the Republican party. In other words, if you aren't a Republican, then you are Godless. This and other actions are moving the Republican party closer to being the party promoting a theocracy.

Bill Allows Pharmacists to Deny Treatment

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:44:00 +0000

From CNN.com:

"Reports of pharmacists with particular religious and moral beliefs denying prescriptions for birth control have prompted legislation that would ensure all prescriptions are filled. House and Senate backers unveiled a bill dubbed the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA) on Thursday."

This is a frightening piece of legislation. It could have a lasting impact on health care in this country as it would open the door to doctors and pharmacists only treating on providing service to those whom they deemed worthy. Any person whose lifestyle or beliefs were offensive to a health care professional could be denied choking off avenues for treatment.

"Nobody has a right to come between any person and their doctor," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and co-sponsor, said Thursday. "Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease."

Family Group Warns Against Gay Content

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:59:00 +0000

From Townhall.com:

"Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. 'Most of us have enough to explain to our children nowadays.' Wildmon warned that late-night programming on Here or LOGO could turn pornographic. 'The very nature of homosexuality is based on eroticism and the infatuation with sex,' he said."

Comcast and Cox Communications have signed up to carry the new networks. Contact these companies and let them know you support gay programming. The only way to combat the AFA on this is with a call/write in campaign of our own.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Under Fire

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:41:00 +0000

From 365Gay.com:

"(Washington) Seven members of the House Armed Services Committee have called on Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) to hold hearings to review 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. The seven, all Democrats, made the request a month after the introduction in the House of bill to repeal the military's ban and allow service members to serve openly. All seven also are co-sponsors of the repeal proposal."

Don't Ask, Don't Tell has proven to be an unworkable policy. Hopefully this will go away.

Connecticut Civil Rights Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:28:00 +0000

From gay news blog:

"Same sex couples would have the same rights as married couples, but the word marriage would only be used between a man and a woman. If the bill passes it would make history."

Connecticut is set to put in place the first Civil Unions law which, if I understand what I have read correctly, will provide same sex partners with the rights of married couples. I know this isn't what some would want as to not have the word marriage attached, to them, still leaves us as separate. But this seems to have been more palatable to the mainstream and to me seems like a great step in the right direction.

More On The Minnesota State Senator

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:34:00 +0000

From The Raw Story:

"Minnesota Republican state Sen. Michele Bachman moved to bring a measure allowing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to go to the Senate floor. The move was made despite the fact that measure had not been approved by the appropriate committees. Outside the Capitol, gay and lesbian activists were marching outside the capitol for equal rights. Koering voted no, the lone Republican to do so, and along with opposition from 34 Democrats, the measure failed. The senator said he cried all the way home."

A Father's Vote for Gay Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:10:00 +0000

From washingtonpost.com:

"What Niemann [Doyle L. Niemann D-Prince Gearge's] did was speak out on the House floor in support of the Medical Decision Making Act, one of two gay rights bills passed in the final days of the Maryland General Assembly's 2005 session, which ended late Monday. 'I am casting this vote for my daughter, who I love dearly, who is 25 and is in a committed relationship with another woman,' Niemann said. 'Now, should we deny her the rights that we would expect that I would expect for my wife and I? No. I'm casting my vote for her.' "

This guy should be applauded.