ImpossibleMike

Godless Kindergartner Has "2 Gay Dads"!!

2005-01-03T02:20:00.000-08:00

A group of parents and parishioners has accused the Roman Catholic diocese of Orange County, California, of violating church doctrine by allowing a gay couple to enroll their children in a local Catholic school in Costa Mesa. The group has demanded that St. John the Baptist School accept only families that pledge to abide by Catholic teachings. That would likely bar the men's two adopted boys from attending the school's kindergarten because of church opposition to relationships and adoption by same-sex couples. Now that's what I call family values! That'll teach that Godless pair of 5-year-olds!!

Please Support These Companies

2004-12-20T02:18:00.000-08:00

Rabidly homophobic Republican poseur, Alan Keyes, has sent out a letter (purporting to be a letter from Larry Klayman, a Keyes crony) recommending the boycott of any and all companies that offer domestic partner benefits. Well, since he thinks these companies should be boycotted for recognizing the domestic partners of their employees, I'd appreciate it if you would patronize such companies (several of which are named in his letter, below) and/or send them an e-mail thanking them. I don't have the e-mail addresses, but each company's website will probably have a "Comment" page for Customer Service purposes. By the way, Keyes's own daughter, Maya, is an "out" lesbian and has a domestic partner! Thank you for any support you can provide. P.S. In the interest of short-handing the letter, I've replaced every occurrence of "radical homosexual" with "RH," and every occurrence of "radical homosexual activist" with "RHA." All imbedded commentary is mine, of course.

"Secretly... Stealthily... RHAs have been picking the pockets of American companies -- and their customers, like you. In the process they're undermining America's families and the sanctity of marriage. And I know THEY don't care about you and your family, and traditional family values, but you do -- and I do! That's why I had to write you this letter.
Dear Trusted Friend,
YOU PROBABLY KNOW that the recent Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas basically gives homosexuals the right to do whatever they want, including "marriage" in Massachusetts [Actually, legalization of "gay marriage" in Massachusetts was the result of the actions of the Massachusetts electorate, State Supreme Court, and State Legislature. It had no direct connection to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Texas case. MVA] -- and soon, in your state too! BUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW is that the financial benefits of marriage have already been handed to them -- over and over again -- by American companies YOU do business with!
What I'm talking about is that homosexuals who work for American companies, in increasing numbers, are demanding and getting the same benefits for their "partners" as a legally-married husband and wife. In fact, a homosexual "partner" can move in on Sunday and begin getting benefits on Monday [Not likely; most companies require some proof of Domestic Partnership (such as State certification/application). Further, how many employees, much less partners of employees, have full benefits immediately?]! And these FREE benefits include free healthcare, bereavement and family leave benefits, free life insurance, the use of fitness facilities, AND sick leave. And to be "fair," these companies sometimes (not always!) extend the same benefits to live-in boyfriends and girlfriends of heterosexuals, too.
BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, MY FRIEND, IT WAS -- AND IS -- THE RHAs WHO HAVE PUSHED FOR THESE POLICIES.
Of course, ANY kind of "equal" treatment for non-married couples sends the message that "Marriage is no big deal," and "Our company sees no value in marriage!" So you might think it was just a handful of companies that would act this way. But NO -- I'm talking about companies YOU deal with all the time! Companies like: American Express, Procter and Gamble, Bank of America, Barnes & Noble, the stock broker Charles Schwab, Coca-Cola, Compaq Computers, Kodak, Ford Motor Co., JP Morgan Chase, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Qwest Communications, Shell Oil Co., Starbucks, The Gap, Inc., Time Warner Co., and Verizon Communications .... and I could, unfortunately, go on and on!
Not only that, but the number of companies who knuckle under from pressure and threats from RHA groups goes up almost weekly! In fact, a recent poll shows that one-third of all U.S. companies either DO offer, or are WILLING to offer, "marriage" benefits to homosexuals living together. Its not that I hate homosexuals. But they should not be given special privileges, which are not provided for under our Constitution and other laws. [And all this time I thought Republicans believed in the free market, and hands-off approach to business! You see, businesses provide benefits to employees not out of kindness, but as an incentive to woo talented/skilled employees or to keep the valued employees that already have. These businesses are not pro-gay; they're pro-bottom line. Surprise, surprise.]
Click here to help us by contributing now [Warning: Expect to see this line several more times.]:
MY TEN YEARS ON THE CULTURAL BATTLE LINES: Ten years ago I started Judicial Watch [Rather, Alan Keyes started Judicial Watch; from here on, the letter seems written partly by Keyes and partly by Klayman.], the independent watchdog group that uses publicity and legal action to hold government, and elected officials, accountable to the public. In that time, I've seen every kind of trick by special interest groups to get their way with politicians [those poor, innocent, impressionable politicians!]. Now I'm seeing homosexual groups use the same pressure tactics on American businesses.
And, as you may know, while I was Chairman of Judicial Watch before I left to run for the U.S. Senate last year [where he was trounced and roundly dismissed as a nutcase--albeit, a nutcase with major national Republican Party support.], it was the ONLY organization to win a verdict against Bill Clinton for any of his illegal and immoral activities. That success has given me a national voice.
So now, in the same way, I want to use that voice to expose another kind of injustice. It is an injustice against the decent families of America -- families like yours. The very companies you patronize are denigrating marriage. Their policies proclaim they have NO pro-family compass. Not only that, but they see no benefit for themselves in workers who have stable, loving families! Rather, they give homosexual employees special privileges by virtue of their sexual behavior!
But their offense is not just against our families, although that is wrong enough. You see, they also blithely ignore the financial cost of these "domestic partner" arrangements, sweeping them under the rug when their stockholders meet. Yet the fact is, my friend, that such "domestic partner" arrangements have HUGE costs. While I support medical treatment for AIDS, you should not have to pay for it. The cost of anti-HIV drugs alone for homosexual domestic partners is immense! The insurance companies then recover that cost by raising the premiums they charge everyone, including you!
Plus, homosexuals living together as "domestic partners" often file as "married" with the IRS [HUGE LIE! Only married couples are allowed to file as "married," because the IRS (a federal agency) does not recognize domestic partnerships, or even common law marriages.] for further benefits. Not only that, but companies, to pay the higher premiums their "open-mindedness" costs them, usually pass on the costs to their customers! So every Coke you drink, every piece of Microsoft software you buy, every roll of Kodak film you buy, and the Ford or GM car you drive -- plus your health insurance -- have an inflated price to pay benefits for non-married (mostly temporary [Do I really need to point out that statistics show that the Republican States lead the nation in rate of divorce (or "temporary" marriage) amongst straight couples?]) "partners." To me, that's just not right, and it's not fair to you or to any other American who has a stable family.
AND THAT'S NOT ALL! You see, RHAs haven't been satisfied just with "domestic partner" agreements from these companies! They've also gotten them to donate millions to radical pro-homosexual lobbying groups at the local, state, and federal levels. For example, you may have wondered, "Gee, I don't have money to pay a lawyer to sue somebody. Where did a homosexual guy get the money to sue the state of Texas -- and take them all the way to the Supreme Court -- and win?" The answer is: RHs undoubtedly use some of the money from these corporations to help finance this. [Not true; try the ACLU.] And, as the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts shows, it is becoming more and more necessary to see this corporate high jacking of the American consumer come to a stop! A Constitutional amendment, while necessary, will take many, many years to push through, after all the damage has been done. That's why it is so very critical you help me succeed now in cutting off the funding of the RH effort to destroy marriage!
Click here to contribute now [deja vu]:
PLEASE LET ME SUMMARIZE: You see, we need to reverse this growing trend among American companies:
* Because their "generosity" pushes up the cost of the products YOU buy and the health care premiums YOU pay.
* Because once the "camel's nose is in the tent," many of these same companies go on to give BIG bucks to RH groups -- the same ones who are pushing to force homosexual "marriage" through the courts in every state.
* Because corporate endorsement of homosexuality further erodes the place marriage MUST hold in any healthy society.
You see, my friend, corporate America depends on "regular folks" like us to use their products. They never could survive on homosexual customers alone (about 1-2% [try 7-10%] of the population by current estimates). But they think they can count on our ignorance, or apathy. That's why they effectively funnel millions of dollars they get when we buy their products to radical groups who are at war with everything we believe in -- groups who are determined to wipe out the special place of the traditional family. THIS LETTER IS MY ANSWER: WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT. Because I know, and now YOU know, just what they're doing!
So I'm asking you to join with me in a 5-part strategy to counteract what RHAs are doing in corporate America.
WHY COMPANIES CAVE IN TO RH DEMANDS: Before I lay out my strategy, let me explain to you why so many companies -- more every week -- are caving in to the demands of these RH groups.
In a few cases, it's because the company leadership is so "liberal" that they actually believe that trashing marriage is a good idea. But in most cases, it's because they're SCARED! Scared of the kind of venom, hatred, harassment [3 things Keyes knows all about!], and embarrassment that RHAs will cause ANYONE who opposes them.
Believe me, I know what I'm talking about! [Hello! I just said that!] In every public campaign I've done to promote the family, or to promote traditional American values, some of my most bitter opponents have been RHAs and the politicians who are beholden to them. So, frankly, I understand why these company executives just want to be left alone. That's their motive. Just leave me alone, they say, and let me sell cars, or coffee, or financial services. So our basic strategy has to be: let's NOT "just leave them alone."
We have a five-part plan:
FIRST, I need to alert conservatives like you to what's going on and get your backing.
SECOND, you and I must let the leadership of companies that aid and abet RHAs know we are aware of their actions and we will call public attention to it.
THIRD, we will alert company Board members, and especially stockholders to the effect these "domestic partner" arrangements are having on the company's bottom line. Believe me, the company executives who promote radical pro-homosexual policies do NOT want a big stink raised at stockholder meetings! They DREAD it! But that's what's coming at them if you'll help me!
FOURTH, we must demand they make amends by supporting, at least as much as they do radical pro-homosexual groups, those groups working to strengthen the traditional family. Homosexuals represent a mere 1-2% of the population, and we're over 40%, so support for our causes should be made at least 20 fold!
FIFTH, IF NECESSARY WE MUST BRING SHAREHOLDER LEGAL ACTIONS TO STOP COMPANIES FROM GIVING AWAY YOUR MONEY TO RH GROUPS AND INTERESTS. WHEN I WAS CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIAL WATCH, I DEVELOPED AN EXPERTISE IN FIGHTING CORPORATE FRAUD IN THIS REGARD. [Well, that's close to true: Keyes developed an expertise in practicing corporate fraud.] Frankly, my friend, we are probably going to have to pursue legal means to achieve our goals. We need your significant help financially, since the RHAs hope we will run out of funds, shut up, and go away. But if you'll help me, I won't let that happen.
It's just like when I started Judicial Watch in 1994. The political special interests thought they could out-finance me and block any attempt I made at shedding light on government malfeasance. They were wrong! Because of folks like you, we shone the cleansing light of truth into many seamy pockets of Washington. You see, the main thing needed is knowing HOW to put pressure on powerful interests -- and then sticking it out until they cave in.
Yet to get this effort off the ground, I need a great response from folks like you. Because I do not have "deep pockets." But if you'll help me, I promise to persist with company after company until they see the light on this issue. So please help us in this "outreach to corporate America" because if you do not, I fear the tide is turning against the American family. Unless we act NOW, the family as we have known it in America will be swept out to sea, and God only knows whether it shall be restored.
So will you please make a small investment in your family's future, and America's future, by giving a gift, today, to the "Citizen Action Now!", a project of Declaration Alliance which I have agreed to head up.
Declaration Alliance was started by my friend Alan Keyes precisely to focus on community-wide issues that relate to the foundational principles of America.
Click here to contribute now [deja vu, again]:
As you probably know, Alan Keyes and I have joined efforts to embark on this tough new endeavor. When Alan ran for President in 2000 he told me he wanted to make me his Attorney General if he won. Now, I am truly acting as a private Attorney General for the family. So Alan and I have been preparing to launch "Citizen Action Now!" for a long time. NOW is the moment -- and he has asked me to partner with him on this effort!
A gift of $35 or more, from every person who gets this e-mail, will fully fund our efforts -- at least until we can get a few companies to see the light and come to our aid!And some, I know, just can't give more than 5 or 10 dollars. So if you can donate something extra -- $50, $100, $150, or even $500 or $1000 or more, would you please do that so there is nothing lacking in our effort?
Click here to contribute now [just in case you missed it the first 3 times]:
Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. It is Americans like you, under God, in whom I put my hope.
Yours for the Family,
Larry Klayman
P.S. Corporate support of RH is the biggest single battering ram destroying the family and the home. In courts and in corporate boardrooms, RH use corporate profits to support and legitimize their lifestyle AND their politics of family destruction. And the actions of these corporations create the social "climate" that even influences the do-nothing and gutless Supreme Court! please, help me stop the destruction of the family by giving to "Citizen Action Now!" in this Outreach to Corporate America. Please let me know how much YOU can help and WHO you think we should focus on first by returning the enclosed reply form. Thank you, and God bless you!
[Did I mention] Click here to contribute now:
If you prefer to donate by mail, please send your check to: Declaration Alliance / Citizen Action Now!"

What Does the Bible Say?

2004-12-19T01:20:00.000-08:00

Since I'm on the topic (see previous post) of gays & religion, the following is a reprint of an article entitled Pro-Gay Texts in the Bible (copyright by Paul Halsall):

Text by Text Summary

The most pro-homosexual text in scripture is John 3:16: "For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." In other words, all the pro-human texts in scripture are pro-homosexual too. But that is not what anti-gay folk mean when they say there are no "pro-gay" texts in Scripture. It all depends on how you read it, though. Try Matt 5:22-23: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Someone on the internet discussion group Gaynet recently pointed out that this passage may be the only reference made by Jesus to homosexuality. I think think argument can be made, but not conclusively. I consulted the Greek Text, and various English translations. The context is of course the compilation known as the Sermon on the Mount, a series of sayings of Jesus which are taken to call for a transcending of the Torah, to get to the "spirit" if you like [Although I am sure a defense could be made of the Law, that is not my concern here.]. The important words are Raca (Rhaka, in the original text) and Fool (Moros, in the original text). Rhaka is not a Greek word. This seems to be its only occurence in a Greek text; it is an insult from Hebrew. Most translations either ignore the word, or note it as a general term of abuse. Rhaka has its roots in a variety of semitic languages, means "soft" [Hebrew "rakha"] and carries a connotation of effeminacy or weakness. The Akkadian word "raq" is used to denote a woman's name or occupation, and its graphic representation in Akkadian derives from a Summerian symbol for woman. In other words it can be argued that "Raca" [applied here to a "brother"] is an accusation of "sissy", or perhaps "catamite". This argument works better if the word "Moros" is considered. The word can mean "fool", but it also has the amply used connotation of sexual aggressor, or even "homosexual aggressor". Therefore, it could reasonably be argued that Jesus words here condemn those who abuse other about their homosexuality. Less convincing, but still plausible, is that since the abuse of "queers" is condemned, but homosexuality itself is not mentioned [unlike the women taken in adultery story] that Jesus is defending those who engage in homosexual practice. Considering Jesus' break with other mores of contemporary Judaism, equally seen in his commendation of those who are "eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven", this is a plausible, but far from certain reading of this text. In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, the same story is told about the centurion who approaches Jesus so that this "servant" might be cured: Texts: And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. and Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum. And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue. Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick. There are several aspects to this story which might lend it to a gay reading. In the first place, it seems somewhat odd that a centurion would be so caring about a slave, caring enough to risk ridicule by approaching a Jewish miracle worker for help. The underlying Greek text intensifies this suspicion of a possible homosexual relationship. Tom Horner, author of David and Jonathan: Homosexuality in Biblical Times, points out that in Matthew, the earlier account and directed to a Greek-speaking Jewish audience, the word for servant is "pais"--which means "boy", but can also mean "servant", and, given the rather greater than average concern for a servant demonstrated by the centurion, can also mean "lover". The word "pederasty" for instance derives from "pais". Luke, who was writing in a much more Greek milieu changes the word "pais" to the much more neutral "doulos" ("servant" or "slave"), presumably aware of its homosexual implications to any reader with a Greek cultural background. Jesus, clearly, does not condemn the centurion in this story of faith. The Book of Ruth sensitively portrays bonding and devotion between two women. Also don't miss Book of Judith for a surprising overturning of male/female roles: Judith sneaks into the enemy camps, cuts off the head of Holofernes, the leader of the enemy army, returns and receives a hero's welcome, and then lives out the remainder of her days with her maidservants, rejecting all male suitors! The texts of I Samuel 18, 19 & 20, and II Samuel I:26 describe the relationship between David and Jonathon. You may not interpret them as homosexual, but I do and I think I have valid reasons to do so. The "friendship" between David and Jonathan. The relevant passages are quoted here: "And as soon as the lad had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times; and they [David and Jonathan] KISSED ONE ANOTHER, and wept with another, until David recovered himself" (1 Sam. 20:41 New International Version). Note: It's really amusing to see the Fundamentalists try to dismiss the obvious passion in this episode! "[David speaks:] 'Jonathan lies slain... I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; YOUR LOVE TO ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN'" (Emphasis added by editor.) The Song of Songs is a series of heterosexual love poems. But it is unique in the scriptures [the product largely of a pastoral society in which property transfers were accomplished by marriage and inheritance, hence the laws and concern with marriage], in that it presents sexual love between two people who are not clearly married [marriage is not discussed] as a joyful thing in itself. This is pro-homosexual, if you like, because it challenges the procreation-centered view of sex held by some. Isaiah 56: 3-8 This prophecy concerns the outcasts of Israel, and specifically the sexual minorities of the time, e.g. eunuchs. These were people who were not part of the dominant family/property complex, but people still whom God loves and includes. (Since the current concept of homosexual dates only from the late 19th century, it seems these Biblical texts would be relevant and, by extension, pro-gay. I am not asserting that they are specifically discussing homosexuality in the modern sense.]. In Daniel 1, the prophet Daniel was understood by Byzantine commentators to have been taken to serve as a eunuch, the major defined sexual minority of the ancient world, at the King of Babylon's court. Note the emphasis on the physical beauty of the four young men. Nevertheless, Daniel is, along with David, one of the heros of the Jewish Scriptures. Fr. Helminiak (q.v.) reports suggestions that "eunuch" was just a general way of refering to "homosexuals" in the period, although that remains merely a suggestion. More interesting has been discussion of the "favor and tender love" Daniel enjoyed with the chief eunuch. Nothing definite can be asserted, but Daniel is one of the most intersting biblical figures for gay people. You may note the development seen in Isaiah and Daniel when you compare them with Deut. 23:1, which excluded eunuchs from the community. I take the phrase of Jesus about "Eunuchs from birth" to be the closest thing in the Bible to the concept of homosexual as we now understand it [By the way, it is a modern misperception to think that eunuchs could not and did not have sex.]. So I would also include as a pro-homosexual text Acts 8:26-39. In this passage, an Ethiopian Eunuch [a group specifically excluded for sexual reasons from membership in the people of Israel by Deut 23:1] is baptised by Philip. This entire passage [which has Philip also preaching to Samaritans] is about the inclusion in the Church of the excluded. First a racially/ethnically excluded group, then a sexually excluded individual. You may not agree with my reading of these passages, but it is untrue to say that in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament there are no passages that can be read as supportive of homosexuals.

The Pope--an expert on neither homosexuality nor marriage--Opines On Both

2004-12-18T23:56:00.000-08:00

(click on this post's title for link to Reuters article) Yes, once again, the Pope explains how marriage is being destroyed by gay civil rights, same-sex marriage, and artificial insemination. I suppose I should cut him a break for being completely out of his depth as he's never been married and is barking mad with senility. But I won't. Personally, I've always found it suspect that, although he was an actor and playright back in Poland, the Pope has claimed to never have met a homosexual. Things that make you go, "Hmmm."

The "Moonie"-fication of the US

2004-12-18T23:30:00.000-08:00

Please check out the linked article (by clicking on this post's title) which, though quite long, explains in well-researched detail the connection between the Moonies and the rise of the Religious-Right portion of the Republican Party. In brief, the Rev. Moon's express short-term goal is to eliminate the separation between church and state in the U.S., with the help of the Religio-publicans. His long term goal is to be the spiritual and political leader of the world (while already claiming to be Divine--but not in the high-fashion sense). Pretty scary article, frankly.

Welcome to ImpossibleMike

2004-12-14T03:20:00.000-08:00

Welcome to ImpossibleMike! I was pretty much forced to create this personal blog as a means to an end--to wit, in order to post a comment on a friend's blog. Now, though, it occurs to me that this might be a much less intrusive way of passing along important non-mainstream news to my politically-left, gay-positive e-mail distribution list. There's an appealing thought: Rather than receiving huge e-mails from me on my schedule, you can visit this blog whenever you want. What will they think of next?