Before you read this . . .

. . . let me remind you that before the city of Houston TX got too smug in dealing with "them queers," all sexually-active gay people were sexual offenders.

And an 18-year-old boy who doesn't stop having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he turns 18 is also a sex offender.

In fact, in some states, if a 16-year-old girl rapes a 14-year-old boy, the boy is a sex offender.

Now, on to the story:

The aptly-named Liberal MO is seeking to ban sex offenders from public parks.

Engler’s bill — Senate Bill 758 — would prohibit sexual offenders from going to state parks and historic sites. In its original form, the bill would have required certain sexual offenders to ask permission or to notify the site superintendent, but language is being prepared that would ban certain sexual offenders from state parks entirely.

The closet is a dark and twisted and self-loathing place.

From this Sun-Times article:

[Mr.] Rivera followed the victim to the outer staircase of a basement apartment, where he removed the victim's pants and raped him, authorities said. Afterward, Rivera punched the victim in the head, leaving him semi-conscious, then inserted a metal broom handle in the victim's rectum, sources said.

Rivera gave police these details in a videotaped statement, according to Proft. When asked why he did it, Rivera allegedly said it was "because he hates f[aggot]s, and this is what they get," according to Proft.

What color is the sky in the world where that makes ANY FUCKING SENSE WHATSOEVER?

Rivera rapes that guy because that guy's a faggot.

Question: What does that make Rivera?

The best points are often found in the comments.

In the comments section of a (good in and of itself) Marginal Revolution post on the marital contract:

If traditional (heterosexual, monogamous, procreative, customarily religious) family arrangements are, as claimed, superior to same-sex or other innovations, then they should outperform those innovations in the cultural market.

Song of the Day: And the seals they sing now.

The company you keep.

Obama sticks with religious zealot who has declared "war" on gay people.

Ten to one that doesn't make it on The Situation Room.

[H/T 2 memeorandum.]

Mike Rogers: Follow your Big Gay Marching Orders or else!

Mike Rogers engages in a high-tech lynching of uppity gays.

In Rogers' mind, if you're against gay rights in your public life and you
live a secret homosexual life, all bets are off.

Yeah, except that the Big Gay Marching Orders include among their "gay rights," criminalizing what people think. And taking away the rights of business owners to run their businesses the way they see fit. Does the privilege of enjoying dude-on-dude action require the outsourcing of one's decision making to Gay Central Command?

And Rogers doesn't seem to realize that the freedom to choose to live his life out of the closet is THE VERY SAME DAMN FREEDOM as the freedom to choose to live one's life IN the closet.

But there I go again, having an opinion of my own that doesn't fall into lockstep with Gay Central Command. How uppity of me.

Assumption, then question.

So, assume Larry Craig was soliciting the undercover entrapper/policeman for sex.

Is it a certainty that he wanted to do it there, in a semi-public place, and not go back to a motel room?

No, it is not.

ASIDE: Instead of resigning, Craig should switch parties (perhaps to the Libertarians.) That would certainly teach the Republicans who are gleefully throwing him under the bus a lesson. Then, whether or not he stays in Congress would be none of their business.

But I thought all heterosexual marriages were inherently legitimate.

And why did he have to resort to a sham marriage to keep his boyfriend in the U.S.?

Anyone? Anyone?

Because his boyfriend can't be his husband.

Facebook: We are the arbiter of legitimacy.

And we declare gay to be less legitimate than Hitler:

It would seem that Myspace is no longer the social networking flavour of the month – that torch has now been passed to Facebook. But already there’s controversy – no, no suicide pacts just yet, but new members to Facebook can have the surname Hitler, but not the surname Gay.

...

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the error was discovered when New Zealand woman Rowena Gay tried to sign up to the site and was rejected. “Please enter a legitimate surname,” it said.

Marriage, Domestic Partnership two separate, unequal concepts.

Dude's ex-wife enters into domestic partnership. He's still on the hook for alimony.

The only way domestic partnerships/civil unions are an acceptable alternative to full marriage rights is if it is written in the law that they are equal to marriage in every civil, legal regard except name.

Got telemarketed by the HRC last night . . .

. . . even though I'm on the DO NOT CALL list.

Apparently, they bought my info from either the CRAPPY ADVOCATE or A BEAR'S LIFE.

Thing is, I don't think I gave either of those mags my phone number. Did the HRC call up every Hutchison in the Thayer phonebook and ask if John the Fag lives there?

I find out which one of them sold my info, there'll be hell to pay.

HRC just assumed that I would be in favor of an upcoming ThoughtCrime Bill and that I should be on the phone to my congressmen telling them to support it.

If I had planned on doing that, I certainly would not want to after being telemarketed by the HRC. For all they knew, they "outed" me to whoever answered the phone!

There is an argument to be made that might convince me to support this bill. That argument goes along the lines of "This isn't about whether or not hate crime laws are a good idea. This is about whether or not 'sexual orientation' should be added to the hate crimes law we already have."

The problem is, nobody's making that argument.

Instead, they are arguing that hate crime laws do not punish people for thinking wrong thoughts, which they clearly do. Their position seems to be that you can think whatever you want, as long as you don't act on it.

But they ignore the fact that, all other factors being equal, if person A gets two years in jail for robbing someone because he just wants to rob somebody, and person B gets 10 years for robbing someone because that someone is black, person B is getting punished 8 years because of what he thinks. That sounds a lot like thoughtcrime to me.

Gay people can't count.

From 365gay.com, on the "gay debate":

Hillary Clinton [that's 1], Barack Obama [2], John Edwards [3] and Chris Dodd [4] have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate.

The debate will be conducted with a live audience in Los Angeles. On the panel questioning the two Democrats will be Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge.

Question: Why are Democrats the only ones allowed to have an opinion on "gay issues"? Where's Ron Paul?

[H/T 2 Drudge.]