I am sick of virtue signaling and having wokeness crammed down my throat.

by Rod Williams -

I am sick of virtue signaling and having wokeness crammed down my throat.

This is what I had to see first thing this morning.  Why?

 I don't use Google because they are politically correct; I use them because they provide a good search engine.

 I am not one to rant against transexuals or homosexuals, although I do think transsexuals probably surfer from a mental disorder and think we should not be normalizing perversity and deviant lifestyles. Seeing two men hold hands does not even upset me. I would rather not see it, but the most it does is make me a little uncomfortable. Seeing two men kiss, sort of disgust me. Seeing two women kiss, I admit however, sort of turns me on. (OK, I am revealing more about me than you need to know.) I am semi tolerant and certainly no prude and have a live and let live attitute toward most things.

 I don't think a Black man confused about his sexuality, dressed as a women, who has modified his body by surgery and hormones to look more feminine, should be harmed in any way or berated or harassed. They should just be ignored. They should be tolerated and maybe even pitied. I just don't think it is something to celebrate and honor, however.  If the Google corporation does think so, why cannot it keep that opinion to itself.

I wish we could end the virtue signaling and self-righteous wokeness proselytizing.

Top Stories

Mayor Barry's attack against a basic statement of Evangelical Christian belief

A mayor’s backlash against a basic statement of Evangelical Christian belief signals an ominous turn in the culture wars.

By David French, National Review, August 30, 2017- Don’t ever forget that, for some folks, “separation of church and state” is a half-measure. It’s just a pit stop on the road to de-Christianizing America. It’s a temporary means to a much bigger end. Over the weekend, I was honored to sign a document called the Nashville Statement. It’s a basic declaration of Christian orthodoxy on sexuality, sexual orientation, and sexual identity. Its 14 articles can be boiled down to a simple statement: We believe the Bible is the word of God, and the word of God declares that sexual intimacy is reserved for the lifelong union of a man and a woman in marriage. It acknowledges the reality of same-sex attraction as well as the reality of transgender self-conceptions, but denies that God sanctions same-sex sexual activity or a transgendered self-conception that is at odds with biological reality. In other words, it’s basic Christianity.

Sometimes, however, one needs to state the obvious. There are powerful peer and cultural pressures that are pushing Christians to compromise on core principles.

....  Barry’s statement, however, is different. It’s not separation of church and state, it’s a declaration of state against church. (link)

 #

Mayor Barry says 'Nashville Statement' does not represent city's values

NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) -The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has created the “Nashville Statement,” stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. ... Barry tweeted Tuesday morning that the “so-called ‘Nashville Statement’ is poorly named and does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville.” 

#

Below is the text of the Nashville Statement. To see the source material and a complete list of initial signatories, follow this  link.

The Nashville Statement 

“Know that the LORD Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves…”

 -Psalm 100:3

Preamble
Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life. Many deny that God created human beings for his glory, and that his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female. It is common to think that human identity as male and female is not part of God’s beautiful plan, but is, rather, an expression of an individual’s autonomous preferences. The pathway to full and lasting joy through God’s good design for his creatures is thus replaced by the path of shortsighted alternatives that, sooner or later, ruin human life and dishonor God. This secular spirit of our age presents a great challenge to the Christian church. Will the church of the Lord Jesus Christ lose her biblical conviction, clarity, and courage, and blend into the spirit of the age? Or will she hold fast to the word of life, draw courage from Jesus, and unashamedly proclaim his way as the way of life? Will she maintain her clear, counter-cultural witness to a world that seems bent on ruin? We are persuaded that faithfulness in our generation means declaring once again the true story of the world and of our place in it—particularly as male and female. Christian Scripture teaches that there is but one God who alone is Creator and Lord of all. To him alone, every person owes gladhearted thanksgiving, heart-felt praise, and total allegiance. This is the path not only of glorifying God, but of knowing ourselves. To forget our Creator is to forget who we are, for he made us for himself. And we cannot know ourselves truly without truly knowing him who made us. We did not make ourselves. We are not our own. Our true identity, as male and female persons, is given by God. It is not only foolish, but hopeless, to try to make ourselves what God did not create us to be. We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good. God’s good plan provides us with the greatest freedom. Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it in overflowing measure. He is for us and not against us. Therefore, in the hope of serving Christ’s church and witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials.

Article 1
WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church. WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

Article 2 
WE AFFIRM that God’s revealed will for all people is chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage. WE DENY that any affections, desires, or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside marriage; nor do they justify any form of sexual immorality.

Article 3 
WE AFFIRM that God created Adam and Eve, the first human beings, in his own image, equal before God as persons, and distinct as male and female. WE DENY that the divinely ordained differences between male and female render them unequal in dignity or worth.

Article 4 
WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing. WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome.

Article 5
WE AFFIRM that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female. WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.

Article 6
WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known. WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

Article 7 
WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

Article 8 
WE AFFIRM that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life. WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.

Article 9 
WE AFFIRM that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality— a distortion that includes both heterosexual and homosexual immorality. WE DENY that an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies sexually immoral behavior.

Article 10
WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Article 11 
WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female. WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his imagebearers as male and female.

Article 12
WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ gives both merciful pardon and transforming power, and that this pardon and power enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins and to give power for holiness to every believer who feels drawn into sexual sin.

Article 13 
WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender selfconceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one’s biological sex and one’s self-conception as male or female. WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ sanctions self-conceptions that are at odds with God’s revealed will.

Article 14 
WE AFFIRM that Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure. WE DENY that the Lord’s arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach.

#

On on Friday June 26, 2015, At-large Metro Councilwoman Megan Barry, a Nashville mayoral candidate,
performed the first same sex wedding in Tennessee. 

Top Stories

(update) What's on the Council Agenda for June 6, 2017: Budget hearings, setting a new tax rate, honoring sexual deviants, giving power to neighborhoods, ...

The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse.  To watch the Council meeting, you can go to the courthouse and watch the meeting in person, or you can watch the broadcast live at Metro Nashville Network's Government TV on Nashville's Comcast Channel 3 and AT&T's U-verse 99 and it is streamed live at the Metro Nashville Network's livestream site. You can catch the meeting the next day (or the day after the next) on the Metro YouTube channel.   If can stand the suspense and just wait, I will post the video here the day after or the day after that and provide commentary.

If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the Council staff analysis or you really will not know what is under discussion.  You can get these documents at the highlighted links.

There are five appointment to Boards and Commissions on the agenda and you can expect all to be approved unanimously. One of the appointments is to the Human Relations Commission.  If I were serving in the Council I would vote against this appointee, not because I have anything against this person, but I would as a matter of principle vote against all appointees to this commission because I do not believe we should have such a commission.  It serve to intimidate people into adopting politically correct policies and they indoctrinate in liberal ideology, including the normalization of homosexuality among youth.  Unfortunately, there is no one in the Council who will speak out against this agency.

Public Hearing on the Budget

There are two bills on public hearing, one is the Operating Budget and the other is the Capital
Improvements Budget. You can expect speaker after speaker to advocate for more money for everything from affordable housing, library funding, mass transit, sidewalks and especially schools.   Those who advocate for less spending or fiscal responsibility only show up about every four years, when a mayor proposes a tax increase.  I will be surprised if there is anyone speaking who advocates for fiscal responsibility, cutting wasteful spending and cutting programs.

In cutting programs a good place to start would be by cutting the Human Relations Commission. it doesn't take a lot of money but the city should not be involved in political indoctrination and enforcing politically correct conformity. Another area I think should be cut is General Hospital. It is a money pit and there is no charter requirement or law that requires we maintain a charity hospital and since low-income people can go the hospital of their choice, General cannot fill its beds.

I am concerned about the obligation of the city for retiree pensions, retiree health insurance and debt service. As long as the city is humming along with growth as we are now, these cost are manageable but should we have slowing of growth, these are areas that are almost impossible to cut.  Since these are almost fixed cost, it means deep cuts would have to be made to other areas of government should we have an economic downturn. I think we should change from a defined benefit retirements system to the system of the federal government and most of the private sector which is defined contribution. We should limit the growth of debt service.
 

The Capital Improvements Budget is a planning documents and really does not appropriate any money, but prioritizes what capital improvements will be funded and says where the money to fund it will come from.

The mayor's proposed budget is for $2,209,690,100 which is a 5.86% increase over Fiscal Year 2017's budget.  The budget does not call for a tax increase. For a good understanding of the Metro budget and to see the details see, A Citizen's Guide to the Metro Budget. For a concise summary of the budget see the Council Staff analysis.



There are 35 resolutions on the consent agenda. 
 Resolutions on "consent" are passed by a single vote of the council instead of being voted on individually. All resolution are initially on "consent," however, if a resolution has any negative votes in committee it is taken off of consent.  Also any council member may ask to have an item taken off of consent or to have his abstention or dissenting vote recorded.  Most of the resolutions are routine things like accepting grants, and individually allowing signs to overhang the sidewalk.

There are several resolutions that are related to the budget but they are all to be deferred to track with the budget. One would adopt new fee schedule for animal control.  Others resolutions would adopt different parts of the pay plan, which  is a pay raise for metro employees. Here are the other resolutions of interest.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2017-682  adopts the certified tax rate. Following a general reappraisal, the local governing body must adopt a tax rate that bring in no more money than would have been brought in prior to the reappraisal. Currently the combined General Services District (GSD), which in most places would be the "county," and the Urban Services District (USD or "city") is $4.516. The new combined lower rate is $3.115.  The tax rate is applied to each $100 of assessment.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2017-737 pays $250K to settle a medical malpractice case against Metro.  While the details of settlements may be interesting, the only issue should be is it better for the city to settle or litigate. In this case a person died due to the actions of staff at Bordeaux Long Term Care facility. My view has always been that I trust the Legal Department to make the right decision and if they recommend settling a case out of court, we should follow that recommendation. Punishing a metro employee or mandating retraining should not be a factor in whether we settle or litigate.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2017-738 is another payment to settle out of court. This is for $30.6K and is the result of property damage caused by Metro water failing to cut off water to a property when requested.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2017-739 is another payment to settle out of court.  This also involves malpractice on the part of Bordeaux staff and is in the amount of $180,000.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2017-740 is another payment to settle out of court. This case involves allegations the police used excessive force in an incident and the settlement is for $ll.5K.

RESOLUTION NO. RS2017-744 is a resolution recognizing Thursday, June 1 to Friday, June, 30, 2017 as “Nashville Pride Month," celebrating the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender communities and their "enormous contributions to the quality of life in Nashville and Davidson County." I do not think we should honor a segment of the society for engaging in unnatural sex practices.  Instead of being celebrated, I think ones sexual orientation, deviancy, or fetishes should be ignored.  

Bills on First Reading
There are 48 bills on first reading and I normally try not to form an opinion of bills on First Reading and most of the time I do not even read them until they get to second reading. There are some interesting bill on First Reading this time, however. One would ban party vehicles, which I assume would include pedal taverns but I don't know for sure.  One would prohibit renting any room for lodging for less than a ten hour period. For a city that honors some types of sexual deviancy, it seems a little puritanical to prohibit one from renting a hotel room by the hour. BILL NO. BL2017-739 is on First Reading which may or may not make Nashville a "sanctuary city."  While I think I would oppose some of these bills, if I were in the Council, I would honor Council tradition and not vote against any of them on First Reading. All bills on First Reading will be lumped together and passed by a single vote as is the norm.

Bills on Second Reading. Below are the ones of interest:

BILL NO. BL2017-645  would allow passengers in horse-drawn carriages to drink and ride as long as the beverage was in a plastic or Styrofoam cup. This sounds reasonable to me. The brand name "Styrofoam" was changed to "foam"when the bill was on Second Reading on April 4th. The bill was deferred to this meeting.

BILL NO. BL2017-687 establishes a process and procedure for naming public buildings, structures and spaces of the Metropolitan Government.  I like this.  I think usually you should have to be dead before you get something named after you. This was deferred from May 2nd.

BILL NO. BL2017-705  would establish an incentive program for neighborhood that are in full compliance with codes.  A neighborhood could be awarded $5000.  Under this plan, if a neighbor has an overgrown lot, codes could review the violation but not impose penalties and the neighborhood could exert pressure on the offender to come into compliance. I do not like this. I do not want to give more power to neighborhood leaders who may have been elected by a tiny fraction of the neighborhood.  Neighborhood organizations have no official status and no legal authority I don't want to give them power. This program could cost up to $875K per year and is not in the FY18 budget. It was deferred from the May 16 Council meeting to this meeting at the request of the sponsor.

BILL NO. BL2017-707  would allow Metro to purchase internet and telecom service at specific facilities without submitting those services to a competitive bidding process. I do not yet have an opinion on this bill but it sounds suspect. I hope the committees to which this bill is assigned carefully examines it.

BILL NO. BL2017-723 is a bill establishing the tax levy for 2018 for the Urban Services District. Since the mayor has not proposed a tax increase, this tax levy will be the same as the certified tax rate discussed above. This is amendable on Third Reading.

BILL NO. BL2017-724 establishes the low-income elderly tax relief program for 2018. This is a continuation of a program that has been in place for many year. The State provides a certain amount for tax relief for the low-income elderly and this program is Metro's expansion of the program to provide more tax relief than the State. The income limit to be eligible is $29,180 and applicants must be over the age of 65. This cost Metro $3.9 million. I support this program.

BILL NO. BL2017-725  establishes a Greenways Commission and a Conservation Assistance Grant Fund and appropriates $500K to the fund.  The purpose of this is to preserve properties having great natural, cultural, and environmental importance. From what I know about it, I support this. As we grow, it becomes important to preserve certain features of our community that make Nashville livable and enjoyable. The commission could not appropriate any funds without coming back to the Council.

BILL NO. BL2017-726 would require the Finance Department to maintain a written debt management policy for the metropolitan government. This is a good step in getting control of Metro's increasing indebtedness.

BILL NO. BL2017-728 would place restrictions on who can "boot" or unboot a vehicle. It would require criminal background check of those who apply for this job.  I have reservations about this. It is hard enough for ex-cons to get a job without imposing additional restrictions on what jobs they may do. 

Bills on Third Reading. There are 16 bills on Third Reading. Here is one of interest:

BILL NO. BL2016-498   requires approval by the Metropolitan Council for obstructions or excavations which close or occupy any portion of the public right of way for a period in excess of one (1) year. I support this. We should accommodate construction but a sidewalk or street should not be closed to public use for over a year without a plan to accommodate the public.

Top Stories

Man Who Raped Teenage Boys to be Honored with Postage Stamp

Man Who Raped Teenage Boys to be Honored with Postage Stamp.
What is this country coming to? Maybe our Metro Human Relations Commission should change the name of their annual Youth Pavilion at the Nashville Gay Pride Festival to the "Harvey Milk Youth Pavilion.

Top Stories

Tennessee Same-sex couples asks for marriage license

In case you missed it:
Same-sex couples in at least three Tennessee counties tried to get marriage licenses Wednesday, striding into county clerks’ offices, well lit by camera flashes as they made state history. (link)

Top Stories

Council Members: Vote against Human Relations appointees who support the Metro Youth Pavilion at Gay Pride Festival

There are several people up for Council confirmation of their appointment to the Human Relations Commission next Tuesday night.  The Human Relations Commission is an organization that serves no purpose except to promote political correctness and should be abolished.  

One of the things the Human Relations Commission does is sponsor a youth pavilion at the Nashville Gay Pride Festival. I am sure many Nashvillians believe that homosexual activity is deviant behavior and a sin.  Metro should not be in the business of normalizing and promoting acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle among our youth.

I would hope that the appointees to the HRC will be questioned and asked if they support Metro’s funding of the youth pavilion at the gay pride event.  If they do, the council members who do not believe this is a proper roll for Metro government should vote against those appointees. 

Below are the list of  the Mayor’s appointees to the Human Relations Commission who will be  up for confirmation by the Council on Tuesday  May 21^st.

Human Relations Commission
Reappointment of Ms. Debra Palmer George for a term expiring April 18, 2016.
Reappointment of Ms. Sharon Kay for a term expiring April 18, 2016.
Appointment of Mr. Richard Kennedy for a term expiring April 18, 2016.
Appointment of Ms. Tasha French Lemley for a term expiring April 18, 2016.
Reappointment of Mr. Don Peterson for a term expiring April 18, 2016.
Reappointment of Mr. Avi Poster for a term expiring April 18, 2016.
Appointment of Mr. Frank Trew for a term expiring April 18, 2016.

If you would like to let your councilman know you would like for them to question and vote against those appointees who support Metro’s funding of a youth pavilion at the Nashivlle Gay Pride festival, follow this link to find the email address of  your councilman and the councilmen-at-large: Contact your Councilman.

I have written my Council member the following short message.

Dean Council Lady Moore,

I do not think it appropriate that Metro should fund a youth pavilion at the Nashville Gay Pride Festival. We should not be sending the message to our youth that homosexuality is normal and acceptable.

Several people are up for confirmation of their appointment to the Human Relations Commission next Tuesday.  I would urge you to question them on their views on Metro’s funding of the youth pavilion at the Nashville Gay Pride Festival. If they support this program, I urge you to vote against their confirmation.

Sincerely

Rod Williams

I am also sending a similar message to all of the Council-Members-at-large and a hand full of other council members who I consider conservatives who I think may be inclined to think that funding a youth pavilion at the Nashville Gay Pride Festival is inappropriate.

Top Stories

Your Metro Tax Dollars funded a Youth Pavillion at the Nashville Gay Pride Festival

Did you know your tax dollars went to fund the Metro Human Relations Youth Area at Nashville's Gay Pride Festival?

Why should the city support the Youth Pavilion at the Nashville Gay Pride event? Many Christian Nashvillians may feel that homosexuality is a perversion and a sin. Should the City be supporting our young people at an event that celebrates and normalizes homosexuality.

Top Stories

Drew Johnson's support of gay marriage

Drew Johnson is the editor of the Free Press opinion page at the Chattanooga Times Free Press. He was formerly a resident of Nashville and was founder of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, now the Beacon  Center, an influential Tennessee conservative think tank.

Writing in the Free Press yesterday Drew wrote an article supporting gay marriage, and laying out the argument why conservatives should support it. Here is an excerpt:

  As conservatives, we often advocate for government recognition of marriage between one man and one woman on the basis that it is an institution that benefits the public good. Yet, in the same breath, we fight other attempts by government intended to benefit the public good -- such as mandatory exercise schemes, occupational licensing requirements and bans on sodas and fatty foods -- with every fiber of our being. This intellectual inconsistency not only concedes marital power to government without a constitutional basis, but weakens our arguments when government tries to gasp control of other aspects of our lives -- from what we can eat to how we should teach our children.

 Our other conservative arguments against gay marriage are even more flawed and even less compelling.  Religious beliefs, while the best reason to oppose gay marriage personally, are perhaps the worst reason to encourage government prevention of gay marriage universally.

For many of us as conservatives, religious dictates determine how we and our family choose to operate in our personal lives -- and we don't want government in the way of that. It is contradictory to argue to keep government out of religion while attempting to use government to mandate our religious beliefs on others who may not share out values.(read more)

While I understand the logic of his argument, I am not persuaded. I am not homophobic and don't care what any two or more people do in the privacy of their bedroom. I do think homosexuals should be treated with dignity and I am not uncomfortable around gay people. I would not discriminate against them. However I am not ready to endorse gay marriage.

Every since written history, for as long as we have had knowledge of the institution of marriage, it has been between a men and women. Marriage is older than formal government. If two men or two women want to shack up (or two men and two women), I don't care, but don't call it marriage. Institutions, culture, values, customs, traditions, and truths should not be changed lightly . Conserving is also part of what it is to be a conservative. Respect for inherited wisdom is as much of what it means to be a conservative as is limited government.

I understand some of the practical benefits of marriage and why a gay couple would want them.  However many of those benefits can be conferred by contract. If a gay man wants to be with his dying partner in the hospital, that can be arranged by contract. Two gay people can deed a house as tenants in common with right of survivorship.

I also understand that two gay people may want to solemnize there relationship. They can do that now as a private matter.  They can get married in a gay or gay-friendly church and have as big of a "wedding" as they can afford. Do it. I don't care.

What I don't want, is to corrupt what has been the institution of marriage since the dawn of history.  I don't want government to become a morality police agency enforcing standards or moral conduct and imposing conformity but neither do I want government to sanction a union of two people of the same sex and call it marriage. 

Top Stories

Ann Coulter to Serve as Honorary Chair of GOProud’s Advisory Council

August 9, 2011

Christopher R. Barron, Chairman of the GOProud Board – “Ann Coulter is a brilliant and fearless leader of the conservative movement, we are honored to have her as part of GOProud’s leadership.”

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, GOProud, the only national organization of gay conservatives and their allies, announced that Ann Coulter was joining the organization’s Advisory Council as Honorary Chair. Coulter’s official title will be “Gay Icon.” “Ann Coulter is a brilliant and fearless leader of the conservative movement, we are honored to have her as part of GOProud’s leadership,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s Board. “Ann helped put our organization on the map. Politics is full of the meek, the compromising and the apologists – Ann, like GOProud, is the exact opposite of all of those things. We need more Ann Coulters.”

“I am honored to serve in this capacity on GOProud’s Advisory Council, and look forward to being the Queen of Fabulous,” said Coulter.

What? I am not sure what to make of this. I welcome gays to the Republican Party. I am pleased GoProud honored her by naming her Honorary Chair and "Gay Icon" and I am glad she accepted but it makes me wonder: Maybe the rumors about Ann Coulter are true.

Top Stories

Gay publication, Out and About, endorses candidates

Below are the endorsement of the homosexual publication Out and About and some of the commentary that accompanied the endorsements. This is a good list of people to vote against with the exception of Glover, Evans, Blalock, and maybe Holleman, who despite the endorsement of Out and About are worthy of support. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.

Those highlighted in red are good candidates disliked by Out and About who are very much worthy of our support.

Mayor: Karl Dean
Mayor Dean has supported and signed two non-discrimination ordinances and directed his administration to lobby actively against HB600, a state law that eventually nullified Metro’s 2011 contractor non-discrimination ordinance. At this year’s Pride, he told the crowd, “We’re with you,” and he has consistently demonstrated his support.

Vice Mayor: Diane Neighbors
Vice Mayor Neighbors has not had to cast any controversial tie-breaking votes on equal rights ordinances, but her inclusive outreach to our community is always appreciated. Last year, she was the keynote speaker at the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition’s dinner.


Council Members At-Large: Megan Barry, Jerry Maynard, Ronnie Steine, Vivian Wilhoite, Sam Coleman. Barry, Steine, and Maynard were all sponsors of the 2009 non-discrimination ordinance. In addition, Barry and Steine were cosponsors of the 2011 CAN DO law.

District 1: Lonnell Matthews.  Councilman Matthews was a sponsor of the 2009 NDO and voted for   CAN DO.

District 2: Frank Harrison. Councilman Harrison voted for the NDO and CAN DO.

District 3: No endorsement. Incumbent Councilman Hunt is unopposed and abstained on third reading of CAN DO

District 4:  Brady Banks. 

District 5: Scott Davis.

District 6: Peter Westerholm. He has been the public policy chair for the Tennessee Equality Project. He is the embodiment of an ally.

District 7: Anthony Davis. Current District 7 Councilman Eric Cole will be hard to replace, but Davis’s business endorsed CAN DO and his guest editorial in the Tennessean in support of the ordinance showed equality is one of his core commitments.

District 8: Van Reece. She has been active in support of our community organizations for years. Her opponent, incumbent Karen Bennett, voted against the CAN DO law on third reading.

District 9: No endorsement. Candidate Bill Pridemore is unopposed.

District 10: No endorsement


District 11: Darren Jernigan. Voted for the NDO and CAN DO. He is opposed by a socially conservative candidate.

District 12: Steve Glover. Said to be conservative, Glover nevertheless voted for inclusive non-discrimination policies for Metro teachers and students as a school board member. He is unopposed.

District 13: Marilyn Robinson. 

District 14: No endorsement, but a recommendation.Councilman Bruce Stanley did not vote in favor of the NDO or CAN DO, but his opponent is reported to be more socially conservative. Stanley did support Councilwoman Barry’s resolution opposing HB600, though. For that reason, we recommend a vote for Stanley.

District 15: No endorsement.  Councilman Phil Claiborne is unfortunately unopposed. He spoke and voted against the NDO and CAN DO. If you live in this district, consider writing in your own name.

District 16: Anna Page. Councilwoman Page supported both the NDO and CAN DO.

District 17: Sandra Moore. Councilwoman Moore supported both the NDO and CAN DO

District 18: David Glasgow. He has been an active supporter of our community for a number of years.

District 19: Erica Gilmore. She has a perfect voting record on equality ordinances and was a sponsor of CAN DO. She is a plaintiff in the suit to overturn HB600.

District 20: Buddy Baker. Councilman Baker was a sponsor of the NDO and voted for CAN DO. He has the distinction of being, as far as we know, the only Council Member who is a parent of a gay child, a son who was tragically lost to HIV/AIDS. As well as his long history with his West Nashville district, he has a perspective that we need on Council.

District 21: Edith Taylor Langster. Councilwoman Langster voted for the NDO and CAN DO. She is unopposed.

District 22: Seanna Brandmeier. A former executive director of the Davidson Co Democratic Party, Brandmeier has received a warm reception from members of our community who have already volunteered in her campaign. Her openness will be a welcome change from Councilman Eric Crafton who currently holds the seat.

District 23: Emily Evans. Councilwoman Evans voted for the NDO and CAN DO despite the fact that socially conservative organizations targeted her vote during the discussion of both ordinances.


District 24: Councilman Jason Holleman. Voted for the NDO and CAN DO.

District 25: Sean McGuire. A sponsor of the NDO and voted for CAN DO.

District 26: Chris Harmon. Harmon has reached out to our community.

District 27: Davette Blalock. Blalock has reached out to our community.

District 28: Tanaka Vercher.

District 29: Karen Johnson. As a school board member, Johnson voted for inclusive non-discrimination policies for Metro teachers and students.

District 30: No endorsement. Incumbent Jim Hodge fiercely opposed the NDO and CAN DO. His opponent Jason Potts is reportedly as socially conservative.

District 31: Fabian Bedne. When he was president of the Middle TN Hispanic Democrats, Bedne led the organization to endorse the NDO.

District 32: Markeith Braden. Supportive of CAN DO and reaching out to the community when the bill passed Metro Council.

District 33:  Page Turner. Turner has the best chance of defeating incumbent Robert Duvall who aggressively opposed the NDO and CAN DO.

District 34: No endorsement. Councilman Todd voted for the NDO

District 35: Bo Mitchell.  Councilman Mitchell voted for the NDO and for CAN DO.

Top Stories

Bush signs gay rights bill

December 24, 2008

Yesterday, Bush signed into law the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA), requiring employers to allow employees to roll their retirement plans over to nonspouse partners. The Human Rights Campaign hailed the bill for allowing gay couples to share benefits. (link)

Commentary

Currently if you are a married person and your employer provides you with a retirement plan with a death benefit and you die, your spouse can receive the death benefit directly deposited into an IRA in his or her name. If this rule was not in place and the surviving spouse was required to withdraw the entire benefit all at once, that would result in severe tax penalties due to early withdrawal. Also, if the surviving spouse was required to withdraw the money all at once, he or she could be bumped into a higher tax bracket.

This benefit has only been available for married people until now. The bill Bush signed into law expands this right to gay couples as long as the person with the employee benefit registers his or her partner as the beneficiary.

While extending to gay couples a benefit that married couples have, it also gives benefits to gay couples that straight people do not have. Let me explain. In my job, I often work with clients who may have multiple children together and either live together or have lived to together off-and-on but they have never gotten married. If these people had a retirement benefit like this, they could not do the same thing that now a gay couple will have the right to do. I think a better law than this one, would be a law that allows a person to pass on his or her retirement benefit to anyone he wishes without regard to familial status or special relationship or sexual orientation. I would let a son give it to his mother, or a father to his daughter or any person give it to his or her best friend. Since this is not what was in the bill however, I think Bush was correct to sign the bill into law. It addresses a real-life wrong that needed to be corrected.

While I oppose gay marriage, I think we must make accommodations to gay couples. This bill was a small step but it corrected an injustice that needed correcting. If we can address the needs of gay couples with laws such as this, then the demand for gay marriage will lessen and at the same time real problems will be resolved and injustices corrected.

I am still undecided on the issue of Civil Unions but am leaning toward acceptance of some form of it. It does not have to be called “civil unions” necessarily, although I see nothing wrong with that term. Maybe we could call this new status simply a “domestic registry.” If a union were registered, the registered couple (or more) would be eligible for a bundle of the rights now given only to married people. If a mother and her adult son wanted to be registered as a couple that would be OK by me as long as we do not call it marriage.

I am not so sure that all state sanctioned "marriage" should not be anything more than “civil unions” or a registration on a “domestic registry.” How about letting the state register the union and the church join people together in holy matrimony if that is what the couple desire and they meet that faiths requirements? Face it; marriage does not carry the same weight it used to. Many couples wait until they have their first child to get married or they live together without ever getting marriage. Marriage also is certainly not until “death do us part.” When a couple can void a marriage simply by declaring incompatibility, marriage is not such a terrible commitment or strong bond. I do think society has an interest in promoting strong families, but I am not so sure that government conferring certain benefits only on “married” couples is the vehicle for promoting strong families.

As to the politics of this issue, I am surprised that this story has not gotten more coverage. I was out of town for the holidays visiting family on the day this news occurred and I missed it. I did not read a newspaper or watch TV on that day, so I don’t know if this got much coverage or not, but I assume it did not. An Internet search does not reveal a lot of coverage by mainstream news sources covering the issue or big name commentators commenting. I read a lot blogs and chat groups and this is not big news in the blogosphere. I don’t understand it.

I do not expect liberals to say anything praiseworthy of George W. Bush, but would have thought that Bush signing a piece of pro-gay legislation would have been news. I am also very surprised that the religious right has not been all over this story. I would have expected them to nail Bush to the wall over this. Is Bush so unimportant that he is not worth criticizing? I would expect the televangelist, Focus on the Family, Phyllis Schlafly and the various pro-family organizations to be ballistic. Why are they not? I am pleased that the right has not been in an uproar over this issue. If the voice of the religious right is growing faint then I think that is a good thing for the Republican Party. I don’t think there is much benefit for Republicans to be seen as the party of gay bashing.

Top Stories

Should Gay Flirting be a Crime?

Senator Larry Craig’s arrest has been widely reported and commended upon. Here are my thoughts:

I am bothered by the hypocrisy of a “family value” politicians soliciting sex in a public bathroom. But, I am more bothered by police-state tactics that led to Senator Craig’s arrest. I do not see that what he did rises to the level of "solicitation"; it was more like ‘flirting”.

He apparently gave secrete gay signals to the undercover cop. This looks like a case of entrapment. If a man in the next stall lets his foot go over into my stall I would move my foot away and that would be the end of it. If he put his hand under the divider partition, I would say in a strong voice, "May I help you?" and that would be the end of it.

I have a problem with efforts to catch gays flirting in the bathroom. Now, if Senator Craig had actually offered sex for cash or if he had been caught having bathroom sex, then I would think the police would be correct to arrest him. If he had said the words that were an offer to engage in oral sex, then perhaps that would justify an arrest. None of that happened.

The real story ought to be an overzealous policeman entraps a man for gay flirting.

Top Stories