Skip to main content

... in which the Klan files for entrance into the Witness Protection Program...

... because, after all, transparency in the political process is not required if you win.

From the AP

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Supporters of the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site.

It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.


Poor little klansmen. Somebody wants to make you take off your hoods. What's the problem? you ask. That pesky negro family moved out after we burned those crosses in their front yard. We shouldn't have to reveal ourselves if our tactics worked.

I found this post via Sunlit Uplands, a South Carolina blog that trumpets itself as advocating Faith, Freedom, Defense of the West, Renewal of the Culture.

Here's their latest piece of whining about those mean homosexualists who won't stay in their segregated compartments:

As we will no doubt see when Pastor Rick Warren offers a prayer for our incoming President, volatile, disordered rage seems to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle. A Fox News headline declaring "Inaugural Pick Sparks Gay Fury," prompted an editor friend of mine to ask, "when was the last time gays were 'mildly vexed' by some turn of affairs, and expressed 'measured disappointment'"?

South Carolina's liberal blogosphere seems to have more than its share of enraged homosexualists. We don't expect them to like everything we publish here at Sunlit Uplands, and frankly, we don't care.

We will not engage their steady stream of insults, nor will we post coarse, insulting comments. We welcome comments of opposing points of view and will readily publish all that are civil. We will not provide a forum for those who coarsen the culture. Our intention is to defend, and in a small way to help in the renewal of a culture that is Christian and fully human.


This needs to be translated into plain English. It seems to mean (a) that potentially offending language is less important than depriving people of their civil rights; and (b) that if they ignore queers, the entire LGBT community will just go away and forget about that whole marriage thing.

Heck, those bloody homosexualists might even fail to notice that those people who need their anonymity protected are now trying to have all the gay marriages performed before Prop 8 nullified.

[h/t Waldo]

Comments

Brian Miller said…
Well, I guess that's why they choose to live in South Carolina rather than the United States, huh?

Oh, sorry, I forgot. I'm not allowed to snark about the Southland -- it's offensive. Rants about Yankees and homosexualists though -- quite alright!

It's the new PC, brought to you by the fringe right.

If they cause you real harm, you should sit down and shut up, because only they understand the One True Path -- and if that path happens to require a bulldozer through your house, well, that's just God punishing you.

But merely offend them, and you're a candidate for capital punishment.

Sheesh. I remember when the Republican media machine had smart people in it. Seems so long ago now.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...