gluttons for evangelical supremecy file CA amendment


, , , , ,

So,there is a renewed interest in this silly thing It seems the authors make the surprisingly common “mistake” of conflating the concept of religion with their particular brand of fundamentalist christianity – but the sheer disconnect of the following is distressing: below is what the authors want, but apparently were advised was just too obtuse: language strikeout in original – codifying exemption from apparently every conceivable law, just so long as the perpetrator really reeeaaalllly wanted to do it, (and god , as usual, agreed with them)

Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

and replace it with explicit instances and people they expect to be permitted to harass and discriminate against in any way they care to, even up to breaching the peace and safety of the state.  they don’t include a demand to be free to murder their rebellious children, but mark my words, you know how the talebangicals like a slippery slope – let them get away with this and they’ll be stoning their brats within a fortnight.

(b) We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to perpetuate His blessings do submit that it is not a crime, hate crime or unlawful for a person to use any part of the Bible’s content as authority; and do submit that a person using any part of the Bible’s content as authority may freely speak, pray, write, discuss, publish, preach, teach, hear, share his or her faith, to proclaim Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, engage in street witnessing, distribute written material or otherwise communicate any views on salvation, heaven, or abortion, adultery, alcoholism, anti-Semitism, astrology, bestiality, bigamy, bisexuality, blasphemy, civil unions, coarse jesting, cohabitation, coveting, cross-dressing, cults, drugs, drunkenness, extortion, euthanasia, evil, evolution, fornication, gay marriage, gender identity, hell, heresy, homosexuality, idolaters, idolatry, incest, lying, marriage, murder, necromancy, other religions, pornography, psychics, rape, reviling, sex, sexual immorality, sexual orientation, sodomy, sorcery, stealing, transgender, trans-sexuality, witchcraft, yoga, or sin at any public or private gatherings, school, church, or other place of worship, Bible Study group or sidewalk or in any communicative medium, the internet, satellite, television, film, theater, radio, videos, recording, newspapers, magazines, music, and periodicals or by means of a computer, electronic devise, telephone, cell phone or fax machine.

Because we all know, the meaning of “religious freedom” is the freedom for everyone to proclaim Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  oh yeah, and to hold forth about how hideous every other “religion” is.  looks like i can still get away with carrying a shrubbery across state lines.  thank goodness.

and what the fuck?  they don’t give a shit if people swear?  what kind of fucking christian watchdogs are they?  hmm?  what caused that lapse?  could it be, SATAN?


today in lying liars

Lie 1 – NOM et al:  Prop 8 is still the law in CA, and all govt officials, including the supreme court are in violation of ‘murkin law – and therefor the state does not allow for marriage equality

Reality: Prop 8 was found unconstitutional by the federal courts (original trial as well as the appeal).  The supreme court did not grant standing to the professional antigay folk, and the lower court rulings are in effect.

Lie 2 – The PA state attorney general is in breach of contract and illegally declining to defend the state’s DOMA – the supporting argument for the above lie about Prop 8, insisting that the state attorney general broke the law by agreeing with the fed courts ruling and declining to waste money defending what they see as unconstitutional

Reality: nowhere in the state code or constitution could i find language that said the AG MUST intervene when the constitutionality of a statute is challenged – it does say the AG MAY intervene, but is not required.

Lie 3:  Eugene Delusional Delgadio sent out yet another breathless but false email warning people that if they don’t send him money, that ” Instead of allowing an employer the freedom to judge applicants on their expertise, appearance and actions, the federal government wants you to play by new rules.”

Reality:  The employment nondescrimination act does nothing to limit employers from firing employees for cause, or force employers to hire lgbt workers to meet some quota or give preference to anyone.  Rather than eliminating that ability, it adds lgbt workers to the list of folks – including mr. delgadio for his chosen religious philosophy- who cannot be fired for reasons not related to their work performance (i.e. being a satanic pawn in the “homosexual lifestyle”)



Instead of allowing an employer the freedom to judge applicants on their expertise, appearance and actions, the federal government wants you to play by new rules.


one of my favorite explanations of entitlement

one of my favorite explanations of entitlement

‘And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.

-David Gaider-Bioware


Help make Ohio a Marriage Equality State!

Help make Ohio a Marriage Equality State!

In 2004, Ohio voted to ban gays and lesbians from legally marrying the person they love, and to deny their families the privileges and protections taken for granted by their heterosexual neighbors.  This year, we have the opportunity to correct that mistake and repeal the Ohio “Defense” (sic) of Marriage Amendment.  Ballot language has been approved,and petitions are being circulated to place repeal language on the November ballot.

Your support is needed to move the campaign forward – Together we can help Ohio join the 12 states who recognize the families of their gay, bisexual and lesbian citizens.  If you can volunteer time and skills, will help get you started.    Your financial support will help keep the campaign going.  follow the link

Mark Regnerus methodological failures and breach of AAPOR ethical guidelines in NFSS


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One need not look past the high school level methodological failures in this “research” paper to discard it as the toilet paper it is. I hope that if he ever bothered to join the professional organization tasked with standards in social science research that they have removed him from the roles for gross intentional breach of ethics and scholarship.

The first article I reviewed was published in Social Science Research 41, no. 4(2012) by Mark Regnerus, “How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.”

The target population for this survey was adults in the United States from the ages 18-39. The data was collected by Knowledge Networks, described as an online survey company that maintains a panel randomly recruited via phone and mail surveys with no self selection allowed. The sampling frame does not exclude those without phones or computers/online access. Computers and/or online access were provided when necessary. Details regarding response rates ,completion rates, panel recruitment are not included in this article, but readers are directed to contact Knowledge Networks for the information. Selected demographics from the sample are compared to the Current Population Survey, National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, National Survey of Family Growth, and the National Study of Youth and Religion. Not being familiar with any of those surveys, the chart is not particularly helpful for me in the scope of this assessment.

The author’s intent was to compare outcomes of children raised by non-heterosexual parents to children whose birth parents (both contributed genetic material) never divorced to outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents. This necessitated locating children who were raised by gay fathers and/or lesbian mothers, and in an attempt to do so a screening process was applied to the larger sample to increase the numbers of those sub-populations. The screening process lasted from July 2011 and February 2012, in order to attempt to locate current panelists and recruit new panelists. The screening process is not described. Former panelists were also contacted to attempt to find more respondents for the sub-populations of children who were adopted before the age of 2, as well as those who could answer the question “From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?” affirmatively.

It is reported that after screening a total of 15,058 panelists, 2988 total surveys were completed with the author’s key sub-populations of interest including 163 respondents coded as LM (respondent had lesbian mother) and 75 coded as GF (respondent had gay father), and 101 respondents reporting that they were adopted before the age of 2. It is not clear how the quota for sub-populations was determined, or if time constraints finally determined the cutoff. No response rate is included, and it is not made clear how large the potential pool of respondents was following the screening process. A within survey response rate of 65% is reported as an average for Knowledge Network surveys, but none is reported for this particular survey. The survey was completed by respondents online, with computer access provided for those who needed it.

The sponsor of the project is not listed, and incomplete information is provided for all of the funding sources. Two key sponsors are identified as the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. The design team was assembled from family researchers from Penn State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, University of Virginia, as well as the hosting university and home of the principal investigator, University of Texas at Austin. The external consultants are not identified, but the reader is assured that the funding organizations were not involved in any way with the survey, beyond providing financial support.

This report becomes somewhat problematic once best practices are addressed. The purpose of the study seems to be to address results of existing (mostly qualitative) research that show little or no difference in outcomes for children of non-heterosexual parents when compared to their counterparts who were raised by heterosexuals, by collecting a large, nationally representative random sample. A further concern seems to be the absence of studies that show that gay and lesbian parents are qualitatively inferior to heterosexual parents who both contribute genetic material to the child. The dataset was meant to gather information from adult offspring of gays and lesbians, 18-39, about their experiences, as opposed to existing studies that interviewed parents who self identified as being part of a gay or lesbian headed families. The youngest respondent turned 18 in 2011. Unfortunately, the concepts are poorly operationalized in the design, and although data was collected, it does not capture what the author claims to be looking at. Despite the recognition in section 1.1, that “Any claims about a population based on a group that does not represent it will be distorted “, that is exactly what the research design and even more so, the report proceeded to do.

The author has put all respondents into 8 different categories, that he refers to as family-of-origin structure/and or experience. These categories are based on the now adult child’s answers to screening questions and measure the respondent’s perceptions. IBF – intact biological family , LM – lesbian mother, GF -gay father, Adopted, Divorced, Stepfamily. Single parent, All Others. In creating these variables, he is conflating family structure or configuration – two parent ,one parent, married, divorced, adopted – with categories of LM and GF, which are based entirely on an affirmative answer to the question

”From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?” Response choices were ”Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman,” ”Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man,” or ”no.

In order to boost the numbers in those hard to find categories of LM and GF– second order information on a child’s understanding of their parents’ “romantic relationships”, categories were made mutually exclusive – with all respondents with “lesbian” and “gay” parents being placed in the LM and GF categories regardless of the family structure (single, married, adopted before the age of 2, divorced, other). On top of the conceptual error of treating the LM or GF category as a family structure, it also created only one category – the LM category – made up of exclusively female headed households. The rest of the 7 categories are a mix of male and female headed households. When discussing the sub-optimal outcomes that seem most pronounced for children in the LM category (and contradict the majority of existing research), there is no recognition of this fact, nor the possibility what is actually being measured is the difference between single female headed households and every other configuration including male headed households.

I find the language “romantic relationship” to be problematic, a notion with no clear cut, universally understood meaning. What is described by the author as a key population of interest (children of non heterosexual parents) is constructed using second order information in response to a poorly worded question. The findings report that more respondents mothers everhad “a romantic relationship” with another woman than were adopted, as well as more than children of divorced parents. At one point in the report the number of respondents coded as LM is 175, later in the paper it is 163. Twelve respondents report that both their mother and father had ever had a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex and were coded to increase the numbers in the so called gay father category.

Although the author acknowledges that comparing outcomes of households supported by single mothers to two parent /never divorced households is unfair, that is the method of analysis that is employed – in fact it seems to be the focus and purpose of the study. A list of what is referred to as outcomes are run against LM and IBF categories, and the author cautions that causation cannot be assigned, he simply wants to “highlight the differences” between the outcomes reported. Some of the concepts categorized as outcomes seem more appropriate as demographic or influences rather than outcomes. There is a set of questions regarding inappropriate sexual contact All respondents were asked if ”a parent or other adult caregiver ever touched you in a sexual way, forced you to touch him or her in a sexual way, or forced you to have sexual relations?” Possible answers were: no, never; yes, once; yes, more than once; or not sure. A broader measure about forced sex was asked before it, and read as follows: ”Have you ever been physically forced to have any type of sexual activity against your will?’ It is implied that the perpetrator could be identified (possibly) by who the child was living with at different times of their lives, but the question does not allow for that process. The question is overly broad – caretaker could be understood as anyone from grandma to someone at a daycare or other temporary custodial situation, and does not ask the location or time period in which the assault occurred. It is beyond the scope of this assignment to address the tone and politically motivated assumptions throughout the report, but it was at times difficult to wade through to find questions of design and process.

I am unable to answer questions of the cost/benefit analysis of the design, whether the questionnaire was pre-tested, or answers regarding data collection methods during the screening survey, or training of Knowledge Networks staff. It is unclear how many respondents were contacted for the actual survey, and I cannot assess the response rate, nor the methods used to convert refusals. It is unclear how, as it is with mail surveys, how to determined if the email invitations were ever seen by the potential interviewees.

The author recognizes that it is difficult to find the population the report wanted to study, and that he could not say that the coding of LM and GF reflect the sexual orientation of the parent, or even the child’s perception of their parent’s sexual orientation. His fix was to code them as such regardless, and report the findings as data on Lesbian and Gay parents. I found his designations to be confusing in the text, speaking at times of same-sex parent (implying a couple) when there is only one parent being referenced, and at times sounding as if the data reflects the parent, rather than the child of a parent. The underlying assumption being re-enforced throughout the study is that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation, and homosexuality is a negative, chosen behavior, and I believe it led to ambiguous and obfuscating language and bad design choices.

More information I feel would be necessary to assess the analysis is a description of the weighting variables. The reader is told that “each case in the NFSS sample was assigned a weight based on the sampling design and their probability of being selected”, but not what those might be. Also, one of the control variables in comparisons between children whose mother may have kissed a woman at some point and those who grew up in a family headed by their still married heterosexual (both parents contributed genetic material) was household income. This variable is a second order report of what a child perceived their household income to be when they were growing up. There are too many conceptual /operational disconnects in the variable definitions for me to see this survey to be particularly useful as a scholarly instrument as it exists

american family ass. endorses serial adultery and fornication

don wildmon from the hate group american family association endorses serial adulterer and fornicator newt gingrich. because “protecting the family” and “traditional marriage” are important enough to traumatize children and deny tax paying citizens equality, but are not at all important for those running the government to actually believe or live. screw as many women as you want newt, just make sure those homos don’t ruin marriage and society.

& never mind the fraud and ethics violations or racist bs coming from this elite ruling class blowhard.

“It is AFA’s goal to be a champion of Christian activism.  If you are alarmed by the increasing ungodliness and depravity assaulting our nation, tired of cursing the darkness, and ready to light a bonfire, please join us.  Do it for your children and grandchildren.”   about afa from their website.

“Newt Gingrich recognizes the threat to our country posed by judges and lawyers imposing values upon the country inconsistent with our religious heritage, and has proposed constitutional steps to bring the courts back in balance under the constitution,” Wildmon said in announcing his endorsement today.         Rev. Donald Wildmon Endorses Gingrich

eat the rich

well you know it doesn’t make me feel better to hear
that along with his new orders for the world
the president has said that no one in russia will starve this year
and you know it doesn’t make me feel any better
that somewhere on the corner of wall street and the 5th street park
in between the soup line and the presidential yacht
i lost a friend
leaning on the sidewalk there, he lost himself

well he said, i’m not feeling much better today
i’m starting to feel crushed and i got nowhere to go
used to feel that someday i’d be able to get home
now i just feel beat
well you know it was the last time that i saw him
it was starting to get cold, he’d stopped talking ’bout a home
somewhere in the night was when he left the world alone
next morning the city crew took in another john doe

so you know it doesn’t make me feel any better to hear about
an evening in the banquet hall at a thousand bucks a plate
a hundred rich white men all sitting round talking about just how great this country is
but they can’t say that no one in hillcrest will starve this year

so you know it doesn’t make me feel any better to hear
that along with his new orders for the world the president has said
that no one in russia will starve this year
when he can’t even say that no one in cleveland will starve this year
no one in dc will starve this year
no one in kent will starve this year….

copyright sue jeffers 1993 & 2002
back to ‘welcome home’

who the hell is eugene delgaudio and what mental facility is he residing in?


, , , ,

i have been getting emails for a bit now from an unhinged homohater with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex.  i’m not sure how i got on the list, but it has been an interesting slew of paranoia laced anti-gay rants attached to the ever present fundraising pleas.

following a claim that obama was going to denounce him personally (somehow proving how important it is you send him money) the latest email proclaims that the dirty homos forced the military to change the rules so they can bugger the local livestock.   following the assertion that the “radical homosexual lobby” is so powerful it can force the u.s. military to bow to their wishes, he then proclaims that “their days are numbered”, and for a donation of 10$ or more he will save the world from the evil radical homosexual agenda single handed  (ok, with help from his 3 staff members – not sure if he is referring to his wife and kids or if he’s convinced some non-family member to come suck at the teat of fear with him).  Never mind that this email arrived at least a day after some military official made a public statement reassuring people that even if there wasn’t a line in the code specifically prohibiting goat-fucking in the military, it still was not legal.  Of course it was the fact that mr. delgaudio equates consenting adult relationships between gays or lesbians to be just as bad (or worse) than goatfucking that had him up in arms – and the fact that the military no longer equates consenting adult gay or lesbian relationships to be the same thing as sexual assault on a barnyard animal.

If this man were speaking of anything other than his religion, people would have rightly suggested that he seek professional mental heath help.  paranoid delusions in the name of the lord, in this case at least, have instead prompted people to elect him to public office.  gotta make note of where that is, i want to make damn sure i don’t book any shows nearby or accidentally drive thru the county.

But now, thanks to the radicals in Congress, a key regulation has been removed: Sodomy and Bestiality.
Unbelievably, the radical homosexuals made it a priority to legalize these acts for homosexuals serving in the military.
They actually consider the “right to violate animals sexually” a basic human necessity, even while serving alongside our nation’s greatest heroes.
I am just terrified of what else they have planned for our service men and women.


The Radical Homosexual Lobby is very afraid that this year will be their last in power.

Their last chance to pass their perverted agenda.

And that makes them very dangerous.  Nothing fights with more viciousness than a cornered animal.

And when you couple this fear with literally limitless funds the Homosexual Lobby has access to — there is nothing they will not try to do to kill the Family.

sue, just think about it.  They actually repealed the military regulation forbidding soldiers from engaging in sodomy and bestiality.

If that’s their idea of “good”. . . well I simply can’t imagine what they won’t do.

My friend, as much as it pains me to say, the legalization of bestiality is not even close to being the gravest threat to our nation.

There is a virtual avalanche of destructive homosexual legislation coming down on the American Family…

…and Public Advocate is the only force in our nation that is fighting back!

tools – lyrics

gonna lay down alone with my guitar tonight.
pup on my feet yellowcat in my hair
bread in my belly the pogues in my ears
wine in my glass love in my heart.
Things go much better when I know where to start

eh. gotta brush my teeth hey where’s the whiskey
i hear dropkick murphys damn it’s already three
tully on my tongue   all these songs still undone
here’s the thing,   i need to stop thinking
words in my head need to play with the strings

with folded hands and folded hearts some take delight
in claiming they own the one truth for our lives
climbing down from the pews to their perch on the floor
they’re trying to scrub away all of the hews
from the rainbow and paint it with gore

but the sunrise this morning is yellow and red
on a slate blue sky canvas with orange overhead
red-spotted purple brushfooted butterflies
they all seem much more close to divine
I’ll  choose the palette of love every time

The kitten keeps editing all that I’m typing
So I’m picking up ginger to play a few songs
it has been a fine night of respite, recovery
and a much needed recharge and renewal.
things run much smoother when you use the right tools

copyright 2012 sue jeffers