Here’s Clooney’s big stand.

It’s Oscar season, Clooney desperately wants and Oscar, and he’s taking part in a one-night play to support same-sex marriage.

In Hollywood, that’s about as much of a big stand as joining the most popular fraternity on campus.

Could these people be more full of themselves.

That was a rhetorical question.

Someone from my home state of Illinois (and I am NOT shocked this originated in Illinois) decided to start a petition to have Bert and Ernie get married on “Sesame Street.” Lair Scott said, “We are not asking that ‘Sesame Street’ do anything crude or disrespectful by allowing Bert and Ernie to marry. It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different. Let ‘Sesame Street’ and PBS Kids be a big part in saving many worthy lives.” Seriously? Bert and Ernie getting married is going to help kids not bully others and LGBT kids stop committing suicide? Because preschoolers are the ones doing this? Ah, yes! The #1 way for a statist to promote an agenda is to somehow fit it in with SAVE THE CHILDREN! Mr. Scott is using their tragedy and a child’s program as a means to an end.

Who decided Bert and Ernie are gay? How can a puppet be sexual? Don’t answer that! It’s a rhetorical question. I remember it took me a long time to even realize they live together. It never clicked in my mind as a toddler and young kid that they live in the same house. They’re best friends, the puppet version of Felix and Oscar.

This morning I conducted an experiment with my toddler. Remember she is 2.5 years old. I asked her questions about Bert and Ernie. My first was, “What do you think is the relationship between Bert and Ernie?” She gave me a puzzled look. I asked her, “Do you think they have a relationship like Mommy and Daddy?” She gave me the same look, looked at the garage door, and asked, “Daddy?” I had to convince her that Daddy wasn’t coming home from work yet. I finally just asked, “Is Ernie orange?” Her face lit up and said enthusiastically, “Yeah!!!”

I asked my friends on Twitter how they viewed Bert and Ernie when they were growing up. The majority said they thought they were best friends. One thought they were father and son. A few thought brothers. Some said they didn’t care and still don’t care.

Fact is, children do not understand relationships of any kind at this age. I don’t even think my toddler understands the relationship between Mommy and Daddy.

Thank you to the “Sesame Street” producers who put out this statement:

Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most “Sesame Street” Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.

And yes, Mr. Scott, you are being disrespectful by asking “Sesame Street” to educate our children on this subject.  “Sesame Street” is mainly for entertainment with educational bits splashed in. It’s a good starting point for a teaching lesson for the day.

This has to stop. I don’t care all that much about them targeting adults or even teenagers, but when it comes to extremely young children, it’s gone too far. Why is it so hard for them to allow children to remain innocent? Why do they want children to grow up so fast?

We will stop watching if Bert and Ernie get married. I’m 100% for gay marriage, but COME ON!! “Sesame Street” is supposed to be about numbers, counting, letters, colors, animals, and just having fun! I don’t want my young children sitting down for an hour of Elmo, Zoe, Abby, and Big Bird and coming to me later asking questions about marriage, relationships, or sex. I want my girls to ask me what words start with the letter K or what number comes after 5.

As we all know, Bert and Ernie have been shacking up together since 1969. That’s a long time to remain in the closet, and we can only imagine the exhaustion they’ve experienced in living out this charade for 42 years.  They’ve no doubt been saddled with an unfair tax burden all this time by being forced to file individually. It’s also likely that at some point or other, one of them has spent time in the hospital, and we can only assume the other was denied visitation rights. It’s not like the rest of the community didn’t know. I mean, they keep pictures of each other on their wall, for chrissakes. Grover’s not stupid. Sure, they sleep in separate beds, but so did every heterosexual TV couple back in the late 60s. Bert and Ernie were simply products of the sexually repressed era they came of age in.

Considering they’ve lived under one roof all this time, sleep in the same room, and obviously share a close bond, there’s simply no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t get married. They obviously care about each other, and when two people care about each other, that’s what they do. Get married. The fact that they’re getting on in years leaves them little time left for a healthy adoption, so now’s the time to demonstrate the strength of their commitment for the good of a young . . muppet. It’s not like they can’t still go out and have a night on the town or hit the clubs after bringing home a child. There are lots of good sitter options in the local community: Cookie Monster and The Count seem like positive role models. And what youngster wouldn’t love spending summer weekends at Big Bird’s Fire Island pad?

Once they’ve accepted reality and gotten with the times, they can finally introduce some edgy drama to this otherwise Puritan, whitewashed fictitious realm of New York City. Bert can get busted running a male prostitution ring out of their basement, and Ernie can feign ignorance in an episode called “But Who is it Really Hurting?”.  In another, Ernie gets busted for Twittering pictures of his weiner to young Fraggles in an episode called “Trust: Does it Really Matter?”. Their marriage crisis is only resolved after the intervention of Elmo and Gonzo and a trip to sex addiction rehab.

Now that Bert and Ernie have thrown off the shackles of repression and a backwards religious-based history, they can serve as an example and inspiration to others. Yogi and Boo Boo. Shaggy and Scooby. Bugs and Elmer. (The awkward three-way love affair between Ronald, Grimace, and the Hamburglar is still a matter with an unclear resolution.)

Bert and Ernie should be applauded for their courageous decision to end the oppression and send a clear message to the bigots (like Oscar the Grouch) living in or around Sesame Street. Raise that rainbow flag, and fly it proudly, boys!

As a result of accepting candidate Obama at his word, they were among the first to be offended by the fact that President Obama voiced his support for DOMA just months after taking office.

But fortunately for Hollywood elites, Obama’s approval numbers are tanking and he is desperate for a way to win people back to his side. To that end, he has not only reached out to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community via the announcement that his administration will no longer argue the constitutionality of DOMA in court but also by letting it be known that his position on same-sex marriage is “evolving.” (Heretofore, he has always said he opposed same-sex marriage.)

How better to reach out to a bunch of Hollywood elites than by bashing traditional marriage while simultaneously suggesting that full blown support for gay marriage may be on the horizon?

(Pardon me for pointing out that this not only reminds us that liberal politicians will change their stated positions in a heartbeat to win the approval of elitists, but it also explains why no one in flyover country wants to see Hollywood movies anymore: because the elites in L.A. are at war with tradition and traditional values.)

Knowing they may benefit from Obama’s pragmatism at a time when he is seeking approval somewhere from someone, Martin Sheen, Sara Bareilles, Lance Bass, Cyndi Lauper, LeAnn Rimes, Dustin Lance Black and Verne Troyer have signed a petition supporting same-sex marriage.  And although most of these are the usual suspects, it is weird to see a country singer like Rimes sign on to such a petition. It’s kind of like seeing Sheryl Crow singing country music while simultaneously campaigning against big cars, big trucks, and everything else country music fans love. (Makes me wonder if Rimes supports twice used toilet paper along with Crow?)

Either way, the petition has been signed and elites in Hollywood now hope Obama will come along side them in supporting gay marriage. Whether he will or not remains to be seen.

It probably all depends on whether he can somehow pull out of this Libya mess with dignity. If he does that, his poll numbers may rise sufficiently to keep him from pandering to Hollywood for support. But if Libya turns into a Vietnam redo, you can bet your bottom dollar Obama will be hosting gay weddings on the South Lawn.

And if that happens, I guess Martin Sheen and LeAnn Rimes will be oh so happy.

Which is sordid.

Bishop Eddie Long, the well known mega-church pastor, has been accused by two young men from his church of forcing them into private “covenants” involving gay sex. The pastor, of course, claims he’s innocent.

But for the sake of this Gregalogue, what if he isn’t?

That makes him a creepy creep from Creepeville. Population: creep.

Now people in the media love these stories because it allows you to point out the hypocrisy found in religion. This is a pastor who is against gay marriage, but allegedly likes the gay sex. But this is so predictable, boring and easy.

Me, I’d rather argue that it’s okay to hate something, while still engaging in it.

Most people call that “life.”

Examples abound. I hate porn. It’s vile. I often write about it being vile. But when I travel I dabble. Don’t get me wrong – I despise it. But for 3 to 7 minutes a month, I really love it.

Same with drugs. I find addicts to be pathetic burdens on their families and society as a whole. But catch me at a bar at three a.m., and there’s a chance that it’s not the wine causing me to massage the shoulders of a troubled garbageman.

(hey Phil)

So that’s why a man who condemns homosexuality while being gay makes sense to me.

That’s not to say, I agree with his beliefs. The way I look at it, if there is no God then gayness is just an expressed pattern like everything else. And if there is a God, he must love gays because he made so many of them.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobic cyclophobe.

Tonight:

MIke Baker!

Lauren Sivan!

John Phillips!

On her show, O’Donnell said of her 2004 marriage:

George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married.

Of course, as in most of what this hack says, O’Donnell lied about what George W. Bush said in 2004. As Tim Graham reminds us, Bush did not call any “all-station” press conferences but in truth only issued a statement from the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

O’Donnell also lied about what he said in that statement. Bush said nothing about it being “horrible” for the “safety of America” if gays married. What he said was that, “marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.”

As mentioned, O’Donnell admitted that her marriage was but a political statement which makes the lie to the claim that she just wants to have her love recognized by the state.

But even worse was her absurd likening of the treatment of gays in America today to that of how gays were treated by the Nazis during the Holocaust. O’Donnell claimed that in America gays are being “rounded up” and labeled with a “pink triangle” just like the Nazis did.

But it just was an act of ‘listen If you’re gonna count up everybody who you think is not of value and round ‘em all up and slap a pink triangle on ‘em…

This illiterate, unhinged woman is an outright liar. There is no such oppression of gays in America and to liken the Nazis to today’s America is an outrage that at the very least cheapens the horrors of the Holocaust.

Brian Maloney of Radio Equalizer snagged the sound bite and brought the matter to our attention. If you can stomach it, here is his audio clip:

Transcript

Rosie O’Donnell: … But what happened is that one state, California, Gavin Newsom, decided that, you know, it was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married and so he started marrying people there in the state of California and the City of San Francisco and that’s when Kelly and I flew there and got married. And then they annulled all those marriages and stopped people from getting married.

George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married. And um…

(laughing)

Co-host: You would do that.

O’Donnell: Well, you know, in a way it was like an act of, you know, I don’t know, defiance?

Co-host: Civil disobedience?

O’Donnell: Well to me it was civil disobedience but people said to me that’s the wrong terminology. But it just was an act of ‘listen If you’re gonna count up everybody who you think is not of value and round ‘em all up and slap a pink triangle on ‘em…

Co-host: Purple

O’Donnell: It was pink during the Holocaust.

Co-host: Everyone that I talked to said it was purple, but…

O’Donnell: No, if you’ll just watch Schindler’s List you’ll see it was pink. And um, you know, I just felt like I wanted to be counted amongst the people who, you know, they were saying were unworthy and not allowed to have the same rights as everyone else. So we went and did that.

Not quite sure how you can be a follower of Christ and not be a Christian, but novelist Anne Rice is giving it a shot. Wednesday, the “Interview With a Vampire” author posted this on her Facebook account:

I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

Hours later she posted this:

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.

Obviously, she’s trying make a point and get a little attention for doing so. Here are some snips from an interview she did yesterday:

“I believed for a long time that the differences, the quarrels among Christians didn’t matter a lot for the individual, that you live your life and stay out of it. But then I began to realize that it wasn’t an easy thing to do,” said Rice, speaking from her home near Palm Springs, Calif. “I came to the conclusion that if I didn’t make this declaration, I was going to lose my mind.”

Rice said she is a Democrat who supports the health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama and believes gay marriage inevitably will be permitted throughout the country.

As a relatively new member of the Catholic church, one of the things I’m learning, thanks in large part to my Parish Priest, is that an important pillar of anyone’s faith is the ongoing moral debate you have with yourself over what is wrong and what is right. Though I have many political differences with my church and even more with my Priest (one of the finest men I know), the church recognizes that a sincere inner-struggle regarding political and social issues, a struggle to come to a truly Christian decision, is something that should last a lifetime.

Rice, on the other hand, appears to have ended that inner-debate and come to all the conclusions. Among them, that same-sex marriage and voting for Democrats is what Christ would want. If she’s made a sincere effort to work her conscience through to that conclusion, that’s fine.

What’s not Christian, however, is her lashing out at those who disagree, and judging them from a moral authority she doesn’t possess as betrayers of what she obviously has decided is a kind of true Christianity.  There’s another word for this: Intolerance.

From where I sit, it looks at though Rice has “elevated” herself from a Christian to a narcissist.

Sir Elton John and his Civil Partner David Furnish

Ain’t that a kick in the pants? As it would seem, Elton John and Rush Limbaugh share the exact same opinion in regards to gay marriage. Coincidentally, so do a majority of Americans. So does this mean that everyday Americans, politicians (both Republican and Democrat), Rush Limbaugh and –gulp– Elton John all hate… the gays?

At least that’s how mainstream media would try and spin it. Most leftists in the press have simply tried to bury those less than “typically gay” quotes. Why? Well, when Elton John speaks the truth, it disrupts the sensationalized narrative that the media and Hollywood have been setting for years; If you don’t support gay marriage, you must secretly despise gay people.

It’s Hate Vs. Gay. Period.

Clearly there are some people even in the gay community tired of the blatant pandering and simple-mindedness. Elton John most likely understands that 57% (those who support same-sex civil unions) of Americans don’t revile his tiny-dancing self. Sure they may recommend some serious orthodonture, but that really only comes from a place of love. The fact is that Americans continue to purchase his albums and support him as an artist, yet still uphold a traditional view of marriage.

See how that works?

Now, the Rocket Man’s opinion could be based on a multitude of reasons, be it cultural, political or ethical. Either way, it shouldn’t matter. People should be entitled to express their personal viewpoint without being called a “whore,” as Mike Musto so eloquently put it last night on Olbermann.

Let’s just boil down the Rush Limbaugh/Elton John controversy for a second:

Rush Limbaugh: ANTI gay marriage and PRO civil union.

Elton John: ANTI gay marriage and PRO civil union.

Here we have two incredibly different people with two wildly different worldviews actually agreeing on something! How can that be construed as anything other than a thing of beauty? Where’s the “We Are the World” choir?

The truth is that the gossip-hounds in Tinseltown and the cackling hags at “The View” don’t want civility. They want catty gossip and sensational headlines that provide them with an opportunity to hop on the bully pulpit. When it comes to the liberal agenda, it’s more important to pigeonhole people than it is to speak the truth.

Poor Elton… Why couldn’t he just learn his role? He shouldn’t be reaching across the aisle, making friends with those of a different stripe or articulating his personal worldviews. He’s just our gay little song-monkey. At the end of the day, Elton, isn’t that enough?

Apart from that, wouldn’t you rather perform at Sean Penn’s wedding? I hear he’s got a few left in him.

There’s a simmering civil war in my house on Tuesday nights.  First off, I’m so disgusted with the lack of talent on American Idol that I can’t stand watching it anymore.  But, my partner John still enjoys it so FOX is on Tuesdays.  But the battle lines have now been drawn at 9:00PM. All over a little show you may have heard about: Glee.

Yes, we enjoy musicals and stage productions; but let’s not be too stereotypical, shall we?  In fact, I was a late bloomer to Glee.  John loved it from the beginning and got me to tune in by convincing me it was the next best thing to sliced bread.  For a while, I agreed with him and thoroughly enjoyed watching the show.  I especially enjoyed the music.  Producer Ryan Murphy is a fellow Gen-Xer and you definitely know it from the 80s-inspired songs he has used to form the basis of much of Glee’s musical foundation.

So, like much of America (and probably all of gay America), I was hooked last year on the music, the kids and the story of William McKinley High School [fictional] in Lima, Ohio [not fictional]. 

And it was with the repeated insulting of Lima [again, an actual Ohio city] that I think I first started souring on Glee and its constant uppity dismissals of American values and culture.  Lima is portrayed in Glee as a “typical Ohio town” – meaning no future, boring, with kids wanting to escape to the bright lights of…. New York…. or Los Angeles.  You know, “the smart places” in America.  Come on, give me a break.  I grew up in a small town like Lima, but in Pennsylvania.  And yeah it wasn’t Broadway – but it was a great place to grow up.  The people are sincere, real, love their country, love their community, and look out for each other.  I’d trade Lima, Ohio or Parkesburg, Pennsylvania for Hollywood any day of the week.  So enough of the slamming of “fly over country” from Glee – it is typically liberal and so 2004.

But I kept powering through, even after the not-so-subtle dig at Sarah Palin, which Steven Crowder noted a couple of weeks ago.  You know the cheap Palin jokes are getting tiresome and lazy.  But it reinforced my impression that the Glee writing staff and producers are using the show to advance a liberal view of America – showing their contempt toward traditional, simple values and instead embracing complete dysfunction.

Producer Ryan Murphy even hints at Glee’s cultural mission during his acceptance speech at the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) Awards on April 18 [There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]: 

“The show is about education. We are using the show in a great way. Chris’ character [Kurt] will never be the victim. Never.  Next year Chris is going to have a boyfriend on the show and they are going to be prom kings.”

I don’t mind the agenda – that’s the show’s prerogative, I suppose.  What I do mind is the bait-and-switch.  FOX advertises Glee as a show of wholesome kids breezily singing about life as they skip down the halls of their high school.  Murphy helped create this kid-friendly expectation in an interview with Variety last year. 

“It’s a 9 p.m. show, it’s not designed for 8, “he said. “But it is designed for families to watch together. It’s sweet, but it will appeal to both kids and adults, it’s written for both of them.”

So do these families watching together really know that Glee (according to Murphy) is about educating America on the liberal wish-list for kids?

What sent me over the edge was the episode three weeks ago called “The Power of Madonna.”

—–

Again, led into false excitement about reliving some fun songs by Madonna updated by the kids of Glee – I was completely shocked at how the show twisted into a celebration of teenage sex, pre-marital sex, and unsafe sex.  All at once, three couples (two of the sets being high school kids) “hooked up” with the sole intent of deflowering three virgins.  Really?!?   And not that I was surprised, but there were no condoms to be seen in any of the bedroom scenes.  I don’t consider myself prudish, but the scene was way over the top.

All I could imagine was my neighbors’ watching it with their tween-age kids and being forced into explaining things that don’t need Glee to introduce into a family evening.  The scenes were beyond racy, very sexually tinged and completely inappropriate for a family audience.  I walked away from the TV and allowed John to win the Glee Civil War forever.  I was over.  Glee had jumped the shark for me.

However, I decided Glee would not defeat me.  The best way to tackle this stain on American television was to counter the blind fan adoration with a reality check.  So I chose to watch again this week and start shining the light on the obvious liberal agenda and contempt for “Middle America.”

This week, I noticed something else about Glee I hadn’t before.  The McKinley high school students are not complex and interesting as characters at all. In fact, there is a surprising amount of stereotyping given that the writers are all supposedly liberal and open-minded.  There is the overweight black girl with a large voice who is picked on by the dumb blonde cheerleaders.  The only “good girl” is a great singer, socially inept, and appears to be the only Jewish girl in Ohio – convenient for the cheap Jewish jokes that have popped up from time to time.

The most ridiculous stereotype is, ironically, Kurt the gay Glee club member.  Despite what Murphy said at the GLAAD awards, Kurt puts his full gay victimhood on display.  Kurt demonstrates his complete lack of self-esteem and stereotypically effeminate ways in the episode called “Home” aired on April 27.  Watching that episode made me cringe and wonder how liberal gays are not livid about this over-the-top caricature of a gay teen.  Here’s a thought – why not make the gay guy a football player?  Kurt makes Richard Simmons look like John Wayne.

Oh yeah, did I mention the gym teacher is a manly woman?  Sue Sylvester, the meanie of the show, is played by Jane Lynch who has become a poster child for the Gay Left’s push for marriage.  Come on, how stupid do the producers of Glee think we are that we can’t see through this crap?

For the sake of humanity and to shine the light on the Glee agenda, I’m going to force myself to continue watching each week.  So for now, there is a temporary household truce on Tuesday nights.

An Arkansas fifth-grader made news recently by claiming there is no “liberty and justice for all” in America as his reason for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during his school’s daily patriotic exercises. 

Red Skelton could’ve taught him a thing or two:

– 

Of course, the Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that as long as such dissent is practiced in a non-disruptive manner a student is acting well within his Constitutional rights — his faulty reasoning for the dissent being irrelevant — and he may not be compelled to participate by either the school, or the state. 

Teachers and administrators are strictly prohibited from singling out such peaceful dissent for discipline, admonishment or public ridicule. 

Any teacher or administrator doing so should swiftly and forthrightly be subjected to reprimand or discipline including assignment to an appropriate Teacher Quality Enhancement Training program in order to mitigate any future injustices on their part. 

The Pledge itself takes all of fifteen seconds to recite — which is likely a main reason most states and public school boards ascribe it for compliance with their respective education codes, policies and regulations — yet the Pledge, as with standardized patriotic exercises, is designated to inculcate patriotic values upon our nation’s children. 

These values — i.e., love of and devotion to country — include American Exceptionalism, which secures even the Liberty and human rights to dissent against that very love and devotion. 

Contrary to popular opinion however, dissent is obviously not de facto the ‘highest form of patriotism.’ 

As Socrates warns the ages in Plato’s Republic:

“[D]emocracy has her own good [Freedom], of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution… the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom… the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction… above all in forms of government… The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.”

Is it an excess of liberty that incites a fifth-grader to irrational dissent against a pro forma patriotic exercise, and in the process tell his substitute teacher to “go jump off a bridge”?

Perhaps, but that is for his parents to decide, the Supreme Court moots further argument.

There is however a parallel issue that might be worthy of consideration:

Can state and local school boards compel teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance in their classrooms?

The Supreme Court held in Newdow v. Elk Grove 2004 that, yes, in fact they can:

Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State… required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students.

Hopefully teachers unions and under-their-thumb school boards won’t exploit this latest attack against the Pledge as a destructive excuse to reject and undermine its original intent, i.e., allegiance to the American Republic in all her glory and the values inculcation thereof.

Hopefully as well, outside political advocacy groups will be barred as sponsors of so-called “Tolerance Through Education” programs that intrude outside Lawyer/Facilitators — without prior parental notification – into classrooms as a means of creating political correctness Pledges of Tolerance that students can be shamed to abide, while concurrently pressured to diminish the traditional Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

Whenever public schools ignore or revise long-standing Patriotic Exercises policy requiring simply the Pledge, or Star Spangled Banner, replacing those with near meaningless vagaries like “Appropriate patriotic exercises also include, but are not limited to, songs, poems, quotations and discussions related to the development of citizenship in a democracy” one begins to wonder whether rulebooks are any longer worth the paper they’re printed on.

What values should the required daily patriotic exercises in public schools inculcate in American students?