The UT Shifts to the Left and Nathan Fletcher Sells Out Conservatives

Steve Baldwin Steve Baldwin 47 Comments


The UT Shifts to the Left

I’m really sick of the bias of the UT.  There are critical stories breaking every week about the fiscal trouble our country is in, not to mention stories about the corruption of the Obama administration – such as the “Fast and Furious” scandal  – but you wouldn’t know much about such stories from reading the UT. If all you read was the UT, you would think everything in the country is fairly hunky-dory.  But, no, both our state and our nation are on the verge of fiscal collapse and all we get from the UT is biased, dumbed-down wire service national stories and politically correct local stories.

When Mr. Light became editor, I had hoped he would bring more balance to the UT.  A year ago I even had lunch with him and he agreed that the UT needed to do something to attract more conservatives.  He mentioned to me the concept for the “Community Editorial Board” in which folks representing the entire political spectrum would be asked to submit editorials.

Well, the Community Editorial Board was announced yesterday and it’s appalling.  There may be two people who could possibly have some conservative views, but most of these people are big government types who either work for a governmental entity or feed off the government bureaucracy.  Many worked for the government-controlled higher education system which is infamous for churning out students who can’t reason, don’t know a thing about the U.S. Constitution and think America is the root of all evil in the world. Others on the board are just plain old left wing kooks. One belongs to a racist separatist group called MECHA that actually believes California belongs to the Aztecs.  Another one was a featured speaker at a Communist Party event.  One dedicates her life to propagating the conspiracy theory that private developers purposely build and develop projects in such a way so as to discriminate against minorities.  One of them is a global warming nut obsessed with “carbon offsets.”  And so forth.

I don’t think any of these people come even close to representing me or any other conservative or libertarian I know.  I think it’s time those of us on the right simply cancel our subscriptions.  I’ve had it.  Let the UT fail.  It does more damage misrepresenting the truth than it’s worth.  Anyway, here’s an email message I sent to Jeff Light:

Mr. Light:

I must say Jeff, conservatives, libertarians, and tea party folks are not impressed with the UT’s new “Community Editorial Board.”   In fact, it appears very unrepresentative of San Diego.  There are probably around 10,000 people signed up as formal members of one tea party group or another in the county making it the largest political movement in the area.  Yet I don’t think there’s anyone on the Community Editorial Board who reflects their views in more than a token way.  Neither do the libertarians feel represented as you can see from the comment below by Dick Rider.

Judging from the bios of these people, you have assembled a group of people who are essentially apologists for growing big government.  Congratulations.  In the midst of a fiscal crises threatening to destroy this country and our state, you’ve decided to promote people who will argue for increasing the size of government in the name of “children,” or the “arts,” or “diversity” and some other buzz word used by statists to grow government.

When we had lunch a year ago I told you that conservatives and libertarians were turning away from the UT in large numbers.  I’ve even been to tea party meetings recently at which it was urged to cancel subscriptions to the UT.  I was hoping that when you mentioned to me your intent to broaden the voices represented in the UT that you would include folks from the center right but what I see now is a continued blackout of issues that we are concerned with.  As the fiscal crises in our nation and in California continues to worsen, the tea party movement will continue to grow but they will also continue to rely on other sources for information as the UT becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Steve Baldwin

Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher Sells Out Social Conservatives

After 35 years in politics I am no longer shocked to see politicians sell out their principles, but every once in a while, one in particular will really get under my skin.  In this case, it’s Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher.  Over the last six months he has spent much of his time meeting with evangelical leaders, pastors, prayer groups and individual prominent Christian businessmen to sell them on his impending campaign for mayor while also giving his testimony about his alleged conservative Christian beliefs.  Then, he goes back to Sacramento and promptly sells them out on a number of issues, but most egregiously, issues involving gay “rights.”

Oh yes, people say, well he’s running to be San Diego Mayor so he has to be somewhat moderate. Well, that might be true, but we’re talking about gay “rights” that always come at the expense of the rights of others.   Indeed, Fletcher has moved left on these issues solely to pander to the gay community in preparation for his mayoral run.  What’s strange about this sell out is the nature of his gamble.  Does Fletcher really believe that the gay community will abandon the gay candidates in the race and support him instead? Get real.  In addition to being a political prostitute, Fletcher must not be too bright.  He sold out his principles based on a gamble that won’t pay off.

Overall, his voting record in Sacramento has been horrendous and even to the left of the district he represents. The California Republican Assembly rated him a measly 63% in 2011, which means Fletcher voted against conservatives on key votes 37% of the time.  He has cast bad votes not only on social issues but fiscal issues as well.

I won’t get into all the bad votes Fletcher has cast, but due to his all out effort to court the conservative Christian community, I will mention a few of his votes in favor of the homosexual agenda.  Let’s be clear on this.  There’s not a shred of research that proves homosexuals are born that way.  We’re dealing with a class of people who engage in a sexual behavior that is not normal by any measure. So when we talk about the “gay agenda,” we’re talking about creating a body of law based upon an unnatural sexual behavior.  It is equivalent to passing laws, for example, that create special rights and privileges for, say, alcoholics.  California is on the verge of fiscal collapse and yet we have legislators like Fletcher spending an inordinate amount of time supporting legislation based upon the sexual behavior of a very small segment of our society. Is this why we sent Fletcher to Sacramento?  I think not.

Every since Fletcher was the featured speaker at the homosexual Log Cabin Club meeting, I suspected a sellout was in the works. Here’s just a few of the gay rights bills supported by Fletcher this year:

Fletcher voted for SB 117, a bill to force any business contracting with a state agency for $100,000 or more to offer domestic partner or same-sex “spouse” benefits.  This means if you’re a Christian opposed to the gay agenda and you own a large corporation seeking to obtain a contract with the state for the purpose of fixing widgets or whatever, you will be forced to pay out benefits to the lovers of any employee who might be gay.  In other words, you would be forced to support a lifestyle you do not agree with.  This is an unconstitutional infringement upon religious freedom and should be shot down by the courts, but Fletcher doesn’t seem to care to give a damn about everyone else’s rights.

Then there was a resolution in opposition to Prop 8 which was essentially an attack on traditional marriage. Nearly every Republican voted against it. But Fletcher refused to vote at all.  Apparently, he cares more about the tiny gay community than he does about the most important institution in American culture, the institution of marriage.

Then Fletcher voted for AB 887, also known as the “Gender Expression” bill, which makes it illegal for a businessman to fire a cross-dressing employee. Yes, that’s right; this is a “transsexual rights” bill. Chalk up another attack on the constitution.  Gay rights is not enough for Fletcher; he wants to create another category of “rights” for cross-dressers. Boy, just think of all the lawsuits the private sector will be subjected to as a result of this bill.  Thank you Nathan.

Finally, Assemblyman Fletcher was the ONLY Republican to vote for SB 48, the most pro homosexual propaganda bill ever passed into law in this state.  It forces our schools to focus on homosexual “heroes” in our history texts.  It is designed to give “confused” children heroes than can identify with. This legislation will play a role in leading many children to this dark and immoral lifestyle. This is really shocking.  Even Republicans in far more liberal districts than Nathan’s district voted “NO” on it. Not only will this cost taxpayers money we don’t have, but the idea of subjecting our children to textbooks full of propaganda written by the homosexual community is simply outrageous.

I’ve had it with Fletcher.  His actions are undermining my constitutional rights and my state.  Why should conservative Christians have to compromise their rights to help Fletcher win a mayor’s race?  Will the city ever be controlled by conservatives?  No, it won’t.  Is it really worth compromising our principles to elect this guy to office?  I don’t think so.  There are plenty of real conservatives running for state and local offices here in San Diego County where conservatives can have real impact.

What’s even scarier is that we don’t know what promises Fletcher has already made to the various homosexual groups if he were to win.  Will he ban the Boy Scouts from using all city facilities?  Will he increase the scope and cost of city employee “Domestic Partnership” benefits?  Will he pass more laws that harass businesses who refuse to hire some cross-dressers?  What did he promise them?  I’m not willing to find out so I’ll be campaigning against him.


Comments 47

  1. Two things:

    a) I know quite a few people who graduated your so-called “government-controlled higher education system which is infamous for churning out students who can’t reason, don’t know a thing about the U.S. Constitution and think America is the root of all evil in the world” who might quite rabidly disagree with your assessment of their alma mater. Myself included.

    b) The second half of this was vile. And I’m not just saying this as a Fletcher supporter (which I am), as I imagine Mr. DeMaio and Ms. Dumanis would agree with me as well. I’m not going to pick it apart piece by piece because it’s offensive, undignified, and unworthy of my time.

    So I guess in the immortal words of Peter Griffin, “Well sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

  2. Quite right, Vidosic.

    Nobody here is arguing that Steve Baldwin needs to wear a rainbow-colored tutu and march in the Gay Pride Parade. But it’s one thing to preserve your values and quite another to unleash the culture war beast like Baldwin did.

    His nasty and unprovoked attacks on gays are a Godsend for the leftists who wish to divide the social conservatives from the economic conservatives and the Libertarians.

  3. I’m a lifelong republican, republican donor, precinct walker, former central committee member, tea party activist and voter.

    Your rants about the “gay agenda” are funny. I’m pretty sure you believe it which is scary, but it makes it even funnier.

    I can only imagine how angry you must be that a whole new generation of Republican’s are embracing the idea of gay rights.

    Even funnier is the fact that illegal latino aliens (who you hate as much as gays) are the only demographic that remains steadfast in support of your position. Do you think the Minute Men will help gather signitures on the border for your next ballot proposition? Si Se Puede!

  4. Steve Baldwin,
    Straight up! It is very encouraging to see a Christian leader stand up and say, ” I’ve had it with Fletcher.” The same can be said of other politicians who are equally double minded. There is absolutely no reason to cast a vote giving a person responsibility, authority and power when that persons’ only conviction is a lust for power. He has demonstrated the taking of the Christian vote for granted, after all, “They don’t have any place else to go.” Want to bet?

  5. Steve Baldwin is a traitor to the conservative cause…I’m embarrassed to have voted for him for Assembly years ago. I’m a devout Christian and I’m walking precincts for Nathan Fletcher…a true military hero with a Christian heart!

  6. Dude, be thankful you’re not a real Baldwin! You are acting like a (edited) and your rant regarding the US Constitution (a grand document) makes me think you have NO CLUE what it says, defines, and stands for (well, maybe a little because, you’re allowed in this country to voice your opinion without ending up in the Gulag!)

    Get over it, the rights of all should be looked at as a compromise to live in this country. Your belief system is your belief system — stop chumming down other’s throats. This is a free country last I checked?

    I’m a gay, republican, conservative, who believes all “Americans” should be honored with the same rights, as the Constitution so states, whether you’re straight or gay (conservative thought: within reason, marrying animals and psychotic sociopathic situations as this would not be part of the equation :-P) we should have equality. You go off and do your thing and we’ll be ourselves over here. BTW, Mr. Baldwin, your knowledge regarding “us” gays is so askewed it makes me puke.

    May God have mercy on your soul!

    A Concerned Republican.

  7. As for there not being a shred of evidence that gay people are born that way, there are numerous scientific studies that provide evidence that they are. But even if you don’t accept those, you still have to wonder why there have been reports of gay people throughout history and why so many species (over 400 according to National Geographic) in the animal kingdom practice homosexual love. The bottom line is that I think it is clear to any thinking person that for whatever reason, the good lord has created gay people as a part of the overall mosaic that makes up humanity.

  8. Allah Balwin:

    You’re doing the right thing in your communities eyes, however, it’s your hierocracy which, is NOT part of this country’s Constitution nor the Bill of Rights that’s invading your faith. This country is non-secular and we do not have a dictatorship or high priests that dictate who, what, when, and how we deal with our daily lives. This is not Saudi Arabia or China or Tibet!!! We are a free country allowed to believe in what we wish to believe in; according to the Constitution.

    The Bible tells us to love all. It has no bulleted list that describes whom to “HATE” or not. Hatred towards any of God’s creatures if forbidden and humans are creatures of Earth. In fact, your hypocrisy and lack of understanding the word of God yet, only in its twisted form has people in the community frightened due to the massive amount of “Hate” crime that propagates through your type of thinking.

    You’re the type if in a severe accident (and knew one or more where of the gay persuasion) wouldn’t allow the attending physicians or their crew to save your life because you don’t believe in their lifestyle yet, your life is in their hands; what a douche bag!

    Don’t even get in a debate with me on Fiscal Responsibility and Debt Ceilings. Both sides have sold us down the river to countries who don’t allow our GDP to be sold in their borders. We’ve allowed major American Corporations to farm out work oversees which, has hurt our working class tremendously. I suppose you’re just looking for the rich to keep getting richer without paying the pauper or taxes.

    As far as afterschool programs and the likes, stupidity comes from your voice. We want our next generations to be viable in all markets from Engineering to Music or the Arts. Without the Arts Programs we have begun the degradation of the core American society as a whole. Crime is assured to rise even more than it has letting such programs fall by the wayside. GET OVER IT!!!

    Whether you’re too blind to see, which I think you are, having more taxpayers (legit ones) pays down the debt and allows the Government to disseminate more dollars for programs to ENHANCE not forward Generational demise such as welfare (which system is in total disarray due to abuse).

    Killing Social Security for the elderly to me is Elderly Abuse and as far as Disability to those who actually need it is Abuse of the Disabled. Both crimes that is punishable by law!

    You don’t understand the story of Sodom and Gomorrah do you? Much less the writings of Jesus or his Disciples totally AMAZING! LOL! Your faith is only accrued through twisted definitions and someone else’s misguided, non-factual accounts, and misinterpretations of the TRUTH and guidance the BIBLE gives us.

    Again, may God have mercy on your soul!

    A Concerned American Republican.

  9. Thanks Ted!!

    And, where’s my other post. I guess your editor doesn’t feel that it was socially appropriate to post when it totally is! It’s voicing my opinion on a board that is supposedly open to other’s opinions. Perhaps, I should let all my political comrades know about how ugly and non-partisan this site is…

    God Bless America and all the colors of the rainbow that live here!

  10. Awave:

    We have systems in place to guard against auto-spam, otherwise literally hundreds of spam comments would be posted to the site every day. It is not a perfect system, but it works. Sometimes it lets comments post with ease, sometimes it places them into moderation, especially if they are long. We review every one of the comments in moderation to ensure it isn’t spam, then approve the ones that aren’t. We are terribly sorry we can’t monitor those comments 24/7.

    Are you willing to apologize in return for assuming we wouldn’t post your comment?

  11. I humbly apologize. I did consult an avid reader and they relayed that information. I just figured I would wait and see.

    I acquiesce and understand the cyber world. Good for you guys for keeping the internet cleaner. Kudos!!!

    Thanks again for an open forum.


  12. If reining in social security is elder abuse (reducing the cost to future generations), then isn’t burdening our offspring with an unsustainable Ponzi scheme for the richest age group in America clearly child abuse? Indeed, isn’t it abuse of the unborn, who have no say in the matter?.

    Greedy seniors who think they should not in any way share the burden of controlling runaway social security costs are an embarrassment to our country and its founding principles.

  13. Bradley J. Fikes says:
    July 25, 2011 at 10:40 pm
    “His nasty and unprovoked attacks on gays are a Godsend for the leftists who wish to divide the social conservatives from the economic conservatives and the Libertarians.”

    You said it! Fiscal conservatives telling social conservatives to sit down and shut up. Social conservatives having two choices: Violate your principles by enabling gay rights and saying “Please sir can I have some more” as you are thrown under the bus by your own political party, or act as a huge mass of dead weight and drag the entire conservative movement below the impending wave of support for Gay Americans that surges in with even greater force with every young voter that steps in and every older voter that steps out. Anti-gay special interests will be seen as the equivalent of the racists of our generation, inevitably facing the same ostracism that Ex-Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell, “I’m not a racist, I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” faced when he refused to officiate interracial civil marriages. It truly is beautiful.

    “Will the city ever be controlled by conservatives? No, it won’t.”


  14. Paul, I don’t know what your rambling message means. But in the Libertarian understanding of rights, there is no difference between gay rights and conservative Christian rights — there are just human rights.

    Libertarians distinguish between faux “rights” that employ coercion, such as the “right to free health care”, versus rights that are inherent in human nature, such as the right to free speech and free association.

    To get “free” health care as a right, someone else must be taxed and forced into service. To speak freely doesn’t put an obligation on anyone else. Libertarians put marriage is in the same category as free speech and free association. It doesn’t require someone to do anything they don’t want to do.

    Under a Libertarian system of rights, conservative Christians would not be able to prevent gay marriage, but they would be free to refuse to rent to or hire gays. The right to free association includes the right to *not* associate with others. That’s certainly better for Christian conservatives (and many others) than the leftist czardom we’re plunging into. Anyone care for a second term of Obama?

    In my experience many Christian conservatives are willing to build coalitions. It would be unfair to judge them by Steve Baldwin’s slurs.

  15. (This comment has been removed for violating the rules of Rostra, as well as the general rules of decency and common sense. The commenter is being added to a very short list of banned IP addresses.)

  16. I appreciate Steve Baldwin’s candor about Nathan Fletcher. Fletcher’s good reputation for his work on Chelsea’s Law is rapidly deteriorating in the face of his astonishing pro-homosexual perversion voting record.

    How sadly ironic that Fletcher simultaneously champions one bill to protect children from sexual predators while supporting another bill that aims to corrupt children’s innocence.

    One has to wonder what rock Bradley Fikes just crawled out from under when he accuses Steve Baldwin of unleashing the culture war beast. Perhaps Bradley hasn’t yet noticed how gay activists, and their sympathizers and enablers like Nathan Fletcher, have unleashed havoc on society.

    Steve Baldwin isn’t helping to create a body of law based on aberrant, volitional sexual behavior–but Nathan Fletcher is.

    Steve Baldwin doesn’t advocate tyrannically forcing certain state-contracted businesses to offer domestic partner or same-sex “spouse” benefits or to associate with cross-dressing employees–but Nathan Fletcher voted for such measures.

    Steve Baldwin defends marriage (the only kind there is: one man and one woman)–but Nathan Fletcher apparently didn’t have the courage to oppose a resolution attacking Prop 8.

    And finally, Steve Baldwin doesn’t support SB 48–but Nathan Fletcher was the only Republican to vote for this child corruption bill.

    Fletcher’s votes for so many bills that further the destruction of society and the common good call into question his judgment and fitness to be mayor. Thank you, Steve, for enlightening all of us about Nathan’s record.

  17. Bradley,

    Under a Libertarian system of rights, would conservative Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) be free to refuse to rent to or hire Jews or African Amercians?

  18. Ancilla Domini,

    I should have been more clear – I meant to refer to Baldwin’s posting at SD Rostra, not the culture wars in general. You don’t see a lot of attacks on Christians and conservatives here.

    FWIW, I think bills like SB 48 are nutty, the product of political correctness taken to the extreme. This is a political mandate on what to teach, and that interferes with education. Facts cannot be legislated. The same objection applies to attempts to mandate the teaching of intelligent design creationism in public science classes.

    So concludes my brief discussion of seamless garment Libertarianism.

  19. Bradley,

    I am not sure that article was directly on point, but I am sure that I don’t want to see anyone on this blog go on the record saying it is o.k. not to serve Jews or Blacks in their restaurant so I will leave it at this: I have the utmost respect for anyone who sticks to their principles, but I am very glad that I am not a Libertarian. And before you say it, I am sure Libertarians are happy about that too.

  20. Alger,
    Libertarians are *not* saying it’s o.k.”not to serve Jews or Blacks in their restaurant.” We are saying that the law is not the proper place to seek redress. There are other tools, such as boycotts and public pressure, which ended the back-of-the-bus treatment of blacks in Montgomery.

    Non-Libertarians often think if some behavior is wrong, it should be prohibited by law. Libertarians think that that the law should protect individual rights, but those rights don’t extent to forcing someone in the private sector to provide service to anyone else.That’s the pernicious philosophy of group rights, which pits one group against another in a zero-sum game. A purely individual rights system doesn’t create that tension, because everyone is an individual, and hence has an interest in protecting all rights.

  21. Bradley,

    I am having trouble understanding where you draw the line as to when the government should intervene. If a private individual decides to steal from another, should the government intervene? What if a private individual decides to assault another? Murder another?

    Before you say the above examples are ridiculous, remember this fact: The man who discovered the procedure for blood typing (A,B, AB, O) died after he was in a car accident. He was brought to a privately run hospital, but it was for Whites only and they wouldn’t treat him because he was Black. By the time he was brought to a hospital for “Coloreds,” he had bled out. Just an example of a private business choosing not to serve someone because of race. By your thinking, this was not something the government should have involved itself in. I disagree.

  22. Bradley,

    Thanks for the links to a couple of interesting articles. I am convinced that we would be in a much better better place if we tried to embrace the best of what those with opposing viewpoints were offering rather than discounting everything they have to say because we fear the worst.

  23. Alger’s failure to provide (A) a Name, (B) a Place, (C) a Date or (D) ANY details on the, “deny man admittance to hospital” Story calls out for one of the following remedies:

    * Substantiation with facts, sources and details, or

    * Failing with, Withdrawing it as, “an anecdote too far.”

  24. Alger,
    Your scenario is an urban legend.

    “Charles Drew died on April 1, 1950 when the automobile he was driving went out of control and turned over. Drew suffered extensive massive injuries but contrary to popular legend was not denied a blood transfusion by an all-White hospital – he indeed received a transfusion but was beyond the help of the experienced physicians attending to him.”

    In addition, racial segregation was imposed by law. As I’ve already said, Libertarians oppose government-imposed discrimination as a violation of individual rights.

  25. OK, I did some fact-checking on the story Alger repeated here. It is a Discredited URBAN LEGEND with no basis in fact:

    “A persistent urban legend (even recounted in an episode of the TV show M*A*S*H and Philip Roth’s The Human Stain) holds that Drew was denied care and “ironically, a blood transfusion” at a nearby hospital because of his race and bled to death.

    In fact, Drew was well treated by the hospital. Claims that he was not treated because of his skin color are unfounded [7] As Dr. John Ford, one of the doctors traveling with Drew, later explained, “We all received the very best of care. The doctors started treating us immediately.[…] He had a superior “vena caval syndrome” blood was blocked getting back to his heart from his brain and upper extremities.

    To give him a transfusion would have killed him sooner. Even the most heroic efforts couldn’t have saved him. I can truthfully say that no efforts were spared in the treatment of Drew, and, contrary to popular myth, the fact that he was a Negro did not in any way limit the care that was given to him.”[8]

    …… See if you can do better than “M*A*S*H*” episoides for your historical examples, Mr. Give-Everyone-Else-a-Lecture!

  26. After our Warren Harding tutorial a few months ago, the lack of ANY specifics in the original story strongly hinted
    at another Urban Legend.

    Thanks for initiating that ‘teachable moment” in the recognition of dubious sagas, myths and tall tales.

    And RIP to Dr. Charles R. Drew, a REAL American hero whose work on blood plasma saved thousands of US lives in World War II. A medical school in California is named in his honor, as is a bridge in his hometown of Washington, D.C., and numerous public schools around the nation. The Postal Service issued a commemorative stamp honoring him in 1981. Thank you, Dr. Drew !

  27. Well if you can’t trust M*A*S*H*, then who can you trust? Seriously, thank you for the correction. Unlike many others on this, and other blogs, I will always be quick to admit my mistake.

    Jim, as for my not providing “(A) a Name, (B) a Place, (C) a Date or (D) ANY details on the, “deny man admittance to hospital” ,” I did write that he was the man who discovered blood typing. I simply couldn’t remember his name and didn’t have time to look it up.

    As for the efficacy of the rule of law being used to assure equal access to people of all races and religions… I guess we can agree to disagree.

  28. Goodness; I seem to have created a firestorm. A few comments on the comments of others:

    A few people are disputing my statement that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Well, that’s not just my conclusion; its the conclusion of the scientific community. The American Psychological Association — which has a distinct pro-gay bias — issued this statement:

    There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

    No one has been able to prove homosexuality is due to a gene. That is why there are literally thouands of ex homosexuals. That is why even the three leading sex researchers of the last 50 years — Kinsey and Masters/Johnson — refused to define homosexuality as a permanent state. Yes, I know, the entire gay “identity” is based on the “I was born this way” myth, but it’s just that, a myth. Get used to it.

    Others dispute the notion there is a “gay agenda.” Don’t be silly; over the last few decades there have been hundreds of lawsuits directed at churches, private schools, private groups like the Boy Scouts, etc, etc, all in the name of advancing the gay agenda. This onslaught as been carried out by a group of high-powered, well funded homosexual groups. They will even claim they have an agenda, so why are we debating this?

    And one doesn’t have to be a Christian to be opposed their agenda. Much of the gay agenda targets freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and so forth. One just has to be a defender of the U.S. Constitution.

    As for Fletcher, I unleashed on him because I can’t stand politicians who try to be all things to all people. I have far more respect for a liberal who declares what he stands for than for someone who tries to have it both ways. Fletcher was meeting with prominent conservative Christian leaders all over the county and leaving them with the impression that he shared their views on the social issues when in reality he was voting the opposite way.

    It was the deception which angered me more than anything. I would think everyone would dislike such behavior. We badly need honest, transparent politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say. The reason why America is in such trouble today is that we’ve become accustomed to the notion that all politicians are two-faced — and we’ve accepted that as normal. Those times are over.

  29. Steve,
    Scientifically speaking, you botched the facts.
    Your post stated:
    “There’s not a shred of research that proves homosexuals are born that way.”

    For support, you cited an American Psychological Association statement that says there is “no consensus.” But “no consensus” is not the same as “not a shred of research.” It simply means that scientists haven’t agreed on the exact mix of factors.

    Secondly, that much-repeated statement is years old — at least dating back to 2007 from my Googling. You didn’t provide a link or date, so it could be much older. There has been a lot of research on sexual orientation since then.

    In July of this year, a study in PLoS One found a genetic link for sexual orientation in women. Here’s the press release. And here’s the actual study.

    Other studies, including one in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, have found that the number of biological older brothers is the strongest predictor of whether a man will be gay.
    Because the effect appears only with biological older brothers, this appears to be prenatally set, according to the researchers:

    “If a prenatal factor underlies the fraternal birth-order effect, however, then biological older brothers with whom the participants were not reared should predict sexual orientation because all biological older brothers, even those not reared with the participants, share prenatal characteristics (e.g., gestated by the same mother) with their young male siblings.”

    There are no doubt a multitude of factors that influence sexual orientation, biological and non-biological. But to claim there is no evidence of a biological cause has been falsified.

  30. Awave, whose comment from July 27 above was deleted for the reasons indicated, tried to post an additional comment accusing us of limiting his/her free speech, while allowing Baldwin and Rider to “attack” him/her.

    Let’s make it really clear. Nothing was deleted as a result of being in disagreement with the views of Baldwin, Rider, or anyone else. The comment by Awave that was deleted made reference to something so offensive and inappropriate, that — even if it was meant as an analogy or a joke — speaks to the sheer lack of common sense or good judgement on the part of the commenter.

    It was therefore deleted with prejudice. We would encourage Awave to go someplace else.

    Thank you.

  31. Bradley: That may be the case. We can also think of another four-letter word that comes after Moby in literature.

  32. RATS!!! I KNEW I should have saved that Awave hate-filled tirade against me when I had a chance. Another gem disappears from my life. Ah well.

    I DID want to reference that screed just to prove conclusively that Awave is not a Republican conservative — quite the opposite. But I guess that would just be beating a dead horse.

    We move on.

  33. Fletcher is a perfect POLITICIAN, the caps in POLITICIAN I hope captures my sarcasm, but Fletcher is in it for Fletcher.

  34. Unfortunately Baldwin’s position is, bluntly, one of the reasons that we are going to see a 2/3 majority in both houses of the state legislature for the dems.

    There is absolutely no chance – zip, zilch, nadda, of getting California on a more conservative course is we argue this idiotic position that we are all for limited government – EXCEPT IN CASES OF PERSONAL CHOICE WHEN SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES WANT MOST INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT POSSIBLE.

    Even if you accept (which I will only do for the sake of argument) Baldwin’s idea that Homosexuality is a “choice” – who cares? As long as two consenting adults don’t harm me it is of no consequence. What IS of TREMENDOUS consequence is that we have a state which could impose its will upon those adults. Because if gays today why not Catholics tomorrow? Or Jews? Or Protestants from more evangelical sects? Or divorcees? or kids born outside of a marraige? Oh woops. 60 years ago we had just that sort of discrimination sanctioned by the state.

    The problem with Social conservatives is that they think they can stop someplace. That they can prohibit abortion but not outlaw birthcontrol. Discriminate against LGBT but not against agnostics. That prayer can be brought back to schools but be non-denominational and not offensive to Jews, Hindu, or Muslims.

    Libertarians understand that state POWER is the issue here and want as little of it as possible because, in the end, somewhere in the vast majority of our lives we belong to SOME minority group and it isn’t a reach to believe that in that sphere the majority could impose its will upon us.

  35. Here is a Contrary matter of fact: the last time Republicans
    won a majority in the State Assembly (1994) Steve Baldwin
    “flipped” a Democratic-held Assembly seat, AD 77, back
    to the Republican column.

    Steve Baldwin thus helped Republicans win a statewide
    victory that year they have not replicated since.

    It does the GOP no good when either (a) fiscal conserv-
    atives tell social conservatives to shut up or (b) vice versa.
    The party is a Coalition, and always has been. Neither
    faction can win without major help from the other.

    That means team-work …. and no threats to take one’s
    football and go home.

    As Barry Goldwater famously said at the 1960 GOP
    convention, “Conservatives, it is time to Grow Up.”

  36. Well….bluntly….

    People that want to tell folks how to live our lives and that people we love should be second class citizens irritate me almost as much, if not more, than pointy headed liberals that want to tax us to death. Discrimination has an ugly and sorid history in this country. So not sure that “coalition” is one I am particularly excited about.

    And it _IS_ discrimination. Social conservatives were not arguing that government should get out of the marriage game. They wanted to keep all of the embedded privileges, from the tax code to probate laws for married couples. They just didn’t want to extend those to people that they find morally objectionable.

  37. Thanks for the direct series of ideas. Three points in reply.

    (1) The great majority of conservative voters don’t discrimi-
    nate against anyone. It’s worth remembering that a higher
    % of Republican members of Congress voted FOR the
    1964 Civil Rights Bill, than did the analagous % among Democrats. Everett Dirksen and Charles Halleck, the
    GOP Senate and House leaders, did great work then.

    (2) The 7 Million Californians who voted for Proposiiton
    8 did so in affirmation of traditional marriage, not out of
    a wish to punish any group.

    (3) Mervyn Field’s “California Poll” from Oct. 31, 2008
    showed rank-and-file Republican voters backing Prop.
    8 by a 75% to 20% margin, and African-Americans by
    a 49-43 ratio.

    Unless we on the Right are willing to build coalitions
    with others, we will no longer be a movement, but
    instead become what William F. Buckley Jr. called,
    “a literary whim.”

  38. But Jim…..

    IF marriage confers government sanctioned benefits (and it does – for one example if you die without a will your assets pass to spouse without costly probate proceedings)


    If the government denies two consenting adults the right to marry

    IT IS discrimination. It couldn’t be clearer. CA Supreme court (and libertarians) were right that the way out of this is to get government out of the marriage game but most social conservatives (and voters) would go bonkers over that. You can’t have it both ways. Either government gets out of conferring special advantages on marriage or it provides gay couples the ability to benefit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.