Demagogue

Starbucks has some anti-gay right-wing groups "frothing" over its "support of the homosexual agenda." Not only have they sponsored Pride Events but-- oh the horror!-- there was a quote by writer Armistead Maupin on the back of a paper coffee cup.

My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life is too short."

The most shocking thing to me is that someone read the side of cup. But apparently other anti-gay conservatives are now boycotting Starbucks because they don't understand that Pride events have evolved into family-friendly events with special activities for the gay parents who bring their children. But in the mind of a homophobe the words "gay" and "children" in the same sentence can only mean one thing-- pedophilia.

Meanshile, in Massachusetts, right-wingers are all atwitter because the state may change state birth certificates to say "Parent A" and "Parent B" instead of "mother" and "father." Not surprisngly these folks are unaware of the fact that there are a lot of states that already allow both parents' names on the birth certificate, regardless of the gender combination of the parents or their biological connection to the child. This issue sheds light on how ignorant all of these "pro-adoption" people are about adoption law in the first place. Even Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney doesn't seem to have a clue.

"I'm opposed to taking the Massachusetts birth certificate and removing the term 'Mother' and 'Father' and substituting 'Parent A' and 'Parent B,'" Romney said. "Look, each child has a mother and a father. They should have the right to have that mother and father known to them and that's something I'd like to preserve on a birth certificate."

Birth certificates are legal documents that define the legal parents of a child, not the identify of the biological parents. To demand that all birth certificates record the biological parentage of the child would only serve to undermine the whole body of existing adoption law. But why would that matter to "pro-life, pro-family" people when they can use children as a political weapon?

Sadly we can all look forward to more ignorance-fueled outrage over issues like these, especially in 2006 and 2008.