Death watch for Mark Sanford's career in Columbia

Okay this is not necessarily an lgbt issue per se, but it's interesting to watch nonetheless.

You all have heard the speculation and polls wondering when or if Mark Sanford will resign as South Carolina's governor.

But let me tell you how it is in the fair city of Columbia.

We have a death watch going on for Sanford's governorship. It's like waiting outside a palace for the news of the king's death. To us, it's not a question of whether or not Sanford will resign, but when.

And no one can figure this man out. The majority of the comments I have received has to do with his Tuesday interview with the Associated Press.

Why didn't he keep his mouth shut?

He just made it worse.

Talk about putting your foot in your mouth.

It's like what I said earlier - it's never the original revelation of wrongdoing that brings down a politician, but the other details that seem to come out.

Who would have thought Sanford was a player and dumb one at that?

Another thing about this entire situation is how Jenny Sanford is fastly becoming everyone's hero.

Rumour control is that she is being advised by a friend named Sheniqua. Sheniqua was the one who told her not to not to accompany Sanford at his original press conference:

Girl, he must be crazy. He dogs you for some Argentine ho' and then he wants you to to stand by him in public? If it were me, I would stand by him alright and when his back was turned, I'd break my foot off in his ass. That nasty @!$%

I hear that after Tuesday's interview with the Associated Press, Sheniqua was trying to convince Jenny to set Mark's clothes on fire.

Okay I made that last part up. But the fact of the matter is this: Sanford's tenure as governor is over. But because of his plain stubborness that has gotten him into trouble so many times, Sanford seems to be the only one who is not aware of this fact.

Many of us in Columbia are wondering when will he catch a clue and just give up the ghost.

But according to a friend of mine, it could be worse:

"Mark had better hope Jenny hasn't watched one of those Tyler Perry Madea movies."

The rights of a child and news briefs

Let me apologize first of all for those expecting to read Wednesday midday news briefs. Please indulge me for a little while or pan down to see them.

This morning's post has gotten me angry. It's just unbelievable to me that anyone would exploit the Frank Lombard situation to demonize lgbt parenting.

But it's not surprising. It's par for the course as to how religious right groups try to undermine every type of parenting except for the one they approve of.

It especially galls me how they try to reduce the complexity of parenting to a single irrelevant talking point of "every child has a right to a mother and a father."

Well here is what I feel a child has a right to:

A child has a right to have a home full of love and support.

A child has a right to clean clothing, good hygiene, and a full satisfied stomach every day.

A child has a right to be able to laugh for no reason at all.

A child has a right to good advice and good discipline.

A child has a right not be feel loved or unwanted.

A child has a right not to be kicked, slapped, verbally, or sexually assaulted by anyone; especially a so-called loved one.

A child has a right to have his or her tears wiped away with a soft hand and a kind word.

A child has a right to as many good Christmases and birthdays as possible.

A child has a right to be applauded to the point of embarrassment for his or her participation in a sport event, a school event, or just for the hell of it.

A child has a right to be indulged every now and then by adult participation in water balloon fights, pillow fights, and imaginary tea parties.

A child has a right not to tolerate any type of bullying.

A child has a right to have someone there to tell him or her not to be afraid of thunder or the dark.

Lastly a child has a right to be nurtured into a responsible adult.

I have absolutely nothing against "two-parent mother and father" households. But until someone can tell that those households have the patent on these things that a child needs, I refuse to give them precedent over any other household, especially same-sex households.

On to news briefs:

Burger King ad shoves seven-incher in her face so she can have it their way - You have to see this. It defies all description.

Video: Just wait until he really does something for us. That's when the real anti-gay 'fun' begins - Apparently President Obama is "selling homosexuality." I wonder does he accept lay-a-way. A friend of mine told me to ask if he accepts food stamps.

Chicago Tribune Goes "Beyond Boystown" and Looks at Black LGBTs on the South Side - An excellent article.

Judge Declines to Stay Law on Gay Marriage - It's always a good day when Harry Jackson gets smacked down.

Kern Longs For The Good Old Days When Homosexuality Was Illegal - This just in - Sally Kern is nuts.

And now, two doses of fiber brought to you by One News Now:

'Hate crimes' bill would federalize criminal law, revive double jeopardy - They just love to think of new lies about hate crimes legislation.

'No truth' in Obama's speech before homosexuals - They are still angry at President Obama's speech.

Michelle Malkin, Mike Adams, and One News Now exploit a molested child

Yesterday, I featured an awful story in my news briefs about a gay adopted father who has been accused of molesting his adopted five-year-old African-American son and offering him up for sex with strangers on the Internet.

Discredited researcher Paul Cameron was exploiting the situation to push one of his junk science studies about gays molesting children.

Other than Cameron and Mike Adams, a columnist with the conservative Town Hall, the "gay angle" of this awful situation has not been getting much play.

But that has changed. This is a One News Now article:

A professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington says the outrage over a homosexual statutory rape case at Duke University is a deafening sound of silence.

Frank Lombard, associate director of Duke University's Center for Health Policy, has been accused of molesting his adopted five-year-old African-American son and offering him up for sex with strangers on the Internet. Lombard's homosexual partner, who resides in the same house with Lombard, was allegedly unaware of the activities.

The professor is columnist Mike Adams by the way. The angle of the article seems to be that the media isn't covering this case with the same fervor as they covered the infamous "Duke Lacrosse team rape case" a few years ago.

The Duke Lacrosse team rape case was when several white students were on the college's lacrosse team was unfairly accused of raping a black stripper.

And now conservative columnist Michelle Malkin has taken up the charge.

Let's be honest about this mess. Neither Michelle Malkin nor Mike Adams and especially not One News Now care that a child may have been hideously victimized. None of these folks care one iota about the little boy in the center of this mess.

They only care that a gay man has been charged with the crime. And now they are trying to spin an angle into this situation as a way of both demonizing the lgbt community and dividing black heterosexuals and gays at the same time.

For the record, various newspapers and media services have been covering this situation. Of course it's easier to describe the media as a politically correct singular boogeyman when you are trying to drive a wedge between blacks and gays.

This is what Adams said about the situation:

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I wrote this column because I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin.

I suppose it would be beating a dead horse to say that not one word in Adams's piece voiced any concern for the child. He seems to be so busy with attempting to destroy "certain coalitions," coalitions that he is too chickenshit to go into detail about.

But we all know what coalitions he is alluding to.

No one in their right minds (and I know I am stretching by saying that considering some of the readers of Town Hall and One News Now) will buy the claims put forth comparing the Duke Lacrosse case to this mess.

And very few (except the extremely homophobic) will use this case to claim that gays shouldn't adopt.

But here is the thing that bothers me.

A child has possibly been victimized. His innocence has been taken from him.

But to some people, pointing out the sexual orientation of the person accused of the crime is more important than the child's welfare.

That's the real sad story here.