Rep. Joe Wilson confirms it - South Carolina has lost its mind

No doubt when Rep. Joe Wilson ran for the late Floyd Spence's seat, he wanted to make history.

You got your wish, Rep. Wilson.

You will be remembered for an absolutely ugly outburst during President Obama's speech on healthcare. An outburst so nasty, so rude that I'm actually going to watch Glenn Beck, read Michelle Malkin, and the posts on Free Republic to see just how they will justify it.

You will remembered for an outburst so nasty, so rude that it got teabaggers feeling sorry for the president.

And though you probably feel like a real dummy (because that's what you looked like - a real dummy), take solace in a few facts:

You were man enough to give an apology without making yourself into a martyr, some oddballs will actually think of you as a hero, and your name will be on the lips of probably every black pastor in the state.

Although on second thought, that last point may not be a good thing. They'll probably rehash your negative comments when Strom Thurmond black daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, went public about her father.

But cheer up. You and other officials of this state have given me a good response to make the next time someone asks me why as an lgbt do I remain in South Carolina.

Now I can say:

"Are you kidding? We got an adulterous Governor, a possibly gay Lt. Governor, a former chair of the state education board who wrote pornography and a representative who can't control himself when a black president is speaking.

If I left now, I would probably miss the floor show."

Stopping the anti-ENDA Patricia Mauceri factoid before it starts

Will this be the face of the anti-ENDA fight?

Yes she will be if Peter LaBarbera and the rest of the religious right has their way.

Here is the scoop:

Actress Patricia Mauceri says she was fired and abruptly replaced for objecting to a gay storyline because of her religious beliefs.

Mauceri played the recurring role of Carlotta Vega on "OLTL" for the last 14 years. But when she objected to how the writers wanted her deeply religious character, a Latina mother, to handle a storyline involving homosexuality, she objected. And for that she claims she was fired.

Mauceri, 59, a devout Christian, told FOX News that character Vega's gay-friendly dialogue was not in line with the character she helped create by drawing on her own faith.

"I did not object to being in a gay storyline. I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline," she said. "And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character's belief system is aligned to."

And of course before the entire story has come out, the vultures (i.e. Peter LaBarbera and company) have made Mauceri an example of what could happen if ENDA passes:

Reverse Discrimination? How’s this for a timely story for Labor Day — highlighting the current reality that Christians and traditionalists who oppose homosexuality are more likely to be fired or disciplined for their beliefs than homosexuals are for “being gay.” TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators next week (202-224-2131; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose ENDA — the Employment Nondiscrimination Act — which would federalize “sexual orientation” law and greatly expand government power to promote the “gay” agenda. ENDA would become a tool for the Left to use the state to force Christian and moral-minded business owners to promote and subsidize homosexuality and transsexuality against their will.

That's right. According to LaBarbera, forget the fact that you are a hard worker. If your boss finds out that you are an lgbt, then that should be reason enough to fire you.

But I digress. Naturally, LaBarbera is going to milk this situation for all it's worth, even posting a few nasty anti-Mauceri comments from a pro-lgbt blog.

Interestingly enough, it's a blog (Joe. My. God.) that for some reason constantly grinds LaBarbera's gears. He has mentioned the blog a few times this year.

Well since I'm not a psychiatrist, I will not speculate about that.

I personally think that people have sense enough to know that lgbts are not monolithic and a few ugly comments on a blog are not indicative of the entire community in general.

To think that would be the same as thinking that every "deeply religious person" opposes homosexuality. I guess that's what got Mauceri in trouble.

If LaBarbera really wants to read ugly comments, he should read what the folks on Free Republic said about President Obama's daughter Malia.

Really though, seems to me that the details of the story (i.e. the gay storyline) is immaterial. This situation has nothing to do with ENDA. Here we have a soap opera actress who has been reminded that she does not have the juice of a Susan Lucci or Erika Slezak. She is not a writer and she took it upon herself to refuse to play a character as it has been dictated to her by the writers and was penalized for it.

Was it fair? Maybe not. But that's life.

But to exploit the situation in order to justify discrimination against lgbts is wrong. Period.

Related posts:

How to counter religious right lies about ENDA

We are hurting Maggie Gallagher's feelings and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Night at the City Council - Pam Spaulding rocks! And this piece proves it.

Judge rejects referendum 71 challenge - We lose again in Washington. Cry on your own time. Get ready to fight for your rights NOW.

Congress returns - much at stake for gays - And speaking of which . . .

The Religious Right's Miraculous Recovery - Anatomy of media-driven bull$!@(!

Maggie shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that gays won't let her anti-'live and let live' views live - Ms. Gallagher, you can believe any way that you want, but when you want to use the rule of law to deny people rights, don't expect them to "go gentle into that good night."

CA Anti-Gay Congressman’s Drippy Disclosure - Somebody needs Jesus!

My answer to David Mixner - no I'm not happy but I still don't support the National March

David Mixner, long-time gay activist, best selling author, and a member of the Bill Clinton Presidential transition team, has written a piece talking about why lgbts should support a march:

Are you really happy with the progress we have made over the last eight months with this Administration and Congress? Are you really happy with the progress we have made on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)? Do you think that the leaders of our political parties have embraced marriage equality and our God given rights, benefits and protections that come with it? Are you content, relaxed and happy with where we are at this moment in history in the struggle for freedom?

Think very carefully about the above questions. Then make plans to come to Washington, DC on October 11th to march with thousands of your brothers, sisters and straight allies for freedom.

If you are like me, then most of you will be unhappy about any of the questions above. Almost NOTHING has been done in the last eight months by the president or Congress to take us dramatically closer to freedom.

It's an interesting piece that resembles a Sunday morning sermon. And that is the major problem I have with it. It, like the proposed march, is high on platitudes and hyperbole, but vague on courses of action. I wrote a response which I posted his blog:

I am still leaning against the National March. And to answer David's question - no I am not happy but with how things have been going for lgbts for a while now even BEFORE this administration took over. And that is the point of my disagreement. What took us so long to be angry. And why is our anger not directed against those who have maligned us?

I keep hearing all of these vague things- "a march will show how angry we are," "a march will energize us."

We've been angry for a while and America knows it. Should we be so consumed with again demonstrating our anger for the benefit of the public media. And what will we be energized to do? Are we going to go back and organize in our communities with a spirit of togetherness? Are we going to support our community organizations? Or are we going to assemble in our little cliques like we always do?

And I don't like the hypocrisy of the entire thing. We want to march to show our anger at how the Obama Administration is moving on our issues. Yet we can't dedicate as much energy to combat the lies of the religious right. Obama is not the one we should be angry at. It's those organizations that continue to lie on us. Let's be real. If ENDA was passed, if Don't Ask, Don't Tell was passed, if we got hate crimes legislation, could this community successfully fight against the religious right driven backlash that is sure to follow? Or would we so busy celebrating that when it does come, we run around like chickens with our heads cut off?

Forget the march. There needs to be a total overhaul on what exactly are we fighting for and who we should be angry at.

That is the way I have felt from the get-go and as we get closer to October, nothing said or done has changed my mind. And I'm not a stubborn, rigid person. Don't get me wrong; if the march does anything positive for the community then I will be one of the first to acknowledge it. However, I would like to see something a bit more concrete than just gathering together, holding signs, and "showing anger."