Save us from these nasty perverted and demonic straight Christians!
Michael Keith Stevens, who is married with no children, was appointed superintendent in 2022 after years as an elementary school teacher in several other districts.
A Texas school superintendent sent lewd photos to an undercover officer posing online as a 15-year-old girl he planned to meet with, authorities said. Michael Keith Stevens, 47, superintendent of the Itasca Independent School District, was arrested Thursday and accused of online solicitation of a minor, according to court records.
“He sent pictures of his private parts and asked for nude videos and images in return,” Constable Alan Rosen said. “He told the undercover investigator he was at work and some of his disturbing photos appear to be taken in his office. And during the conversation, he was planning a trip to Houston to engage in sex acts.
Detectives said Stevens believed the undercover agent he was talking to was a 15-year-old girl and referred to her age multiple times. The defendant asked “Am I too old for you? So, you’re okay with my age? I’m probably too old for you. I’m 47 years old.”
They need to pass a new law in Texas which prevents teachers from saying anything about heterosexuality since that’s grooming and sexualizing children and that’s obviously what caused this crime to occur.
Current member of the city of Cincinnati’s City Council P.G. Sittenfeld, today on Twitter publicly came out in favor of same sex marriage and LGBT anti-discrimination laws. Both issues are currently making rapid strides of becoming legal in the state of Ohio.
In a twitter exchange with Back2Stonewall.com, when asked where he stood on LGBT Equality, same sex marriage and non-discrimination on jobs and housing? Sittenfield replied that he “strongly supported it all” and that it was “an honor to get to do the right thing”.
Sittenfeld who was born and raised in Cincinnati attended attended Princeton University, and graduated from Oxford University
At age 27, Sittenfeld is also the youngest person ever elected to Cincinnati City Council and is up for re-election this year.
Gaga gaga-ed, Miley twerked, Robin Thicke humped the air, Kevin Hart bombed, and NSYNC reunited sans walkers last night at the MYV Music Video Awards. But one of the best moments of of the night was when gay friendly rapper Macklemore & Ryan Lewis top winners last night, accepted their awards for best hip-hop video and best cinematography for “Can’t Hold Us,” and best video with a social message for “Same Love.” which they performed with Mary Lambert and Jennifer Hudson in a show-stopping moment.
Macklemore gave an impassioned speech about equality when he accepted the award for “Same Love”:
“I’ll be honest, I really wanted to win the Best Rap Video, but this Moonman right here stands for a lot more. I’ve been writing songs, since I was like 15 years old and out of every single song I have ever written, this is the most important record out of all of them. To watch this song, in the last year, spread across the world is a testament to what is happening right now in America on the forefront of equality. Gay rights are human rights, there is no separation.”
Steve Austin better known by his ring name “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, producer, and retired professional wrestler signed to WWE has joined the growing list of professional athletes supporting LGBT rights. Austin on his radio show spoke out in favor of gay marriage in no nonsense. straight to the point way that “Stone Cold” is famous for. (Language NWSF)
You realize that all those obnoxious 16-year-olds you see everywhere, texting their friends who are standing next to them, will be able to vote in the 2016 elections. Do you think you will be able to sell them on your anti-gay/anti-woman/anti-brown/black platform? Do you think they want to end up like you? I bet they don’t. Gov. Bobby Jindal said that you all have to stop being the stupid party. I don’t think you can do it. How did equality become political? Because you can’t handle science, change or the truth. America is on the move, you are not.
Roe v. Wade is still under attack. Check out what Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has been up to. The Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Voting Rights Act could make the 2014 and 2016 elections pretty tricky. The demise of DOMA, while great, is also a smack to the hornet’s nest and there will be a whirlwind to reap, so please, prepare for many challenges up the road. The pushback will be considerable. America is changing and, historically, we don’t handle it well.
The Supreme Court’s DOMA decision was good, but the best part of the story is how it got to their door.
That was you and me never shutting up, never relenting and never being satisfied for too long. – –Henry Rollins, writing for LA Weekly.
Rollins is that rarest combination of men Smoking hot + smart + heart of gold.
If he and Chris Kluwe ran America I’d be so happy.
Straight talking, straight ally Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe penned one of his great op-eds for CNN in which he talks about when there will be an openly gay NFL player and about how some players might think it be “distraction” to a team. And as usual the awesome Kluwe, does not mince words and lays it all out on the line.
“Instead of looking at an openly gay player as a distraction, ask yourselves — how much better would that player play if he didn’t have to worry about hiding a core part of who he is? How many more sacks would he have, free of that pressure? How many more receptions? How many more rushing yards?
Fans, media — will an openly gay player be a distraction? Only if you make it one. Only if you insist on denying someone the freedom to live his own life on his own terms, instead of under someone else’s control. Stop worrying about who a player dates; worry about his completion percentage, or tackles for loss, or return average. I can promise you, on Sundays the only thing he’s worried about is lining up and doing his job to the best of his ability, or else he’s going to be cut (just like any of us).
Players — Those of you worried about a gay teammate checking out your ass in the shower, or hitting on you in the steam room, or bringing too much attention to the team — I have four simple words for you. Grow the f*** up.
This is our job, we are adults, so would you kindly act like one?”
Do yourself a favor and read the whole op-ed. The man is awesome.
Coming right on the heels of her families hateful anti-gay “Celebration of Marriage” rally in Salt Lake City, UT this past week Marie Osmond talked with Diane Sawyer and let her know that she believes in marriage equality.
“The God that I believe in is a god of love, not fear. I don’t tell my children if you’re not good you’re going to Hell. I tell my children that God will be there for them when they struggle. That’s the God I believe in…I believe in [my lesbian daughter’s] civil rights, as a mother. I think my daughter deserves everything that she desires in life. She’s a good girl. She’s a wonderful child. I don’t think God made one color flower. I think he made many…”
It is nice to see Marie Osmond finally standing against her anti-gay family and the Mormon church and speaking out for the civil rights of gays and lesbians and supporting her lesbian daughter.
Yesterday we posted about bigoted Baltimore Raven Matt Birk and the anti-same sex marriage editorial that he penned for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Later that day Birk had the nerve to increase the gay hate by maing a video for the Minnesota Catholic Conference against same-sex marriage.
Problem the first – Your argument lacks facts, sources, or statistics. You can’t just say “Same -sex marriage is bad for kids because I think it’s bad for kids, and I think it’s bad for kids because it’s bad for kids”. That’s called circular reasoning and it’s a logical fallacy. If you want us to understand why same-sex marriage is bad for kids, you need to provide some sort of substantial evidence. Tell us that children from same-sex couples are more likely to grow up broke and miserable and alone and will end their days starving in a gutter. Just don’t use a study like this one, which displays clear source and confirmation bias (as outlined neatly in this article from Slate). Use something like this (sadly behind a paywall, but the abstract should give you the high notes). I’ll sum it up for those who don’t want to click on links: there’s no difference between children raised in heterosexual relationships and same-sex relationships, as evidenced by a meta-study of nineteen different LBGT studies.
Problem the second – Your argument that “government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids” is flawed on two counts. The first flaw is one of simple mathematics – if “marriage” is so necessary to the proper raising of children, why are we not passing an amendment to outlaw divorce? Current statistics from the CDC put the national divorce rate at approximately 50% (of roughly 2.1 million marriages a year, 1 million will end in divorce). They also put the number of same-sex couple households at 685,000, and those with children at 160,000. Let’s say, purely for the sake of example, that every single one of those same-sex households got married. You’re telling me you’re more concerned with the impact of those 160,000 households, as opposed to the 1 million heterosexual couples getting divorces? If this is truly about the children, shouldn’t divorce be first up on the constitutional amendment list, in order to save more children?
The second flaw is that you’re actually arguing in favor of same-sex marriage. If children having a stable home is the main crux of your concern, then denying gay couples the benefits of 1100 federal laws can only harm the children they will raise. Not allowing those children the same health benefits, family care benefits, survivor benefits; that can only be a detriment to the upbringing and care of a child, correct? Or do you propose that same-sex couples should be unfit for adoption, should be unfit to raise children?
Problem the third – You’re conflating “‘if it feels good, go ahead and do it’” with couples that want the stability and benefits of marriage and just so happen to be gay. There’s plenty more heterosexual couples that marry because “it feels good, go ahead and do it” with no intention of ever having children than there are same-sex couples (again, simple mathematics). Should we deny marriage to anyone who doesn’t plan to have kids? What about the infertile couples? The old people? You yourself say “Marriage is in trouble right now — admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions.” So why the discrimination? Why should we be passing a constitutional amendment denying legal rights to American citizens who pay taxes and serve in our armed forces? If “marriage” is so important, why aren’t we going after all those “many other reasons” first?
Problem the fourth – Marriage has already been redefined multiple times over the years. Marriage used to be one man and multiple women. Marriage used to be a way to exchange property between two families. Marriage used to be between brother and sister to keep the royal bloodline pure. Marriage used to be between children. Marriage used to be only for people that were the same skin color. Marriage used to be a lot of things, many of them oppressive towards women and minorities. I think I’d rather marriage be between two people that love each other and are committed to each other no matter what combination of fleshy bits are hanging off their bodies; not a reality TV show.
Problem the fifth – You’re trying to raise a religious argument in a secular matter. The First Amendment isn’t just about the freedom FOR religion, it’s also about the freedom FROM religion. The word “marriage” appears in thousands of legal documents and laws in this nation, and to attempt to narrowly define it through a religious application means you’re trying to assert a religious viewpoint on those who may not necessarily hold the same views. Our founding fathers knew quite clearly the dangers that state sponsored religious persecution could inflict (they lived through it!), and the First Amendment is worded in favor of state neutrality for a reason. I will support your right to worship at whatever altar you choose, but I will not support you trying to force it on someone else, or to deny someone else legal benefits due to religious reasoning.
Problem the last – The only impact same-sex marriage will have on your children is if one of them turns out to be gay and cannot get married. What will you do (and I ask this honestly) if one or more of your kids ends up being gay? Will you love them any less? What will your actions speak to them, 15 years from now, when they ask you why they can’t enjoy the same relationship that you and your wife have now? And if your response is “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”, well, for a lot of people that bridge is here right now. They’re trying to cross it, but the way is barred, and I will do my best to tear those barricades down any way I can because I believe that we are infringing on the free will of other human beings by denying them their basic right to live free of oppression. I love my daughters for their minds and their personalities, not for who they love as adults. That’s none of my damn business, and I will support them in life no matter who they want to marry.
Seriously want to swap brains with Chris Kluwe for just a week so that I can voice my myself as brilliantly as he does. But, since I can’t I am so glad that he’s on our side.
As for Matt Birk (who in the past has been paid by The National Organization for Marriage) in his “editorial” he states he “encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate. ” But on YouTube where his anti same-sex marriage video for the Minnesota Catholic Conference is posted the comments are “disabled”