Giuliani, Huckabee on homosexuality

You know you are a first tier candidate when reporters ask what you think of the big social issues. Does anyone know what Duncan Hunter thinks of homosexuality? Does anyone know who Duncan Hunter is?

So Mike Huckabee demonstrated his Baptist preacher roots in his answers to reporters questions about homosexuality and sin. He noted the word in the New Testament means “missing the mark” and said we all have missed the mark. The mark, as I was taught in Greek class, means the bullseye or the target of an archer. Huckabee views homosexuality as missing the mark as in any other behavior not condoned by his reading of the Scripture.

Elsewhere, Rudy Giuliani couldn’t find the mark with his comments on homosexuality also reported today.

Rudolph W. Giuliani was asked Sunday on the NBC program “Meet the Press” if he agreed with the statement made in 1992 by a rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Mike Huckabee, about homosexuality being “an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle.”

“No,” Mr. Giuliani replied. “I don’t believe it’s sinful.” But he then said something that puzzled and concerned some gay rights groups.

“My moral views on this come from the, you know, from the Catholic Church, and I believe that homosexuality, heterosexuality, as a way that somebody leads their life is not, isn’t sinful,” said Mr. Giuliani, who as New York mayor temporarily moved in with two gay roommates after he separated from his wife. “It’s the acts — it’s the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the orientation that they have.”

Always vigilant, Wayne Besen jumped on the inconsistency:

Wayne Besen, the executive director of Truth Wins Out, a gay rights group, said that he hoped the campaign would clarify the statement, which he said “seemed to parrot the religious right’s cruel and empty ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ rhetoric.”

Perhaps not knowing where the mark was today, his campaign took the presidential route:

The Giuliani campaign declined yesterday to elaborate on the statement.

Wow, and we only have less than a year of this stuff to go.

Huckabee stands by Copeland

Ok, this is not going to become a political blog; I do not have the time nor the inclination to keep up with the nuances of the campaigns. However, I do think the Huckabee emergence is quite interesting. There are multiple pitfalls that await and indeed he appears to be rising in polls and the minds of Republicans. One pitfall is the investigation of the Grassley Six and questions about Huckabee’s relationship with some of those targeted.

Who knows where the investigation will go but I thought this Time magazine article made a pretty good case that the outcome will be unlikely to impact very much the candidates endorsed by ministers and ministries — at least in the primaries. In the general election, anything will be fair game. I will be quite surprised if religion is not central to the reporting of the next election.

Advocacy group set to sue Montgomery County, MD over transgender bill

With the passage of the transgendered recognition bill in Montgomery County, MD yesterday, a public interest law firm, Advocates for Faith and Freedom is prepared to sue the county on behalf of PFOX, a church and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union of MD. One specific concern is the lack of exemption for religious groups and organizations. Would religious groups be required to accommodate conduct or dress they ordinarily would prohibit?

The AFF legal analysis and letter to the Montgomery County, MD board is here.

No word when the suit might be filed.

Montgomery County passes transgendered bill

The Washington Post in reporting that the Montgomery County Council passed the transgendered bill 8-0 yesterday. 

According to the Post article, the locker room provision was removed prior to yesterday’s vote.

Late last week, in response to the outcry and concerns from some fellow council colleagues, Trachtenberg agreed to pull an amendment to the bill that would have specified restrooms and locker rooms as public accommodations in which an individual could choose a room based on the gender identity that the person “publicly and exclusively expressed.”

Taking out the proposed amendment, according to the county attorney’s office and council staff, would allow employers to maintain “current gender-based restrictions” on such public facilities.

I suspect a referendum might be in the offing. It would take 20,000 signatures to get a repeal on the ballot.