News Herald

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) announced he will seek another term in the Senate, Tulsa World reports.

A presidential proclamation marking Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.

Available in full after the jump.

McClatchy's Mike Doyle digs up Farrell v. Burke, a case from 2006 involving a sex offender who had violated his parole by purchasing porn. The salacious details, including Sotomayor reading excerpts from Scum: True Homosexual Experiences, are here. (Unfortunately for the culture warriors, she ultimately sided with the state.) Doyle also highlights this classic exchange between the sex offender's attorney and parole officer:

MR. NATHANSON: Are you saying, for example, that that condition of parole would prohibit Mr. Farrell from possessing, say, Playboy magazine?

P.O. BURKE: Yes.

MR. NATHANSON: Are you saying that that condition of parole would prohibit Mr. Farrell from possessing a photograph of Michelangelo['s] David?

P.O. BURKE: What is that?

MR. NATHANSON: Are you familiar with that sculpture?

P.O. BURKE: No.

MR. NATHANSON: If I tell you it's a large sculpture of a nude youth with his genitals exposed and visible, does that help to refresh your memory of what that is?

P.O. BURKE: If he possessed that, yes, he would be locked up for that.

Last week, Ted Olson. Today, Dick Cheney:

Dick Cheney rarely takes a position that places him at a more progressive tilt than President Obama. But on Monday, the former vice president did just that, saying that he supports gay marriage as long as it is deemed legal by state and not federal government.

Speaking at the National Press Club for the Gerald R. Ford Foundation journalism awards, Cheney was asked about recent rulings and legislative action in Iowa and elsewhere that allowed for gay couples to legally wed.

"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."

We hate Dick Cheney here at AMERICAblog.com. Hate him. But, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And, as Sam Stein, who wrote the article above, notes, this statement make Cheney more progressive than Obama on marriage equality. If Cheney can support marriage equality, there's really no excuse for Obama and other leading Congressional Democrats.

Cheney has been using similar language since 2004, when he broke with his boss, George Bush, over the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage:

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying ?Sfreedom means freedom for everyone,? when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

?SLynne and I have a gay daughter, so it?"s an issue our family is very familiar with,? Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. ?SWith the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

?SThe question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that?"s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage,? he said.

And, Congress should stay out of it. But, in 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which put the federal government in a position to regulate marriages at the state level. DOMA needs to go.

And, this further confirms all the polling that shows when people know someone gay, it makes them more likely to be supportive of issues like marriage equality. Frankly, I don't think Dick with be with us absent that. But, he is -- and here's the video. Cheney almost sounds human:

• I was a full-time employee with the Conference Board between September 2007 and July 2008. I resigned almost a year ago to take a fulfilling job with a non-profit in British Columbia.


• I submitted draft research to my former supervisor for the IP reports in mid-August 2008. I finished the research after I moved even though I was neither on salary nor on contract with the Board.


• The research I submitted did NOT include the controversial passages or plagiarized content.


• I worked with three contract researchers on this project between April 2008 and June 2008, including Jeremy deBeer, whose work I integrated into the draft. These researchers did not submit research that included the controversial/plagiarized content.


• I had no involvement in any content changes and did not see these papers after I submitted them in August.


• My new work was interrupted in mid-September by my former supervisor at the Conference Board to tell me there had been “push back” from one of the funding clients about the research and inclusion of Mr. deBeer’s contribution. I had quit almost two months earlier so this was of no concern to me.


• Around the same time, my new work was also interrupted by a call from one of the funding clients who expressed similar concerns. Again, I informed him that I no longer had anything to do with these reports.


• I received news of its publication on May 26, 2009, ten months after my resignation. I downloaded and read the research after I was informed of the controversy and was alarmed to see the direction it had taken.


• I sent my letter to Anne Golden the following day.


• The VP of Public Policy e-mailed me on May 29th to ask for my assistance in finding both researchers who could "fix" the reports, as well as external reviewers who would be impartial in reviewing the new work. His message stated that “I trust your judgment, experience and knowledge and would value your help.”

The Conference Board wants my help to fix reports that were published 10 months after my departure. It wants me to help fix publications that were re-written (and plagiarized) months after my departure and after they discarded the research I compiled and submitted. The Conference Board asks for my help but won't acknowledge that it was wrong to put my name on reports that bear little resemblance to the original research I submitted, were substantially reworked, and were published ten months after I resigned. After Anne Golden laid blame on contract researchers and supervisors late last week, I noticed two of the authors who still were listed on the organization's web site were no longer on the staff list.

A reader writes:

My wife and I are/were staunch choice advocates; we'd both done our

share of marching on Washington for the cause. Actually enduring the

process gave us a much more nuanced opinion about abortion.

For us, it was Trisomy 21 -- Down Syndrome. The test came after my

wife awoke one night in a pool of blood screaming and thinking she'd

suffered a miscarriage. After she ran to the toilet, it fell upon me

to call her doctor and then scoop out the remains--that actually

turned out to be huge clots--and take them to the doctor the next day.

The geneticist said that because of all the bleeding and other

complications there was almost no chance the fetus would make it to 20

weeks let alone full term.

My wife says one of my finest moments as

her husband came when I somehow made her laugh while she awaited the

abortion. My wife doesn't talk about her feelings of the abortion and

the "failed" pregnancy. But we've been together for more than a decade

and I know she will always be crushed by it. I know we made the right

decision for us but it still hurts badly. This was the son we would

never have.