The Celebrity Couple Otherwise Known As McFreed

Barack Obama's Recent Letter To The GLBT Community

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:03:26 -0700

The McFreeds share the following letter from Barack Obama with you...

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of fully inclusive laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Focus on the Hypocrisy

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:07:31 -0700

Sean reports...

Dr James Dobson

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on The Family said the following on the radio yesterday in response to a speech (link to text) by presumptive Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama to the Call To Renewal's Building A Covenant For New America on June 28, 2006:

"He's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."

Dobson, Tom Minnery, and Dr Bill Maier go on to talk about how Obama talks about the application of Bible teachings from Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. Both Dobson and Minnery talk about how the Levitical law no longer applies today because it was only meant to apply to the Israelites after they came out of the desert. And in the same breath they say that the principles - such as on the issue of same-sex marriage - still apply.

HUH?

Does that make any sense? Aren't these two then doing what they are accusing Obama of doing?

Dobson even says that he isn't a reverand and a Bible expert but then responds to Obama like he is. For me I thought faith was a personal gift to yourself; a tool guided by your personal covenant with God and your own intrepretation of his vessels/prophets dictating a higher power's word - be it the Jewish God, the Catholic God, the Protestant God, the Islamic God, Buddha, Vishnu, or what even being your faith recognizes (Not to leave other faiths or Jewish/Christian/other denominations/sects out, I do want to say I am condensing here). In the end it is all a personal interpretation of how to live one's life well with the people and environment around us. My personal view in this instance is in deference to Jesus Christ's declaration of a Golden Rule in the Bible's New Testament, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

I respect Dobson's right to give his opinion and have it heard. Many Christians utilize 1 Corinthians by Saint Paul as a counter to Levitical Law and maybe this is where Dobson and Minnery are coming from. But is it right to accuse people of hypocrisy and commit it in the same breath using his own interpretation? Funny how people don't even listen to their own voice sometimes.

For instance, Dobson and Minnery agree there are other faiths in America but since Christianity is the majority their views and morality should take precedence.

On the other side, Dobson and Minnery take presumptive Republican presidential nominee to task for not villifying same-sex marriage stong enough and supporting anti-gay marriage amendments on the state ballot in several states in November. So no side is left out in criticism from Dobson's moral view in this radio presentation.

It's funny to listen to someone feign that he isn't an expert than go on like he is and at the same time accuse someone of reinterpretation of the Bible while doing it in the same breath.

I will let you decide though in your own mind if Dobson is right or not. In deference to Dobson, here is a link to the full radio show. I am all for at least respecting disparaging views even though I think they are without real reason and hypocritical.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Florigan!: The Lawsuit

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:30:34 -0700

Sean reports...

Well as the Democratic Party continues to shoot itself in the foot over stupid decisions and rules, I found this story that makes a lot of sense to me but in the end may mean nothing. To me the Democrats have a point on being a private entity but when they are utilizing resources from the state doesn't taht factor into having to abide by legal statute? Enjoy!

Attorney: DNC violating Constitution

Posted: 04:45 PM ET

ATLANTA (CNN) — The Democratic National Committee is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by allowing only four states to hold caucuses or primaries before the first Tuesday in February, a Florida attorney argued Monday before a federal appeals court.

Attorney Michael Steinberg filed suit in August on behalf of Democratic Party activist Vincent Dimaio after the DNC said it would not seat Florida delegates at the national convention because the state party defied party rules and scheduled its primary for January 29.

A federal judge in Florida dismissed the lawsuit in October, but Dimaio appealed.

"You can't treat the citizens of some states differently than other states," Steinberg told reporters after the hearing. "What I tried to assert is that the DNC has the right to make rules … but the rules have to be the same for all the states."

According to party rules, only Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire can schedule their primaries or caucuses prior to the first Tuesday in February. Steinberg argued that the 14th Amendment, which bars states from denying individuals equal protection under the law, should prohibit the DNC from creating rules that make the votes of the citizens of those four states "paramount to the rights of the voters in Florida."

Joe Sandler, attorney for the DNC, told the three-judge panel that the committee is a private entity and "is actually exercising its own constitutional right by not seating delegates."

"The point we were trying to make in court today is that it's up to the parties themselves to determine the best means of selecting delegates to the convention, and it's not really a matter for a court to resolve," he told reporters later.

Dimaio, who referred to himself as the "little guy" who speaks for Floridians, told reporters that it is unfair for only four states to be allowed to hold primaries or caucuses in January.

"If you go before February 5, you're basically screwed because you get no delegates," he said. "We've lost 210 delegates. We're the fourth largest state in the nation and we have zero delegates."

"I'm not asking for a penny, I'm not asking for a dime in this action," Dimaio said. "I'm just asking for my vote to count."

The appellate court is not expected to deliver a decision until next month. Steinberg, who is handling the case pro bono, said that if the ruling goes against Dimaio, he will appeal to the Supreme Court.

– CNN Correspondent Rusty Dornin

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The McFreeds Vote

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:14:01 -0800

Sean and Stefan announce...

Hillary Clinton

Well after Sean endorsed John Edwards a few weeks back only to have him withdraw from the Democratic Party race and Stefan being undecided up to the very end, The McFreeds finally made their selection, and voted in the Maryland primary last night. We both voted for Hillary Clinton. It was a long and tortuous decision (Sean's mom noted that this is the first time since he discovered politics as a passion that he had not selected a candidate before going into the voting booth); but in the end we voted with our minds and not our hearts.

Clinton convinced us that she is the best person to tackle the hard facts of Washington DC, not with oration, but with her sleeves rolled up ready to work on Day One. America needs a working President, not just a cheerleader. Our faith in her comes from her grit and determination in tackling mountains over her entire life, not just career. As a leader and a woman, she has overcome so many things you cannot deny her respect for figuring out how to survive and take it all - good and bad - in stride. She has made some mistakes and learned from them. But it is her commitment that can never be questioned. If elected, she will always have health care, education, and the family checkbook on her agenda. She has been consistent in that mission and in her desire to bring all Americans together to make our nation work for everyone. This is why we made the decision we did and why we hope she will eventually win the nomination.

This is not to say this that this was an easy decision. Barack Obama would make a better president than any of the the Republicans running, including the remaining foes John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Obama is an amazing speaker and personality. It is no wonder his fresh words and his very picture of change as the first truly viable African-American, or any minority for that matter, (with all do respect to Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm) to have a real chance at being our nation's president. But for us, he just hasn't sealed the deal. There is substance lacking here. And if he does win the nomination, his ideas will be scrutinized in the general election harder than now. Sure the website is impressive in words. Obama's mention of gay and lesbian issues on it and in his speeches is most welcoming. Clinton's lack of mention on her website is discouraging, but her public words cancel that out. We know both of these people will do what they can for us, but it is really up to the states to make the changes we need, along with a federal cheerleader to hold the nation's hand as we make that change. But we choose a President for the whole package and this round she won with both of us.

Barack Obama

Everyone wants a John F. Kennedy this year to sweep us into the wonder of a fairy tale; but lest we forget that even Kennedy had a tough fight to his election as well because of questions about his substance. Up until 2000, the 1960 election was the last election where it was too close to call. Richard Nixon was the candidate of substance that year. The whole reason Kennedy went to Texas that faithful day in November 1963 was to start his push for the 1964 election because it was going to be a tight one. But as it worked out, Kennedy's strong vision and Lyndon Johnson's initial brilliance at working the Congressional machine gave America the progress it needed to make major changes in how we dealt with ourselves. Unfortunately it took his death, Martin Luther King Jr's death, and his brother Robert Kennedy's death as well as many other martyrs to a greater cause of equality and economic championship for this to be accomplished. But what if Kennedy lived? Would his vision have become a reality? Would he have compromised like he did in the first 2 years? We will never know. But this true look at history gives at least Sean pause when considering Obama. It is right to wonder if the emperor has new clothes when considering a President. And if anything Obama hasn't made his case in this first test to us.

Granted Obama won last night and this weekend, but whatever the media pushes does not silence the fact that it is still dead-even on delegate count. It will be on this division of opinion that the ability of our standard bearer to unify a party will make our choice either stronger or weaker when the time comes. We concede that who ever the nominee is for the Democrats will be our candidate in the general election, but our voice as well as others too should be heard to at least force Obama or Clinton to learn from why we didn't choose them the first time, not matter the size or % of the opposition. Because, if anything, we Democrats want to win in November, and we want to make sure we are united after the convention ends.

We are sure many of you will have opinons about our vote and our reasoning. Please be respectful as we are of your choice. Many of you showed us your passion and commitment to your choices up to this point and we are amazed at all of your dedication. Sean's friend Keith gave an impassioned plea in particular for Obama; Keith's trips to New Hampshire and South Carolina are truly something to be admired and celebrated. Stefan's brother, sister-in-law, and parents lobbied us hard on our vacation in Florida for Obama as well. Their arguments made it even harder to choose. And Sean's Mom and sister gave their own reasons for voting Hillary. We wish we could have mentioned you all that spoke including fellow bloggers (Quest and Wayward Son in particular) but the excitement about it all truly is encouraging that people are thinking and involving themselves in the right to vote in 2008.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

A true leader leaves the race...

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:41:04 -0800

Sean says sadly...

John and Elizabeth Edwards with their children

It was only 5 days ago that I announced that I would be voting for John Edwards in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Sadly, John Edwards announced his withdrawl from the race today, January 30, 2008. He returned to where it all started, New Orleans, in order to honor his commitment to a new war on poverty. All the comments I have heard both from friends and commentators alike is that he was a principled, decent guy who had great ideas. I guess respect of the mind is a great way to be remembered as you leave. What I find sad is that a man who was a leader on issues in this campaign was beaten by celebrity and oration rather than true facts and strong solutions. A bitter comment, of course; but a bitter reality of how our system works. Americans ask for change but in the end we vote for who is familiar and who is the better show horse even if that horse can't run. With that here is a clip of John Edwards saying thank you to his supporters as he departs the race, not the political scene we hope.

John Edwards says Goodbye and Thank You

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

A McFreed Endorses a President - John Edwards

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:09:17 -0800

Sean says...

John Edwards is my choice for the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Nomination.

Change is not something you represent, it is something you do. This election season we Americans have the opportunity again to make a change in who is president of our nation. The challenge to select a candidate in 2008 is to choose one for who they are rather than who they are not. The other candidates physically represent change, but are they a change from the norm? Is what they are saying a strong vision? Are they offering valuable solutions to America's problems that are innovative or even correct?

Edwards has always swayed me since 2004 with his talk of the Two Americas. Under President George W. Bush, our nation has focused on national security issues because of the reaction to the horrible disaster on September 11, 2001. However, the struggle of every American to realize their American dream economically immediately took a back seat. It took the tragedy of New Orleans to expose us to the tragedy of our own economic strata. And it has taken the collapse of our housing market nationwide to realize that Americans are thinking more about consumption than future. It is Edwards who saw this in 2004 and he continues to build on it as the nation and the world is ravaged by economic change. He is the true inheritor of Robert F. Kennedy's mantle.

John Edwards Announces For President

Bobby Kennedy said once, "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'Why not?'" I beleive John Edwards emulates this visionary statement George Bernard Shaw penned and Bobby Kennedy strived to make us follow. Bobby was struck down before his moment was realized, but its John's time now. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the exciting candidates of the media and are unfortunately catching the curiosity of the camera. But John is still there fighting. It is his belief in his own message, himself, and the nature of the discriminating voter that John Edwards will build his coalition and take the prize.

John Edwards - Why he is change

Why does John deserve to be OUR president?

1) An economic plan that makes sense and is integrated with real numbers and real goals that meshes agriculture, energy, health care, and trade into a sensible idea that includes all Americans.

John Edwards - Why it matters!

2) A renewed call for a war on poverty to improve ours and our neighbors lives and opportunities for our children's future. (If you watch any clip this is the one to help you decide if he is good enough.)

John Edwards on Poverty

3) A strong commitment to ending the war in Iraq.

John Edwards on Iraq

But how does he help families like Stefan and mine? Edwards is for civil unions but understands that our issues are more than just some sort of legal partnership, dare I say legally recognized marriage. It is about job discrimination and financial security that our gay and lesbian community require to also survive not unlike the greater community does. But what about his "journey" and comfortability with gay and lesbians in general that many have asked questions about? How does he differ from the other candidates? He differs because he is questioning his own faith and soul about the issue of marriage in general. How many presidents really have said that? And with the fact that he surrounds himself with people like his wife Elizabeth and others who support our causes, I beleive he is getting closer in his decision. But in the overall stance on our issues, my own faith tells me that he will be the one to lead our nation into changing more than the others. Humility of self is more important in my president.

John Edwards at HRC/Logo Debate

We all have to make a choice. Some might feel that Edwards should just give it up based on recent results. But we still have many states to go through and many tests to meet over the next month. Great oration without substance does not a great president make. Edwards has the oration and substance to inspire us and lead us to greatness. It is recognizing that leadership over the directing of who matters in this race by the media that will lead to change. I hope you will change with me and vote John Edwards for President.

...my campaign for Edwards now begins by trying to convince Stefan who is still undecided.

John Edwards on Education

John Edwards - Health Care Plan Comparison

John Edwards - The Grown Up

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Nevada Democratic Debate Part II

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:09:54 -0800

Sean says...

As I posted before here, Stefan and I are trying to figure out who to support on the Democratic side and so we have been watching the debates when we can. Hence, we watched the Democratic debate in Nevada this week. I could post the whole debate here to be a little more inclusive, but I will be "bad" and do some editing on my own. I thought this was a great debate in terms of telling what the candidates are about. I am reposting about it to link the parts of the debate I felt moved me toward Clinton and Edwards and further away from Obama. I will say I will support the Democratic nominee regardless, unless an viable independent alternative is made available. Stefan, I believe, will as well.

This is the part of the debate that I think really swayed my thinking. Unfortunately, you can't forward to the specific parts easily so start the first video at the 3 minute mark and let run. Start the second video from beginning. The points bridge across the end of Part 3 and the beignning of Part 4 of the segments. (Further segments are also available on YouTube.) These parts deal with how these three would run the country. Perspective and method are big failings of our current commander-in-chief and I think we need to ask these questions about how he or she will approach the position and judge for ourselves, like in an interview, who is the best candidate to hire.

Part 3 Nevada Caucus Democratic Presidential Candidates' Debate 1-15-08

Part 4 Nevada Caucus Democratic Presidential Candidates' Debate 1-15-08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Nevada Democratic Debate

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:01:45 -0800

Sean says...

Stefan and I watched the Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate the other night and was struck by the real substance that was discussed here. In both our minds Hillary Clinton was the most commanding. Edwards did a great job of contrasting although NBC's/MSNBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams were unfair with their distribution of questions, mainly leaving him out through the first portion mainly (this was the portion where the two hosts were taking on Clinton and Obama with the race discussion). What questioning struck me the most was the discussion on what the candidates strengths and weaknesses are and the discussion of whether the president should be a chief operating officer of the government.

Obama said he was a great visionary and coordinator of disparate sides while being weak in his own personal organizational skills, requiring assistance in managing paper and details around his desk. Hillary said she was a passionate champion for many causes and knew how to organize efforts to move things along, but her weakness was her vigilence was sometimes seen as too impatience and inconsiderate of others speed in acting on their commitments in moving forward. Edwards said he was a born fighter. He was someone who fought all his life to get where he is from menial beginnings, but he thought his weakness is that he is too empathetic of those he meets one-on-one and it makes him more angry when he tries and pursues change. I thought this was very honest and very true of each. Each is a leader even though you may have a different opinion. However, Obama has some substance issues, Hillary is seen as too strident, and Edwards is scene as too much of a pitbull lawyer.

On the question of the Chief Operating Officer, Obama began the answering which was precipitated by his own comments to a newspaper board in Reno. Obama felt that the president should be a visionary leader who sets the bar to reach and selects the right people to manage it. The president isn't a micromanager. Clinton disagreed and said teh president is a visionary leader, a goal setter, and the manager of the bureaucracy - because vision goes no where unless you manage the bureaucracy to change and hold it accountable. Edwards followed with Hillary's line of answering.

This in my mind was a HUGE tell of who I am voting for. Hillary began to look presidential to me here and continued with that strength the rest of the debate. She really impressed me more than she ever has. Edwards also has pulled me along. I like how Edwards is a fighter and Hillary is an advocate. I just don't see from looking at Obama's past how he is either. Incredible oration does not a president make - just ask William Jennings Bryan. Plus in survey after survey I seem to be trending Edwards in blind questions about candidate positions. However, Hillary got me with her experience debate and the thought of "Nixon opening China" belief. So what I am saying is that I think Obama does not have a chance at my vote in the primary period at this point. Maryland votes Feb 12, so I will pick my final choice at that time regardless of who has momentum.

Stefan will I am sure post his own thoughts in a separate blog... I am just he mouthiest of the two of us on politics. (smirk followed by dimple twist to the cheek).

Side note: I saw this comment by David Gergen on CNN.com after this debate. I thought this was a great sign that he and others will seek the death of a hated military practice to the gay community.

A post-script to last night's Democratic debate: Clinton, Edwards and Obama each told Tim Russert they would enforce laws requiring universities to allow military recruiters on campus. As a long-time advocate of restoring ROTC to major universities, I just want to add that a huge stumbling block now is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, which is seen at many schools as highly discriminatory against gays and lesbians. If that is amended -- as growing numbers in the military think should happen -- we will have a much better chance of persuading schools to honor service in the armed forces in the ways that they should.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend