While doing research for an article on professional athletes, I came across the name Mark Bingham. And while doing research on 9/11 Flight 93 I came across the name Mark Bingham. And while doing research on an article on John McCain, I came across the name Mark Bingham.
This intrigued me.
Mark Bingham died a hero the morning of September 11, 2001, at the age of 31, when the airliner on which he was flying home crashed nose first into a southwest Pennsylvania field. At 6’5” and 230 pounds, Mark was a tough professional rugby player for the newly formed San Francisco Fog and had once ran with the bulls in Pamplona.
According to cell phone records, Mark and others took action after learning that their flight had been hijacked and was on a collision course with Camp David, the White House, or the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. He was undoubtedly one of the leaders seated near the cockpit door who were instrumental in bringing down the flight, saving hundreds of lives.
In 2000, Mark Bingham owned a public relations company called The Bingham Group, based in New York and San Francisco. He had helped sponsor a fundraiser for Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid, so to no one’s surprise, at Mark’s memorial service McCain delivered the eulogy and was 
quoted as saying:
“I very well may owe my life to Mark. He supported me, and his support now ranks among one of the greatest honors of my life. ... I love my country, but I cannot say I love it more or as well as Mark Bingham or the other heroes on United Flight 93. I thank him with the only means I possess by being as good of an American as he was."
Bingham was a very rare breed indeed — an unashamed and openly gay professional athlete.
In what I’d consider to be a blatant slap in the face to his memory, and an obvious show of hypocritical ingratitude, both Republican houses of Congress and our Republican President are now sponsoring bills attempting to strip gays of their dignities and rights as human beings. Despite their preaching “No special rights!” gays want no more or less than anyone else in this country already enjoys.
Mark Bingham deserves a statue along with his other heroes in Washington D.C., perhaps on the very steps of the U.S. Senate, to remind our politicians of their short memories.
Rest in peace Mark. Rest in peace...
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jet,
Great article...
The problem in politics is that the currency of favors is time degradable. "What have you done for me lately?" is the currency of the politician. Given that Mr. Bingham died almost 5 years ago, his favor is expired in the eyes of the politicians who owe their lives to him...
2 - Jet in Columbus
Very true, and thanks for the encouragement Ruvy. This is actually part of a two part article, the other half is in the sports section...
blessings
Jet
3 - Arch Conservative
More twisted logic from Jet.....
Politicians must legalize gay marriage because there happened to be a gay man who stormed the cockpit on flight 93.
Thank god there were no pedophiles in that group that charged the cockpit...
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Bing, I don't agree that the congress should deal with marriage and federalize the issue - what are federations for, after all?
But Jet makes a very good point with his article about the basic fact that politicians don't give a crap about what is done for them unless it is lately, and generally do show gratitude unless shamed into it.
5 - chantal stone
Gay men and women shouldn't be given the SAME rights that everyone else already enjoys out of gratitude....it should be done because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO, and anything to the contrary just does not make sense. A proposed amendment to ban gay marriage is nothing more than legislated bigotry. Period.
6 - JP
Arch, pedophilia involves CHILDREN. Gay marriage or civil unions concern CONSENTING ADULTS. I don't get your illogical comparison.
7 - Jet in Columbus
ArchBingBat, you're so cute when you say things like that!
Solus mei sententia
Jet
8 - Jet in Columbus
Seriously ArchBingBat, you're funnier to read on Sunday morning that the comics section!
This article is meant as a tribute to a true hero and a successful business man, and I fully expected the likes of you to spit on shis grave by calling him a pedophile.
That was a given...
Solus mei sententia
Jet
9 - Jet in Columbus
Ruvy #4, that and who's promising to send more cash sooner.
10 - Jet in Columbus
After giving that beautiful eulogy, how much do you want to bet that McCain votes for it Chantal?
11 - Jet in Columbus
As Printed in the "Los Angeles Times" this morning...
Ronald Brownstein:
Washington Outlook
Gay Marriage Vote Serves Only to Divide Nation
June 4, 2006
'That's vanity ... not politics," President John F. Kennedy once snapped at an aide who wanted him to provoke a confrontation with Congress on an issue Kennedy knew he didn't have the votes to pass.
Times change, don't they?
Now many in Washington believe the essence of politics is provoking confrontations over issues that have little chance of becoming law but a high probability of dividing the country.
Exhibit A is this week's planned Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. No one doubts the outcome. Proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority -- 67 votes -- to clear the Senate. When the Senate last considered the gay marriage ban, in July 2004, supporters mustered only 48 votes on a procedural test. The backers might do better this time, but they are unlikely to get close to the votes they need.
One big reason is that supporters haven't built a clear majority for the momentous step of amending the Constitution. In surveys, most Americans say they oppose legal recognition for gay marriages. But many appear comfortable allowing the states, which have traditionally regulated marriage, to handle the issue.
In the latest Gallup Poll, 50% said they supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage; 47% opposed it. Nine other Gallup surveys since 2003 have produced similar results. There's no evidence supporters have established the overwhelming social consensus that should accompany any effort to amend the Constitution on this issue.
But like so much else in contemporary politics, the Senate vote isn't designed to produce a law; it's intended to pick a fight. The White House and Senate GOP leadership are betting that a noisy confrontation over gay marriage will encourage turnout this November from conservative voters -- many of whom, polls show, are discouraged over President Bush's second term.
That strategy may help Republicans in some red states this year. But it could also deepen the image of intolerance hurting the GOP in many white-collar suburbs outside the South. Either way, these near-term, tactical calculations don't represent the most important political consequence: Both parties may pay a long-term price if manufactured cultural clashes such as the gay marriage amendment continue to control the spotlight.
Whatever else Americans may think about gay marriage, few consider it one of the country's most serious moral challenges. By elevating it so prominently, this week's debate is likely to deepen the sense that Washington is fixated on the preoccupations of ideological minorities while slighting most Americans' day-to-day concerns.
That danger is captured in a national survey due to be released Monday by the liberal Center for American Progress. The survey, conducted in late February, underscores the importance of religion and morality in Americans' lives. Nearly three-quarters of those polled said they prayed at least once a day, and just over half said they attended religious services at least once a week. Concern that the country had lost its moral compass was widespread.
But the survey demonstrated again that the moral issues people worried about most in their daily lives were very different from the ones dominating political debate. The survey asked Americans to name the most serious moral crisis in America today. Atop the list, 28% cited "kids not raised with the right values." Next came corruption in government and business, followed by greed and materialism, people too focused on themselves, and too much sex and violence in the media. Only 3% named abortion and homosexuality as the nation's top moral challenge. Even among those who attend religious services most often, just 6% picked abortion and homosexuality.
These findings challenge the values agenda of both parties. They do point to priorities different from the conservative focus on gay rights and abortion. But they also suggest liberals don't hit the mark either when they try to signal their values simply by describing causes, such as reducing poverty, as moral imperatives.
"There is a deep hunger to get away from religion being associated solely with the antiabortion and anti-gay marriage agenda -- there is a deep public yearning for an alternative moral vision," said John Halpin, a senior fellow and opinion analyst at the Center for American Progress. "But it's not just talking about the left's issues and tagging the word 'moral' on it. You have to talk to people at a personal and family level about what faith and values mean."
Public policy can't easily reach all of these anxieties. But it can address some of them. Government can do more to support parents who believe they are competing with a rapacious marketplace to shape their children's values.
One example: The day after the Senate rejected the gay marriage amendment in 2004, it gave broad bipartisan approval to legislation that would have empowered the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco -- including the marketing of cigarettes to young people. That idea died when the House said no. Senators from both parties are pushing the tobacco issue again. Surely a Senate leadership that has time for a symbolic statement about gay marriage could find a moment to help parents fight the tangible problem of teen smoking.
Washington might support parents in many other ways. (President Clinton pioneered this path, although often with modest steps, with the "tools for parents" initiatives he launched in his first term.) But, as Halpin suggests, Americans probably aren't looking to Washington for programs so much as evidence it understands the cultural forces pressing upon communities and families.
It's difficult to see how the Senate sends that signal by squandering its time on a choreographed argument over gay marriage staged for no higher purpose than dividing the country.
Ronald Brownstein's column appears every Sunday. Read current and past Brownstein columns on The Times' website at latimes.com/brownstein.
12 - Al Barger
Brother Jet, I am somewhat empathetic if not quite sympathetic to the concerns of social conservatives who have issues with the whole gay marriage idea. But generally, I'm inclined not to be all bent out of shape about slowing down that train, so long as homosexuals are legally tolerated. You might understandably be less than satisfied with having less than equal options for legal union, but we can have ongoing democratic negotiations toward a better agreement.
But Bush is really un-impressing me by throwing his support behind the no-gay-marriage amendment. He doesn't believe in that nonsense in his heart. But he's ready to go monkeying with the constitution for stuff he doesn't really even believe, pretty clearly on grounds of shoring up some stupid short term personal poll numbers.
Puts me in mind of him signing that damned McCain-Feingold bill, which was one of the couple of most objectionable specific things he's done, in my estimation.
13 - Jet in Columbus
Amen Al, Amen
14 - Jet in Columbus
You must be referring back to comment 11. As for McCain well, I covered him in another string. Thanks for your thoughts.
15 - Matthew T. Sussman
Just trying to find more agreement in everyone:
ArchCon and Chantal actually said the same thing: don't recognize gay marriage because a hero in 9/11 was gay.
And the article Jet copied (why the bold? I'll decide what's important. And is there an original link) says some truth in that gay marriage, while the slight majority is against it, ain't that important to everyone's life. So if someone says "are you for gay marriage" and they say "no," immediately there's a bigoted, hateful stigma placed upon that person.
But just how important is that in their daily lives? For me it's 327th, right behind making Wendy's Frosties cheaper.
16 - Q Bit
I don't think it's about importance in daily lives. It's about the right gays would love to have. And, it's about time that they have it.
17 - Jet in Columbus
Dear Matt, the bold is sort of like Cliff notes, there are times when I see a comment that's 6 miles long and either skim it, or skip over it completely if I think it's being long-winded. With the bold, you can either read the whole thing or skim the stuff I thought was important to get the gist of the thing.
Considering all the credits at the be beginning and the end, I really didn't think a like was necessary, but I'll remember next time...
You had to bring up Frosties didn't you? Before I was diagnosed I'd love to go and get two large ones and a jar of planter's honey roasted peanuts and combine them in a big bowl with a spoon.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
18 - Matthew T. Sussman
No quarrel with that Qbster, but I'm saying that low priority things are simply that to the American people. The people who are hellbent on banning gay marriage? Well, that's too bad. There are other fish to fry.
But you said it correctly -- this should be about rights, not marriage. Currently marriage is the vessel to joint custody rights and the whole shebang, and the words "gay + marriage" freak people the heck out. We have lawmakers, they can make a law that creates a similar vessel.
19 - Snarkattack
Twisted logic, Arch?
What on earth could possibly be so twisted as demanding equality, in this case in regards to legalising of gay marriage?
Hate to break the news to you, but heterosexuals have been known to commit sexual assault, on children and on consenting adults. I'm not really sure I understand why you mention paedophiles at all in relation to the issue of gay marriage.
I'm with Q Bit - sorry Q, my brain's run out of steam and refuses to come up with its own way of saying what you did.
Why do we treat our fellow human beings in so appalling a manner still? It's woeful.
20 - Clavos
Why do we treat our fellow human beings in so appalling a manner still? It's woeful.
Maybe it's because an awful lot of people in the world are just plain evil???
21 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks Q-bit, much appreciated
22 - Jet in Columbus
Matthew.. Mr. Suss #18, bravo, just the fact that they're going to the trouble of changing the constitution shows they're grandstanding anyway. I mean even if they did, it'd mean a majority of states radifying it first?
23 - Jet in Columbus
Shark 19: ArchBingBat's tactic is predictable and simpleminded. Attach with permanent glue the words pedophile, pervert and rape to the awful word HOMOSEXUAL, and vwala you get the perfect "eeeeeek!" factor.
You didn't actually expect something sensible out of him did you?
Do you see them screaming KILL ALL STRAIGHTS everytime a man fondles a little girl do you?
24 - Jet in Columbus
Clavos#20 Or they've got nothing better to than hate and judge people to make them feel better about themselves in their pathetic little worlds.
25 - chantal stone
I've yet to hear anyone who is opposed to "gay marriage" actually make a coherent argument for their position.
You can't justify hatred, inequality and bigotry.