Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Why I <3 Andrew Sullivan

Because of his ability to cram a powerful argument into a turn of phrase.

Sully and his husband, Aaron, are in their summer home in New England right now. They're in Massachusetts, meaning their marriage is recognized, while in the District of Columbia--where they live the rest of the year--it hadn't been until today. Sully's comment:

"Ever thought what it's like to be legally married in your vacation home and divorced in your other one? Thought so. Heterosexuals wouldn't tolerate it for a second."

Monday, May 25, 2009

Gay Marriage...Prayer Service?

California's Supreme Court is expected to rule on appeals to Prop 8 tomorrow morning. And what are some gay-rights advocates doing?

"Gay marriage supporters are holding a prayer service on the eve of the California Supreme Court's expected ruling on the legality of a voter-approved ban on same-sex nuptials.

The group Marriage Equality USA plans to hold the interfaith event Monday night at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.

On Tuesday morning, the state's high court plans to rule on a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8."

*Sigh*

The only good thing this does, IMHO, is help cut the rug out from under the religious bigots by showing that homophobia doesn't have to be a pre-requisite for being religious.

But it reinforces this notion that prayer does something, anything, other than waste time and energy that could be spent elsewhere. It doesn't. I'm not even going to go through any time and effort to research whether there have been scientific studies done on the question. If someone else can show me CONCLUSIVE proof that it works, the burden of proof is on you.

It's a token argument, anyway. Gay marriage is the way of the future. And I side with Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller when he says to those who say if we allow gay marriage, then polygamy must be next...I hope so. Otherwise we're not a free country.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Trashing National Organization for "Marriage"

Ouch, this has got to sting...

"(H)ere's the thing: if it's a matter of your faith, you lose. Your faith cannot dictate civil rights, any more than it could when the southern states invoked Scripture to justify slavery during the Civil War. So please, be honest and let's just be done with this hate and bigotry."
I don't know who Nicole Belle is, but I'd hate to be her opponent in a debate.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Fisking Steve King

Not the author, the US Congressman from Iowa (R-Dumbfuckistan). This is the latest idiocy that our answer to Rick Santorum vomited forth:

"The values we have we pour through marriage into our children and into the next generation. Our religious values. Our values of faith. Our values. Our work ethic. Our entire culture comes through a man and a woman joined in holy matrimony, being blessed with children and pouring those values into the children and then living vicariously through them as they go off and we are blessed with grandchildren."
And this:
"I still believe that is the most important value. But I also recognize that if we don’t save marriage, we can’t remain pro-life."
Ed Brayton lets him have it:
"(T)his really has nothing to do with "protecting families," it has to do with destroying families that do not fit the blueprint that the Good and the Righteous want them to fit. They think gays are icky and cursed by God and therefore we should do everything we can to make their lives miserable so they'll stop being icky and gay and start being Good and Righteous. This is all quite absurd, of course, but given the lack of reasoning skills of those who believe it, that is probably a point in its favor."
Some people wonder what kind of argument King was making in his "if we don't save marriage, we can't remain pro-life" remark. Don't read too much into this. He's using the emotionally-charged buzzwords that will "rally the base" as Karl Rove would say. In short, he's relying on the emotionally gullible and critically-thinking-challenged to go all gooey and get him re-elected. Because it worked so well with Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

The hilarious thing is, there's a Facebook group for those who support this 'tard for Governor next year. Guys, go right ahead--he's the one Republican who could practically guarantee Culver's re-election.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Think you can reason with a homophobe?

Try this little screed over on Newsvine...

"After holding back and just reading the comments I feel that I must post yet again. Say what you will but homosexuals are not even human. They are diseased, degenerate creatures who mock humans. The goal that they will freely admit to is to erase any trace of decency or humanity from the planet until we are all wallowing in filth and disease like them. If you are religous at all you recognize that this is the work of satan and that they have no souls, just lust for each other. Someone mentioned that it was Lamda who filed the suit, not Nambla. What is the difference, perversion is perversion, and if you don't think that the ACLU won't soon be filing on behalf of pedos then you are the one being foolish. The ACLU exists for purpose only, to destroy America. Hopefully one day there will be a test to determine if the fetus is gay. Then you could abort it since it is not human. Only the then will we wipe this scourge from the world. Until then we will have to do it one at a time."
Today's little ugly ray of sunshine compliments of some fuck-tard calling himself Dragonman (and what God thinks of this Holy Joe taking on one of the totem animals of Satan, I wonder).

And in case you think he's just a homophobe, here's a followup:
"Of course not only whites will be allowed to live. Someone needs to do the labour. As far as the comparison to Hitler goes, thank you. But remember it the victors who write history. The allies won so they wrote that Hitler was evil. Not true, he was a man who believed in the humanity of mankind and strove to defeat the forces of slime that would drag it down, hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. "
I'm not even going to respond to his bullshit: I'm going to put out an open call to Christians to oppose and decry this crap wherever you find it. And turn these people in to the authorities...the 1st Amendment doesn't cover implied threats against individuals like this.
---
Update: as much as I'd like to make good on that last sentence, the law actually only protects implicit threats against specific individuals.

Gay Marriage in Two Parts

First, the Vermont Legislature has overridden the governor's veto, and becomes the fourth state in the union to approve gay marriage.

Second, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal dresses down one of the bigots. The term is pwns:



Via Sullivan.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Marriage equality comes to Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously approved marriage equality for gays in Iowa. Not just civil unions, marriage. Just as it damned well should be.

There's a lot of love and hate going around the blogosphere for this state right now, but the anti-gay forces are going to have a hell of a fight on their hands. Sullivan:

"Such an amendment requires the votes of a simple majority in both the Iowa House and Iowa Senate in two consecutive sessions, followed by a passing vote of the people of Iowa.... Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks."
Which isn't going to happen; Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal put the kibbosh on that notion.

I love this state. For all its bad qualities, it really is a sensible, cordial, low-stress place to live. And we've set an example for tolerance.

Cycle Ninja blog love goes out to Mickey, Jen, JP, Kris, and all the others out there.
---
Update: Court decision summary is here (thanks, Des Moines Register). It basically said the only differences between gay couples and straight couples are their inability to procreate with each other and their sexual orientation. In other words, the standing law of Iowa marriage was discriminatory because of sexual orientation and should be thrown out. GOOD.

Monday, December 15, 2008

US Senate: Bush is the torture president

This report is bi-partisan, unequivocal, and damning. Bush knew about torture, and actively authorized it. John McCain's signature is on the report, as is every other Republican member of that committee. This is not a matter of a Democratic-controlled Senate taking potshots at an outgoing Republican president. This is a universal condemnation by leaders of BOTH parties. Andrew Sullivan's take is here. And I agree with every single word:

"Let's be absolutely clear what this means: When we saw an image of Lynndie England pulling a naked prisoner around on a leash, we assumed at the time that she improvised this, or was some kind of "bad apple." This is and was a conscious lie to the Congress, and to the American people, and to the world. The person who authorized the use of nudity and leashes on prisoners was not Lynndie England or any of the other grunts thrown to the wolves. The man who authorized the technique shown below is the president of the United States:"
Me again: I want to make a few things about this post abundantly clear. First, yes, I'm a passionate hater of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I hate them so much I cannot stand to look at them. They are disgusting plutocrats who care for nothing but absolute power (Cheney maintained his stock holdings in Haliburton while they were being awarded non-competitive bids to rebuild Iraq, which made him even more obscenely wealthy than he already was. Add "war profiteer" to his list of crimes). I detest them in the same way I detest all of their lot throughout history. But I have reasons to hate them. They have disgraced our country in a way we have seldom seen. They have authorized TORTURE, a clear violation of American law, the Geneva conventions, common decency, and CHRISTIAN VIRTUE. Not that such virtue matters to me, per se, but I'm throwing that out there for the sake of certain people in my life who have chided me (if not reamed me out) for my hatred of Bush/Cheney as being "unChristian."

You're assuming they're true Christians in the first place. And you're assuming that hatred and Christianity are mutually incompatible.

But I digress...the facts are this: Bush and Cheney are criminals. They should be in prison. They have disgraced a country I love (however much I may bitch about it and however angry and disgusted it makes me at times). They deserve to be punished, shamed, and degraded for all time. They divided us for the sake of political divide-and-conquer tactics at a time when they could have made the most of the unity brought about by the 9/11 attacks. Bush said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." To which I say, sir, that true patriotism is the ability to criticize your country when it is in the wrong. It's like a marriage: you tell your spouse they're embarrassing you because you love them, not despite that. And fuck you for calling us un-American, sir, when you crapped on the Bill of Rights and spied on Americans unlawfully.



And before you accuse me of shitting on "the troops," I say this: There have been plenty of honorable, brave people conducting themselves in this war in the finest tradition of the American military. But my admiration stops when certain people stoop to this kind of conduct. You are at that instant the perpetrator of atrocity, not a soldier doing your duty. And there are numerous accounts of people refusing, most notably JAG lawyers who resigned rather than prosecute Guantanamo inmates whose confessions had been tortured out of them.

I have other friends who say that we need time to let history judge Bush. To which I retort: William Shirer met the same resistance to his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. There are some instances in which the facts are so clear, so unequivocal, and so shameful that we need to confront them immediately (which is more than I can say for most of the mainstream media and the White House press corps collectively). This is a blight on our nation's history that needs to be dealt with right now, not after we know whether or not the intel for going into Iraq was valid at the time (that's another blog post). It's how we conducted ourselves afterward that showed that we were led by the same type of monsters that al-Qaeda recruits were taught to believe we were run by.

And you will never, ever, change my mind about any of this, so don't even try.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Ben Smith: Jews voted against Prop 8

Wonder if anyone's going to be picketing Jewish temples over this?

Have I mentioned how religion leads to bigotry? I wonder how many atheists voted in favor of Prop 8? Maybe nobody bothered to tally those figures. We don't count in this country, after all [/sarcasm].


You ever have one of those days when you get up and down mixed up? That's this post in a nutshell: I had originally intepreted it to mean that Jewish voters had supported Prop 8, but they hadn't; they were opposed to the measure and defending gay rights to marry. I screwed up royally, and I'm sorry. I'll do better.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Olbermann on Prop 8

Overwrought, yes. But so what?

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Religion=bigotry

Ed Brayton:

In California, exit polls showed that those who attended church regularly voted against marriage equality 83-17%. Those who attended church only occasionally voted for marriage equality 60-40%. Those who do not attend church at all voted for marriage equality 86-14%. There is still much work to be done.
And yes, again, I'm being wildly generalizing. Sue me. Or better yet, try to prove me wrong. I'll wait.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

The Republican mayor of San Diego supports gay marriage

Wow. Just wow...



That, folks, is what politics in this country should be about...the ability to man up and admit you were wrong.

Via Sullivan.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Donate to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name

I'm bogarting this wholesale from my dear friend, Heather:

Instead of (in addition to?) us all sending around emails about how horrible she is, let's all make a donation to Planned Parenthood. In Sarah Palin's name. And here's the good part: when you make a donation to PP in her name, they'll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor.
Here's the link to the Planned Parenthood website:

https://secure. ga0. org/02/pp10000_inhonor

Be sure to use the pulldown menu for Honorary or Memorial Donations, rather than just 'Donate Online'.


You'll need to fill in the address to let PP know where to send the "in Sarah Palin's honor" card.
I suggest you use the address for the McCain campaign headquarters, which is:


McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington , VA 22202

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Republicans want to control your ovaries

One of the best blog posts PZ Myers ever had. It's about the R's attempts to control women by banning Plan B. This post shows Myers unquestionable mastery of biology and his unabashed, self-proclaimed "godless liberal" sensibilities. I'd prefer the term libertarian, but the point is, fight these evil bastards who think they can tell you how you can and cannot control your reproduction. Money quote:

It is a form of birth control that tells the woman's ovaries to hold off on releasing any eggs for a short while. It's called emergency contraception, because it is used by a woman who has, for whatever reason (rape, a broken condom, misplaced enthusiasm, second thoughts, anything) had unwanted sperm in her reproductive tract, and she wants to make sure that this isn't the moment her ovaries happen to pop a follicle.

Plan B is not an abortion.

Plan B doesn't help if one is already pregnant, and it doesn't affect any implanted zygotes....You'd have to be insane to object to Plan B.

Emphasis mine.

So, you think this is just liberal paranoia? Think again...the Bush-tards will do anything to mess with you.

Vote.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Why I Support Gay Marriage.

Greg Laden put it best in this piece:

"We are obligated, by virtue of demanding our own liberty, to protect the liberty of others."

Saturday, April 12, 2008

One other thing...

I had a previous post about Catholic bigotry that seemed to resonate. It was originally aimed at the Roman Catholic doctrine against homosexuality (which John Paul II once called part of an "ideology of evil"). Somewhere in the middle, the post took a left turn toward feminism, specifically toward reproductive rights. I need to clarify a few things that might have been unclear.

For the non-Catholics out there, the church's attitude toward sex is basically, "don't have sex until you're married, and then the ONLY sex you're permitted to have is sex that allows for procreation." In other words, you're not supposed to masturbate, orally or digitally pleasure your partner, have sex in "other orifices," or (it should go without saying) engage in gay sex.

Furthermore, the church prohibits all forms of birth control that don't amount to the so-called "rhythm method." This is basically timing your periods of sexuality to coincide with the woman's least fertile period. Oh, and you can guess what the church has to say about abortion, right?

I'd like to take the liberty of speaking for those who, like me, have turned up their noses at the church for its stupidity, arrogance, and lack of touch with the modern world by addressing the flaws with these points, both practical and philosophical.

First, to the issue of "no sex before marriage." Let's get that right out of the way by saying it's impractical if not impossible to mandate that. You're talking about a bunch of beings who are exploring their sexuality for the first time, they're pumped full of hormones, they're looking at each other in a whole different light than a few short years before, and the best you can tell them is to ignore several hundred million years of vertebral evolution? Good luck with that.

And on another level, here's why you SHOULD sleep around before you get married: you need to find out what you like, you need to gain experience as a willing and skillful partner, and you need to find people who are basically on a similar footing with their likes and dislikes. If you marry someone before you've ever had sex, not only are neither of you going to be any good, you might turn out to be on far ends of the spectrum, not just in frequency of sex drive, but in how kinky you are. It's a divorce waiting to happen (something else the church frowns on, BTW).

Now, let me say this: I'm not actually saying anyone should engage in sex before they are ready. It's a good idea to put it off for a while until you have some semblance of maturity. But until then, it's not a bad idea to get yourself off, both to learn what pleases you and to ease the pressure. Well, the church doesn't like that. Which is stupid. Barring abstinance, masturbation is the safest form of sex in which you can engage. And in this day and age, sex can be awfully, awfully complicated and even deadly. The only reason I can see for the Catholic church to forbid it is because of ancient sex-phobia.

Ancient taboos are, in my opinion, again the only reason the church prohibits gay sex (well, OK; Leviticus). But I'm going to punt this one to Dan Savage of the Stranger, whose "Savage Love" is one of the best advice columns out there. He made the following point about gay sex not exactly being the worst taboo out there:

The taboo against gay sex was irrational because it denied gay people the right to any sexual expression or romantic attachment, and consequently the taboo against homosexuality was as unjust as it was unenforceable. The cultural taboo against incest, however, is not an attempt to deny a group of people any and all access to love and intimacy, but an attempt to direct sexual feelings toward healthier, more appropriate targets.
The point being that gay people cannot help their sexual orientation. And don't give me this ex-gay crap. Larry Craig might still be a married man, but does anyone have any doubt at all that he's gay? How would you feel if your daughter brought Ted Haggard home to meet you knowing what you know about him now? There's a difference between your sexual behavior and your sexual orientation. You cannot help who you are. You CAN, however, fall just as much in love and demand the same things that straight couples can. It's called equality. The only reason to deny it is bigotry. Savage again:

(G)ay and lesbian couples would like to marry for the same reasons so many straight couples would like to marry or have already married: They're in love, they've made a commitment to each other, and they want the rights, privileges, and responsibilities (RPRs) that come with legal marriage.

Finally, the birth control point. I pointed out in my last post on this topic (to the delight of one of my female readers) that the rhythm method is not exactly the most proven, foolproof method for birth control. Short of never having sex or getting yourself spayed or neutered, there isn't really anything foolproof. But the rhythm method is particularly insulting to me because it's so fucking condescending (I really tried this time to get through a blog post about the Catholic church without dropping the f-bomb. One of these days I will, but sometimes the crudest of words are all that will suffice to express the outrage).

Here's what the church is saying when it comes to birth control:

--You can't use it, male or female. No condoms, no spermicide, no pill, no IUD, no nothing.
--You have to make sure you're constantly keeping track of your body temperature to make sure you're not ovulating before having sex. And of course, we all know how the body temperature NEVER EVER fluctuates for any other reason, so there's NEVER A CHANCE of a false reading.
--If you DO get pregnant, and you can't afford the kid, and you're having a difficult and potenially life-threatening pregnancy--well, you should have kept your legs together, you slut. Oh, and the morning after pill is not an option, even if you are raped or you were falling-down drunk at the time, either (that should end the argument right there, as far as I'm concerned)

What really burns me about this whole debate is the fact that it demeans women by basically saying, "Even if you're in the mood NOW, and you are in the most fertile time of your cycle NOW, you can't so much as have your man put on a condom to responsibly, safely, and maturely postpone the chance of getting pregnant. I can't express this politely or quietly, so turn down your speakers:

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT PERMIT YOU TO BE IN CONTROL OF YOUR OWN SEXUALITY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A WOMAN. THEY DON'T RESPECT YOU ENOUGH TO LET YOU DO AS YOU PLEASE WITH YOUR OWN BODY.


This attitude is stupid, wrong, and demeaning. And as evidenced by all the scandals in the clergy, not just the molestation of boys, and not just by Catholic priests, it's about enough to make you tell your local white-collar-wearer to stick it up his crucifix.

In short, when it comes to the Catholic church denouncing people for being in charge of their sexuality...I say it should go right on doing so. Because the less they change with the times, the more time will pass them by, and the more quickly they die out from irrelevance.

Friday, April 11, 2008

More Catholic bigotry

I know, I know...so what else is new?

Corvino's presentation "What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?" was scheduled last week at the college, but administrators postponed it until April 22 after receiving complaints.

Aquinas President Ed Balog canceled the event Thursday, saying the Catholic school cannot endorse a program that directly opposes church teachings.

Yeah, like the teaching that there's more to a person's sexuality than is spelled out in the Bible. Or that the whole of the church's sexual doctrine is based on a bunch of sex-phobic creeps like St. Augustine ("Grant me chastity and continence, only not yet."--Wikipedia).

Or that the church's attitude toward women is so obviously warped they couldn't conceive (har) of their savior's mother having normal sexual intercourse. And if you had any doubts about that misogyny (a word I don't use often), BOTH abortion AND birth control are still sins in Catholic doctrine. You can't kill it, but you can't use modern, proven, reliable, SCIENTIFIC means to prevent its conception, either. So you're saying the only birth control a woman has at her disposal is either crossing her legs or crossing her fingers? (And don't talk to me about the "rhythm method", either. The rhythm method is to birth control as draft animals are to planting your crops. It may get the job done, kinda/sorta, but there are better, more reliable, more SCIENTIFIC means of getting the fucking job done).

It's been said before and it needs to be reinforced...Jesus never said one god-damned thing about homosexuality. It's the gay-bashers who quote-mine scriptures for justification and ignore the "love one another" stuff when it doesn't suit them.

For the final fucking time, you fucking idiot clergy, you keep the fuck out of the private lives of consenting adults. You've done enough damage to non-consenting altar boys that you have no right to speak out EVER AGAIN on the subject of sexual morality.

The end.

(via--who else?--Sullivan)

Friday, March 7, 2008

Iowa Marriage Amendment pt. 2

Well, I got a form letter back from Governor Culver today, in response to my email about opposing the Iowa Marriage Amendment. His response, and my snide commentary follow:

Dear Paul:
(so far, so good, correct spelling and punctuation)

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the issue of same sex marriage.

Like many Iowans, I believe that marriage is betwen a man and a woman. (I don't like the gay stuff, unless I rent a video.) I expressed that opinion in the course of my campaign for Governor; it remains my belief.

I also believe that all Iowa citizens are entitled to equal treatment under our laws. (Then why not equality in marriage, Gov. Contradition?) The Culver-Judge Administration (fanfare, please) has supported the expansion of our civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination in our State based on a person's sexual orientation. (I don't know how MUCH support he gave, but hey, Iowa really is better than some states in that area).

The issue of same sex marriage has been addressed by the Polk County District Court, which held that our current statute defining marriage as an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. That decision has been appealed and will ultimately be decided by the Iowa Supreme Court.

In response to that development, I have urged Iowans to place confidence in the legal process. We should await the final determination of this issue by our courts. At that time, we can decide what action, if any, should be taken.

(Translation: I ain't a-gonna stick my neck out on this one, as I was elected under the "Anyone but Jim Nussle for Governor" ticket, and my time in office is tenuous enough as it is.)

Thank you again for taking time (yadda, yadda, yadda; more correct spelling and punctuation)

Chester J. Culver
Governor

(Well, at least he's not a Leviticus-quoting ultra-con. So, hit me, High Court. Do the right thing)