Today, the Maine state senate voted 21-14 to legalize gay marriage--and this news isn't even a headline! You have to dig for the story if you want to find it. Can you believe it? Gay marriage is so ordinary and commonplace now that you can't interest people in it anymore. If this vote had happened a few years ago, there would be headlines all across the country, fulminating TV preachers on FOX, in-depth coverage on all the national networks. That was then; this is now. Today, the vote is just another run-of-the-mill matter in the state legislature and hardly elicits even a comment.
The world has changed in front of our eyes, and almost nobody cares one way or the other. Yet the dwindling band of true-believing anti-gay bigots still think that they're going to scare people into rejecting gay marriage. That's their one and only idea. They have no Plan B. They're being marginalized by their own mindless hate, and they're powerless to do anything about it. Sounds like karma to me!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
News on the gay marriage front--more victory!
Today, the New Hampshire state senate voted 13-11 to enact gay marriage; previously the state house had voted in favor of gay marriage. The bill goes into conference to resolve minor differences between the versions passed by each house; presumably each house will then approve the final bill and send the legislation to the Democratic governor, who, despite a prior public stance against gay marriage in preference to civil unions (which he signed into law a few years ago), has kept quite about this bill and may sign it or at least let it pass into law without his signature. A recent poll may fortify the governor's courage: 55 percent of the citizens of New Hampshire support gay marriage; only 39% oppose it. I suspect that few people among the 39% vote for Democrats, so maybe the governor will join what is clearly the winning side without quivering and quaking and wetting himself and fearing for his career.
On the absurd side of the issue, Carrie Prajean, Miss California, has joined the National Organization for Marriage, the laughable group which recently presented that silly gay-storm-a-comin' anti-gay marriage ad that was so widely ridiculed and parodied. She will cut an ad relating her recent hair-pulling tussle with Perez Hilton. Get ready for a snow job turning a cat fight into a tale of persecution and saintly courage. And get ready for some glorious parodies and a lot of laughter aimed at this ditz-of-the-week. NOM and the religious right haven't done themselves much good in New Hampshire or any where else. They just don't get the zeitgeist now (by the way, Carrie, that's German for "spirit of the times"). The tide has turned; Americans are accepting gay marriage. According to the New York Times, even fossilized Republican pols are now beginning to fear that they've signed onto a loser issue that at present may exercise folk in eastern Oklahoma and certain bloggers in Texas but in future will bore everybody to death and render the party even more pointless than it already is. Read about the growing unease among reactionaries here: Future dim for Republican dimwits.
And that's the real news here: opinion has changed. Proposition 8, although a technical victory for the anti-gay bigots, curdled public opinion. There was something genuinely indecent about stealing rights from people--on the same night that Americans celebrated a victory over racism by electing a black president. The enormous Vermont victory was another threshold. Hardly eight years after enacting a court-ordered civil unions law that set Vermonters at each other's throats, the same legislature enacts gay marriage and nobody emits a peep of protest. Can any Vermonter remember what all the fuss was about to begin with? Nope.
The only people pushing the anti-gay marriage line are the scam artists on the right who can still get a few old ladies in Topeka to send in a chunk of their monthly Social Security check to finance the phony war to save marriage (and in reality fund the rich lifestyles of the scammers). These parasites care only about making money. For normal people, this issue, once as explosive as nitroglycerin, is yesterday's news and downright dull. Gay marriage is happening; the argument is over; move on.
On the absurd side of the issue, Carrie Prajean, Miss California, has joined the National Organization for Marriage, the laughable group which recently presented that silly gay-storm-a-comin' anti-gay marriage ad that was so widely ridiculed and parodied. She will cut an ad relating her recent hair-pulling tussle with Perez Hilton. Get ready for a snow job turning a cat fight into a tale of persecution and saintly courage. And get ready for some glorious parodies and a lot of laughter aimed at this ditz-of-the-week. NOM and the religious right haven't done themselves much good in New Hampshire or any where else. They just don't get the zeitgeist now (by the way, Carrie, that's German for "spirit of the times"). The tide has turned; Americans are accepting gay marriage. According to the New York Times, even fossilized Republican pols are now beginning to fear that they've signed onto a loser issue that at present may exercise folk in eastern Oklahoma and certain bloggers in Texas but in future will bore everybody to death and render the party even more pointless than it already is. Read about the growing unease among reactionaries here: Future dim for Republican dimwits.
And that's the real news here: opinion has changed. Proposition 8, although a technical victory for the anti-gay bigots, curdled public opinion. There was something genuinely indecent about stealing rights from people--on the same night that Americans celebrated a victory over racism by electing a black president. The enormous Vermont victory was another threshold. Hardly eight years after enacting a court-ordered civil unions law that set Vermonters at each other's throats, the same legislature enacts gay marriage and nobody emits a peep of protest. Can any Vermonter remember what all the fuss was about to begin with? Nope.
The only people pushing the anti-gay marriage line are the scam artists on the right who can still get a few old ladies in Topeka to send in a chunk of their monthly Social Security check to finance the phony war to save marriage (and in reality fund the rich lifestyles of the scammers). These parasites care only about making money. For normal people, this issue, once as explosive as nitroglycerin, is yesterday's news and downright dull. Gay marriage is happening; the argument is over; move on.
Monday, April 27, 2009
A recent trip
As soon as I picked up my bag from the baggage carousel, I knew something was fishy. One of the outside pouches was half unzipped. I always zip everything tight. Had somebody tried to steal something? I never put anything genuinely valuable in my checked luggage. My valuables travel with me on the plane; I keep a close eye on them. So what was up? I found out at my hotel. In my bag I discovered this note:
Dear Schmuck,
I have run my fingers over all your private possessions, and I have enjoyed doing so. Just wanted you to know. Have a nice day!
Love and hugs,
Heinrich Himmler
OK, I exaggerate--a bit. In truth, I found an anonymous note from the TSA (printed in both English and Spanish) informing me that TSA agents had run their fingers over all my private possessions and that the TSA wanted me to know. But no love and hugs from that bunch.
What were they looking for? Perhaps for the same forbidden contraband for which that poor elderly lady who was in front of me in the security line was searched. She set off the metal detector. Maybe it was all that gaudy gold jewelry she wore. Maybe she had an AK-47 tucked in her pants. In any event, after several failed retries, she was led to an open area and body searched--in full view of everyone in the airport. The TSA officer, guarding his nation from evil, slowly moved a metal-detecting wand over her body--her breasts, her crotch, her buttocks, her legs--as she stood motionless with arms outstretched. No one said a word or lifted a finger to save her from this humiliation, least of all me. We passengers had places to go, planes to catch; none of us wanted to risk being disappeared into some interrogation room or arrested. Instead, we free citizens of a free republic let pass this vile act of tyranny, averted our eyes from the spectacle, and went on our way.
Or perhaps they were looking for what in a previous trip a chubby TSA agent had tried to find in my carry-on bag. This young woman (who should have been wearing a paper hat and asking me if I wanted fries with my cheeseburger) decided that pawing the personal contents of my bag was not enough. No, a chemical swab was in order for I must be transporting something sinister. So I had to stand, mute and powerless, watching her fat fingers run cotton swabs here, there, and everywhere in my bag. Then I had to stand, silent and unmoving, while she placed these swabs in a machine for analysis. Did this twit have a clue what she was doing? What did this machine do? Was it even functioning correctly? If it beeped, what then? Handcuffs? Why was my life in the plump hands of an airhead? And then…nothing. No problems; all was right. You may go on your way, sir. If looks could kill, I would have dropped her on the spot.
So after a too-brief time with friends, I was homeward bound. The plane, only half-filled, required engine maintenance at a stopover. We had to change planes and arrived home about fifty minutes late. Hardly even an inconvenience. On my way to the baggage area I walked past the TSA station where agents were running their fingers over unhappy travelers who had tripped the metal detectors. What a rush to work on the frontier of national defense! I was eager to get home and take a nap. But as soon as I picked up my bag from the baggage carousel, I knew something was fishy. One of the outside pouches was half unzipped. Déjà vu all over again? Sure enough, at home I found another “Dear Schmuck” note from the TSA: “We are watching you. Never forget, not even for a moment. We are always watching you. And have a nice day!”
Dear Schmuck,
I have run my fingers over all your private possessions, and I have enjoyed doing so. Just wanted you to know. Have a nice day!
Love and hugs,
Heinrich Himmler
OK, I exaggerate--a bit. In truth, I found an anonymous note from the TSA (printed in both English and Spanish) informing me that TSA agents had run their fingers over all my private possessions and that the TSA wanted me to know. But no love and hugs from that bunch.
What were they looking for? Perhaps for the same forbidden contraband for which that poor elderly lady who was in front of me in the security line was searched. She set off the metal detector. Maybe it was all that gaudy gold jewelry she wore. Maybe she had an AK-47 tucked in her pants. In any event, after several failed retries, she was led to an open area and body searched--in full view of everyone in the airport. The TSA officer, guarding his nation from evil, slowly moved a metal-detecting wand over her body--her breasts, her crotch, her buttocks, her legs--as she stood motionless with arms outstretched. No one said a word or lifted a finger to save her from this humiliation, least of all me. We passengers had places to go, planes to catch; none of us wanted to risk being disappeared into some interrogation room or arrested. Instead, we free citizens of a free republic let pass this vile act of tyranny, averted our eyes from the spectacle, and went on our way.
Or perhaps they were looking for what in a previous trip a chubby TSA agent had tried to find in my carry-on bag. This young woman (who should have been wearing a paper hat and asking me if I wanted fries with my cheeseburger) decided that pawing the personal contents of my bag was not enough. No, a chemical swab was in order for I must be transporting something sinister. So I had to stand, mute and powerless, watching her fat fingers run cotton swabs here, there, and everywhere in my bag. Then I had to stand, silent and unmoving, while she placed these swabs in a machine for analysis. Did this twit have a clue what she was doing? What did this machine do? Was it even functioning correctly? If it beeped, what then? Handcuffs? Why was my life in the plump hands of an airhead? And then…nothing. No problems; all was right. You may go on your way, sir. If looks could kill, I would have dropped her on the spot.
So after a too-brief time with friends, I was homeward bound. The plane, only half-filled, required engine maintenance at a stopover. We had to change planes and arrived home about fifty minutes late. Hardly even an inconvenience. On my way to the baggage area I walked past the TSA station where agents were running their fingers over unhappy travelers who had tripped the metal detectors. What a rush to work on the frontier of national defense! I was eager to get home and take a nap. But as soon as I picked up my bag from the baggage carousel, I knew something was fishy. One of the outside pouches was half unzipped. Déjà vu all over again? Sure enough, at home I found another “Dear Schmuck” note from the TSA: “We are watching you. Never forget, not even for a moment. We are always watching you. And have a nice day!”
Thursday, April 16, 2009
It can't happen here! Oh, yeah?
For decades libertarians have been warning their fellow citizens that the monster which is the modern state would extinguish the rule of law, constitutional protections, and freedom itself. For their efforts, they have been reviled and mocked, written off as loonies and crackpots, dismissed from public debates, and generally ignored. All the while, the monster that is the modern state has been extinguishing the rule of law, any and all constitutional protections, and freedom itself.
If the last eight years of the Bush-Cheney police state have not convinced you, if the expansion of this police state by Obama-Biden in first four months of the new administration have not convinced you, what will convince you? Perhaps the scarred face of Pastor Steven Anderson of Tempe, Arizona, as he tells the story of his collision with the monster state and its thugs. Mr. Anderson is a fundamentalist's fundamentalist and is so far right in his religious views that you might need a telescope to spot him. He also is a man who believed until Wednesday, April 15, that he enjoyed constitutional protection against unreasaonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent and not answer questions posed by agents of the state, and the protection of the law against assualt by officers sworn to uphold that law.
He found out differently. Soon, you may find out differently, too.
Watch Pastor Anderson here
If the last eight years of the Bush-Cheney police state have not convinced you, if the expansion of this police state by Obama-Biden in first four months of the new administration have not convinced you, what will convince you? Perhaps the scarred face of Pastor Steven Anderson of Tempe, Arizona, as he tells the story of his collision with the monster state and its thugs. Mr. Anderson is a fundamentalist's fundamentalist and is so far right in his religious views that you might need a telescope to spot him. He also is a man who believed until Wednesday, April 15, that he enjoyed constitutional protection against unreasaonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent and not answer questions posed by agents of the state, and the protection of the law against assualt by officers sworn to uphold that law.
He found out differently. Soon, you may find out differently, too.
Watch Pastor Anderson here
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Liars for Jesus, Part 2
Below is a ridiculous article about the supposed threat to "religious freedom" that opponents of gay marriage claim is about to crush the faithful. Every word that these people utter about this subject is a lie.
They claim that the state will coerce unwilling pastors into performing gay marriages. This is preposterous. Nobody can legally demand that a Catholic priest, a protestant minister, a rabbi, or any other kind of clergy perform any religious rite under any circumstances whatsoever. No such legal right exists. Including gay people in marriage does nothing to change this fact--and the opponents of gay marriage know this to be the case! They tell this lie solely to gain public support. They know their claim to be false.
They claim that the state will not allow them to discriminate against gay people in places of business--to deny gay people services or employment or whatever. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has everything to do with anti-discrimination law governing public accommodations. Some states have such laws; most do not; the federal government has no such law despite several recent attempts to move such laws through Congress. Why religious people feel that they have the right to punish people they don't like is beyond me; these people would be the first to scream "Discrimination!" and hire a lawyer if they were denied services or employment on the basis of their religious affiliations or beliefs. Apparently the Golden Rule--treat others as you would be treated--doesn't apply to right-wing Christians. Somebody should notify Jesus about this cancellation ASAP. In any event, anti-discrimination law has nothing to do with including gay people in marriage. These are two separate legal issues.
I take exception with the article because the writer doesn't even attempt to deal with these absurd claims--other than by repeating them. I suppose this is the writer's twisted idea of being even-handed and balanced. One side tells lies about the other side. Journalists repeat the lies in order to give "both sides" of the story a fair shake. Once upon a time in America journalists were supposed to do some thinking and analysis, to challenge claims and evaluate evidence. Evidently those times are long behind us. This is one reason why the opponents of gay marriage keep getting away with lying for Jesus.
Read it here
They claim that the state will coerce unwilling pastors into performing gay marriages. This is preposterous. Nobody can legally demand that a Catholic priest, a protestant minister, a rabbi, or any other kind of clergy perform any religious rite under any circumstances whatsoever. No such legal right exists. Including gay people in marriage does nothing to change this fact--and the opponents of gay marriage know this to be the case! They tell this lie solely to gain public support. They know their claim to be false.
They claim that the state will not allow them to discriminate against gay people in places of business--to deny gay people services or employment or whatever. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has everything to do with anti-discrimination law governing public accommodations. Some states have such laws; most do not; the federal government has no such law despite several recent attempts to move such laws through Congress. Why religious people feel that they have the right to punish people they don't like is beyond me; these people would be the first to scream "Discrimination!" and hire a lawyer if they were denied services or employment on the basis of their religious affiliations or beliefs. Apparently the Golden Rule--treat others as you would be treated--doesn't apply to right-wing Christians. Somebody should notify Jesus about this cancellation ASAP. In any event, anti-discrimination law has nothing to do with including gay people in marriage. These are two separate legal issues.
I take exception with the article because the writer doesn't even attempt to deal with these absurd claims--other than by repeating them. I suppose this is the writer's twisted idea of being even-handed and balanced. One side tells lies about the other side. Journalists repeat the lies in order to give "both sides" of the story a fair shake. Once upon a time in America journalists were supposed to do some thinking and analysis, to challenge claims and evaluate evidence. Evidently those times are long behind us. This is one reason why the opponents of gay marriage keep getting away with lying for Jesus.
Read it here
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Liars for Jesus
Here's a question to test your intelligence: If you have appeared on national TV and made certain statements that you now regret, you should return to national TV and do the following: (a) deny that you ever said these statements; or (b) concede that you regret your previous statements.
Mr. Rick Warren, the fat slob impresario of a mega-church in California, opts for choice (a): I deny that I ever said what I actually said. Unfortunately, what the Watergate conspirators called "plausible deniability" is not an option when you're being videotaped, as was Mr. Warren when he said in an interview that gay marriage is equivalent to incest and pedophilia. We know he said this because we have video tape of him making this statement. Despite this fact, Mr. Warren recently appeared on the Larry King show and categorically denied that he ever said what he was videotaped saying.
What may we conclude from this episode? Answer: Pastor Rick lies. Reverend Warren tells whoppers.
John Avarosis has caught him in this lie and won't let him go. Nor should anybody else.
Read John Avarosis here
Mr. Rick Warren, the fat slob impresario of a mega-church in California, opts for choice (a): I deny that I ever said what I actually said. Unfortunately, what the Watergate conspirators called "plausible deniability" is not an option when you're being videotaped, as was Mr. Warren when he said in an interview that gay marriage is equivalent to incest and pedophilia. We know he said this because we have video tape of him making this statement. Despite this fact, Mr. Warren recently appeared on the Larry King show and categorically denied that he ever said what he was videotaped saying.
What may we conclude from this episode? Answer: Pastor Rick lies. Reverend Warren tells whoppers.
John Avarosis has caught him in this lie and won't let him go. Nor should anybody else.
Read John Avarosis here
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Nothing left by lies
The anti-gay marriage religious bigots are already busy belly-aching about the Vermont-Iowa one-two punch they've just been clobbered by. They have not a single argument left: gays win in the courts and in the legislatures. So the bigots resort to lies. In her column today, Maggie Gallagher writes:
"This week, by one vote, the Vermont Legislature overrode the governor's veto to impose same-sex marriage on that state."
Gosh, a tiny cabal of liberal politicians stuffing gay marriage down the unwilling public's mouth. Except...it isn't true.
Maggie Gallagher lies. Technically, she is correct: the Vermont House overrode the governor's veto with just enough votes as required by law. But what dear Maggie doesn't tell you is that the Vermont constitution requires a two-thirds super majority in both the House and the Senate to override vetoes. Gay marriage supporters were the overwhelming majority--fully 68% of the 180 members of the legislature. A tremendous victory for gay rights--but lying Maggie wants you to have the impression that it was a squeaker at best.
These bigots have been lying about us gays for so many years that they've completely forgotten how to tell the truth.
"This week, by one vote, the Vermont Legislature overrode the governor's veto to impose same-sex marriage on that state."
Gosh, a tiny cabal of liberal politicians stuffing gay marriage down the unwilling public's mouth. Except...it isn't true.
Maggie Gallagher lies. Technically, she is correct: the Vermont House overrode the governor's veto with just enough votes as required by law. But what dear Maggie doesn't tell you is that the Vermont constitution requires a two-thirds super majority in both the House and the Senate to override vetoes. Gay marriage supporters were the overwhelming majority--fully 68% of the 180 members of the legislature. A tremendous victory for gay rights--but lying Maggie wants you to have the impression that it was a squeaker at best.
These bigots have been lying about us gays for so many years that they've completely forgotten how to tell the truth.
Two glorious victories for human freedom
I note with delight the successful override of yesterday's veto by Vermont's despicable governor of the bill legalizing gay marriage in that state. As of September 1, gays will be free to marry. Three cheers.
I also note with delight the unanimous ruling by the the Iowa supreme court that the state's constitution requires that gay people enjoy the same marriage rights as everybody else. No separate but equal baloney here; no second-class "civil unions" for queers but marriage for "normal" folk. Everybody is equal before the law in Iowa. Three cheers again.
Soon the California state supreme court will issue its ruling on the appeal of Proposition 8. Let's see if those justices have the courage of their previous conviction--namely, that the state's constitution requires equality before the law even for gay people. I'm not betting the rent money on those quivering judicial doves, however. During oral argument it seemed clear that they were more than happy to cede the rule of law to the demagogues who lied their way to a narrow victory last November. Votes are sacred no matter what voters vote for, implied the justices. If you can muster a majority, then you get to alienate a person's unalienable rights. Mobs rule if the mobs show up at the polls on election day. That's democracy. And, of course, judges subject to popular approval at election time (at least these judges in California) are not loathe to invoke this unwritten legal principle: Placate the electorate to keep your job.
Courage, honesty, and simple human decency (much less fidelity to ancient legal principles) are traits found in abundance in Iowa and Vermont these days. I think that they are in short supply among California judges, but I hope to be proved wrong.
I also note with delight the unanimous ruling by the the Iowa supreme court that the state's constitution requires that gay people enjoy the same marriage rights as everybody else. No separate but equal baloney here; no second-class "civil unions" for queers but marriage for "normal" folk. Everybody is equal before the law in Iowa. Three cheers again.
Soon the California state supreme court will issue its ruling on the appeal of Proposition 8. Let's see if those justices have the courage of their previous conviction--namely, that the state's constitution requires equality before the law even for gay people. I'm not betting the rent money on those quivering judicial doves, however. During oral argument it seemed clear that they were more than happy to cede the rule of law to the demagogues who lied their way to a narrow victory last November. Votes are sacred no matter what voters vote for, implied the justices. If you can muster a majority, then you get to alienate a person's unalienable rights. Mobs rule if the mobs show up at the polls on election day. That's democracy. And, of course, judges subject to popular approval at election time (at least these judges in California) are not loathe to invoke this unwritten legal principle: Placate the electorate to keep your job.
Courage, honesty, and simple human decency (much less fidelity to ancient legal principles) are traits found in abundance in Iowa and Vermont these days. I think that they are in short supply among California judges, but I hope to be proved wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)