blithering nonsense...

Scalia Is Just a Bigot By Michael Tomasky, Daily Beast via RSN

Michael Tomasky has something to say about Judge Scalia's too often pronounced pearls of wisdom. in the link above it's about lgbtq & marriage. Tomasky's blunt take on what Scalia says? 

"What blithering nonsense."

Scalia says in Lawrence: “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.”

WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW? 

i apologize for yelling but there is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution about marriage. THAT in itself should prove that DOMA is unconstitutional. it is beyond Congress' purview.

if it's not in the Constitution, it means that it's up to the states.

yes, overwhelmingly states have blocked it, but that leads to questions of the 4th, 9th, 10th, & 14th Amendments. wake up SCOTUS!

of course, then you get into the thing that marriage is not actually a 'right'; it is a contract. 

about 'contracts' the Constitution has something to say. 

Section 10 says, "No state shall...pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts...."

divorce is a dissolution of a contract in a court, and SCOTUS has dealt with it, though it refused to deal with communal property in a 1910 case & has never revisited it.

i'm not a lawyer nor legal expert, but my background does include constitutional history. all the way back to the first constitutional contract - the Magna Carta. yes, i said 'constitutional contract' because what is a constitution if not a contract? 

and don't get me started on history of 'marriage'!

i know. i'm over the top. but i'm sick of dealing with all of this.

weekender

it's the weekend and that means that here in Chicago the weather is shitty - severe storm warnings, tornado watches, flood alerts! we have yet to have not only summer but spring.

see...! global warming is a myth. it's really climate change, and ours has been going on for the last several years.

i bring this up because June is the traditional month for weddings. lots of people want to be June brides, errr, grooms, errr, same-sex spouses, errr, even i'm confused!

a lot of you are probably going to weddings all this month.

came across this and thought you would all understand that even if you can't get married in this life, there is hope...


On their way to get married, a young Catholic couple is involved in a fatal car accident. The couple find themselves sitting outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St. Peter to process them into Heaven. While waiting, they begin to wonder: Could they possibly get married in Heaven? When St. Peter showed up, they asked him.

St. Peter said, 'I don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me go find out,' and he leaves.

The couple sat and waited, and waited. Two months passed and the couple are still waiting. As they waited, they discussed that if they were allowed to get married in Heaven, what was the eternal aspect of it all. 'What if it doesn't work?' they wondered, 'Are we stuck together forever?'

After yet another month, St. Peter finally returns, looking somewhat bedraggled. 'Yes,' he informs the couple, 'you can get married in Heaven.'

'Great!' said the couple, 'But we were just wondering, what if things don't work out? Could we also get a divorce in Heaven?'

St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slammed his clipboard onto the ground.

'What's wrong?' asked the frightened couple.

'OH, COME ON!', St. Peter shouted, 'It took me three months to find a priest up here! Do you have any idea how long it'll take me to find a frakkin' Lawyer?



Maxx almost got married once.
really...
the gin got in the way.
he drank more than Maxx.
when the Sapphire was gone,
so was Maxx!
figures...

is there a law...

or court case that mandates what a church or minister or rabbi or priest must do?

yes, i know that there are cases on record that say that an adoption agency cannot discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, but the caveat here is if the agency is receiving governmental funding. the provision reflects that the government cannot sanction a religion over another or support religious beliefs and the use of tax monies that discriminate against someone would be against federal and constitutional law.

the spate of laws being debated in state legislatures right now on same-sex marriage or civil unions almost all have some language in them excluding a church from being forced to marry someone that they don't want to in light of their dogma.

again, is there a law or court case that mandates that they would have to do that?

it seems to me that these provisions in and of themselves are pandering and creating a protected group - religion.

don't get me wrong, i don't give one wit if a church doesn't want to marry someone. the Catholic church refused to marry my parents because there wasn't enough time before Dad was shipped over to England during WWII. the bans of marriage requirement could not be met, so they wouldn't marry them. they married in an Anglican church here in Chicago [my father's religion], and he went off to war.

the problem came when i was to be baptized. when the Catholic church discovered they were not married in a sanctioned church ceremony, they wouldn't baptize me. my parents remarried an hour before my baptism in the church rectory.

[the best part of this for me is that the church considered me a bastard. i loved it and have gotten all the mileage i can out of it over the years!]

hypothetically, some foolettas are going to demand their church marry them somewhere down the line and take the church or minister or priest to court. the way i read the existing laws, this type of case would be tossed out before it even got to an actual trial.

if the churches are afraid of this, then put the silly provisions in the laws. i don't think it makes a difference one way or another.

except...

by now creating a special group - the religious - who do not want lgbtq being considered a special group because they don't believe in special groups.

hellloooooo!

"Thank you for your help."

this has been making the rounds over the last few days from Andrew Sullivan to Blogactive.



Grover is not confused any more. why do you think it's so difficult for so many others? especially adults?

just asking...

de-obfuscating an obfuscation: Frank Rich in NYT on NOM"s "Gathering Storm" video ad...

The Bigots’ Last Hurrah

Yet easy to mock as “Gathering Storm” may be, it nonetheless bookmarks a historic turning point in the demise of America’s anti-gay movement.

What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it’s idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it’s mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead.

NYT, Sunday, April 19, 2009

there is a lot more to his argument and i recommend everyone read Rich's entire OpEd. i only hope that it as easy as he seems to portray it. my reliance on hope says, "YES", but my cynicism says, "I have to wait and see...

at any rate, this is one of the more logical and calming statements and stands i've seen over the years. it says that people might be beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, there really is very little difference.

i am reminded of Mr. Spock's IDIC - infinite diversity in infinite combinations...

obfuscating obfuscations: the storm is false... part 2

the video by NOM has really made the rounds in the last couple of days. not only on many blog sites but also on all the mainstream media as well. it hasn't really had a great reception though. even the media has been pointing out its falsehoods and latched onto the fact that the people in it are all actors.

the video does say they are actors in small print in the video, but someone inside the organization has leaked the audition tapes and that has taken a lot of the wind out of the sails. the auditions have been removed from YouTube because NOM says it's a copyright infringement. if that were the case, why didn't they take the video ad down too? hmmmm?

one of my favorite posts is over at the Bilerico Project by Bill Browning entitled Stupid Alert: NOM ad actors "controversy". the opening snippet from the post:

Have you ever been arguing with someone and been frustrated that they choose one small minute part of what you said and constantly keep picking at that instead of seeing the bigger picture? It's stupid and doesn't get you anywhere.

this is the usual tactic used in almost all propaganda. after all, narrow minds can only deal with narrow ideas.

the part of the Bilerico post that caught my eye initially is also may favorite. it is the easiest way to fight propaganda, but it is also not the way we do things in this country. nevertheless, you have to see it...





i feel soooo sorry for the bunny...

and thanks, Bill, for sharing all this.

obfuscating obfuscations: the storm is false...

this is so sad. the end of the video says that the organization flaunting the lies in the video are responsible for its content. that's the one thing that they got right - they are responsible in their irresponsibility. there are too many proofs that every statement that is made in the video is false, and i'm not about to list them all here. it's a simple Google.com search. there are a couple of references after the video.





an example of the falsehoods: the mention of the church in New Jersey who is being punished for not allowing a lesbian couple to commit on their property. the group has been receiving government support for allowing the general public to use the land. by denying them, the church group broke the basic contract it had with the New Jersey government. NOM doesn't mention that. Nor does the video or group report that the California doctor was not only cited for breaking the law but the Hippocratic Oath by denying health consultation because of religious beliefs. yes, the case was concerning reproductive rights, but what if the couple had then gone to a less qualified professional and it resulted in harm or even death? the culpability would still be there.

no one is forcing anyone to change their beliefs or restructure their lives as they want to do to others. the even sadder thing is that these people throw out the number one thing that their god commands of them - love their neighbor as themselves.

i suppose the real comment behind this is that they really don't love themselves...



i would also direct you to a piece on Huffington Post yesterday by Mike Alvear - At Least Have the Decency to Lie About Your Sexuality - where a woman sitting next to him on a flight admonishes him for being gay when he did everything in his power not to bring it up. her solution was exactly what the title said - lie about who you are.

it would have been better if the woman had lied instead...

obfuscating obfuscations: it's still ALL about sex... Part 2

Andrew Sullivan has a post up right now on the Daily Dish that points out just what my previous post brought up:

We Are All Sodomists Now

Andrew, in turn, cites from a piece by Tyler Cowen

If you take the heterosexual couples who engage in the practice which is sometimes "associated" with male gay marriage, I predict those couples will favor legal gay marriage to an astonishingly high degree. Their marriage is already "affiliated" with that practice, and so the notion of legally married gay men (and the practices which go along with that) does not constitute an extra and unwanted affiliation for their marriage ideal.

thanks, Andrew and Tyler. make, well at least try to make, people like that organization i mentioned earlier think...

of course, they in turn will make it to their advantage. i can see it now -

They will take away our right to missionary sex and force us to...

i believe you get the picture.

thanks again, Andrew.

obfuscating obfuscations: it's still ALL about sex...

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood. State recognition of those other types of relationships is unnecessary. So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

The Future of Marriage, The National Review
by The Editors

there is no fight to protect traditional marriage. it's all about the sex, no if's, and's or but's about it.

the editorial in yesterday's National Review is explicit in this core belief, and that of the organizations like National Organization for Marriage.

since they can't save their favorite bastion of tradition from their own sort by stopping a divorce rate of over 50%, keeping their teenagers out of each other's pants, stopping the onslaught of couples merely living together, or decreasing the number of single parents, they latch onto the evil that dare not speak its name - non-missionary position sex.

oooooo...

maybe part of the problem is what they consider normal sex boring but don't want to admit that they enjoy, you know, the kinky stuff, but their beliefs, or at least their pastors, tell them they can't...?

any way, why are they so fixated on sex? it's really highly overrated, isn't it?

just asking...

one day after - include your voice...

Freedom to Marry Week ended yesterday - on Valentine's Day.

As an awareness campaign there might not be any way to measure it's success. The polls, surveys and other subjective instruments show that there is growing support for equality in marriage. The most promising population is the young - those under 30 mainly. It has become more of a non-issue to them because they all know someone lgbtq and they measure people under different rules than there parents and older family members, for the most part.

There are many sites on the web who repeatedly say that it is only a matter of time before full equality in all areas, not just marriage, happens; and not just to lgbtq but other minorities who may have equality on the books but not in action and/or belief.

The catch phrase is "It will happen."

One of the things that is most important is to put faces to the imaginary assaults that the right-wingnuttery christianists use as their battle cries.

The Courage Campaign is an organization that is leading the charge in California because of the fiasco of Prop 8. It is also important that the message be spread to all parts of the country. Below is one of the videos they produced to make the point that there is more to the issue than sex. Actually, sex is probably least important to the main issue. People's lives are what are most important.



"Fidelity": Don't Divorce...
from Courage Campaign
on Vimeo.


add your name to their letter being sent to the California Supreme Court and help them give Ken Starr, who is taking the proverbial reins to the pro-Prop 8 people another setback in his nefarious career.

or go HERE to sign...

Freedom to Marry Week...

February 8-14, 2009.



join the conversation on Freedom to Marry

happy new year from Benedict...

A new statute coming into effect on January 1st will allow the Vatican to bypass Italian law.

This comes in the wake of a row at the UN, where the Vatican refused to sign up to a universal declaration of human rights regardless of gender or sexuality.

Under current laws, the Holy See must accept Italian laws automatically apart from in the case of "radical incompatibility" with canon law.

The new statute signed by Pope Benedict XVI will put an end to this system.

From the start of the new year, all Italian laws will be subject to scrutiny by Vatican authorities before being implemented in the city-state itself.

"Vatican breaks with Italian law after refusing to sign UN sexuality declaration" from PinkNews.co.uk

of course, he has his mouthpieces not connecting it to the UN resolution but to the myriad of Italian laws that are impossible to wade through. [how convenient...]

President of the Commission for the Revision of the Code of Vatican Law Jose Maria Serrano Ruiz said that the decision to change the legal system was due to the "instability" and "exorbitant" number of Italian laws.

see, here's what they really believe -

The Vatican's observer at the UN claimed last week that the declaration will somehow be used to force countries to recognise same-sex marriage.

"If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations," said Monsignor Celestino Migliore.

"For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure."

so this is what we have. it is all right to discriminate against certain groups [that he chooses] but not to discriminate against others - like him. oh, by the way, the U.N. declaration makes no mention of marriage whatsoever - just advising that no one should be legally victimized because of their sexuality.

talk about obfuscation...

as i've quoted Henry II before, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

"THE" Newsweek article...

i finally read the article in Newsweek - Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy - published Dec 6, 2008. if you've missed it, i recommend that you click on the link to read it.

the article, if you are not familiar, uses the Bible, just as the anti-gay marriage people do, as a means of supporting same-sex marriage. it's interesting and i've been familiar with most references in the article. the main points are 1) that there is no direct reference to homosexuality in the either the New or the Old Testament and 2) the message of Jesus was inclusion of all people in the love and joys of his father.

the more interesting part of the article is the comments following it from readers. [Note: Newsweek has had to suspend people from making additional comments because the server couldn't handle it. interesting!]

the comments have the usual mix of arguments that have been going around for the last number of years. there are people who say that the Good Book cannot be wrong; there are others who say that the book was written for the specific times it makes rules for and a lot is lost in translation; some comments are very well thought out and written and others are, well, ridiculously blind.

i was especially struck by the latter. the people who have their blind faith with no question or thought are especially rancorous. it is almost as if they are threatened that their entire world will end if same-sex marriage becomes widely accepted. of course, the article and the comments also point out this similarity to slavery, but it makes no difference to them.

personally, after reading both the article and its comments, i more firmly believe something that i've thought for a long time:

if Jesus were alive today, there is one thing he would not want to be - a christian!

blasephemy? afraid not. i'm no longer a believer in the mythology. only in its inherent message of brotherly love and equality of all.

life should be a musical...

Andy over at Towleroad put this up on his site today - NEIL PATRICK HARRIS AND JACK BLACK IN PROP 8: THE MUSICAL

i've always thought that the world could be a better place if it was a musical. just think about it.

feeling down? - break into song! really happy? - break into song! feel discriminated against? - break into song!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

of course, they may lock you up if you break into song. they may say you're a little bit off. oh, and they'd probably say you are blasphemous also...

personally? i'd rather have a good time.

if they really want to "defend" marriage...

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

i've often thought about this myself. with the divorce rate in excess of 50% and the number of children in one-parent homes and in foster care, the people against same-sex marriage should put their money where their mouths are...

i worked with kids for my entire adult life in schools. one of the biggest problems we had was not the kids; it was the parents. i dealt with some very strange physical and mental abuse cases. i could never understand how anyone could do something harmful to kids.

once, after a particularly difficult case, i made the comment that i thought that "people should have to pass a test to become parents, just like you have to pass a test to get a driver's license."

one of my more conservative teachers return comment was, "I think they should have to pass a test to have the fun to have a child."

there was absolutely no arguing with that logic.

olbermann special comment: 11.10.08...

not just on Proposition 8, but also on the entire idea of hypocrisy and the changes that need to be made in the concept of humanity





Picking and choosing has always been a trait of the christianists. They use what they want for their ends and ignore the ones that do not meet their personal prejudices and agendas. They accuse others of having agendas against their religion when they are experts at the technique. They decry activist judges who do no keep in step with their drumbeat, yet they use their own activist justices like Alito, Thomas, Roberts etal. to foster hatred and scorn. These people are the ultimate hypocrites.

MSNBC just announced that they have renewed Keith Olbermann's contract for another four years.

some men (and women) and NOT more equal than others...

In the Constitution of the United States, as in the Declaration of Independence, there are references to equality.

the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[note: the words all in bold are my highlighting for emphasis.]

sadly, there has been a struggle in this country to secure the equality of all men - the Civil War, Women's right to vote, the ERA to name those that have been the biggest struggles (still the ERA has yet to be passed. you just have to note the inequity of pay between men and women for the same jobs.)

one of the most vocal fights of inequality for the last couple of decades has been against the LGBT community, most notably through the anti-marriage amendments that keep sprouting up in various states. right now the fights are focused in Arizona, in Florida, and, most viciously, in California.

Arizona seems to be a given, even though the state legislature and courts are in favor of equal rights but without the word marriage. Florida looks as if the Amendment 2 is not going to pass, but probably the biggest reason for that, rather than being LGBT focused, is that it would forbid rights for straight people who live together, usually the elderly in Florida, who could lose benefits they already have.

Proposition 8 in California is the most contentious. The state Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a denial of rights provided for in the California Constitution. of course, the wingers and christianists in the state know that the only way to overthrow the court's ruling is to change the state Constitution. Proposition 8 is meant to do just that.

there have been many reports of vitriolic speech and physical altercations being used by those who like to deny rights to others in the state; of the Mormon church funding a major push for the proposition's adoption; and with the fear that is being used to spread the lies and innuendo. the rhetoric is monumental.

again, throughout our history, there have been those, and they are the ones usually in political power, who think that some people are more equal than others. they believe that if the definition of marriage is open to all, their own marriages will be diminished. yet, in those states and countries that allow same-sex marriage, research has shown that it has had no effect whatsoever on the institution of marriage as it has existed for centuries. no straight couple has become less committed because of same-sex marriage; no relationship between a man and a woman has been diminished; and, maybe most important, the divorce rate in opposite sex marriages has still maintained its 50%+ level.

the fight against Proposition 8 in California is being monitored closely. other states are looking to see that, if it is passed, it can give them the nod to spread the inequality to their own states. the conservative base of the fundamentalists in the Republican party are in the last throws of maintaining the influence and political clout they've had for the last several years. their agenda has fallen apart in almost all areas. they are being turned back by the U.S. electorate. the emphasis on Proposition 8 almost seems like a last ditch effort to keep a hold on something. there is one problem with their logic.

the most used argument by the christianists and wingers is Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

however, they forget what is 26 lines following it in Leviticus 19:18

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

yes, most christianists believe that Jesus said this. they fail to understand that he quoted from the Torah, being the devout Rabbi that he was. his use of the message of Leviticus 19:18 cannot be denied nor ignored.

and, by it's words, it conveys that all men are created equal. no one is more equal than anyone else.

if i was a California resident, i would vote NO on Proposition 8. if you live in California, please prove to the rest of the country that all men are created equal by voting NO on Proposition 8...

monday morning mayhem...

you may be too young to remember these...

My husband, being unhappy with my mood swings, bought me a mood ring the other day so he would be able to monitor my moods.

We've discovered that when I'm in a good mood, it turns green. When I'm in a bad mood, it leaves a big frickin' red mark on his forehead.

ouch...




new fuel guages...














ummm...

If you were around in 1919 (just before prohibition started) and came upon the following poster...




Would you quit drinking?


i'd increase the number of glasses of gin per day. maybe even bottles...



may the week go fast if you need it to...

there are all kinds of families...

you don't need a piece of paper, traditional values, or sacred books to justify them. they just happen...

is Giuliani a Catholic?

I'm asking because of his latest pronouncement in backing the church's belief that homosexual acts are a sin but being gay isn't. At least that's what he says.

The other basis for which I'm asking this is that he's been married three times. The first marriage was to his cousin and it was annulled by the church. The second marriage was in church but not annulled by the church. It's extra difficult to get a second annulment, especially when there are two children born in it. His third marriage, consequently, is a civil one, not sanctioned by the church. It leads me to believe that he is breaking church canon.

Church law makes it very difficult to end a marriage and most people don't even bother with the time-consuming procedures the church demand. Consequently, the person(s) who marry outside the church while still being married in the view of the church can no longer receive the sacraments, cannot fully participate in the liturgy, and are in jeopardy of being excommunicated.

So, if he is no longer a Catholic in good-standing, to my way of thinking, Giuliani has absolutely no right to take stands on church teaching because he is actually not a member of the church. He can't go to mass; he can't receive communion; and he can't participate in any liturgy except as an observer at best. AND... he cannot be absolved by confession. If he is still in the illicit marriage, he cannot be forgiven by the church.

talk about shameless hypocrisy...

oh, and his second wife made it very clear what the reasons for the divorce were inspite of Giuliani's reasons:

Shortly after Giuliani left office, he filed for divorce, accusing Hanover of "cruel and inhuman treatment." In her response, Hanover blamed the ex-mayor's "open and notorious adultery."

Let's see... that's #6 in the Catholic list of the 10 Commandments - Thou shalt not commit adultery. He is still committing adultery by living in the civil marriage to his present wife.

So, let's get this straight [pun intended]. Giuliani is living in sin and his immortal soul is in danger of eternal damnation by breaking the Sixth Commandment. There is no leeway in its interpretation. Yet, he says that participating in homosexual acts is wrong according to the church. I'm confused.

last time I looked there was no commandment about men s****** d***. Correct me if I'm wrong... please.