Heterophobia Gaysplained

All Michael Sam and No Play Makes Liam a Dull Boy. Blah blah blah, Michael Sam, blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah vibrator blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah Christianist douchebag, blah blah blah blah blah IB Times article written by Greg Price
on May 14 2014:

A Christian lobbyist has launched a boycott against the St. Louis Rams, openly gay defensive end Michael Sam, and credit card giant Visa.

In February, Jack Burkman, who head’s his Washington-based firm JM Burkman & Assoc., vowed to boycott any team or company that works with Sam and he has stayed true to his word. Burkman said the Rams and Sam are violating Christian beliefs, and that he's mobilized a grassroots campaign made up of a coalition of Christian leaders in 27 of the 50 U.S. states, according to The Independent.

“Visa and the Rams will learn that when you trample the Christian community and Christian values, there will be a terrible financial price to pay,” said Burkman.

“Openly gay football players send a terrible message to our youth about morality. Somebody needs to step up because the moral fiber of the nation is eroding.”

Please read the article if you aren't dying from ennui. 

Anyway...

First of all, wow, Jack Burkman has contacts in 27 of the 50 states... good for him... I hope his mom stops for ice cream after soccer practice...  78.5 percent of the nation is Christian. It is positively laughable that his coalition isn't in 48 of the 50. If all non-Christians lived in their own states, they would occupy 10 states. Even if that were the case, he should still be able to find contacts in the remaining 40.

Secondly, how and in what way is Michael Sam playing in the NFL trampling "the Christian community and Christian values." It's just so fucking stupid, res ipsa loquitur. Dear lord my head hurts simply trying to write this article. 

It is my experience that most of the gays that I know are looking forward to day when the act of existence is not viewed as a political statement. 

Blah Blah Blah

So I went to Photoshop and here's what Heterophobia would look like:

And how about this:

Or this:

Have you ever seen this?

What about from prominent gays:

Yeah, I haven't seen that either...

I realize that last one doesn't make a lick of sense, so I fixed it:

Wapow!

I was going to show actual photos that were the result of homophobia, but it was too much. So I posted a bunch of links that shows what homophobia actually looks like.

Warning: the following is far too graphic for this blog.

Mark Carson

Barie Shortell

Kerry Tyler Street (Actually Straight)

Dustin Martin

Ferrucio Silvestro

Wilfred de Bruijn

Sachsenhausen

And so many more, but I just can't go any further...


Liam '14

456

According to the AP via this ABC News Report, 456 couples were legally married in the 5 counties out of 70 that participated during the last week in Arkansas.[1]  456, holy shit that's a lot of people just sitting around waiting to get married in one state.

Congratulations to all. Congrats to the beautiful who got hitched last Saturday. You looked absolutely amazing for having slept all night in your car. Congrats to the attorneys and the legal staff who made this possible. Congrats to the 5 County Clerks who issued the licences like professionals. 456 couples were granted basic legal benefits that other adult couples are able to enjoy.

Also congrats to the bigots who got a stay put in place. Your pathetically small universe only grew by 456. Congratulations to the 70 County Clerks who stalled long enough not needing to issue marriage licenses to couple who are absolutely desperate. You must feel so big in such a small world and having so much power in your job knowing that you can deny people basic human dignity with a smile.

Congratulations to all 753,770 voters who enacted the constitutional ban that is still in place. You only have to deal with 456 same-sex marriages. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Liam '14


[1] http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arkansas-ag-seeks-court-stay-gay-marriage-23714855

Damn You Michael Sam, Now I Have Type 2 Diabetes

Yesterday I was fairly upset by the NFL Draft. Just minutes before he went to the St. Louis Rams, I started pulling up statistics on Michael Sam, because I was convinced that he would go undrafted. I was getting ready to send a sharply worded letter to the NFL, ESPN, and Fox, letting them know that I would no longer be watching football, playing fantasy football, and that I would be contacting their sponsors after I would cancel my subscription to the Weekend Ticket. But voila at the second the Rams saved the day.

And then after I woke up today, I saw this video:

Uggh.. need insulin..too sweet.. too endearing... and no I'm not crying, I long ago established that I have no soul and am incapable of any real human emotions, so my eyes just be super dry.

Ok back to the statistics.

I complied a spreadsheet (the gay's best friend) of all the SEC Player-of-the-Year winners since the SEC started giving them out to defenders in 2003.

Year	Name	Position	Team	Round	Overall
2003	Eli Manning	QB	Ole Miss (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 1
2003	Chad Lavalais	DT	LSU (Defense)	Round: 5	Pick: 142
2004	Jason Campbell	QB	Auburn (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 25
2004	David Pollack	DE	Georgia (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 17
2004	Carnell Williams	RB	Auburn (Special Teams)	Round: 1	Pick: 5
2005	Jay Cutler	QB	Vanderbilt (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 11
2005	DeMeco Ryans	LB	Alabama (Defense)	Round: 2	Pick: 33
2005	Skyler Green	RS	LSU (Special Teams)	Round: 4	Pick: 125
2006	Darren McFadden	RB	Arkansas (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 4
2006	Patrick Willis	LB	Ole Miss (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 11
2006	John Vaughn	PK	Auburn (Special Teams)	Undrafted in 2007
2007	Glenn Dorsey	DT	LSU (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 5
2007	Felix Jones	RS	Arkansas (Special Teams)	Round: 1	Pick: 22
2008	Tim Tebow	QB	Florida (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 25
2008	Brandon James	RS	Florida (Special Teams)	Undrafted in 2010
2008	Eric Berry	DB	Tennessee (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 5
2009	Rolando McClain	LB	Alabama (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 8
2009	Javier Arenas	RS	Alabama (Special Teams)	Round: 2	Pick: 50
2010	Cam Newton	QB	Auburn (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 1
2010	Nick Fairley	DT	Auburn (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 13
2010	Patrick Peterson	RS	LSU (Special Teams)	Round: 1	Pick: 5
2011	Trent Richardson	RB	Alabama (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 3
2011	Morris Claiborne	CB	LSU (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 6
2011	Joe Adams	RS	Arkansas (Special Teams)	Round: 4	Pick: 104
2012	Johnny Manziel	QB	Texas A&M (Offense)	Round: 1	Pick: 22
2012	Jadeveon Clowney	DE	South Carolina (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 1
2012	Caleb Sturgis	PK	Florida (Special Teams)	Round: 5	Pick: 166
2012	Ace Sanders	RS	South Carolina (Special Teams)	Round: 4	Pick: 101
2012	Jarvis Jones	LB	Georgia (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 17
2013	Tre Mason	RB	Auburn (Offense)	Round: 3	Pick: 75
2013	C.J. Mosley	LB	Alabama (Defense)	Round: 1	Pick: 17
2013	Michael Sam	DE	Missouri (Defense)	Round: 7	Pick: 249
2013	Christion Jones		Alabama (Special Teams)	Junior in College

On this list, three players were undrafted: one was a Return Specialist; one was a Place Kicker; and one is still in college. 

Michael Sam is by far the lowest drafted excluding Special Teams. Out of the 30 people drafted, they had an average pick position of 42.3 and a standard deviation of 60.35 meaning any pick below 102.65 is low.

In fact besides Michael Sam, the only other defensive player on this list to have been picked below 112 is Chad Lavalais who was picked at 142. The three-sigma value is 223.05, and yet Michael Sam was drafted 26 spots lower.

So how and why did Michael Sam go from being a possible first or second round choice in January to being a seventh round pick?

He had what many consider to be a poor showing at the combine; he also might not fit in well in the tradition 4-3 scheme due to his height; or perhaps it's the fact that he came out.

There is no way of telling how he will do in the NFL. He might fizzle out like Tebow or become an average player with a long career in the NFL or perhaps even go all-pro. 

No matter what there are a lot of people out there wishing him and his partner the best. 

Congratulations Michael Sam.

'Liam 14

New rule: drink every time you hear that Michael Sam is "ramming" his gayness down someone's throat.

Heart of Glass Rhymes With... Gov. Beshear

It's Kentucky's turn to make headlines. Although Arkansas surly would beg to differ. 

I was reading a article on Kentucky Governor, Steve Beshear, and his role in defending Kentucky's ban on gay certain marriages.

In an article in The Courier-Journal by Andrew Wolfson published on May 10th, all is explained on what Kentucky has been up to since losing in District Court:

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II in February struck down Kentucky's law and constitutional amendment banning the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, saying Kentucky had offered no rational basis for treating gay and lesbian couples differently.

Attorney General Jack Conway, whose office had been defending the ban, declined to appeal Heyburn's ruling, saying at the time that he thought the ban was unconstitutional. Beshear's office then hired an Ashland law firm to handle the appeal, which was filed Monday at the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Go read the full article. Seriously. I will quiz later on the material.

There is defiantly a lesson to be learned for governors, here. When your AG drops a case like this, perhaps you should likewise.By hiring outside legal representation, you are wasting government money that could be spent on education, improving infrastructure, or hell, even dildos for the poor would be a better use of the money.

If Jack Conway is running as a Democrat for Governor and you lose this case, he looks intelligent, a good leader, and fiscally prudent, while your party looks incompetent.... Wait Beshear's a Democrat... ummm. uhhh.... but... but. at least Conway looks good and smart... and at least now perhaps I will look a little less partisan... shit.

To see what Governor Beshear's odds are of success, I took a look at the Brief they filed with the 6th Circuit Court.

What scares me the most is that the Brief for the Defendant Appellant is very well written. The Brief  is grammatically flowing and avoids choppy sentences and general errors. I obviously disagree with the logic and the jurisprudence presented; however, well written briefs have a tendency of succeeding, particularly when they defend the status quo.

But let's take a look at their argumentation:

Kentucky, like 33 other states, has exercised its broad authority to regulate domestic relations by adopting a traditional man-woman definition of marriage.

That is not a definition of marriage. Marriage is defined by the statutes that promulgate the rights and responsibilities of marriage. States define marriage by whether or not they adopt the Communal Property Regime or if they use Common Law Property. Beyond that you are defining who gets married, and a state needs a damn good reason to do that (literally. Abridging the 14th Amendment requires strict scrutiny.)

So what's Kentucky's damn good reason for not recognizing same-sex marriages:

Even if Baker were not preclusive, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims fail. Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate. Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model. Thus, same-sex couples are not similarly situated to man woman couples, and the distinction drawn by Kentucky’s statutes is rationally related to a legitimate interest of Kentucky.

So economic collapse will ensue if Kentucky.. umm.. huh!? Gay people don't stop gaying it up when denied marriage. Yes, men and women make more men and women, and people see that as being somehow good for society. But straight people will continue popping little people out of their baby cannons, even if the gayz are allowed equal benefits. This doesn't even meet rational basis. 

Furthermore the examples used by Kentucky to demonstrate their hypothesis are Japan and Germany, neither of which allow same-sex marriage. So we can't allow gay certain types of marriages, because there are problems in places where those gay certain types of marriages aren't performed. You do realize that's an argument for gay marriage, right? 

But hold up, what's this about Baker v. Nelson:

Additionally, Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed by 409 U.S. 810 (1972), affirmatively rejected the notion that state law same-sex marriage prohibitions violate the Equal Protection Clause. Baker remains valid binding precedent upon the lower federal courts.

When nearly every federal jurisdiction in America is hearing the same type of case, perhaps this isn't the best argument. Baker provides no rational as it simply declined Certiorari. So after Perry, courts could adopt the 10th Circuits ruling as a primary persuasive authority. I explained it more in detail on the write up over Kitchen v. Herbert. Baker was over a statutory ban, while Kentucky has a constitutional ban. Thanks bigots! 

Liam '14

The Reader Quiz

By what day must the Plaintiffs file their response to the appeal?

A. May 30th

B. June 9th

C. July 4th

D.Butt-Sex 

The answer is D. Butt-Sex... good job reading the Courier-Journal article.

Meh.

***Just a quick heads up, the following post is incomplete. In the past I wouldn't post an incomplete writing, and it would sit unpublished forever. So this will be sloppy and unpolished and flawed. ***

I just don't have time to finish or the energy to clean it up. I also am bummed out about Town of Greece and the future out look of the Lemon Test.

***

Recently while speaking at the Pastor for Life Luncheon, Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of Alabama, Roy Moore raised some red flags about his opinions of law.

The video of his speech is supposed to be here, but I can't get it to work due to blogspot hating the world... or it does work, Yay!!!!!



Moore's Comments in three parts.

1. The 1st Amendment applies only to Christians:

Nope. The 1st Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice how it doesn't say Christians. Me too. Now, I might not be some backwater, inbred, shirtless fuck Supreme Court Justice of Alabama, but the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems pretty clear on what type of laws we can make prohibiting the exercise of religion.

Even if the 1st actually stated that only Christians had the benefit of freedom of religion and speech, the 14th amendment would take care of that issue.

Here is the Lemon test as spelled out by the US Supreme Court (the Burger Court no less) in Windmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272 (1981).

A policy will not offend the Establishment Clause if it can pass the following three-pronged test: (1) It has a secular legislative purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect would be neither to advance nor to inhibit religion; and (3) it does not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." 

2. Without God There Wouldn't be Freedom of Religion, so no Freedom of Religion for Those Who Worship False Gods 

Ugggggggh the stuuuuuuuuppppppppidddd make it stop make it stop. If you take away people's freedom of religion, there's no freedom of religion... stupid stupid stupid. So yes, if there is a god, it's thanks to that particular god that there is freedom of religion and no thanks to Moore.

Ok before I jump to conclusions here is what Moore said:

Buddha didn't create us, Mohammed didn't create us. It’s the God of the Holy Scriptures.

They didn't bring the Koran over on the pilgrim ship, Mayflower. Let’s get real, let’s go back and learn our history. Let’s stop playing games.

No One, No One claims that Buddha or Mohammed created the universe. If you're going to be an asshat at least get your facts straight.

Secondly as discussed by countless legal scholars, religions benefit from the establishment clause. In Weiss v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177 (1890) Catholics sued the state of Wisconsin, because they were being discriminated against when their children were forced to read out of the wrong Bible. Or a Unitarian in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) who was upset that their school time was being wasted.

When it comes to religion in the law, there is always an asshole who will push for further religious purity. The principles enshrined in the 1st Amendment and regulated by the Lemon Test help shield religious people from bigoted assholes who want to force their interpretations of religion on others.


3. Life Begins at Conception.

Finally Moore stated:

That's in Blackstone's commentaries. As soon as the infant stirs in its mother's womb, they didn't have the technology we have to day. But they knew that when it kick it was alive. Today our courts say it's not alive until the head comes out. If technology’s supposed to increase our knowledge, how did we become so stupid?

He goes on to state life begins at conception.

Where to begin...since he called people stupid, I think I'll start there.

Open a fucking text book; life does not "begyen" at conception. Life begins prior to conception with the production of millions of haploid gametes. Men produce living cells know sperm cells containing one half of a man's genomic sequence, which takes about 130 days to form. Women produce eggs or ovum before she is even born. Then one night when they are teenagers, and they've had too many wine-cooler, the man's penis becomes engulfed with blood, and they knock boots until the male is forced to apologies and say "well, that's never happened to me before, I'll call you tomorrow." And then he doesn't... Asshole.

It's kind of fucking embarrassing that a gay has to explain this to fully grown man. But the important thing to take away is that if you want to play the science game, make sure you understand the science involved.

Perhaps this video can shed some light on this issue.



Furthermore, courts don't claim that life begins at birth. If anything they are ruling on rights. In this country a human being does not have a full set of right until they reach adulthood. And for good reason. We don't want children to be treated as adults.

It's also funny that he would mention Blackstone and life in one breath.  Blackstone's ratio states:

All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.

How will he rule in an upcoming Death Penalty case. A new stet of statistics came out over the weekend from Gross at the University of Michigan, which shows that at least 4 percent of people that have been sentence to death have been vindicated.

We do not know how many people have been falsely executed.

But Blackstone didn't say executed, he said suffer.

Liam '14