Sunday, November 15, 2015

People Haven't Lost Their Sense of Humor, You're just not Funny.

Just a random thought. I was reading a comment that someone posted that was supposed to be sarcastic/postmodern. When somebody replied "?," the original poster flip out about how no one understands sarcasm anymore. The problem with their argument is that their comment wasn't funny, nor did it make a point as sarcasm. So they have little right to be indignant.

I did a little digging, and I think they fancy themself as a rightwing Andy Kaufman.

One problem with writing is that it takes away delivery. In the written form Ann Coulter is Stephen Colbert. Who knows, maybe she is just a postmodern performance actress after all or perhaps Andy Kauffman in drag.

Which brings me back to the title of this post "People Haven't Lost Their Sense of Humor, You're just not Funny." Perhaps one of things that annoys me most lately is the phrase "people have lost their sense of humor," which is then followed by a long diatribe about the awfulness of PC. Quelle horreur! People expect you to treat others with basic human dignity! What a fucking monster the left are.

But it's not about PC, it's about the comedian not being funny or just not being a decent human being in general. The general rule of thumb is if the joke's funny, and it comes from a good place then people will laugh.  Otherwise people will judge you. And that would go against the 1st amendment and freedumz of speach.

In this joke, Louis CK does a very good job of reassuring the audience that he is with gay people. He doesn't simply say that he's not homophobic; he paints a picture using graphic words. It's odd that I like this joke, because I really don't like when straight people use the word "faggot" (whenever I was picked on in school that's the word boys would use, and it meant homosexual), but the joke kind of takes the sting out of the word. Perhaps it's, because I don't feel targeted when he's telling it.

Contrast with:

Kevin Hart fails. This joke is supposed to be about his failings as a father. That's obvious. This segment could be funny; however the problem is that he doesn't come back to the subject at hand. There's no turn or twist; the joke just sits stagnant. His spiel is that he's not homophobic but this one time he totally kicked the shit out of his son because another boy was grinding with him.

Hopefully this geared up to 10:10... but anyway I think Sam Seder gets it right when he says:
"If these guys can't see that there is a difference between doing comedy that is based upon marginalizing people who already are marginalized and disempowered in our society versus doing comedy about taboo subjects that may offend people, if they can't see the difference between them that's because-- I should say-- they're not bright enough to do this stuff anyway."
Bleh. Scattered brain today.Yeah so no one's stopping Jerry Seinfeld from saying anything except Jerry Seinfeld. He's just worried about how people will take edgy bits.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are 7 billion assholes on this planet. If you do anything, someone somewhere will be offended. Don't worry about how others feel. Worry about what your doing and if it's the right thing to do. Most people get that it's about intention. So don't shit on marginalized communities; joke with them.

Liam '15

Thursday, October 22, 2015


In the previous post I published a lengthy diatribe about Marvel's leaked licensing agreement with Sony Pictures, and my feelings of bleh.

In keeping with my tradition of being productive when I'm feeling bleh,  I've decided to create a comic based on the situation. So I present Spider-Gay. A obvious, total parody of Peter Parker as Spider-Man. Notice the pink tights and the dildo emblem. Totally different from Spider-Man but close enough for parody.

I just want to reiterate that I don't think Marvel is homophobic (the last issue of Amazing Spider-Man had a same-sex wedding for Christ-sake) it's more about my realization that I can't be Spider-Man, that I'm not Peter Parker, because I ride dick like its the last roller coaster at the amusement park.

But enough blather.

On a high school field trip to the Mall of America 3M Labs, Parker Peterson was bitten by a radioactive spider who happened to be gay. Really the gay characteristic of the spider is superfluous and an attempt to avoid a lawsuit by Marvel, as Parker already had a healthy appetite for the sweat man meat, and as we all know you being gay is not a choice and people cannot be turned gay or straight. However he did gain new strengths, the ability to leap higher than buildings, the ability to detect trouble before it arises and has an encyclopedic knowledge broadway show-tunes.

Now a grad student at the University of Minnesota, go Gophers, Parker Peterson is living with his current boyfriend, beat journalist Eddy Hudson, get it... like Eddie Brock and Rock Hudson... Eddy Hudson. Parker also lives with a secret... he is the Fabulous Spider-Gay!

Between his job as a Paralegal at Nelson & Burdick LLP, school, and life as a crime fighter, Parker's spread thin.
Parker has been working on the case of Manuel Peralta, an immigrant from Guatemala, who has been wrongly accused of a crime. He faces 5 years in prison for felony drug possession charges with attempt to distribute followed by mandatory deportation. Without the testimony from a low-life witness who can clear Manuel of the charges, he stands to lose his 3 children.

I may have gone a little overboard. In the next scene, Parker cracks open a jar of crisco and wears Eddy like a human puppet. It's objectively pretty sick.

And the scene where Parker uses his webbing to tie Eddy's hands to the head board of the bed... So hot.
If I were fully committed to making a full episode I would have Spider-Gay tackle a low-level criminal. After successfully tackling the criminal, a police office would call Spider-Gay a "fucking faggot." The insult would stick with Parker creating his symbiotic black suit.

When Parker Peterson sheds the bile of his black suit will it attack Eddy Hudson? Will Eddy then become a self-loathing gay villain who will then one day turn into an anti-hero? Have you read a comic book ever?

I think I done with this now.

Now for the legal crap:

If anyone would like to continue this parody, I am licensing Spider-Gay out under Creative Commons licensing agreement Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC 4.0. The Agreement can be found here with further details here.

Just remember to keep it a parody by mocking Marvel and their decision to not allow a gay Peter Parker. If does not qualify as a parody and is therefore a derivative work your up shit creek.

On the left is the leaked Marvel/Sony agreement and on the right is the parody agreement anyone who decides to further Spider-Gay technically agrees to...(or should probably agree to in order to comply with fair use law in regards to parody.
a. Mandatory Spider-Man Character Traits. 
Spider-Man (whether Peter Parker or an alternative Spider-Man character) must always strictly conform to the following “Mandatory Character Traits”:
• Male
• Does not torture*
• Does not kill unless in defense of self or others*
• Does not use foul language beyond PG-13
• Does not smoke tobacco*
• Does not sell/distribute illegal drugs*
• Does not abuse alcohol*
• Does not have sex before the age of 16, does not have sex with anyone below the age of 16
• Not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as homosexual)

a. Mandatory Spider-Gay Character Traits.
Spider-Gay (whether Parker Peterson or an alternative Spider-Gay character) must always strictly conform to the following “Mandatory Character Traits”:
• Male Identifying
• Into Light Bondage
• Does not kill unless the villain makes fun of his boots
• Does not use racial/gender disparaging language
• Does not bareback
• Does not sell meth
• If alcoholic, only closeted due to traumatic upbringing
• He’s not a pedophile. I’m fucking tired of gays being called pedos.. so none of that shit.
• Not a heterosexual (unless alternate-verse alter ego is into vag and is a gay-ally)

b. Peter Parker Character Traits. Depiction of Peter Parker or his Spider-Man alter ego must conform to the following character traits:
• His full name is Peter Benjamin Parker.
• He is Caucasian and heterosexual.
• His parents become absent from his life during his childhood.
• From the time his parents become absent he is raised by his Aunt May and Uncle Ben in New York City
• He gains his powers while attending either middle school or college.
• He gains his powers from being bitten by a spider
• He designs his first red and blue costume.
• The black costume is a symbiote and is not designed by him
• He is raised in a middle class household in Queens, New York
• He attends or attended high school in Queens, New York, and he attends or attended college in New York City, New York.

b. Parker Peterson Character Traits. Depiction of Parker Peterson or his Spider-Gay alter ego must conform to the following character traits:
• His full name is Parker J. Peterson.
• He is gay and his race may vary, as artist prefers.
• His parents abandon him after he comes out of the closet during adolescence.
• From the time he is abandoned he is taken in off the streets by Ben, a drag queen who performs as Desdemona
• He gains his powers from a radioactive gay-spider
• He comes out while attending High School or after confessing to his college girlfriend.
• He already owed his spandex tights before being Spider-Gay
• The black costume is an allegory of internalized homophobia he’s infected by the outside world
• He is raised in Minneapolis, Minnesota
• He attends or attended Cretin-Derham Hall High School with Josh Hartnett, or he attends college at the University of Minnesota, go Gophers.

Liam '15

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Oh Marvel, Why

Peter Parker can be nearly anyone. That's a part of his charm. He's been remade a number of times. His personality is malleable. And Spider-Man is not always Peter Parker. In essence anyone can be behind the mask. But Spider-Man nearly always tries to be the good guy (or girl in the case of Mattie Franklin that one time she posed as Spider-Man.)

Peter Parker is not gay. He has never been depicted as being queer. He's had long-term girlfriends and a wife (sometimes a daughter.) I recently stumbled on an article by the Huffington Post, which lays out a leaked legal agreement between Marvel and Sony Pictures. In the document it is reveled that Peter Parker cannot be a homosexual.

While I have never expected Peter Parker to be gay or necessarily want him to be gay. But he represents a queer perspective for me.  In the clip below from Modern Family, Mitchel lays out his feelings on Spider-Man at the 2:52 mark:

“Spider-Man, he… he spoke to me. I… I think it's because it's about this nerdy kid who has this special secret side of himself that he can't share with anybody, and… and that's how I always felt. Spider-Man made me feel like it was okay to be different. And... It made me fee tough enough to… to get through the rough times."
As a straight character, he could have indefinitely continued to represent a queer perspective; however with the leaked agreement, it is clear that Peter Parker cannot be gay. So to reiterate I'm not troubled by the fact that Peter is straight; I am troubled by the declared fact that he cannot be gay.

After 20 years of reading the Amazing Spider-Man, I finally found out who Spider-Man cannot be: Me.

I found out that there is no Santa Clause around age 3, so I don't remember what it was like finding out (my guess is that I didn't care because I still got presents from mom and dad)... perhaps this is the closest to it that I'll feel. Or maybe it's more like checking a jug of milk and finding it's gone bad, you're going to drink milk again once you get a new jug, but... ugh.

I'm disappointed in learning this. In the back of my brain I always knew these were the rules to Peter Parker, it's just frustrating that it was leaked. I love Marvel comics. The only DC character that I really like is Ollie Queen. Marvel has a social conscious. They have always championed human rights and have been along time ally for the gay community.

It's also not like they intended for this to get out. And any controversial statements from Marvel that I have noticed seem to have been in response to this leak.

I guess the moral of the story is be careful of what you say even behind closed doors, and perhaps Roland Barthes was right: don't listen to the artist.

Below is a list of what Spider-Man and Peter Parker can and cannot be. Please note that under murderer and directly below pedophile, Spider-Man cannot be a homosexual:

a. Mandatory Spider-Man Character Traits. 
Spider-Man (whether Peter Parker or an alternative Spider-Man character) must always strictly conform to the following “Mandatory Character Traits”:
• Male
• Does not torture*
• Does not kill unless in defense of self or others*
• Does not use foul language beyond PG-13
• Does not smoke tobacco*
• Does not sell/distribute illegal drugs*
• Does not abuse alcohol*
• Does not have sex before the age of 16, does not have sex with anyone below the age of 16
• Not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as homosexual)

b. Peter Parker Character Traits. Depiction of Peter Parker or his Spider-Man alter ego must conform to the following character traits:
• His full name is Peter Benjamin Parker.
• He is Caucasian and heterosexual.
• His parents become absent from his life during his childhood.
• From the time his parents become absent he is raised by his Aunt May and Uncle Ben in New York City
• He gains his powers while attending either middle school or college.
• He gains his powers from being bitten by a spider
• He designs his first red and blue costume.
• The black costume is a symbiote and is not designed by him
• He is raised in a middle class household in Queens, New York
• He attends or attended high school in Queens, New York, and he attends or attended college in New York City, New York.

Alright done for now.

Liam '15

Friday, October 9, 2015

Algol: Tragedy of Power

In my quest to better-fy the internet, I have translated a film from German that was until recently considered lost. Algol: Eine Tragödie der Macht was directed by Hans Werckmeister in 1920.

As a heads up this film is not queer in any real way (well besides the fact that expressionism speaks to me as a gay man.)

Please watch this film (a copy is posted below) and read my criticism of it.

If you speak German and you think some of my translations are shit, please gently let me know where I go wrong. It's been a while since I've done any real work with German... so yeah.

Now that  that's over, without further adieu, I present Algol: Tragedy of Power.

So did you watch it yet? Thank you if you did.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that I in fact enjoyed this film. I think it is an interesting concept with beautiful scenery.

With that in mind, this film falls flat. I like it, but I know that it misses in places.  It's a sci-fi version of Faust, which if it would have been executed properly would have been one of the best movies in history. Particularly since it pre-dates Murnau's Faust.

The scenery is fun and is often in the mode of German Expressionism.

The plot is sloppy, it lacks a consistent voice, and it overreaches at times. After Mephistopheles the demon Algol gives Faust Robert Herne the perpetual energy machine,  Algol's purpose is next to pointless.

If Herne's perpetual energy is corrupted by humanity, class consciousness, and greed, then why is Algol necessary as the devilish, working-class provocateur.  Mephistopheles is perhaps in the top 10 literary characters of all time. It is painful to see a Mephistophelean character lack purpose after the bargain. We don't get a sense of motivation from the character. Algol is just evil.

The overarching theme is luddite/ conservative. Technology corrupts; let's go back to . Modern society is decadent and will be our downfall as represent through Reginald Herne (Robert's heir) and his bitch lover Yella Ward. The motherly/ worthy of love female characters are pure (sexually speaking) and rural. However city women are cock tease whore who demand power from their men for them to feed off of. It put it more concisely, it is the old Madonna/ Whore dichotomy without any nuance, complexity or cleverness.

Finally, my favorite part of silent films is that it forces the audience to develop the story. In this vein, silent films can be more similar to a paintings than "talkies." For me, the film answers questions that it shouldn't, and it doesn't address the questions that it should.

Liam '15

Saturday, October 3, 2015

I Don't Want to be a Man

I posted this delightful short film:

Ossi Oswalda plays a young woman of means, who dislikes being treated like a woman. To remedy her situation, she decides to become a man. Holy shit, right?!  Cross dressing in 1918. Cabaret was not legal in Germany until the fall of the Prussian Empire (although this has as much to do with political censorship.)

Of course Ossi will find out being a man is not so easy. In exchange for money, power, respect, and dignity, men have to give up their seats to ladies on the train.  I mean what's the point of having a dick if you have get up to women. I do not get up to women. Alright, the bad pun is over.

Ok, so yes, this movie is problematic as a queer/feminist film. On one hand it is daring when you consider that movie was filmed in the twilight of the Victorian era. On the other hand, it reaffirms gender conventions. I don't want to give anything away in this post, so I will come back to this film with a more detailed vivisection.

Please watch this film if you haven't yet. It is fucking brilliant. Ossi is perhaps the most charming woman of her era.

Liam '15

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Flapper Ninja: A Found Film

The fun thing about silent films is that you can easily change the inter-titles to make a brand new film.

So without further adieu Charlie Chaplin is the Flapper Ninja:

I thought this was funny as shit, but I sure others won't. Particularly I make several anime reference that are ultra nerdy.

Liam '15

New YouTube Channel

For the past little while I have been busy working on a side project, restoring and distributing public domain films. Awesome, I know. A lot of the films are created by queer folk or express gay themes. The channel is called The Flaming Vault, which is in reference to the 1937 Fox studio fire that destroyed 40,000 reels and wiped out the company's archive.

The Public Domain was established in the US Constitution with the Copyright Clause:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Maybe one day I will write an article on why a future copyright extension should be viewed as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court won't rule that way when congress pass the next extension sometime before 2019. Which reminds me Lessig 2016.

Anyway here is a promo for the channel:

As always the content is ad free on my end.

Liam '15

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Ted Nugent, Butt Pirate?!

Yeah it looks like someone wants attention. And apparently Ted Nugent didn't commit suicide in 2012 like he promised. Eye roll.

Well... President Obama did attend Trinity United Church of Christ for around 16 years...  so yay excuse to republish this image!

And remember to yo ho blow the man down, just not Ted Nugent. The idea of him naked makes my dick shrivel and my asshole clench.

Liam '15

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Happy Talk like a Pirate Day

In honor of International Talk like a Pirate Day, I created this flag to celebrate a certain kind of pirate. I'm talkin' 'bout Butt Pirates of course.

Butt Pirate Flag
The Jolly Jassper
Go get some booty!

Liam '15

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

The Correct Answer is No

Ben Carson on Meet the Press August 2, 2015 fails to answer a softball of a question: 

Simple question, does the Bible hold authority over the Constitution? Simple answer: no. According to U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.: 
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Want further proof. Good. U.S. Const. amend. I. 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."
Fundamental civics fail. Perhaps the Republican Primary could function like a season of Top Chef. There's enough of these asshats. Anyway, if it were a competition, please pack your knives...sashay away or whatever trite reality catchphrase floats your boat. Just leave.

Liam '15

This is Really Just a Promo for Archer

Last night I was watching the tail end of Archer on Comedy Central. The episode in reference is The Papal Chase, which comes from Season 4. When I first saw the below clip (if it hasn't been taken down for copyright infringement) I missed the joked. So I decided to look it up.

Archer: How did you know what he said?
Pam: It was an 8 hour flight.
Archer: Wow, did you learn Romansh? 
Pam: Who am I, Cypher? The gayest X-Man? 
Archer: I don't know, Gambit looks like he knows his way around a pair of—

To my dismay, when I googled the term "gayest xmen," all of the returns replace the word "gayest" with "worst." And as it happens that is entirely the word play the Archer joke relies on.

google confuses gayest with worst
Embiggen to Read
While I understand that Google isn't the language police, and they use complex algorithms to map out how language is actually used, it is still frustrating to see systematic homophobia laid out so neatly.

Based off of this search, Google list the following words as synonymous with gay:


And let's not forget what lives at the bottom of the page:

Searches related to gayest x-men

What really annoys me about the google search is that there are scores of gay X-Men, who should have been displayed instead of the 10 most hated X-Men. In the main timeline Northstar is gay and Mystic is often depicted as bisexual. In alternate universes prominent X-Men such as Bobby Drake, Wolverine, and Colossus are gay. Not to mention from the film series Ellen Page, who plays Kitty Pride, has come out, and director Bryan Singer inspired a character in the American version of Queer as Folk (the director of the blockbuster film V-Men.)

Once again my frustration is neither with Google nor Archer. Archer is a offensive show that not only backs it up with humor, but frequently subverts the negative stereotypes. For example in the clip Pam (an open bisexual) uses the term "gayest" to mean "worst," while Arch corrects Pam, be it in an offensive manner, by using the main denotation of the word. By doing so, Archer points out the disparaging tone Pam uses in reference to gay people.  

My frustration lies in that it's the combination of society's bigoted use of language and matching that up with the X-Men, the champions of tolerance and diversity. This was just a reminder, that even though we have made tremendous gains in the last few years, we have so much further to go.

Liam '15 


It looks like the folks at BuzzFeed have discovered this years ago (2013):

Google responded with:
Google’s results, including when a search term is synonymized [sic] with another, are a reflection of content on the web and how people search. These results are determined by algorithms and we don’t manually correct this process, but we are always looking at how we can improve our algorithms.
So to paraphrase, 'we're not going to do anything, but we totally could.' How 'bout next time you leave off the bolded part, it's insulting if you don't mean it.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Possible Hiatus

I'm having personal issues to deal with right now.

So I may be taking a break... or I will end up writing more... I just don't know at this point how I am going to deal with everything.

Sorry to anyone who enjoys this blog.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Bigotry by Any Other Name

Sorry about not posting much lately. Works been crazy. I thought this would be a fun little project that I thought up this morning.


Liam '15

Saturday, June 27, 2015

A Brief History of Marriage

Below is an animated mapping of marriage equality over time. Dates are based on when marriage equality became law and reach res judicata.


marriage equality US over time

State Date Population Percent % of America to Date
 Massachusetts 5/17/04 6,745,408 1.98 1.98
 Connecticut 11/12/08 3,596,677 1.05 3.03
 Iowa 4/27/09 3,107,126 0.91 3.94
 Vermont 9/1/09 626,562 0.18 4.13
 New Hampshire 1/1/10 1,326,813 0.39 4.51
 District of Columbia 3/9/10 658,893 0.19 4.71
 New York 7/24/11 19,746,227 5.79 10.49
 Washington 12/6/12 7,061,530 2.07 12.56
 Maine 12/29/12 1,330,089 0.39 12.95
 Maryland 1/1/13 5,976,407 1.75 14.71
 California 6/28/13 38,802,500 11.37 26.08
 Delaware 7/1/13 935,614 0.27 26.35
 Minnesota 8/1/13 5,457,173 1.60 27.95
 Rhode Island 8/1/13 1,055,173 0.31 28.26
 New Jersey 10/21/13 8,938,175 2.62 30.88
 Hawaii 12/2/13 1,419,561 0.42 31.30
 New Mexico 12/19/13 2,085,572 0.61 31.91
 Oregon 5/19/14 3,970,239 1.16 33.07
 Pennsylvania 5/20/14 12,787,209 3.75 36.82
 Illinois 6/1/14 12,880,580 3.78 40.59
 Indiana 10/6/14 6,596,855 1.93 42.53
 Oklahoma 10/6/14 3,878,051 1.14 43.67
 Utah 10/6/14 2,942,902 0.86 44.53
 Virginia 10/6/14 8,326,289 2.44 46.97
 Wisconsin 10/6/14 5,757,564 1.69 48.66
 Colorado 10/7/14 5,355,866 1.57 50.23
 Nevada 10/9/14 2,839,099 0.83 51.06
 West Virginia 10/9/14 1,850,326 0.54 51.60
 North Carolina 10/10/14 9,943,964 2.91 54.51
 Idaho 10/15/14 1,634,464 0.48 54.99
 Alaska 10/17/14 736,732 0.22 55.21
 Arizona 10/17/14 6,731,484 1.97 57.18
 Wyoming 10/21/14 584,153 0.17 57.35
 Montana 11/19/14 1,023,579 0.30 57.65
 South Carolina 11/20/14 4,832,482 1.42 59.07
 Florida 1/6/15 19,893,297 5.83 64.90
 United States 6/26/15  349,446,072 100 100.00

Liam '15

Friday, June 26, 2015

Happy Sodomy Day

Once again it is the anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, which was the landmark case that overturned Bowers.

While I have read the decision multiple times, I am currently reading Flagrant Conduct by Dale Carpenter. I have to say that, even though I am only half way through it, it is shifted my perspective on what Lawrence means and the events that lead to Lawrence and Garner's arrest.

Once again, Monday seems to be the most likely time for Obergefell to be issued, but as of this writing it could be today. Possible, but unlikely I will have two post, one on Obergefell and one on King v. Burwell for the weekend.

In honor of the day, may your sex-life be full and your dildos be silicone.

Liam '15

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Tomorrow or Monday...

It looks like the decision on Obergefell will come out on either tomorrow or Monday. Tomorrow of course is the aniversary of  Lawrence v. Texas and more recently Perry/Windsor. However past precident tells us that a case this large will be released on the last day of the term (Monday.)

I wanted to rwrite a post on Walker v . Sons of Confederate Veterans, but that probably won't happen now.

Oh well.

Liam '15

Saturday, June 13, 2015

How to (actually) Apologize

I've been thinking about writing this post for a while. I had a whole article in my head on this after the Josh Duggar incident. He issued a non-apology, in which he was sorry that people found out that he molested his sisters. Sick shit.
"I deeply regret that recent media reports about my long ago past has brought negative attention to FRC Action and its work to preserve and advance the interests of family, faith, and freedom in the political arena."
I am hesitant to cover it as there is a real victim.  I feel like scoring cheap points from an abuse scandal is classless. Real people were hurt, and everyone now knows just what a hypocrite and an asshole he is. I have empathy for the victims. And I do not need to pile on.

So shifting gears quickly, I want to cover the difference between an apology and an excuse.

This step by step manual is to serve as a how to  guide for sincere apologies.  Unfortunately, it seems to me few people know how to properly apologize for their actions.

Step 1:

Say "I am sorry." This is the most basic form of an apology and needs to be said in some iteration. With minor infractions, "I'm sorry" is all that you need to say.  The more egregious or complex the transgression, the more thorough of an apology will be needed.

As with any communication you need a thesis statement, and perhaps no phrase serves a better in this circumstance than "I am sorry."

Depending on the circumstances an apology can range from a simple 3 word sentence to a full letter. But if you are truly sorry a proper apology can go along way. The main thing is to actually apologize for your actions.

Step 2:

Acknowledge your actions. What actions are you responsible that has lead you to apologize for?

Step 3:

Explain why your actions require an apology. Demonstrate to your audience that you know the reasons why you are apologizing.

This will allow the audience a chance to correct the record if you are mistaken.

Step 4:

Are there any relevant factors that mitigate your actions; this should not be used as an excuse for your behavior.

While excuses make for great apologetics, they make for piss-poor apologies.

Therefore this should only be done sparingly, when the audience absolutely needs to know this novel information.

Step 5:

Can you remedy the situation? Will you remedy the situation?

If you can and you won't the apology will seem hollow and will lean towards more of an excuse rather than a sincere apology.

Likewise if you can't remedy the situation, but you promise to do so... well then you're fucked and you look kinda stupid and untrustworthy.

Step 6:

Accept responsibility for you actions.


Sentence structure is massive in an apology. Semantics and usage can be the difference in many cases between a sincere apology and excusing one's behavior.

I am sorry that you are offended by me.
Passive Voice
This first example is a non-apology. The passive voice in this instance shifts the focus onto the audience in the compliment clause "you are offended."

I am sorry that I offended you.
Active Voice

In this second example, the sentence structure is reworked to its deep structure, becoming the active voice. In the compliment clause the writer owns their guilt as the offending party.

I am sorry. My behavior was offensive.
Two Active Sentences 
In this third example, the compliment clause is removed entirely and replaced be the second sentence "my behavior was offensive." By removing "you" from the sentence, there is no possibility of placing blame on the audience (for being offended.) The writer accepts full responsibility for their guilt.

Full example:

I am sorry that I fucked your husband in the ass on your white sheets while you were visiting the International Leather Museum in San Fransisco. My actions completely violated the trust you placed in me and showed an utter lack of respect towards you. While I was drunk at the time and this behavior is not typical of my personality, it does not excuse my action. I am truly sorry for the damage I have caused. I will replace the Santorum stained sheets with new ones.

Poor example, because you probably shouldn't apologize in this fashion for cheating. It is also a situation where little action can be taken to make amends. 

Not going to fix it. C'est la vie.

Oh and don't forget, apologies are really supposed to be about them not you.

Liam '15

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Shut Your Fucking Pie Hole You Dumb Son of a Bitch

Apologies in advanced as this has turned in to a rant. But fuck it. We'll do it live.


There are few things in this world that I have a greater disdain for than Holocaust Denialism.

That's largely a noncontroversial statement. Hopefully that's noncontroversial. It should be noncontroversial.

Holocaust Denial takes on several forms. The two main branches from which the rest flow are:

1. Flat denial. In this model, proponents claim that the Holocaust never happened. This usually manifests itself in the claim that the Allies made up the story to discredit the Nazis after the War.

Other variations on this include:
  • Jewish people were merely expelled from Germany.
  • The Nuremberg testimonies from Germans were extracted by torture and thus fake.
  • Jewish-Zionist faked it for sympathy.
2. Mitigation. In this model proponents claimed (without evidence) that while the Holocaust happened it wasn't 6 million Jewish people who were murdered, it was more likely an elderly couple and a goat.

Other variations on this include:
  • Starvation and disease killed millions rather than a systematic plot.
  • Gas Chambers were delousing station.
  • Other human atrocities were worse. 
While it is not a form of denialism, there is a troubling current of Holocaust Trivialization that has emerged.

For the purposes of this article, I will define Holocaust Trivialization as the following:
  • Wantonly forming poor or false comparison of current events to the Holocaust.
  • Violations of Godwin's law or the argument Reductio ad Hitlerum.
  • Neologism such as "feminazi" or "gaystapo."   
Here is how the ADL has reacted the word "feminazi":
The pejorative “feminazi” mocks activist women and at the same time trivializes the Holocaust. Comparisons to the Nazis may be politically expedient, but in the end they trivialize the Holocaust and are an insult to the memory of six million Jews and the millions of others who perished at the hands of Nazis. This sexist, offensive term has no place in civil discourse or society. 
I would also add the caveat that Feminist were a group persecuted by the Nazis.  See Magnus Hirschfeld.

My large point to all of this rant is that all this shit needs to stop. I know that's not going to happen, but it needs to end. It's fucking disgusting that people in this country and this era have built media empires and accumulated vast hordes of wealth by targeting groups who were victims of Nazi persecution (Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bryan Fischer, et al.)

When it come to the groups that were assigned a special badge to be worn in concentration camps, more deference needs to be paid when bullshit accusations are being made.

So by now you're probably wondering what the fuck crawled up my ass this morning. The answer lie in the following video from RighWingWatch.Org:

So in case you don't know, that is Rafael Cruz, the father of Ted Cruz. There are two quotes that really stick out to me. 
“If this decision comes against the biblical definition of marriage, the next thing that is going to happen is the government is going to come demanding that churches hire homosexual pastors and churches perform homosexual marriages. It is a very critical time in America.” 
Way to violate the 9th Commandment you sack of shit herpes. You lying pustulant boil on the blotted belly of a rotting carp, have you not read Proverbs 6:16 "There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers."

As pointed out in the Oral Arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges by Justice Kagan, "there are many rabbis that will not conduct marriages between Jews and non-Jews, notwithstanding that we have a constitutional prohibition against religious discrimination. And those rabbis get all the powers and privileges of the State, even if they have that rule, most many, many, many rabbis won't do that."

Everyone fucking knows that. The government doesn't force Pastors to marry people outside of their religion yet interfaith marriage is more than fucking legal.
"Silence is not an option Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi German said 'silence in the face of evil is evil itself.' He also said 'not to speak, is to speak.' See, the silence sends the message loud and clear. We can’t afford to be silent anymore.'
LISTEN UP ASSHOLE, in Nazi German men like me were executed by bigoted assholes. In my lifetime I was liberated by the Supreme Court ruling that my existence is not a crime. I voted in vain to protect my rights as equal citizen when the State I grew up in passed a Constitutional Amendment  stripping my inalienable rights away.

Before you start calling me and mine Nazis you best do your homework. Otherwise it sounds like a call to discrimination. And you know who else discriminated against people...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Liam '15

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Stop Voting for Dumb Fucks

This is a call for people to stop electing Government Officials who say stupid shit.  Case in point, Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore:

The flurry of stupidity is breath taking, but I will do my best.

"There is no word marriage in the Constitution" 

Well except for Article IV Section 1... whoops. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

I mean, sure, it does not directly say marriage, but it definitely means marriage. And this Article is definitely germane to the second question of Obergefell v. Hodges.

"The states can also resist... They can define what authority they have."


Article VI says something different, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

"Blah blah blah... 10th amendment argument... blah blah blah"

Honey, we also have a 14th Amendment.
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.
Equal protection, due process, life liberty and property, these are all afforded to every citizen of the United States, and no state can take those away without a damn good reason. It is not left up to the individual State to decide; it was federalized by the 14th Amendment.

If a law violates any of these principles, and then is ruled unconstitutional, it is no longer law.

If the 10th Amendment superseded the 14th Amendment, then the 14th Amendment would be pointless.

"The Bowers Court says..."

Bowers is no longer precedent. It was over turned on June 26, 2003, with Lawrence v. Texas. It was kind of a big deal. I'm not sure, but  it might have been covered by the newspapers in Alabama.

Why not quote Dred Scott while you're at it?


I'm fucking bored by this. I could go on but too bored. Ennui could be deadly.

How the fuck did this idiot ever get elected the first time around. For fuck sakes I learned this shit in 8th grade. Roy Moore knows less about the law than an 8th Grader. It's fucking embarrassing.

There are a lot of reasons I'm glad I'm not from Alabama and some how Roy Moore nears the top of that list.

Liam '15

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Just an Aside

I have been thinking about this, since I heard the Oral Arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges.

Solicitor Bursch for the Plaintiffs argued about 9 times that the purpose of marriage is to link biological children with their biological parents. I find this to be a particularly specious claim, especially when you examine the historical purpose of marriage (or at the very least a purpose.)

A large portion of marriage that is quickly evaporating is legal concept of the "presumption of legitimacy." To a degree anyway, I mean, it isn't totally disappearing.

Let me back up. Black's Law defines presumption of legitimacy as "the presumption that the husband of a woman who gives birth is the father of the child." In, what I am going to pull out of my ass and say, most cases there is no infidelity in a marriage, so the child's paternity is not in question.

Prior to the advent of modern DNA testing (1983), there was no real way of determining who's the father. Thus marriage. If your wife gave birth, it's yours... Unless you were like my uncle and snipped and then two years later miraculously had another child, but that's another story.

In part marriage links children to their parents, and in may cases that is exactly what gay people want to join in on.

It also highlights that marriage is human and thus constantly evolving to adapt to our ever emerging necessities.

Liam '15

Sunday, May 17, 2015

King v. Burwell

This post has been quite delayed. Around December of last year, I read the question put forward to the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell, and I was slightly perplexed as to why (besides for the obvious politics of the ACA) this case was granted certiorari.

On March 4, 2015 the Oral Arguments were made. Without going too deep into it, March was a busy month for me personally, and honestly I missed the whole proceedings.

The main reason I am writing this article now is that my interest was peeked, when I heard speculation that Chief Justice Roberts may either concur or agree with a majority in Obergefell v. Hodges to buy cover for ruling against the Government in King v. Burwell.

I do not like to tea read, particularly when it comes to the Supreme Court. After listening to quite a few oral arguments, I find speculation to be mostly pointless. That is not to say that oral arguments are pointless to listen to.

The Justices are not advocates; thus it is often difficult to ascertain how they will rule based off of the questions they ask. For example some of the most difficult question during the oral arguments for the Plaintiffs in Obergefell came from Justice Breyer, who in all likelihood will rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

Point One

The crux of  case lies with the reading of sections 1311 and 1321 of the ACA. While I understand that I am typically biased towards Justice Breyer, I cannot find an agreement from the Plaintiffs that satisfies his central point:
"If you're going to elaborate on that, I would appreciate your ­­ in your elaboration, I've read that, and this statute is like the tax code more than it's like the Constitution. There are defined terms, and the words you just used concern a defined term.  As I read the definition, there's a section, Definitions, and it says, quote, The term "Exchange" means, quote, an exchange established under 1311.  And 1311 says, An Exchange shall be a government agency, et cetera, that is established by a State.  Those are the definitions.  So then you look to 1321. And 1321 says, if a State does not set up that Exchange, then the Federal, quote, secretary shall establish and operate such Exchange.  So it says, "The Secretary is to establish and operate such Exchange," the only kind of Exchange to which the Act refers, which is an ­­ quote, "an Exchange established by a State under 1311." That's the definition.  So the statute tells the Secretary, set up such Exchange, namely, a 1311 State Exchange.... and there's nothing else in this that's throughout what they're talking about.  So what's the problem?"
After quite a long hypothetical from Justice Kagan, which very bluntly explains what a substitution is, Justice Breyer and the attorney for the Plaintiff get into a bit of a discussion on epistemology:
Mr. Carvin:  We implore you to examine these words in the context of the Act as a whole because our argument becomes stronger for five reasons.  To respond to Justice Breyer's point, he says such Exchange connotes that it's the same person doing it. But look at the provision on territorial Exchanges.  It says, territories can establish such Exchanges and then it says, "and shall be treated as a State."  So-- so-- 
Justice Breyer:  Yes, it does.  But you say connote.  No, it's not a question of connotation; it is a question of denotation.  Now what does that mean?  It means that the Federal government, the Secretary, is establishing a thing for the State.  And what is the thing? The thing that it is establishing for the State is defined as an Exchange established by the State. 
Mr. Carvin:  To ­-- 
Justice Breyer:   Now, that person from Mars, who's literal, which I usually am not, but a literalist, I think would have to read it that way.  But if you-- if you're not a literalist, well, at least you could read it that way.  Now you want to go into the context ­­ if you want to go into the context, at that point it seems to me your argument really is weaker.
Based off of Justice Breyer's statement it would appear that the Government's position is support by a literalist's interpretation, which is bad for the Plaintiff. Once again this was my impression before hearing the Oral Arguments.

Point B

When it comes to what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy said during the proceedings, it was fairly brief.  Neither asked that many questions.  Justice Kennedy asked more questions, but due to how he ruled in the previous decision, it will be interesting to see how he will rule in this case.

When discussing the Plaintiffs position Justice Kennedy raises a very interesting conclusion for the Plaintiffs reading of  the Statute:
"Let me say that from the standpoint of the dynamics of Federalism, it does seem to me that there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, the States are being told either create your own Exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral.  We'll have people pay mandated taxes which will not get any credit on ­­ on the subsidies.  The cost of insurance will be sky­high, but this is not coercion.  It seems to me that under your argument, perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute, there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument."
Once again I do not do tea leaf readings, but based on this quote, if Justice Kennedy were to accept the Plaintiffs argument, then he would have to rule that the Federal Exchanges are unconstitutional as promulgated.

And as with Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. (2014) in ambiguity, the Court must read a statute in a way where it does not impinge on the basic Federal-­State relationship.

When it comes to Chief Justice Roberts, once again, besides for procedural issues he was mostly silent.  Perhaps the most interesting question he raised was "If you're right ­­if you're right about Chevron, that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change that interpretation?"

In other words, if the Court does not agree with Justice Breyer, in that the governments reading is not based on ambiguity, and agrees with with government because of the statute being ambiguous, the next administration could take away healthcare for millions of Americans.

Point III

This section actually agrees in part with something Justice Scalia said. Quelle horreur, I know! Justice Scalia raise a very good point about the whole situation:
"What about ­­ what about Congress?  You really think Congress is just going to sit there while ­­ while all of these disastrous consequences ensue.  I mean, how often have we come out with a decision such as the ­­ you know, the bankruptcy court decision?  Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that ­­ that takes care of the problem.  It happens all the time.  Why is that not going to happen here?"
In this context, Justice Scalia is referring to a circumstance where the Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff. but it also begs the why hasn't Congress clarified the situation. Well, other than the fact that the lower courts have ruled in favor of the Government. Congress could easily have fix this problem and made this case moot and also secured health care for 8-9 million Americans.

It's the legislature's job to fix legislation when it is broken or too unclear (when it's beyond Chevron Deference.)  This is a similar argument to when a statute is declared unconstitutional. It is up to the legislature to strike it from the books. It's why Texas still has anti-sodomy laws on their books. It's also the reason why the Voting Rights Act remains disassembled after Shelby County.

It drives me crazy when these situations arise, because they are often times so easy to fix. And yet they seem to never get done.

Liam '15

Friday, May 8, 2015

Not Even Wrong

On Friday morning instead of work (shh), I read this article that was linked to SCOTUSblog:

Correcting Six Mistakes from the Same-Sex Marriage Oral Arguments Last Week by  James Phillips at the Witherspoon Institute.

I thought it was going to be interesting and soon discovered that it was in fact interesting, but for the wrong reasons.

To get the discussion going in the right direction I want to lay out some terms. Before I dissect this article, I want to quote Black's Law Dictionary on marriage: "The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting marriage, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law."

Section 1. "Error Number One: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same"

Alright, let's do this. Whatcha got:
"During the questioning of Michigan’s attorney, John Bursch, Justice Sotomayor commented that 'In Massachusetts, we’ve got data that it’s—the rates have remained constant since they changed their laws...' Justice Sotomayor is only correct if Massachusetts includes same-sex marriages in that number."
Sorry that's not an error. What she said was factual.
"The marriage scholars were also able to obtain data on opposite-sex marriage rates from three other states that have legalized same-sex marriage, and they likewise have seen declines: Vermont (-5.1 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent), and Iowa (-9.2 percent)."
Over the same period of time based on CDC figures the average change in marriage rate for states that did not allow same-sex marriage is -13.07 percent. Even assuming all of these numbers are correct, the declining marriage rate is still slower in the pro-gay states. Has same-sex marriage led to the appreciation of marriage among heterosexuals? No, there is no mechanism for this to occur. If you want to understand long term marriage trends look to anthropology and economics for the answer.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that at least your first point should be valid, particularly when you are calling people out for being "wrong."

Section 2. "Error Number Two: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around"

True, Justice Sotomayor makes a logical fallacy; however a logical fallacy does not make an assertion incorrect. For example the non-sequitur statement "if there are 2 apples and 2 oranges, and ass-fucking is fun, then there are 4 pieces of fruit" does not discount the truth of 2+2=4.

My point being prove the correlation or shut the fuck up.It doesn't matter that Justice Sotomayor made a logical fallacy, since the base statement wasn't proven to begin with.

Further, this section is pointless as it has little bearing on anything. It would possibly have meaning if the first section were correct, because if same-sex marriage caused a decrease in straight marriage, and marriage "keeps fathers around"... I would dig up some facts to find out the truth of the assertion made by Michigan, but it is absolutely pointless. So, I'm moving on.

Section 3."Error Number Three: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples"

I actually agree with this entire section:
"Justice Kennedy expressed surprise when Mr. Bursch argued that the states are not in the marriage business to bestow dignity. Justice Kennedy responded: 'I don’t understand this is not dignity bestowing. I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage. It’s dignity bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that—that same ennoblement. Or am I missing your point?'Yes, Justice Kennedy was missing the point. He was confusing the reason that a couple may desire to be married with the reason that a state would want to recognize and regulate marriage. Those are distinct.
The funny thing is that this bit undercuts pretty much every argument against same-sex marriage.If marriage doesn't bestow dignity, then it's a bundle of rights and obligations.

And what constitutional basis would the government have to deny a class of people rights and obligations?

See where I'm going with this. Good. If marriage bestows dignity the government cannot take it away, and if it is an institution that bestows rights and obligations the government cannot take it away.

Section 4."Error Number Four: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered"

Another laughable section. Even the title is funny as no one argued this.

The rest of the section is conservative butthurt over changing social mores. To paraphrase Heraclitus, go suck a dick change is the only constant.

Get fucking over it.

Also, way to be total fucking dick bags towards adoption.

And thirdly, no-fault divorce is a problem? Nice can o' worms ya got there.

PS. This is section is largely opinion... not really a subject to error.

Section 5. "Error Number Five: There Is a Parallel between Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell"

Yes, yes there is a definite parallel between civil rights cases.
"At the time of Loving, state prohibitions on inter-racial marriages had been in existence in only some of the states, and then at most for about 300 years if we go back to colonial times in Virginia and Maryland. But man-woman marriage has been the law in every state since the birth of the nation—and in every Western nation for millennia."
Umm... so gays have it had it historically worse and this proves that it's not discrimination? I'm not following your point. Not really even a point I guess. Further more the parallel was established and the article only affirms it.

Section 6. "Error Number Six: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman"

This is another dumb one to argue. Age restrictions are constitutional; by disassociating age restriction from the definition you're only hurting your position. But that's just the title.

Let's look further:
"Several of the justices questioned whether there was a difference between recognizing exceptions to age restrictions and recognizing same-sex marriages.In short: yes, there is. Not all exceptions are equal. Age has never been a part of the definition of marriage."
Umm... consent isn't apart of the definition of marriage... funny. It's like a someone said something contradictory earlier... like in the actual definition of marriage...

The main reason age is a restriction to marriage is because of consent. The concept of consent makes the restriction rational.


To sum up the article, ignore every economic reason for a falling rate of marriage to pin it on Griswald, Loving, Roe California adopting No-Fault Divorce, queers getting hitched. It also unquestioningly assumes that a declining marriage rate is bad. It ignores human history and the constant flux of morality.In short the article is sloppy, ignorant, and fails to make a coherent point.

Ok I'm bored now.

Check out the other article linked to SCOTUSblog, which is Lisa Keen's article on Obergefell v. Hodges.

Laim '15

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Oops, Wrong Side

Sometimes I hear someone, and my mind reels at the lack of self-awareness. Often times it comes in the form of cognitive dissonance.

Case in point Mat Staver.

As shown in this video posted to YouTube via Right Wing Watch, on Saturday April 25, 2015 Liberty Council founder Mat Staver addressed a march organized by NOM:

As someone who's argued before the United States Supreme Court, I certainly have respect for this court, but I have no respect and cannot respect a lawless decision. This court has not always been right on the issue of marriage. 
In the 1800s it issued the infamous Dred Scott decision, and Justice Taney said, “sorry Dred, no rights for you here at this high court,” because they said blacks were inferior human beings.
How racist and bigoted was that? How contrary to the natural law of God is that decision?
It is no decision worth respecting today, and It was no decision worth respecting then.
In 1927 the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the infamous words, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Saying to Carrie Buck, the Commonwealth Virginia can forcibly sterilize you to get rid of your population, because you have low IQ.
That was a racist bigoted decision flies in the face of the dignity of every person created in the image of God.
No one will defend it now and no one should have defended then.
I say now as we are standing on the precipice this major decision before the United States Supreme Court, these leaders that came together in this marriage pledge, that I hope you sign on it at are saying this, “Supreme Court of the United States with all due respect, we warn you, do not cross this line.”
As much as I am an attorney, and I respect the rule of law, I also respect a higher law. And when an earthly law collides with a higher law, we have no choice to obey higher law. We cannot comply Caesar's demands that are in direct conflict with a higher law, and that's what the Doctor Martin Luther King wrote in a letter from a Birmingham jail. There are two kinds of laws just and unjust. You have to obey the just laws, but the unjust laws are no laws at all, and we cannot obey those.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. As a policy matter any other union says that God’s design is flawed. As a policy matter any other unions say that boys don't need fathers and girls don't need mothers, and we know that God’s creation the divine architect that infused into the natural created order, knows what's best for the family. Children need mothers and fathers.
This United States Supreme Court, nor any governmental entity, does not have the authority to redefine God’s natural created order of marriage.
Mat, honey, the connection between Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, and Baker v. Nelson was an unjust denial of the Due Process Clause. Or in other words, Americans are afforded the rights to life, liberty, and property.

In fact, the denial of the 5th Amendment in Dred Scott was a major point for the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that all people are afforded due process protections by both the States as well as the Federal Government.

I know in 2014 your Liberty University had a first time bar passer rate of 50% in Virginia: so I have a feeling you might not be teaching this, but based on the concept of substantive due process the right to marry is a condition of life, liberty, and property as enumerated in Loving v. VirginiaZablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley.

In your own analogy, you are on the wrong side of history. You're not arguing for Dred Scott or Carrie Buck. You're on the side that wants to deny liberty and substantive due process. But thanks for playing and proving why your school is garbage.

If I were a betting man, I would be willing to bet that Mat knows that he is on the wrong side of history, as much of his speech reads nearly perfectly as a pro-LGBT. But quite frankly in the end I don't care.

I am curious though how Mat is going to perform civil disobedience in regards to same-sex marriage.
For civil disobedience, which MLK, Jr. prescribed, the government has to be doing something and your non-compliance is therefore disruptive. For example not paying your taxes. Or sit-ins in Government or public locations.

The only thing I can think that vaguely would qualify, is that Mat won't get married to a dude. Not much of protest there as not getting married affects nothing.

Or perhaps he will get a boyfriend and then won't get married as some sort of fucked-up, bizarro, psycho-sexual protest that only Mat Staver knows about or would makes sense to.

I have heard of people doing weirder things.

It's either that or impotent rage. And impotent rage is never attractive.

The very last point I want to touch on is when Mat says, "This United States Supreme Court, nor any governmental entity, does not have the authority to redefine God’s natural created order of marriage."

You do realize that gay people exist, right? And that many of us have kids? And that would be a part of god's order, right? I'm not saying existence is right or wrong, but I am saying that existence is nature. If god didn't want gay people, then why do we exist.

Where do they get off speaking for god. That's pretty fucking arrogant.

Liam '15