Submitted Without Comment

I think this can go without comment. How embarrassing and yet revealing.

Credits go to Right Wing Watch.


Liam '15

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 defendmarriage.org 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. Virginia, Zablocki 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.

The Loophole by Garfunkel and Oates

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

Sunday Morning Slander

I have to admit I was kind of struggling this week looking for material for this segment, which for sanity's sake is probably a good thing. But then this morning I saw a video, and I knew then and there I had found the one, my precious douchebag. *Sniffle*

On Thursday around noonish, a bunch of goons from NOM invaded the Capitol steps to tell 'em what they really think.

And then there was Huckleberry Hound Mike Huckabee.

Source. Go visit right wing watch.

I frequently prefer to read an article rather than listen to it, so here is a transcript of what he said:

The President and the Congress are not required to defy natural law.[1] They're not required to redefine marriage.[2] They are required to follow the will of the people, the Constitution, and the law that has given us the greatest nation on earth, a nation that we will lose, if we turn our backs on our origins.[3] There is no doubt in my mind that this country would not exist had it not been for the providential hand of God. I'm also convinced if we reject his hand of blessing we will feel his hand of judgment.[4]

[Break]

And it's time for us as an American people to say to our own government “Enough of you restricting us. Enough of you redefining our institutions.[5] We are not under an obligation to defy God in order to obey you. We are under an obligation to obey God and the law and if necessary to defy an institution that is out of control.”[6]

Ugh, I'm so sick of word salad. That's what I had for dinner last night. Perhaps it's because the video was an excerpt from a longer speech, but little sense making it was.

I will try to break it down into bit size pieces of WTF:

[1] I do not understand what natural law has to do with any of this quite frankly. It's literal a head scratcher due to the way it is worded. Is he trying to say "the President and the Congress are unnecessarily defying natural law"?

[2] Congress and the President are not redefining marriage. To play along with your venacular it's dem court thingys in dem buildins wit dem men folks who haz that there hammer do-hickey dats redefining marriage. The current gay rights movement is seeing it's largest successes through Article III jurisdictions, rather than through the legislative process or administrative law. By the way ain't ya a former governor who really really should know better? Numb-nuts.

[3] "They are required to follow... the Constitution." The judicial system is following the constitution in extending equal protection to all citizens by extending marriage privileges. Also a majority of people are in favor of marriage equality. You were against the tyranny of the minority when it was basically only gays in favor of gay marriage, so let me guess you now will be against the tyranny of the majority/minority. Dumb-ass.

[4] "I'm also convinced if we reject his hand of blessing we will feel his hand of judgment." Congrats Mike you are now as relevant as William Jennings Bryan. Jack-ass.

[5] "And it's time for us as an American people to say to our own government 'Enough of you restricting us.'" Hah hah hahahahahaha aaah haha. Do you hear yourself at all? Dumb-Fuck. Perhaps it's a wrong language thingy. Verstehen Sie, warum das heuchlerisch ist? Homo-Ehe beschränkt nicht die Zivilrechte oder die Freiheit der Mehrheit. Homo-Ehe gibt die Homosexuallen Zivilrechte. Arschloch!

Please don't make me whip out the french.

[6] Huh? I honestly am just perplexed by the rest of the statement. "We are under an obligation to obey God and the law and if necessary to defy an institution that is out of control." So does that mean he is advocating Christianists to not get married? Or defy the government, in which their participation in gay marriages isn't required?  Dick-for-brains.

UPDATE:

I found a longer video:

Liam '14

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

Sorry Pat. F & U Don't Solve the Puzzle.

As emperor of the gays, I want to congratulate game show host, Pat Sajak, for coming out as a heterosexual.Who would of guessed, he seemed so gay.

Klassy.

But no, I'll be serious for moment. Congratulations for being straight. Congratulations for feeling secure enough to come out. Congratulations for feeling so secure that you can tell your boss that you love a human being without the fear of being being terminated. Congratulations for feeling so secure that you can tell your family that you love a human being without the fear of being ostracized or financially or emotionally reprimanded. Congratulations that you feel so secure that you can tell your siblings that you love a human being without your siblings shielding their children from you, because they might emulate a "deviant lifestyle." Congratulations that you feel secure enough that you can tell your property manager that you live with the person that you love without the fear of being evicted.

Congratulations that your little stunt of trying to become the next right-wing martyr did not succeed, and you still have a job, a wife, a family, and a future.

May your second marriage continue going strong.

And perhaps now that you had the benefit of coming out without repercussions you could champion ENDA, so that no person should have to suffer consequences for saying the words "I love you."

But you won't.


Liam '14

As emporer I command you to kiss my ring

The So-Called Vampire Agenda

It is my firmly held belief that many Conservative-Christian have confused gays for vampires. I have come to this conclusion based on the following arguments made by actual people.

1. Gays are Turned Gay

  

On the December 12, 2012 episode of the show The 700 Club, Pat Robertson received a letter asking for his advice... why? Who the fuck knows why anyone would ask him about anything, but it happened.

Anyway, the question reads:

Growing up, I had a best friend. We parted ways after high school. Ten years later, we got back in touch. I am really glad to see her because I've always thought of her as my sister. But recently, I invited her to meet my children. She said yes – and asked if she could bring her 'partner.' I said, 'Okay.' I know that my friend's family has shunned her because of her lifestyle, and I don't want to be like that. I want to show love – but I don't want her to think I am okay with her ways. And I don't feel comfortable having her around my children. Should I keep this friendship?

Robertson answers:

You keep love, you loved her, you were close and your influence may have something significant to her, the idea is you don’t gain anything by shunning, but at the same you don’t want your children to grow up as lesbians…

Yep, more pedophilia recruitment bullshit. Instead of biting and infecting to recruit new members, we drive Subarus, drink white wines, and shop at Bed Bath & Beyond. Anyone who witnesses this behavior becomes gayified. 

Well if you can't get them to join, you can always get them with your Aids Ring, eh? 

Asshole.

To use the parlance created by the vampire mythos, nobody has sired me. And I have sired no gaylings. I have no attraction to straight men. In fact, straight guys kind of disgust me actually.

Secondly, notice how the Asker never states that she has a daughter; she says she has "children." If they're boy children, wouldn't they become the manliest, straight-men ever butched up, simply by hanging out with Auntie U-Haul?  You know wearing flannel, playing sports, eating pussy. It seems like Pat kind of assumed on this one. And come on Pat, you know what they say about what happens when you assume.

2. Gays are Demonically Possessed

On the May 18, 2012 David Pakman Show, Gordon Klingenshit Klingenschmitt had a few pearls of wisdom he wanted to share with the world:

Anyone who’s studied biology and Punnett squares and Mendelian genetics obviously has to agree with me that homosexuality cannot be genetic, because if, say, a blond haired man and a blonde haired woman have children there's a pretty good chance that their kid might have blonde hair… and let’s say that a homosexual man mates with another homosexual man, there’s a one hundred percent chance they won’t have children. So they have to recruit the children of heterosexuals, and that’s what this whole marketing scheme for the pro-homosexual movement is all about.

Yes, and anyone who has studied 8th grade biology knows that hair color is vastly more complicated than a simple 4 squared Punnett diagram. Also I may or may not have siblings, who may or may not pass a lot of shared genes to their children, who I am a responsible uncle for possibly. Those possible nieces and/or nephews would contain enough genetic similarities as to any possible children that I would produce.  (By Klingenschmitt's logic things like Tay-Sachs and Sickle Cell Anemia shouldn't exist either. Is he saying that those are demonic too...) Also there is this study from William R. Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets published in 2012 in the University of Chicago's Quarterly Review of Biology entitled "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development" So if the research is correct, then yes in part gayness is not wholly genetic, but there are epigentic factors that are naturally deterministic. Moving on.

Pakman then asked Klingenschmitt about gay animals, also known as gaynimals and how they aren't exposed to marketing, because, well, they're animals:

It is entirely possible — we know from the Bible, for example, when Jesus cast the devil out of Legion, he went into a herd of pigs. So, it is possible for demons or the devil to inhabit or invade animals just the same way they invade humans, and that causes the sin of lust.

Legion wasn't one being; it wasn't the Devil; it comes from Latin meaning I am hundreds... When asked to clarify his point, Klingenschmitt stated:

Marketing is related to the demonic, because the devil wants to recruit people into sin.

So being gay means, demonic possession. I think this may have been the plot to season one of Buffy the Vampire Slayer; in which case I am so definitely Spike.

3. To Cure the Gays Simply Pray Away the Gay

I am not even going to waste my time by offering up any quotes as evidence that I am not trying to build a strawman for this one. 

Yep, so go on and hold up your crosses and your bibles at Gay Pride Parades. That will definitely protect you from the gay just like it does against vampires.

Garlic and holy-water too. And my reflexion can't be capture by a mirror or a camera. That's why my blogger photo is a drawing.

4. Gays are not Natural

Sweet so I guess that makes me supernatural. Fuck Yeah! I am going to go fight crime with the power of teh gayz. Ooo ooo.. I could be the Crimson Cock. Fighting crime with my rod of justice.

Oh, wait... Unfortunately it's still a criminal statute in Virginia. It is laid out in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361:

Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

Dear Legislative body of Virginia, fix your laws, you jackasses. Ken "the Cooch" Cuccinelli lost the gubernatorial race over his defense of this statute (the statute was struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. The Cooch claimed the statute was need to prosecute rapists... in which case he should have lobbied the Legislature when he was serving Vice Lieutenant Governor for a new and more legal version of the statute. But no, he instead was a complete fuck-head. So guess what, it's been more than a decade since the Court struck down the statute, and it is still in the Code and nothing has been done, when it easily, easily could pass the legislative process... for fuck sake what is wrong with these stupid bastards. Fix your goddamn laws you goddamn idiots. That's your fucking job, you fucking incompetent asses.)   Anyway, I've digressed enough.

I am unnatural, an aberration who casts no shadow. I mean that's the only explanation, because there's no such thing as gaynimals (well except those some 4,000 documented species.) I couldn't possible exist without magic or Satan or whatever you call it.

Secondly, before any asshole mumbles, "just because animals do it doesn't make it right. Some animals practice cannibalism blah blah blah," I just want to point out I am not saying that gay sex is moral. I am answering the claim "Gays are unnatural." The question of morality is a different subject that relies on notions such as consent, damages, harm, etc. After hours of reading articles on gaynimals, I have not come across an author making the claim that because it is natural it is moral. 

As a postlogue, I would just like to point out that the arguments present by the Christianists were relatively low-hanging fruit. A simple google search will show that they are not nearly alone in their views of gay people. They seem pretty prevalent to me.

This is every gay person I know in a nutshell

Count Orlok in a speedo... why not?

Liam '14

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Rachel Maddow

For months I have been following the Court Room Epic known as Dean v. Maddow  (Dean v. NBC Universal would be its hypothetical case name), where Axel Rose (not really) gains 50 pounds and goes on homophobic tirades and then sues Rachel Maddow for quoting him. I have read all the available documents from the original Complaint issued by Bradlee Dean, to the Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to DC Anti-SLAPP Act, and now the Certification for Recusal or Disqualification of Judge.

I read the other day that the Judge in the case had docketed a judgment in favor of NBC Universal, awarding them attorneys fees. Subsequently the Plaintiffs are now quixotically pursuing a recusal. So in their honor I have gone through the main documents in the case to explain and critic them.  Hopefully the case will make a little bit more sense now.


The Complaint:

Don't Put in a Dollar Amount.

In many jurisdiction putting in an actual dollar amount in a complaint is unprofessional. Secondly 50 Million Dollars is ridiculous and makes you seem without creditability. If you are suing for 50 Million dollars, that is saying, Maddow ruined your reputation to the point where you expected to earn 1 Million dollars per year for the next 50 years. Dean is not Axel Rose so... yeah...

Side Bar Time

If you are suing someone for defamation, you should be mindful of the elements of a Tort. DBCD.  If you are claiming damages to your reputation and business, then making headlines (especially if it's the La Crosse Tribune):

DUNKERTON, Iowa — Administrators, teachers and students did not get what they expected Thursday during an extended school program.

Everyone anticipated the message from Junkyard Prophet, a traveling band based in Minnesota, to be about bullying and making good choices. Instead, junior and senior high students at Dunkerton High School and faculty members said they were assaulted by the group's extreme opinions on homosexuality and images of aborted fetuses.

"They told my daughter, the girls, that they were going to have mud on their wedding dresses if they weren't virgins," said Jennifer Littlefield, a parent upset with the band's performance..

... Littlefield also did not appreciate what she described as gay bashing.

"They told these kids that anyone who was gay was going to die at the age of 42," she said. "It just blows me away that no one stopped this."

Don't be in the news showing that the Maddow segment didn't affect your career. If you are still getting hired to preform at high schools, it is counter to your argument that you're damaged goods. Worse, if you are the one destroying your own reputation that undercuts the claim that Maddow is the causation. Worst, by saying sufficiently similar things to the alleged defamation, it shows the defamatory statements to be true, which is a defense against defamation.

Reduce the Pages

There are approximately 6 unnecessary pages out of 10. This is a court proceeding not the Newsroom at Fox. Slamming Maddow for being a gay leftist secular atheist will only anger the court because it has nothing to do with the case or the law.

State a Claim

Really why are you suing. If you can't state it in clear, concise words, then perhaps you shouldn't be suing.  Not everything requires a lawsuit.

Proof Read

Yes, hire a high school student if you need to. I'm dyslexic, and I would never, never submit anything without having 2 to 3 pair of eyes reading it, well except this blog because I'm lazy and cheap. Sentences like this should be edited "He is on information and belief a gay activist."  Once again I write a blog, I submit articles that I have proofread. They have spelling errors. If I were before a court I would pay someone to read it over. And get a style guide to learn how to comma properly. I suggest Eats, Shoots & Leaves.


The Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to DC Anti-SLAPP Act:

 Like her or hate her, Maddow has great lawyers. Really this motion is pure poetry. Well articulated, coherent and well reasoned. It is never abusive, but release on the law to make legal arguments.It is 51 pages, but if you ever get a chance to read the ant-slapp do it.  This is how a legal document should read.


The Recusal:


Good Faith vs. Bad Faith.

Because you are a Christian does not mean that you always have good faith. For example, if you move to dismiss your own action to bring the case to Federal Court to avoid Anti-SLAPP laws that is known as forum shopping. Forum Shopping is the antithesis of Good Faith. This motion clearly admits Forum Shopping, so it is doubly embarrassing.

While on the subject of good faith, NBC Universal could easily have filed a Motion for a change of venue. By getting a different venue Larry Klayman couldn't represent Dean, and let's face it DC is awkward in this case as Dean is primarily from Minnesota, Maddow Broadcasts from New York, and  NBC Universal is also out of New York.

It takes an Idiot...

When you are trying to get relief from judgment on the basis that the judge was prejudice it would behoove a litigant to do anything but call the judge a "woman scorned." It makes you seem like a jackass. Really why would you write that, all it can do is show that you were being unreasonable. Seriously, fuck, that's stupid.

!ekorts regna na dah tsuj I !ti nmaD

Ok. I'm better. When you are trying to claim prejudice, you yourself do not want to seem in the least bit prejudice. This is kindergarten shit.

It's a (Gay) Trap!

This is not Fox News. The Gay conspiracy doesn't exist. So stop it. It only hurts your argument as you seem unreasonable.


In the end it's real simple, the judge was in her right to order Attorneys' Fees. If you bring a suit forward only to drop it right before commencement you are wasting people's time and money.  What the Judge ordered was fair and reasonable. She could have gone a mile further and order deeper sanctions for wasting not only the defendants' money and time, but also the courts. She may also have been able to sanction Klayman (DC Bar Rule 3.2). This complaint is obviously frivolous because the plaintiff could barely state a claim. Dropping the case seconds before trial to pursue the same lousy case in a different court is a waste of time and money. Money the defendants should not pay.

All in all I am a little comfuzeded by this whole case.  I thought both Klayman and Dean were small government conservatives. So why do they need the Government to solve their problems? And why are they now seeking help from the largest, most gay loving intrusive level of government?

Homersexual Agenda

The Homosexual Agenda a brief history.

In the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Antonin Scalia wrote:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

The problem with relying solely on group morality in a constitutional democracy to dictate the laws is that the constitution often interferes with the group morality. When we have penumbras such as privacy and the equal protection clause discrimination based on morality will be . Another way to put it is that our morals are eclipsed by our laws. The large distinction between morality and law is the concept of harm. Many things that are immoral are harmful: murder, theft, breaking-people's-legs. Other things are "immoral" but are not harmful and not illegal: eating bacon, sloppy gay sex, being a douche, etc. There is also another category of harmful but not immoral: jaywalking, speeding, being too awesome.

So obviously there are somethings that are harmful and immoral and those definitively should be against the law. But it is sloppy to say that because something is immoral that it is also illegal. And for good reason. Who's morality are we going to use? And what principles are behind that chosen morality?

The legal approach has its goods and its bads; however, the concept of harm as the basis of all laws is rather non-arbitrary, when compared to morality.

The moral approach is highly arbitrary particularly among religious zealots and literalists. They probably claim that they are the ones who definitely are not arbitrary since they follow every word of the bible, rationality be damned. But that is the problem, what rational reason is there for something to be illegal or immoral without harm. In the bible it often justifies morality by saying it displeases God. Eating cilantro displeases me; however, I don't consider it to be a sin nor think it should be illegal.

Here are somethings that the bible says are immoral:

Shellfish
Pork
Peeing while standing up (seriously 1 Samuel 25:22)
Gay Sex
Wearing Boyfriend-Jeans
Girls wearing pants
Men wearing skirts (Sorry Scotland)
Adultery (Punishable by Stoning)
Sex for Pleasure
Hair cuts
Palm reading
Leather
Polyester
Mixed Fabrics
Having Acne
Not Washing your Shower
Tattoos
Worshiping the wrong god (funny how that's every religion)
Saying Abracadabra
Forgetting the Incense
Simply wanting new things

Arguing with your parents (death penalty)
Wear gold
Shaving
Marring Foreigners
Doing anything on Sunday (goodbye football) 

And here are somethings the bible conveniently forgets:


Slavery
War
Homelessness
Illiteracy
Outsourcing
Tax Evasion (well Jesus said not to evade them)
Land Annexation
Burning of Fossil Fuels
Genocide
Over Population
Pre E-ZPass Toll Booths (evilest of all things)



So why is homosexuality immoral to some, and what is this Scalia-called homosexual agenda?

Morality is arbitrary and often based on religious text or philosophical work based on religious tenants. (As Nietzsche would say in today's parlance "suck it Marx.") Some people guess that religious texts are ancient survival guides and nation building manuals. So in that context perhaps then there was some rationality, but it no longer is applicable.

The homosexual agenda is not some scary menace. There is no conspiracy to convert teens into gays. There is a legal defense fund called Lambda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign, and organizations like the SPLC.

These organizations promote issues that actually matter in the lives of gay people and have little impact on the rest of Americans.

The Real Homosexual Agenda's Issues:

1. The right to marry whomever a person chooses.
2. The right to stick it in any consenting hole.
3. The right to continue Health Insurance in cases of HIV.
4. To be protected from acts of physical violence and destruction of property.

Wie schrecklich! It is so menacing to want to marry a person and have legal rights, or to not be arrested for having consenting sex in your own house (or blackmailed for it), or not lose your health insurance from catching a communicable disease, or to ask the police to actually investigate and catch criminals.


Anyway, I was trying to think of how a hick would say homosexual, and I came up with the word homersexual. And then I thought of a gay Homer Simpson, so this is today's disturbing photoshop:

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

A Tale of the Map

This is a post that I will probably repost about once a month from now until the subject matter is solved. America is a Federalist Society.  We have a large powerful Federal Government balance by individual state governments.  When working properly, Federalism has one massive advantage over other political systems: a system of trial and error.  States often share similar problems and common questions of governance. The strength of federalism comes when states with similar problems come up with different solutions.  After time passes, the nation as a whole can see how the two varying solutions have worked to solve the particular problem.

That's how federalism should work, anyway.  I have a feeling that it does not often happen. Stubbornness, pride, regionalism, and ignorance can prevent states from enacting proven measures. Furthermore, a practical solution to a perceived problem may interfere with a special interest. Vast amounts of wealth can be spent to change people's beliefs.

A few months ago, when the Republicans were in primary mode, a mini-controversy erupted around the issue of contraceptives. Primarily that they need to change the composition of the Supreme Court so that Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) can be overturned. (Nothing says freedom quite like having your right to privacy utterly stripped away.) I was shock to hear this in the modern era, since I knew that Texas has both a high Teen Pregnancy rate and a poor sex education program.  It was even more disturbing to hear contraceptives being discussed, in general and not only for teens, because I'm an adult and I will place a piece of latex on my penis and have sex with whomever I want. It is insane to think otherwise, especially by people who claim to champion freedom.

While the Federal Government has a role in Sex Education, primarily through Federal funds distributed to states, the majority of the policies come from the state and local levels.A state can choose to implement comprehensive, abstinence only sex education, or leave it up to local school districts (Texas.)

The following is a series of maps, the majority created by the CDC, which shows  general trends in America based on Health, Education, and Socio-Economics.

The first set of four maps show the basic sexual health of the nation, at a state or county level.

Teen Pregnancy Rates:

Syphilis Rates:

Gonorrhea Map:

Speaking of Sex Education, here is what I think should be shown. It would defiantly help lower teen pregnancy, raise tolerance and awareness. And evangelical christian types really show love my method as it is a perverted version of abstinence only.

I'm joking of course. Obviously nobody should be pressured into being gay, just as nobody should be pressured into being straight.  Attraction is attraction: if you're gay you're gay, if you're bi you're bi, if you're straight then you won't have any fun you're straight. Oh yes, also always wear a condom, always! There is no acceptable reason to not wear one during recreational sex. And if you are having sloppy gay sex, use a non-oil based lube. I digress.

Moving on to something, much, much more serious, here is a map of America based on Heart Disease.
Heart Disease Map:

For shame America, for shame. How can Wisconsin, the land of beer and cheese, be one of the healthier states when it comes to heart disease.. For shame.

Here is what the up coming generation will look like.

High School Obesity:

Compared to heart disease and adult obesity, the government can play a much greater role, in a much simpler fashion in High Schools. From extended PhysEd to low calorie lunch options, home economics, and health courses, states can lower the obesity rate among teens.  Furthermore we can use federalism to find the best solution.

High School Graduation Rates:

Bachelors Degrees:

Prison Population:

Violent Crime Rate:

I was planning to show a Hate Crimes map; however, since it is up to the individual states to define what a hate crime is and to report them to the FBI, I decided to forgo a map. According to the FBI's data center in 2010, Mississippi had one agency  reporting hate crimes while Iowa had fourteen.  Mississippi claimed to have only 11 hate crimes (they claimed only 1 in 2009) while Iowa claimed 14 cases.  

I really have my doubts about the accuracy, since as I said before states define and report hate crimes. Mississippi and Alabama have a long history of hate crimes and a failure to prosecute them.  I question the accuracy for another anecdotal reason; I haven't ever heard of a movie called Iowa Burning. 

SPLC also claims  that there are currently 41 known active hate groups in Mississippi, while there are only 4 in Iowa. But unfortunately this methodology could easily be flawed, since Wyoming, the birth place of hate crime laws has only 2 reported hate groups.

And to be truthful I really am disappointed with the honesty of the numbers, because I wanted to use those statistics to take an honest look at hate crime policies in the US.  I am not fully convinced that the progressive is necessarily the best practical way to solve hate crimes.

For as much as I joke, name call, and argue there is one thing I will not belittle. Perhaps the most telling of all is this one map.

Poverty in America:

 

If there were an omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving god, I cannot think of any greater issue, any greater image that would disturb this god than the poverty map.

 

Maps 1-6, 11 come from the CDC; 7,8 come from the Census; 9,10 come from Wikipedia.

This country and our individual states can only improve when the American people educate themselves. Ask questions of politicians, ask question of journalist, just ask questions. People lie, statistics can be manipulate, and I could be entirely wrong on my assertions, but given what I have I believe we can find a solution to our greatest problems and move forward.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

The Birds & the Birds and the Bees & the Bees

I think it is time to have the talk. Yep this talk is about doing the nasty, which I want to remind the straight community is only a portion of what it means to be fantastic. But now and again, gay people do happen to have sex. Shocking, I know. I found the following video on Joe. My. God.




As a quick aside I want to comment on the behavior of the sign smasher. I cannot condone what this man did, even though I understand the sheer anger and frustration that he must have been experiencing. Hate only begets hate. Violence only begets violence. The Gay Community has its freedom of speech, as well as the drool-monkeys. The Community doesn't want to be silenced, so don't silence others, even if they are liars and bigots.

Showing hatred only detracts from the truth that Gay Rights is about love and tolerance. Yes, this man was simply acting as a human and defending himself and his community, yet the community has the arduous task of being more than human.

The portion of the video that really bothers me, though, is the asinine notion that gay people practice "gerbil stuffing." Nobody actually has done that. It is an urban legend. If you are dumb enough to believe that one, please, please, for your own safety, buy a skateboard helmet. And then wear it all the time. Don't take it off in the shower or for bed. You may not be smart enough to quite grasp the whole walking thing yet, and I really don't want to see you get hurt if you fall down. If this were true, the people who were doing it would be arrested for bestiality.

Really though I want to know why it's only gays who are on the hook for being sexual deviants in this country. Why don't those up-tight drool-monkeys go and protest straight porn shops (not that I think they should.) Anyway many things that gay people enjoy straight people also happen to enjoy.

Anal Sex.  It's not just for gay people.  Secondly, not all gay people have it.  I don't mean that some people are tops, and that some people are bottoms; I mean that some couples only ever have oral sex.

On a more frightening note, fisting is real. I'm not condemning it, nor am I endorsing it. If you do not know what fisting is, I would say you're probably lucky. If you do not want to know what it is, I would say just skip down to the next paragraph, but that too is graphic. Fisting is when a person uses a lot of lube and insert the full hand after normal foreplay. Some people actually do this and here are names of famous fisters:

Alana
Alisha Klass
Ariana 

Ashley Long.

Audrey Hollander

Autumn
Autumn Hayes

Belladonna 

Bridgette Kerkove
Carli Banks
Charlene Aspen
Chloe
Daniella Rush
Felecia
Isabella
Jasmine Lynn
Juliana Sterling
Julie Silver
Katja Kassin
Keisha Kylie Ireland
Kim Holland
Meridian
Phyllisha Anne

Taylor Moore
Taylor St. Clair
Trinity Max

Venus

I could go on, but I got bored with all the porn. Notice that this list is compiled of people who are all women (if not silicone). My point is that straight people also fist. Big shock. Straight people are just as horny, just as deviant, and just as curious as gay people. Even sexually gay people are just people, the main difference is they are attracted to persons of the same sex.

Here are a few other things that heterosexuals do that are kind of silly.
 
Crush Fetish. Eroticism due to objects being crushed. If your mate is attracted to having their genitals being abused just be careful.

Pissing. You know it's true love if she let's you urinate on her.  But if she asks to be urinated on...yeah.

Pegging. I think Dan Savage came up with the term. but it definitely is a straight thing. Why would gay men need a strap-on? Well I guess if a Crush Fetish went horribly wrong...

BDSM. Ever read Venus in Furs? Kafka did. Some people like to be tied down. Some people love to get dressed up in shiny suits of leather. Others love a good ol' spanking.

Whatever people do in their home is their prerogative, with limited exception.  As long as the participating parties are consenting adults and they get off by those activities, everything is gravy. 

And for the bigots and the hate-monkeys out there who hide behind their religion, a Christian God doesn't care what people shove up their asses; a Christian God is concerned for the poor, the starving and the homeless. Two years after a massive earthquake, 400,000 people are still displaced. or why not use that Saturday where they looked like a bunch of jackass to go down to the Salvation Army. 21% of children in America live in poverty, and many local Salvation Army offices have programs which provide backpacks filled with food to qualifying children. In fact anyone reading this, gay or straight should sacrifice some of their time to this awesome program. It would make a good post pride activity in fact. I think that would make Jesus happy.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Creationism is an Insult to God

If there is a god, this would-be-god would be probably pissed at Americans for pushing to start teaching Creationism again. I took an online Pew Quiz on Religion not too long ago (I scored 15 out of 15, though it was none too hard; I was also disappointed that there were no questions on Zoroastrianism or African Animism), and there was one question in particular that stood out to me.  Erroneously, 77% of the quiz-takers believed that public school teachers cannot read from the bible as an example of literature or as a historical document.

With that statistic in mind, when I was reading this Article from Pew, I had to laugh at all the drool spewing, anger-monkeys who do not know what they're talking about or voting for:

Despite that long series of court decisions, polls show that large numbers of Americans favor looser, not tighter, limits on religion in public schools. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center, more than two-thirds of Americans (69%) agree with the notion that “liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of the schools and the government.” And a clear majority (58%) favor teaching biblical creationism along with evolution in public schools. 

Do they not understand the whole First Amendment thing, or will shoe stores in the near future stock only Velcro shoes.  The legal history of the Establishment Clause is borne not from  the scourge of Atheism, but the long standing conflict between the Protestant Majority and the powerful Catholic Minority. In State ex rel Weiss v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177 (1890), Catholic parents objected to public schools reading from the King James Bible. They objected to having a different bible being along with the whole anti-Catholic sentiment thingy. The argument is as frequently "which god," as it is "is there a god." This Wisconsin Decision would latter be adopted (after years of Selective Inclusion) by the US Supreme Court. In Schempp and other similar decisions, the Court ruled in a manner that prohibits Compulsory and Established religious instruction.  Essentially, teachers can teach the bible, but they cannot preach the bible.

America is not a Christian Nation. America is a nation where the Majority chooses to be Christian. Our system is one million times greater than any theocracy or any possible right-wing  fantasy, simply because we are allowed a choice. True belief is never forced.

The second portion of the Pew article quote focuses on the teaching of Creationism in Biology classes. 58% of Americans are doing a disservice to their children by supporting Creationism. If there is a god, god created the Universe through the Big Bang, and life follows the principles of evolution.  We know this, we have seen life evolve in front of our eyes, and there is an indisputable fossil record. Saying god created the universe in a myth-like fashion, when we know better seems to me insulting.  The creation myth detracts from the beauty and wonderment of the true universe that god (possibly) created. 

The time between the Big-Bang and  the emergence of humans did not happen in 6 days. If it did, Adam would have been baked alive by the severity of the Cosmic Background Radiation.  And let's face it, every religion and every culture has it's own creation myth. Is the Biblical creation myth any easier to swallow than Heaven and Earth literally fucking us into existence, or a Crow stealing fire from the sun, or Atum masturbating the world into existence. With Cosmic Background Radiation Maps, charted Doppler Shifts in star systems and even galaxies, photos of deep space/ early universe from the Hubble Telescope, and basic understanding of atomic theory, scientists have put forward a more accurate model of the creation of the universe using math.Quel Horreur!

If there is a god, study science and give god proper praise for god's actual accomplishments, not the false nonsense in an ancient book.

Here's My version of the Great Sky Man that should offend:

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Nature is not so Natural

UPDATE: I found the full video, and to be fair the section of youtube was taken out of context. I'm not going to take down this post because I have heard many of the same arguments made by other people.   So I guess just pretend that Mr. Barber didn't say these things.
 
I stumbled upon this video, and it quickly became apparent that I need to comment on this idiocy. The video was uploaded to Youtube via Right Wing Watch. I found the transcript on Right Wing Watch's site.Not like this isn't a daily occurrence, we get to see Matt Barber make an ass of himself, Liberty Counsel, and thus ""Liberty" "University""(oh wait it actually is ABA accredited).

 

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Let's deconstruct his argument chunk by chunk.

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.

A tyranny of right, that sounds like a tyranny of freedom, which makes perfect sense. I have to give him credit, if you say something that is dumb enough it's like brain Novocaine, that way you won't notice the hate so much.Then he moves to how the act of gay sex is the only thing that identifies us.  It's never the love two people share, the emotional connections, the friendship, the stories, or the day-in-day-out same as strait people lives, it is always about the sloppy butt sex.  Yep for me it is.  I couldn't go to work because I was getting ass-fucked.  I couldn't get the mail because I was getting ass-fucked. Guess why I couldn't walk the dog. I digress.

This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. 

Once again a tyranny of rights.. Is this fucker trying to piss me off, or is does he seriously confuse liberty and oppression. I could live with one of those. Then he says it will replace the enumerated rights, what enumerated right will disappear? Well, tell me jackass. Which one goes bye-bye? That's what I thought.Next he says god wrote our original constitution. Great job on that slavery things asshole. And if you're omnipotent and omniscient why did you allow for amendments..

Ooh here he say's the constitution is predicated upon Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  Yes because there are no such things a gay animals. Nope no such things as gay penguins.  I means seriously has he never been to the monkey section of the zoo. Chimpanzees are always "playing" with each other. Bonobo constantly giving out gay hand-jobs (well technically they are bi hand-jobs.) And just a side note when I end up in hell, I hope it's penguin hell.  He then says being gay violates these Law's of nature and thus the constitution res ipsa loquitur.

Let's look at the constitutional rights he list again:

Religious Liberty: Yes and which God hates the gays. If my God happens to think we all should be gay. Or more likely what if I am Buddhist, Hindu, Reform Jewish, or a Congregationalist.


Freedom of speech: Meh off the top of my head I have nothing clever for this one.

Freedom of association: Dear lord he's an idiot. First off, freedom of association is not a word for word constitutional right.  It is known as a penumbra. A good definition of penumbra come from Lawyers.com, "a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication from other rights explicitly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution."  Similar to privacy which was granted Griswold v. Connecticut. if the courts start eating away at the penumbras so goes free association.

Second what can be more of a freedom of association issue than choosing who you want to hang out with, date, love, have sex with,  live with, and eventually marry. Those are what the Gay Rights are all about.

The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Yes of course rights of the people cannot exist with the Constitution. And didn't Jesus say to be a Fish of Men.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me