Alabama Song

Update I

***According to his Twitter Feed, Judge Steven Reed of Montgomery County will issue marriage licenses unless a stay is put into place. Super cool!***

Update II

*** Judge Callie V. Granade (awesome judge name) has issued a 14 day stay that also clarifies the original order. Particularly this section:  

3.Granting a Stay Will Irreparably Harm the Plaintiffs and Other Same-Sex Couples

As indicated above and in its order granting the injunction, the court has already found that same-sex couples face harm by not having their marriages recognized and not being allowed to marry. The harms entailed in having their constitutional rights violated are irreparable and far outweigh any potential harm to the Attorney General and the State of Alabama. As long as a stay is in place, same-sex couples and their families remain in a state of limbo with respect to adoption, child care and custody, medical decisions, employment and health benefits, future tax implications, inheritance and many other rights associated with marriage. The court concludes that these circumstance constitute irreparable harm.

Ausgezeichnet!***

On Friday Judge Callie V. Granade (greatest judge's name since Learned Hand) from the Federal Southern District of Alabama ruled that the State's Marriage Amendment and Statutes are unconstitutional under federal law. As of this moment no stay has been issued.

However because some people just want to be sued,  Alabama Probate Judges Association (which is a non-binding, but contains Probate Judges) had to weigh in. According to this report by Crystal Carr from ABC 33 in Birmingham, the dumb fucks Probate Judges have decided not to issue marriage licences:

"Judge Granade's ruling in this case only applies to the parties in the case and has no effect on anybody that is not a named party. The probate judges were not parties in this matter," Al Agricola, attorney for the Alabama Probate Judges Association, explained. "The legal effect of this decision is to allow one person in one same-sex marriage that was performed in another state to adopt their partner's child. There is nothing in the judge's order that requires probate judges in Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples." 

Hmm... I did not know that in the South the word "Attorney" is defined as "one who is dumber than a sun-baked jar of mayonnaise," but much is explained.

Ok let me 'splain this to you... Attorney General was named on behalf of State... you know that thing you belong to... the nice judge lady say laws stopping certain couples from marring are no longer there... if you don't marry people when they ask, you get sued.

Ughh. Is there a fucking See 'n Say that can explain this to the fucking knuckle dragging mouth breathers? The judge says "unconstitutional."

Ok,you do not need to be named for the decision have an effect on you! So yes, the Judge didn't order you to do anything; however it would behoove you to follow the law!!!!!!! 

Don't believe me; here is the Conclusion from Searcy v. Strange, No.14-0208-CG-N (S.D.Ala. Jan. 23, 2015):

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc.21), is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docs. 47), is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they [sic.] Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is enjoined from enforcing those laws. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2015.

In summary, the Plaintiff won. The following section of the Alabama Constitution is no longer governing:

(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.
(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage. 

The following statute is no longer governing:

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Alabama Marriage Protection Act."
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), failure to issue marriage licenses can allow aggrieved parties to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and which will allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees.

Done. So here is a little Brecht:




Liam '15

Let's Welcome Kentucky to the 21st Century

Today the Courts ruled in favor of in-state marriages. Yay!

So let's update the mother fuckin' map.

Boom!

Stay issued of course, but onward we march.

Liam '14

It's a Pride Day Miracle

Today it's Wisconsin, in the form of Wolf v. Walker.

And this one is especially salacious:

Citing these changing public attitudes, defendants seem to suggest that this case is not necessary because a majority of Wisconsin citizens will soon favor same-sex marriage, if they do not already. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 40 (citing article by Nate Silver predicting that 64% of Wisconsinites will favor same-sex marriage by 2020).

Quoting Nate Silver while granting marriage equality... Hot.Obviously I have not thoroughly read this 88 page tome, but there is much more in here. Plus whiskey makes it difficult to focus.

In honor of today's victory I made this map. I think from now on I will update this when the rest of the states fall like dominoes, muahahaha!


Liam '14

Damn You Michael Sam, Now I Have Type 2 Diabetes

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

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

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

Ok back to the statistics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations Michael Sam.

'Liam 14

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

Heart of Glass Rhymes With... Gov. Beshear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But let's take a look at their argumentation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liam '14

The Reader Quiz

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

A. May 30th

B. June 9th

C. July 4th

D.Butt-Sex 

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

Last Year Today...

On March 27, 2013 the United States Supreme Court heard the oral arguments for United States v. Windsor which went on to strike down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act. So today, in honor of precedent I am celebrating (on a work day. Sacre tabarnak!) with a quick refresher of the details.

Ironically, Scalia provided the "so called Homosexual Agenda" (dun-duh dah!) a pathway for future judicial victories by writing dicta in his dissent:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today's opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by "`bare ... desire to harm'" couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 2691. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today's opinion ante, at 2694

Thanks! I'm guessing Scalia popped an anger boner when he saw his quote magically appear in Kitchen v. Herbert:

The Constitution’s protection of the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens is equally dispositive whether this protection requires a court to respect a state law, as in Windsor, or strike down a state law, as the Plaintiffs ask the court to do here. In his dissenting opinion, the Honorable Antonin Scalia recognized that this result was the logical outcome of the Court’s ruling in Windsor:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare . . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same- sex couples marital status.

133 S. Ct. at 2709 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law. 

Of course Utah wasn't the only jurisdiction to recognize marriage equality since last year.

Marriage After Windsor

I'm out of time. So just imagine that there is something more clever in the map... like sloppy gay sex scenes superimposed in the background.

Since Windsor, there have been legislative victories in the following States:

Rhode Island

Delaware

Minnesota

New Jersey

Illinois
Hawaii

More importantly court victories in these States:

California

Utah

New Mexico

Oklahoma 

Texas
Virginia

Kentucky

Michigan

And more to come...  But as for me, it's now time for beer then bed.

Liam '14

Lost History

I have been doing some research (Photoshopping) American history and have discovered some shocking photos lost to history. 


1

Sorry president Obama, Abraham Lincoln holds the title for being the first gay president. Gaybraham Lincoln, as he was known to the fellas at the bar, scored it with more than four men if you know what I mean. Notice how perfectly his tie, suit, and shirt are accented by his lapel pin.

2

Winston Churchill was known for his brash retorts and quick wits; however when he couldn't think of anything better to say, he would just tell people to "sod off." 


3

 Not only did he conquer Germany, but he also overcame polio.  Most people think that Oppenheimer was working on the A-Bomb, but really the Manhattan Project was a facility in Soho which manufactured the world's first Hoverounds.

4

People think that Mitt Romney was a Pro-war draft dodger.  But I discovered that he honorable served his country on a PT Boat. Being a secret government program, the fifteen foot tall M.I.T.T. was a genetically engineered humanoid designed to give stump-speeches to the Vietcong.   The program was decommission after it was discovered that Mitt's speeches caused scrotal cancer to our own troops.

5

In this portrait you should notice two things: first George Washington invented the pimp cane; second, he brought back the codpiece with limited success. It is a little known fact that the First President of the United States, George Washington, was a codpiece enthusiast.  He carried a mass collection of famous codpieces from histories biggest names. His most prized codpiece was King Henry VIII's coronation piece, which Washington wore frequently for good luck and without perhaps America would not exist today. So thanks a lot Henry, thanks a lot.


6

Here's a strange photo from the Nixon Library.  Nixon always wanted to meet his hero Elvis Costello. Elvis Costello agreed on the condition that he could call Nixon "Tricky Dick." The audio tapes would exist; however according to Costello, Nixon erased the footage after a series of antisemitic rants that even Nixon regretted saying.  Notice, Costello is dressed in his famous "fat Elvis" era suit.


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

What about My Freedom of Religion

I grew up Methodist. I thought for a while that the Church would allow gay-marriages or blessed unions depending on the legality of the state. My parents' pastor is very into gay rights and even holds a support group in a small town in America (scary).  If there were a god I would hope it is his. He is a man of peace, concerned for the poor, and a supporter of a more loving world.

It is a commonly held belief that gay-marriage is an infringement on religious liberty, which is a ridiculous statement that does not even hold up on first glance. Freedom of Association will allow individual churches the right to perform marriage and exclude gays if it is counter to their core beliefs. Many churches and religions outside of Christianity hold that having sex outside of marriage to be a sin while no longer holding homosexuality to be an inherent sin. By barring gay-marriage, Conservatives are pushing gays to choose either a life of abstinence or a life sin in the eye of their religion. The possibly for Christianity to accept homosexuality, and gay-marriage as a consequence, is quite likely.  While the Old Testament has a prohibition on homosexuality, the Gospel does not. In fact, the New Testament mentions the word 'Love' 179 times, while it mentions 'Hate' only 16 times, and 'Homosexuality' 0 times. In fact some Christian sects such the ELCA, individual UCC congregations, Anglican Church, not to mention the Reform Movement in Judaism, and various sects of Buddhism and Hinduism all accept Homosexuality. Many other Christian sects are divided on the issue.

If gay-marriage were actually accepted by the Methodist Church would it be an infringement of my religion to prohibit gay-marriage? Legally, based on past precedence as shown in  Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), gay-marriage wouldn't be protected on the grounds of freedom of religion; however, under the logic of Loving, gay-marriage should be protected under the Equal Protection Clause. As a logical argument, preventing gay-marriage would be an infringement of my religion as it prevents me from completing a religious sacrament. Furthermore allowing gay-marriage in no way interferes with anyone-else's rights.

The other common argument I hear against gay-marriage is that it will alter 3,000 years of marriage tradition. This is not a straw-man argument, Mitt Romney actually said that. What is traditional marriage?

According to this Princeton Article  and this Independent Article 1/6 of societies practice legal monogamy currently. Legal monogamy was a rarity during antiquity and even more so in prior eras. Most Christians should understand this, because Judaism of course was historically polygamous. And the Greco-Roman tradition of man on man rumpus wasn't lost to the ages. It wasn't until the merger of Christianity and the Roman Empire that lead to an ascetic marriage tradition. I do have to say though that I'm disappointing with history, and the fact that we didn't end up with a system of polygamous gay-marriage. I think we were kind of close to that possibility.

And once this system of marriage was created, it looked very different from the nuclear family of today.  Forced marriages were common place until the 19th Century. I really don't think anyone wants to go back to that tradition.

So if it isn't tradition or religious liberty, what else is there? Many people have a problem with the gay identity, and how the gayness is the only aspect of gay people's lives.  The way I see it, gay people do not want to be identified as being gay. They are simply people who happen to be attracted to men. Why is that evil? Where is the logic behind the morality?  With the boom in human population, mass starvation (yes people really are starving), and other population related issues, perhaps we should encourage gay people to live as gay (as opposed to living a miserable closeted life and having a family that will one day suffer the consequences.)

Believe it or not, logically gay people have more to gain than the heterosexual community has to lose by granting gay rights. In marriage, gays would gain a whole host of financial, mutual-property, and other legal rights that straight couples enjoy. More marriage is not about having children (which, unfortunately for a certain writer, many gay couples wish to have) but more is a contract for living together and preparing to be divorced. Seriously a lot of the marriage laws are about merger of property, division of property, inheritance, and other depressing aspects of life.

If it weren't for the history of bigotry and hatred there wouldn't really even be a gay culture. If it weren't for being forced into gay neighborhoods, if it weren't for lynchings and murders, if it weren't for the fear of losing one’s job due to outing, if it weren't for the bigotry, gay people wouldn't have formed a separate culture, and they would simply be people. 

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

The Gayest President

Happy Pride Month.

Georg Büchner once wrote: "Aber  da, da, was liegt hinter dem? Geh, wir haben grobe Sinne. Einander kennen? Wir muessten uns die Schaedeldecken aufbrechen und die Gedanken einander aus den Hirnfasern zerren."  How do we know what another person is thinking.  We would have to crack open their skull and pull out their brain.

Obviously I cannot know what is going through another person's mind, especially if that person's  the President.  But this is what I believe is the background to the President's change of heart on gay-marriage.

I believe that President Obama has lied to the American People. It's en vogue  to call the President a liar.  It's fashionable to call any president a liar actually, but that's a different subject for a different day. Despite his policy positions, he has to be a Socialist-Marxist-Kenyan-Muslim-Secularist-Atheist-Christhating-SOB, because he is lying.

The basic history of Obama goes like this. He has been in the closet for the last eight years.He experimented with supporting Gay Rights in college like so many do, but then was scared back in when he realized  people might be judge him for it. Finally his conscience caught up with him and after he outed himself, he looks like the weight of the world has been taken off his chest.

However I think President Obama was actually lying to the American Public in 2004 when he stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman religious-blah.  His comments were in contradiction to his 8 year old (law professor) statements that he supported ultra-gay marriage. And once again he said it was his personal religious convictions that made him no longer support gay-marriage.

I allude to this position as the law professor position due to the Fourteenth Amendment and how states have historically taken a Cleveland Steamer on it, whenever possible. Selective Inclusion (also known as the Supreme Court releasing a decision every other week from 1868 to Malloy v. Hogan saying the Bill of Rights are applicable to the States) shows that every right on a state level has to be fought for even if the courts have already granted that right or one similar.

In 1967 the Supreme Court issued its decision in Loving v. Virginia, and soon it will grant gay-marriage rights on essentially the same grounds as Loving with Perry v. Brown. Freedom, Penumbras, and Privacy O My.  Privacy is prerequisite for liberty and was etched by uberfascist liberal courts with decisions like Hogan, Loving, Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Lawrence. So as a law professor it would seem obvious that short of a new constitutional amendment gay-marriage is inevitable. Why weren't the freedom loving Conservatives in favor of free loving (or privacy for that matter)? I can think of no greater freedom than choosing who you want to marry, love, and live with.

In 2004 Obama upgraded to Obama 2.0 and became a real politician. Like any real politician his position crapped on the 14th Amendment. His official stance was the issue was separate but equal (because we all know how that worked out the first time).  I can only conclude that this was a position taken because at the time Guns, God, and Gays.  Even at this time he supported Civil Unions thus supporting the freedom to love and live with whoever you want. The moral of the story is apparently politics are stupid and make good rational men make terrible decisions for no real reasons.

Then in 2012 crazy eyes Uncle Biden blurted out in front of the whole family on thanksgiving that President Obama is gay for gay-marriage. Interestingly his policy shift happened 2 months after the Ninth Circuit issued their decision on Perry v. Brown and after it was announced it would be heading for the Supreme Court in the not too distant near.

On a completely random ass ending, I would like to say: let's end the Gay Debate once and for all for every culture in the world.  As far as I know all objections to gay-marriage come from religious institutes.What kind of God is more obsessed with what we shove up our asses than with the 5.5 million children that die each year due to starvation. 83 Million Dollars were spent by backers of Prop 8. I cannot bring myself to write the sentence linking those two thoughts. Grow up.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me