Time-Warp

Forever ago (second post) I wrote about Barack Obama's evolution towards supporting same-sex 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 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.

[...]

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. 

I never understood the whole "evolving" phrase. If you know where you are heading intellectually why not just go there and cut out all the bullshit. Anyway, recently in his book, David Axelrod has back up my hunch.

Because of Axelrod's statements, it forced the President to respond via BuzzFeed, naturally:

“I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue,” Obama said. “I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there.” 

Obama said he believed at the time that civil unions were “a sufficient way of squaring the circle,” but that “the pain and the sense of stigma that was being placed on same-sex couples who are friends of [his]” changed his mind. 

“I think the notion that somehow I was always in favor of marriage per se isn't quite accurate,” Obama said. “The old questionnaire … is an example of struggling with what was a real issue at the time, which is, how do you make sure that people’s rights are enjoyed and these religious sensitivities were taken into account?”

Busted. One thing that probably should be mentioned again, the President campaigned in favor of same-sex marriage for his second term. So while I half heartedly call him a liar, it should not delegitimize either his authority on the subject or the progress gained due to his support.

The only portion of the President's statements that I really take issue with is "The old questionnaire … is an example of struggling with what was a real issue at the time, which is, how do you make sure that people’s rights are enjoyed and these religious sensitivities were taken into account?"

Once again it comes down to the question, "what about my religious sensitivities?" Why can't I get married in a church, just because someone from a different religion disagrees? Why should my religious beliefs count less?

I am glad to see that I have prevailed, and my hunches have been validated.


Liam '15

Back to 'bama

Alabama AG, Luther Strange, filed an appeal to the SCOTUS in regards to Strange v. Searcy. The only possibly bad news for marriage equality is that the appeal falls directly and only to Clarence Thomas.

In his plea, Lex Luther explained that the state needs a longer stay because:

The decisions by the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit (App. B, C) to deny a longer stay have created confusion in the State. Probate judges, who are not supervised by the Attorney General and are not under his control, issue marriage licenses. As an association, the Probate Judges initially said they did not believe they were subject to the District Court’s injunction and remained under an obligation to follow Alabama law. Later, at least some individual Probate Judges reached a different conclusion.The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama,who also heads the Administrative Office of Courts which may have bearing on the authority of Probate Judges and the administration of their work, has expressed doubts about the scope of the District Court order and its application to members of the Alabama Judicial Branch, when the only Defendant before the District Court was the Attorney General.

So, gay marriage needs to be put on hold, because Roy Moore is a dumb fuck who doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and a Bazooka Joe wrapper. Luther admits that Judge Granade issued a warning to the Probate Judges warning that they had two weeks to get their shit together, and if they refused they would get sued. But you that wasn't clear enough or anything.

All of this aside the appeal gets sort of bizarre, when under the section  "The Attorney General is likely to prevail on the merits of his appeal." (hahahahah, yeah you are going to succeed, uggh):

The interests supported by opposite-sex marriage are, at the very least, rational. States are not in the marriage business “to regulate love.” Id. at 404. Instead, state marriage laws link children to their biological parents (and link these biological parents to each other) by imposing a package of privileges and obligations—such as presumptions of paternity—that make less sense in the context of same-sex relationships. It is not irrational or malicious for state laws to reflect an “awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children the same way as couples of opposite sexes.” Id. at 405. It is instead the background against which the institution of marriage has developed over the last several thousand years. 

So you're going to just shit all over adoption then, huh? I mean you did read over this, right, and you saw what you were righting. And no warning bells were going off, saying, "this is kind of a band argument."

I mean really, straight people, are you going to put up with this shit.Marriage is just about popping out babies and only your biological spawn. THIS IS WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT THINKS OF YOU!

And back to the beginning of that paragraph, where it says, "States are not in the marriage business 'to regulate love.'" That's the argument gay couples are making... so thanks, I guess.


'Liam 15

Sunday Morning Slander

This just in from the "some people just wanna get sued" file:

Credits for the video belong to sfpublicdefender at Youtube.com.

On January 27, 2015 at the San Francisco Hall of Justice, Deputy Public Defender, Jami Tillotson, was arrested for resisting arrest. That can't be right?

I watched the video again, and yes it has been confirmed that she has been arrested for resisting arrest.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Stupid. stupid. stupid. stupid. No, stupid. No!

Maybe for obstruction, maybe disobeying a lawful police order... Agugh! Even that is mind blowingly stupid.

Ok, police have discretion, right. So let's say, technically, Ms. Tillotson was obstructing justice (I'm not from California, and I am not going to waste my time looking up the Statute.) It would behoove the Police Department to not arrest her without having absolute certainty, because by arresting her in front of her CLIENT in a COURTHOUSE you have deprived her client of their 6th Amendment right and not mention a whole host of privileges that go with it.

Sorry for being lazy before. It would appear that obstruction and resisting arrest are treated by the same Statute.  Here is Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1):

Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

The nonsense phrase of arrested for resting arrest makes more sense... sort of... well not really as this is not obstruction which Black's Law Dictionary defines as:

Interference with the orderly administration of law and justice, as by giving false information to or withholding evidence from a police officer or prosecutor, or by harming or intimidating a witness or juror.

So nope to resist and nope to obstruction.

Furthermore what the fuck where the police doing gathering information at the Courthouse? That's very late to be gathering evidence.

And because the police were wrong, not only are they open to several lawsuits, but any would be evidence would be inadmissible. So great job dic. You'll be promoted to Chief any day now.

Alright I'm bored by this now. So much more to this based off of other articles.


Liam '15

Green Shirt

This last week, Mary Cheney posted on her Facebook page:

"Why is it socially acceptable — as a form of entertainment — for men to put on dresses, make-up and high heels and act out every offensive stereotype of women (bitchy, catty, dumb, slutty, etc.) — but it is not socially acceptable — as a form of entertainment — for a white person to put on blackface and act out offensive stereotypes of African Americans?" she asked. "Shouldn't both be OK or neither?"

Advocating blackface?! Yeah that was cheap of me, but zero shits are given on my end.

Earlier this week I was thinking of responding, but why speak as an advocate when you can post a response from a member of the community:

I cannot resist posting the top comment, which was posted by Betty Bowers:

Sorry, once again I couldn't resist.

I'm planning to post later on advocacy, because there are too many issue that I want to write about that cannot fit here. But if I can't find the words I won't.


Liam '15

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

And Politics has gone to the Toilets

I have never felt that it is necessary to look up the location of public bathroom online. I never personally have had a need. I know that every store or business in America has adequate facilities. 

I am fortunate.There are people who worry about finding adequate bathrooms, where they will not be judged based on their sex. (There actually is website and an app that can help find a proper bathroom.)

This what trans activists would call privilege. I'm going way out on limb here (sarcasm) and say that everybody should be able to comfortably take a piss in public without the threat of ridicule or even violence.

I couldn't find who created this image to ask for permission and credit it. If anyone figures it out, please let me know, so that I can fix the situation.

I was really dismayed when I read about this story last week. According to this article in the Washington Post by Peter Holley, a Kentucky State Senator has proposed a bill restricting bathroom access to certain children:

If a school administrator allowed a transgender student to use a facility designated for the opposite sex or if a school “failed to take reasonable steps to prohibit the person encountered from using from facilities designated for use by the opposite biological sex,” students would be allowed to sue the school, according to the bill. Aggrieved students could seek up to $2,500 in damages from the offending school for each time they encountered a person of the opposite sex in school facilities, as well as “for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered,” according to the bill’s language. 

Hate the queers, and you'll get $2,500.  Thanks asshole.That's not incentivizing bigotry or anything. Fuck! I struggle to imagine what trans people go through, even though I am someone who does not conform to traditional gender-roles. It was difficult enough realizing that I am gay, but I've always had an ownership of my body, as if my body belongs to me.

Even without a scientific explanation of transsexualism, I find the bigotry against transgender people repulsive. Something is driving a group of people to not feel comfortable with either their gender or their bodies.And those people deserve support rather than ridicule.  However, when there is a scientific explanation that can predict with near certainty of who is and isn't trans based on a sexual dimorphic feature, bigotry becomes inexplicable.

Below is a video by Dr. Robert Sapolsky from Stanford University explaining the sexual dimorphism of the bed nucleus of stria terminalis.


Moving forward, let's take a look at what's being proposed. According to S.B. 76, 2015 Sen., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2015) § 1(1)(a):

"Biological sex" means the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person's chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person's anatomy;

The first clause of the first section is fatally flawed when it proposes sex is "determined by a person's chromosomes, and is identified at birth." 

One thing that immediately jumps out is the conjunction "and." Your chromosomes might not match what was identified at birth. 


Another problem that I notice with that clause is that there are a whole host of conditions related intersex. Just off of Wikipedia there dozens of conditions that either cause ambiguous genitals or affect the chromosomal definition given above:

• 5-alpha reductase deficiency

• androgen insensitivity syndrome

• aphallia

• clitoromegaly

• congenital adrenal hyperplasia

• gonadal dysgenesis (partial & complete)

• hypospadias

• Klinefelter syndrome

• micropenis

• mosaicism involving sex chromosomes

• ovo-testes (formerly called "true hermaphroditism")

• partial androgen insensitivity syndrome

• progestin-induced virilisation

• Swyer syndrome

• Turner syndrome

• Non-Klinefelter XXY

XXY, XYY, XXX are possible Trisomies that occur on the 47th chromosome. They are also not covered by the in the definition of the bill.

To be fair the bill proposes a solution for transgender students at  § 3(3)(a)-(b):

 A student who asserts to school officials that his or her gender is different from his or her biological sex and whose parent or legal guardian provides written consent to school officials shall be provided with the best available accommodation, but that accommodation shall not include the use of student restrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms designated for use by students of the opposite biological sex while students of the opposite biological sex are present or could be present. 

Acceptable accommodations may include but not be limited to access to single-stall restrooms, access to unisex bathrooms, or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms.

An unisex bathroom is a good idea; however it should not be a forced issue. If a person is comfortable in a gender specific bathroom, fantastic. People just want to change cloths, urinate, or defecate. It's just silly to think otherwise.

However the modicum of civility is undercut in § 5, where the bill state:

Because situations currently exist in which the privacy rights of students are violated, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Act takes effect upon its passage and approval by the Governor or upon its otherwise becoming a law.

That's right; this is an emergency. There could be a queer in the shower. Women and children first... unless they happen to be queers. All hands on dick deck; c'mon people this a fucking emergency! A queer might be taking a piss. or worse...?! And they definitely will be violating your privacy in a public place!

Ughh. Kentucky.



Liam '15

Ils n'ont jamais vu Charlie Hebdo

It's been about a week since I wrote about the Charlie Hebdo massacre. And of course I am disappointed by the response of the world.

Over the past week there has been massive growth in Anti-Islamic organizations such as the French Neo-Nazi party, Front National and the German proto-fascist PEGIDA.

Anti-Muslim attacks have also skyrocketed. According to this article written by the AP and published by the NY Daily News:

Abdallah Zekri, head of the National Observatory Against Islamophobia, said that in a 48-hour period after the Wednesday massacre at Charlie Hebdo, 16 places of worship around France were attacked by firebombs, gunshots or pig heads — a major insult to Muslims who don’t eat pork.

All of this in spite of large denouncement of terrorism from the French-Muslim community, as well as groups across the Western World. The Anti-Muslim rhetoric alienates allies within the Islamic community, is poor international policy, and is as deplorable as the original attacks, as it silences people. It should come as no surprise that the Front National, a far-right movement, would capitalize on the killing of left-wing cartoonist. It is filled with deplorable douchebags, who wish for the eradication of non-white, non-Catholics from France.

I drew another cartoon, this time to speak out against violence in the name of Jesus.

Fuck 'em all. I know this probably won't piss off the right people, but it makes me feel better:

Terrorism once again fucks over the religion of peace

Liam '15