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
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Saturday, April 19, 2014
A Total Eclipse of the Brain
The next lunar eclipse for North American eyes will be on April 4, 2015.
The lunar eclipse that recently happened on April 14, 2014 had been predicted by scientists for, like, ever, and Wikipedia has a schedule of the next, what, millennial of lunar eclipses that are predicted to happen.
When I was younger I used to pay attention to astronomical events far more closely than what I do toady, mostly because I was a nerd who never got laid. I would spend summer nights out on a blanket looking at the stars and tracking the motion of the planets. I knew all the dates of predicted phenomena days in advance and would hope for good weather. Always in August I would go out and watch the Perseid Meteor Shower and drink Coca Cola all night long on a green blanket that smelled slightly funny, because we kept it in the basement and only ever took it out to lie in the grass.
So, I was kind of shocked when I turned on the TV the other day and saw people talking about the lunar eclipse, because I assumed only virgins and Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about astronomy.
See, if you can predict an astronomical event in advance, then it cannot be a warning, because that would suggest determinism. Punishing people for a pre-determined outcome is not only baffling but would be utterly sadistic. Under this theology, humanity is literally built to spill. That's fucking sick.
Secondly, there are about two lunar eclipses each year. Only one is typically visible depending where in the world you are located. But still that is a lot of eclipses. Which means there are either a lot of warnings or else it's a lot of bullshit.
Guess where my money's at.
Here's what lunar eclipses actually tell us instead of this crazy Jesus hates President Obama bullshit.
If you hold up a coin that is one inch in diameter (about the size of a quarter) it needs to be 108 inches away from your eye to exactly block out the sun. Don't try this as it will be super painful, or worse you might go blind trying it (well actually I don't give a fuck about your well being; I'm just avoiding any liability). Instead do this with the moon. It turns out that the moon and the sun are often the same size (have the same angular size, obviously.) That's why solar eclipses can be spectacular.
Due to this phenomenon, you can measure the distance of the Earth to the Moon and the diameter of the Moon during a lunar eclipse. Without doing any measuring, we know that the distance from the Earth to the Moon is 108 times the Moon's diameter.
To find the diameter of the Moon all you need is a handy-dandy stop watch. On April 4, 2015, camp out on the beach, and after your boyfriend gets done blowing you, measure the time it takes the Moon to enter the Earth's shadow. Then measure the time it takes for the Moon to emerge from the Earth's shadow.
The entrance time is 2.5 times shorter than the total time of the eclipse; therefore the diameter of the Moon is 2.5 times smaller than the Earth.
Aristarchus of Samos who died around 230 BCE knew the diameter of the Earth and calculate the size and distance of the Moon using this method.
It is pathetic for me to type this, but it's 2014: Lunar eclipses are not divine signs to warn a sinful people. Grow the fuck up.
UPDATE:
I decided to make a scale model of the Lunar Eclipse:
Here is a cropped version:
Liam '14
The lunar eclipse that recently happened on April 14, 2014 had been predicted by scientists for, like, ever, and Wikipedia has a schedule of the next, what, millennial of lunar eclipses that are predicted to happen.
When I was younger I used to pay attention to astronomical events far more closely than what I do toady, mostly because I was a nerd who never got laid. I would spend summer nights out on a blanket looking at the stars and tracking the motion of the planets. I knew all the dates of predicted phenomena days in advance and would hope for good weather. Always in August I would go out and watch the Perseid Meteor Shower and drink Coca Cola all night long on a green blanket that smelled slightly funny, because we kept it in the basement and only ever took it out to lie in the grass.
So, I was kind of shocked when I turned on the TV the other day and saw people talking about the lunar eclipse, because I assumed only virgins and Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about astronomy.
Here’s what some idiot-asshole at World Net Daily had to write about
it (I was going to be nice and properly cite the author, but there's no byline):
Barack Obama quite
recently, expressing his frustration that Republican members of Congress won’t
give him what he wants, threatened arbitrary executive action, promising that
he has a “pen and phone.”
But there are
“flashing red warning lights” in the heavens that should command peoples’
attention right now, because the one behind those warnings, God, had “more than
a pen and a phone in his hand,” according to the author of “Blood Moons:
Decoding the Imminent Heavenly Signs.”
Pastor Mark Biltz,
whose book is creating a tidal wave of interest right now with the first of
four lunar eclipses expected to become visible early Tuesday, was speaking to
Breaking Israel News.
“I believe that the
blood moons have great historic and prophetic significance just as they did
following 1948 and 1967. In the book of Joel it mentions three times about the
sun and the moon going dark and in context it also mentions Divine wrath
against all countries that want to divide or part the land of Israel,” he said.
“I believe the moons
are like flashing red warning lights at a heavenly intersection saying to
Israel as well as the nations they will be crossing heavenly red lines and if
they do, they will understand as Pharaoh did on Passover night 3,500 years ago
that the Creator backs up what He says.
“Like Pharaoh the
leaders and pundits of today will realize when it comes to crossing the red
lines of the Creator of the universe he has more than a pen and a phone in his
hand.”
Oh god I need a shower...
Ugggh. The stupid will not come off. Damn you Dove with Cucumber Extract, why won't you wash away the stupid.
See, if you can predict an astronomical event in advance, then it cannot be a warning, because that would suggest determinism. Punishing people for a pre-determined outcome is not only baffling but would be utterly sadistic. Under this theology, humanity is literally built to spill. That's fucking sick.
Secondly, there are about two lunar eclipses each year. Only one is typically visible depending where in the world you are located. But still that is a lot of eclipses. Which means there are either a lot of warnings or else it's a lot of bullshit.
Guess where my money's at.
Here's what lunar eclipses actually tell us instead of this crazy Jesus hates President Obama bullshit.
If you hold up a coin that is one inch in diameter (about the size of a quarter) it needs to be 108 inches away from your eye to exactly block out the sun. Don't try this as it will be super painful, or worse you might go blind trying it (well actually I don't give a fuck about your well being; I'm just avoiding any liability). Instead do this with the moon. It turns out that the moon and the sun are often the same size (have the same angular size, obviously.) That's why solar eclipses can be spectacular.
Due to this phenomenon, you can measure the distance of the Earth to the Moon and the diameter of the Moon during a lunar eclipse. Without doing any measuring, we know that the distance from the Earth to the Moon is 108 times the Moon's diameter.
To find the diameter of the Moon all you need is a handy-dandy stop watch. On April 4, 2015, camp out on the beach, and after your boyfriend gets done blowing you, measure the time it takes the Moon to enter the Earth's shadow. Then measure the time it takes for the Moon to emerge from the Earth's shadow.
The entrance time is 2.5 times shorter than the total time of the eclipse; therefore the diameter of the Moon is 2.5 times smaller than the Earth.
AB = CE; therefore DB = 108*DE |
Aristarchus of Samos who died around 230 BCE knew the diameter of the Earth and calculate the size and distance of the Moon using this method.
It is pathetic for me to type this, but it's 2014: Lunar eclipses are not divine signs to warn a sinful people. Grow the fuck up.
UPDATE:
I decided to make a scale model of the Lunar Eclipse:
Obviously Click to Embiggen |
Here is a cropped version:
Liam '14
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Apparently there are no Men in Gay Marriages
Thursday the 10th Circuit Court heard the oral argument to Kitchen v. Herbert 2: If You Can't Stand the Heat. Coming this Fall.
Kitchen is the groundbreaking decision out of the District Court of Utah that was the first ruling to overturn a marriage ban after the Windsor and Perry rulings. Yes, Utah.. right? But then again the court does what the constitution wants.
After the Kitchen decision, a tsunami of lower court decision, heretofore known as the Gaydal Wave of 2013, gave deference to the 14th amendment, which of course had previously been turned down by the Burger Court in Nelson v. Baker for "want of a substantial federal question."
The post Perry/Windsor victories cropped up in Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, while pending cases in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Wisconsin all look increasingly promising.
When going through all the material to see on a national scale what marriage looks like, I became interested in how the United States got to this point, legally speaking. Before I read Kitchen, I knew the basics of the history. The basic frame work looks like this Loving v. Virginia, Nelson v. Baker, Bowers, Romer, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor, and Perry.
In Kitchen there is a great section that summarizes the movement towards equality:
Kitchen is the groundbreaking decision out of the District Court of Utah that was the first ruling to overturn a marriage ban after the Windsor and Perry rulings. Yes, Utah.. right? But then again the court does what the constitution wants.
After the Kitchen decision, a tsunami of lower court decision, heretofore known as the Gaydal Wave of 2013, gave deference to the 14th amendment, which of course had previously been turned down by the Burger Court in Nelson v. Baker for "want of a substantial federal question."
The post Perry/Windsor victories cropped up in Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, while pending cases in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Wisconsin all look increasingly promising.
When going through all the material to see on a national scale what marriage looks like, I became interested in how the United States got to this point, legally speaking. Before I read Kitchen, I knew the basics of the history. The basic frame work looks like this Loving v. Virginia, Nelson v. Baker, Bowers, Romer, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor, and Perry.
In Kitchen there is a great section that summarizes the movement towards equality:
In 1971,
two men from Minnesota brought a lawsuit in state court arguing that Minnesota
was constitutionally required to allow them to marry. Baker v. Nelson, 191
N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn. 1971). The Minnesota Supreme Court found that
Minnesota's restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate
either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Id. at 186-87. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court summarily
dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question."
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972).
Utah
argues that the Court's summary dismissal in Baker is binding on this court and
that the present lawsuit should therefore be dismissed for lack of a
substantial federal question. But the Supreme Court has stated that a summary
dismissal is not binding "when doctrinal developments indicate
otherwise." Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975).
Here,
several doctrinal developments in the Court's analysis of both the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause as they apply to gay men and
lesbians demonstrate that the Court's summary dismissal in Baker has little if
any precedential effect today. Not only was Baker decided before the Supreme
Court held that sex is a quasi-suspect classification, see Craig v. Boren, 429
U.S. 190, 197 (1976); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 688 (1973)
(plurality op.), but also before the Court recognized that the Constitution
protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635-36 (1996). Moreover, Baker was decided
before the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that it was unconstitutional
for a state to "demean [the] existence [of gay men and lesbians] or
control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." 539
U.S. 558, 578 (2003). As discussed below, the Supreme Court's decision in
Lawrence removes a justification that states could formerly cite as a reason to
prohibit same-sex marriage.
The State
points out that, despite the doctrinal developments in these cases and others,
a number of courts have found that Baker survives as controlling precedent and
therefore precludes consideration of the issues in this lawsuit. See, e.g.,
Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st
Cir. 2012) (holding that Baker "limit[s] the arguments to ones that do not
presume to rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."); Sevcik
v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1002-03 (D. Nev. 2012) (ruling that Baker
barred the plaintiffs' equal protection claim). Other courts disagree and have
decided substantially similar issues without consideration of Baker. See, e.g.,
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (ruling that
California's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). In any event, all of
these cases were decided before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in
Windsor.
As
discussed above, the Court's decision in Windsor does not answer the question
presented here, but its reasoning is nevertheless highly relevant and is
therefore a significant doctrinal development. Importantly, the Windsor Court
foresaw that its ruling would precede a number of lawsuits in state and lower
federal courts raising the question of a state's ability to prohibit same-sex
marriage, a fact that was noted by two dissenting justices. The Honorable John
Roberts wrote that the Court "may in the future have to resolve challenges
to state marriage definitions affecting same-sex couples." Windsor, 133 S.
Ct. at 2697 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). And Justice Scalia even recommended
how this court should interpret the Windsor decision when presented with the
question that is now before it: "I do not mean to suggest disagreement . .
. that lower federal courts and state courts can distinguish today's case when
the issue before them is state denial of marital status to same-sex
couples." Id. at 2709 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It is also notable that
while the Court declined to reach the merits in Perry v. Hollingsworth because
the petitioners lacked standing to pursue the appeal, the Court did not dismiss
the case outright for lack of a substantial federal question. See 133 S. Ct.
2652 (2013). Given the Supreme Court's disposition of both Windsor and Perry,
the court finds that there is no longer any doubt that the issue currently
before the court in this lawsuit presents a substantial question of federal
law.
As a
result, Baker v. Nelson is no longer controlling precedent and the court
proceeds to address the merits of the question presented here.
The Burger Court's denial of Certiorari in Baker v. Nelson had persistent consequences for the marriage equality movement. No court could accept a 14th Amendment argument except the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would then have no lower court decisions to argue over. Essentially until laws fundamentally changed, any decision would have had to been de novo.
The legal shift happened, incidentally after 3 events occurred:
The legal shift happened, incidentally after 3 events occurred:
1. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which were codified under 28 U.S.C. § 1738C and 1 U.S.C. § 7. Among other things, it allowed states to not recognize Gay some marriages. It also forbade the Federal Government from recognizing Gay some marriages.
2. State Constitutional Bans. Under
the logic of Baker, the issue at hand
applied to statutory bans. So a boost to the advancement of marriage equality
came from those who exploited discrimination for political gain. The movement
to enact state constitutional bans against same-sex marriage began in 1998 with
Alaska and Hawaii amending their constitutions to prohibit gays from getting all gay with each other, am I right
fellas?
3. Marriage equality in the various
states. People were married in one state and later moved to another. The notions
of full faith and credit were challenged. Furthermore marriages were not equal
at the federal level, due to DOMA.
By the time the courts had reached the Perry/Windsor Era, the legal landscape of America look like the following:
Maximum States Constitutional Bans: 30
States with Marriage Equality at the Time of Perry/Windsor: 9
Maximum States to Ever Have Marriage-Lite: 16 + DC
States with Marriage Equality at the Time of Perry/Windsor: 9
Maximum States to Ever Have Marriage-Lite: 16 + DC
The legal setting was in place to overturn the Baker v. Nelson precedent.
Which brings me to the oral argument for Kitchen.
Here is copy of the oral argument from the April 10th, 2014 Kitchen v. Herbert hearing. It is three straight white dudes discussing my rights as an individual, so what could be more entertaining and in no way frustratingly patronizing.
The audio file has an issue with the left audio feed, so if it sounds gargled, open your equalizer and push the feed to your right output.
A few quick comments:
What is marriage? Apparently only something that a state has one hundred percent control over (because that's what I concluded from reading Loving v. Virginia.)
According to the defendant, it's better to have all of your rights taken away than to be a second class citizen... great argument.
Why the fuck did the defendants just bring up Maggie Gallagher? Seriously. She is a pointless nobody, with zero credibility. She has no higher degree, no JD, no Phd in psychology, and no expertise. I mean for fuck-sake, why didn't they just cite me or even my mom, or fuck it why not my Westie, who can put together an argument that is more coherent and more germane to the topic than Gallagher. What a bunch of assholes. fucking fuck fuck. I mean seriously, I am glad this douchebag quoted her, because it is on tape, and he will go down in history as the small-minded bigot who quoted Gallagher and then got his ass handed to him in court and everyone in the world pointed and laughed at his tiny dick.
"[Gay marriage] is too new" to have data on societal effects. And so it will be if we never allow gay marriage.
"The disappearance of the dad." We cannot allow gay marriage because the children won't have a dad.... right. Also did he just try to equate gay couples to single parents?
"'Traditional Marriage'" Yes nice 200 year old tradition in a 400,000 year old species. If I hear traditional marriage one more time, I am going to yak.
DOMA was about states right to define marriage, that does not exclude the ability of the Federal constitution to enforce equal protection. It is not that hard to understand. We do not have any laws prohibiting poor people from getting married. Or ex-convicts. Or people named Trent. All of whom probably should be suspect parents/spouses before gay people.
Why don't conservatives get that gay people can have kids. I don't, but others do.
Why does it always come down to polygamy? A court couldn't simply allow polygamy. The polygamous marriage system wouldn't function without additional legislation to regulate how it would function. Most states have a system where each spouse owns half of the property of the marriage. How would that work in a polygamous system? Answer it wouldn't. Polygamy literally changes the definition of marriage, not who can marry.
So did Kitchen et al sue the right people?
Liam '14
Which brings me to the oral argument for Kitchen.
Here is copy of the oral argument from the April 10th, 2014 Kitchen v. Herbert hearing. It is three straight white dudes discussing my rights as an individual, so what could be more entertaining and in no way frustratingly patronizing.
The audio file has an issue with the left audio feed, so if it sounds gargled, open your equalizer and push the feed to your right output.
A few quick comments:
What is marriage? Apparently only something that a state has one hundred percent control over (because that's what I concluded from reading Loving v. Virginia.)
According to the defendant, it's better to have all of your rights taken away than to be a second class citizen... great argument.
Why the fuck did the defendants just bring up Maggie Gallagher? Seriously. She is a pointless nobody, with zero credibility. She has no higher degree, no JD, no Phd in psychology, and no expertise. I mean for fuck-sake, why didn't they just cite me or even my mom, or fuck it why not my Westie, who can put together an argument that is more coherent and more germane to the topic than Gallagher. What a bunch of assholes. fucking fuck fuck. I mean seriously, I am glad this douchebag quoted her, because it is on tape, and he will go down in history as the small-minded bigot who quoted Gallagher and then got his ass handed to him in court and everyone in the world pointed and laughed at his tiny dick.
"[Gay marriage] is too new" to have data on societal effects. And so it will be if we never allow gay marriage.
"The disappearance of the dad." We cannot allow gay marriage because the children won't have a dad.... right. Also did he just try to equate gay couples to single parents?
"'Traditional Marriage'" Yes nice 200 year old tradition in a 400,000 year old species. If I hear traditional marriage one more time, I am going to yak.
DOMA was about states right to define marriage, that does not exclude the ability of the Federal constitution to enforce equal protection. It is not that hard to understand. We do not have any laws prohibiting poor people from getting married. Or ex-convicts. Or people named Trent. All of whom probably should be suspect parents/spouses before gay people.
Why don't conservatives get that gay people can have kids. I don't, but others do.
Why does it always come down to polygamy? A court couldn't simply allow polygamy. The polygamous marriage system wouldn't function without additional legislation to regulate how it would function. Most states have a system where each spouse owns half of the property of the marriage. How would that work in a polygamous system? Answer it wouldn't. Polygamy literally changes the definition of marriage, not who can marry.
So did Kitchen et al sue the right people?
Liam '14
Saturday, March 29, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Liam '14
Thursday, March 27, 2014
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
Liam '14
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.
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
Hawaii
More importantly court victories in these States:
California
Utah
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Virginia
Virginia
Kentucky
Michigan
And more to come... But as for me, it's now time for beer then bed.
Liam '14
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Joy Division
Bad
news. Vernita Gray died on Tuesday March 18, 2014 in her home in Chicago after succumbing
to cancer. Ms. Gray made national headlines late last November when she married
Pat Ewert becoming the first couple to get gay married in Illinois, even
though marriage equality was to be promulgated on June 1, 2014.
In an
article by Carla K. Johnson for ABC News, the circumstances are explained:
Gray's failing health and her
wish to marry persuaded a federal judge to order that an expedited marriage
license be granted to the couple ahead of the June 1 effective date of the
state's gay marriage law. A subsequent judge's ruling then paved the way for
more same-sex couples to marry early in some Illinois counties.
Gray worked for gay rights
for decades, advocating for same-sex marriage long before many other activists
saw it as a possibility, Bennett said. To win over conservatives, she made the case that her Social Security
survivor benefits should go to her partner, and her knack for working with
people across the political spectrum "made everyone feel that they had a
unique contribution to move us forward," Bennett said.
A former restaurant owner,
Gray worked for the Cook County state's attorney's office for 18 years,
assisting crime victims and witnesses.
An important piece to the marriage debate that never seems to be answered is "What is
marriage?" A few miles north of Chicago, the State of Wisconsin defines it
through Wis. Stat. §
765.01.:
Marriage, so far
as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent
of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates
the legal status of husband and wife.
Marriage
is a contract.
Like all
contracts, the purpose of marriage is to end disputes. When two people cannot
agree about anything else (the sky is blue; NO it’s azure!) they must agree to
predetermined terms and conditions as prescribed by state statute.
When
life is going well, there is no real need for marriage. It doesn’t take the
state to determine who takes the trash out on Tuesday or who cooks dinner on
Wednesday. It’s not a document that means forever and ever puppy dog love. If
you want one of those, go buy a box of crayons and doodle on a piece of printer
paper, then send it off to your preferred spiritual leader to blow smoke up
your ass, since that’s not marriage.
Marriage
is a contract. A contract to settle disputes over property and responsibilities.
Anyone
dumb enough to say the state should be removed from the marriage business
should wrap their dick in tinfoil and stick it in an electric outlet. The government
is the arbiter of contracts; therefore it is necessarily needed to be involved
in contracts. And as polygamy is not legal in the United States (nor is there a
structural basis for it), it is necessary to have marriage license to verify
the marriage as being valid.
Marriage
is what happens to the house when one spouse dies. Wis. Stat. § 766.605.:
A homestead acquired after
the determination date which, when acquired, is held exclusively between
spouses with no 3rd party is survivorship marital property if no intent to the
contrary is expressed on the instrument of transfer or in a marital property agreement.
A homestead may be reclassified under s. 766.31 (10).
Marriage
is what happens when the husband kidnaps the children and flees across state
lines. Wis. Stat. §
767.105(3)(a).:
Except as provided in par.
(b), a party who violates any provision of sub. (1) may be proceeded against
under ch. 785 for contempt of court.
Marriage
is what happens when a wife’s sole proprietorship collapses into debt. Wis. Stat. § 766.55.:
(1)
An
obligation incurred by a spouse during marriage, including one attributable to
an act or omission during marriage, is presumed
to be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family. A statement
separately signed by the obligated or incurring spouse at or before the time
the obligation is incurred stating that the obligation is or will be incurred
in the interest of the marriage or the family is conclusive evidence that the
obligation to which the statement refers is an obligation in the interest of
the marriage or family, except that the existence of that statement does not
affect any interspousal right or remedy.
(2)(a) An obligation incurred
by a spouse in the interest of the marriage or the family may be satisfied only from all marital property
and all other property of the incurring spouse.
Taking
the state out of marriage removes widows out of deceased spouses’ homes. It
makes dividing property in divorce even more unbearable. It takes away a
creditors ability to collect on debts.
Gays
will get sick. I myself will die one day. Being a misanthrope I don’t give a
shit what happens to my possessions, but I respect others to make up their minds.
Gays go bankrupt. Gays get divorced and need to divide shared property.
Gays
need marriage. Now.
Liam ‘14
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Our Inheritance
I have
inherited a shared history that does not come from my mother or my father. It
is a rich culture with a devastating history of genocide, discrimination, and
an undying animus aimed against it. If
evolution is descent with modification, gay history is more similar to
Prokaryotic Horizontal Gene Transfer. It is not a history taught by parents to
gaylings but one that is acquired later through life, either by discussion or
literacy or life experience.
It is
an understanding that gay men of certain age have lost nearly all of their
friends to a virus. It’s realizing that governments have and will continue to
round up people like myself and executing them in cruel and humiliating ways. It’s
understanding the struggle just simply to avoid being arrested by the police
for simply existing. It’s knowing that simply existing is a political
statement.
It’s sitting
down and devouring Christopher and His Kind. It’s pretending you’re dating
Frank O’Hara every time you crack open Meditation’s in an Emergency. It’s
empathy for men similar to yourself and the desire to learn about them. It’s
wondering why same-sex marriage is still not permit in many states.
It’s in
this vein of anaphora that I found the cases germane to Perry v. Hollingsworth
and United States v. Windsor.
Perhaps
one of the most famous legal cases in LGBT history is Baker v. Nelson. Claire
Bowes with the BBC wrote a wonderful piece describing the background of the
case. Here is a brief background into the case:
Going public about your
sexual orientation could cost you your home, your job and your family.
Baker and McConnell didn't fit the stereotype. Both in their
late 20s - clean cut and with short, neat hair - Baker was a law student and
McConnell a librarian. They'd been
together for four years when they first applied for a marriage licence in
1970.
This was rejected - on the grounds that they were both men.
But the couple decided to fight. They appealed, and kept on appealing until the
case reached the US Supreme Court. It was the first time the court had been
asked to rule on gay marriage - but it refused to hear the case "for want
of a substantial federal question".
Read
the rest of the article. Here is how the background is described by J. Peterson
writing for the Minnesota State Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, 191
N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971):
Petitioners, Richard John Baker
and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to
respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a
marriage license, pursuant to Minn.St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the
license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being
undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual
marriage by either petitioner.
The trial court, quashing an alternative writ of mandamus, ruled
that respondent was not required to issue a marriage license to petitioners and
specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. This
appeal is from those orders. We affirm.
While
the Baker case is an interesting read, I feel like it has been discussed and analyzed
and dissected so many times that I cannot add much to it. I have posted a copy of the Minnesota SupremeCourt decision on my website. It is actually a short document that is fairly
easy to understand without much legal reasoning. Most of the decision is quite
familiar. To me it is frustrating but not overly offensive in tone.
If I
ever write on Baker again, it will probably be more about how the US Supreme
Court denied certiorari, and how the right wing lost the legal battle by
campaigning for anti-gay state amendments.
What I
am more interested is in the companion case.
Jack
Baker’s husband, Michael McConnell, was scheduled to become a librarian for the
University of Minnesota. Then he had the audacity to get married… to a man… I
mean can you imagine what temerity and political grandstandingness it takes to
be an outspoken radical by getting married to a consenting human being… I mean
seriously, the balls it takes, and did Mr. McConnell just think the University
would sit there and allow one of its soon to be employees to get married. I
mean for fuck sake who gets married besides communist radicals? So they
shit-canned his ass just like what any Good Christian Institute would do,
right. Because there’s nothing that’ll butch up a limped wristed Nancy quite
like taking away any means of feeding themselves.
All
this joking around has inadvertently made me physically angry about this case
and the severe injustice of it all. I know that it happened 40 years ago and
everything worked out for Mr. McConnell and Mr. Baker but still. I’m going to go drink a beer and come back
when I don’t want to anger-puke anymore over the background of the case. I mean
for fuck sake, getting fired over getting married uggh what the verdammtes
Arschloch… du Arschbackengesicht…
idoitische… blöder Scheißkerl.. kannst mich im Goethe lecken.
Ok.
back. sorry.
The
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decide McConnell v. Anderson on October 18, 1971 and is penned by Judge
Stephenson.
In addition to the
allegations above, his complaint asserted that he was a homosexual and that the
Board's resolution not to approve his employment application was premised on
the fact of his homosexuality and upon his desire, as exemplified by the
marriage license incident, specifically to publicly profess his "earnest" belief that
homosexuals are entitled to privileges equal to those afforded heterosexuals.
Umm.. aren't we though. Entitlement to
privileges isn't a bad thing; it’s kinda what America is centered around; that
is freedom. I don’t know why there has to be a use of scare quotes here with
his earnest belief. And furthermore, if you are trying to say UMN acted
properly and in accordance to the law, shouldn't the Court be saying McConnell
wrongly believes that homosexuals are entitled to fewer privileges. Because the
way it is stated, it seems that the Court is suggesting that gays are entitled
to fewer privileges and so what. It’s not like we have a 14th amendment
or an Article IV or anything.
It suffices merely to
stress, by way of summary, that McConnell apparently
is well-educated and otherwise able, possessing both an academic degree and
a master's degree;
Well
this is a hot way to start off. Mr. McConnell is well-educated. That is a fact.
It is not subjective. It is demonstrated by his master’s degree.The use of apparently is just a teenesy bit offensive in this circumstance.
McConnell and a
friend referred to in the record as "Jack Baker" encountered Dr.
Hopp and informed him of their intention
to obtain a license to marry; that during this conversation Dr. Hopp
expressed concern that such an occurrence might well jeopardize favorable
consideration of McConnell's employment application; that about three
hours later on the same day, McConnell and Jack Baker appeared at the
Hennepin County Clerk's office and made formal application for the license;
Well, I
for one am glad that you cleared up how Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell are
associated. There is nothing condescending or douchey about calling a person’s
husband just a “Friend.” Secondly, McConnell was a librarian, not a stripper at
some Podunk nudy-bar. Getting married is his prerogative. Well according to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): “The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic
civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.” It would
appear under this logic that denial of employment from a State Actor would be
arbitrary and capricious. But what did the Warren Court know about the Constitution.
It
is McConnell's position that the Board's decision not to approve his
employment application reflects "a clear example of the unreasoning
prejudice and revulsion some people feel when confronted by a homosexual."
That being so, he argues that the Board's action was arbitrary and capricious
and thus violative of his constitutional rights. We do not agree.
Thanks
asshole. Would you care to elaborate on how the Board of Asshats
Regents’ decision wasn't based on discrimination:
It is, instead, a case in which something more than
remunerative employment is sought; a case in which the applicant seeks employment on his own terms; a case in
which the prospective employee demands, as shown both by the allegations of the
complaint and by the marriage license incident as well, the right to pursue an
activist role in implementing his unconventional ideas concerning the societal
status to be accorded homosexuals and, thereby, to foist tacit approval of this socially repugnant concept upon
his employer, who is, in this instance, an institution of higher learning.
Once
again fired for getting married. Apparently getting married is socially
repugnant… who knew. Also how was Mr. McConnell seeking employment on his own
terms? What a fucking asshole, what happened did Judge Stephenson forget to up
his Klan membership or something so he had to compensate. I have poured through
many cases, but few have dripped so deeply with contempt and bigotry.
We know of no constitutional fiat or binding principle of
decisional law which requires an employer to accede to such extravagant demands.[8] We are therefore unable fairly to
categorize the Board's action here as arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious.
Once
again man gets married. Man gets fired for getting married. How is that an
extravagant demand? After reading this case, I think I may have been
transported to an alternate dimension. I think it’s call the Planet of the
Douchebags. It’s an upside down world where Douchebags rule men.
Anyway, I want to say congratulations to Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell. It only took them
40 years to become the first legally married gay couple in America.
Liam '14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)