...and this is my first post from it. It's got WiFi, including LEAP authentication, so I can even use it at work, and it's got a little keyboard built in. The only problem is that Cisco won't let me VPN to work with it without some finagling... But regardless, I think it's going to be handy. More later...
There's a really strong left-liberal bent to my office, but we've got some definite conservatives, too. Today, I managed to walk into a fun little political brawl in the hallway, as a fellow ex-Clark supporter was going up against a couple hardcore conservatives. I decided to be snarky, 'cos, well, it's fun, but then the conversation moved towards gay marriage and, well, yeah. You can guess what happened. Things got a little fiery, 'til I figured out something - the guy I was arguing with was citing the religious tradition of marriage, saying that it's not a civil matter. Of course, marriage IS a civil matter, but it only is because there are laws, regulations, etc surrounding it - the entire institution of civil marriage. There is no way that civil marriage rights can be denied to same-sex couples while being allowed for opposite-sex couples without it being unjust discrimination, but the opposition to same-sex marriage refuses to allow the word "marriage" to be used. So why hasn't the practical solution been seriously proposed yet? We need to abolish the institution of civil marriage and provide civil unions for all. Marriage should be a personal matter, with religious aspects, if you so choose. Of course, the same wingnuts would throw a fit about churches performing marriages, but they can't really do much about the UCC's position on same-sex marriage, can they? As long as there is no separate but equal status (as there is when you've got civil marriage and civil unions, even if they're identical in every other way), I think we've found a solution that could be sold to most people.
Josh Marshall's latest thoughts on Gary Bauer are pretty good - he tears down the "public health" argument pretty easily. And he used the links I sent him regarding the study Bauer cited in the first place, and its authors' response. Cool! I've always wanted to be one of those people who answers questions/finds stuff asked for by Josh Marshall. =)
The DU crowd have put together a confirmed list of 34 Senators who have said they will vote against the anti-marriage amendment, including six eight Republicans (the totally non-shocking Lincoln Chafee, both Snowe and Collins from Maine, the also non-surprising John McCain, two Senators that I'm very pleased to see against it - Lugar and Hagel, and two surprises - Campbell from Colorado and Alexander (!!!) from Tennessee). There's only one Democrat who's confirmed that he'd vote for it - Slappy McAsshole himself, Zell Miller. Not that it matters - if there's 34 votes against it, it can't pass. Period. There's still another 19 or so Democrats who aren't on the record yet, so there's almost certainly room for losing a couple votes. Ha! Screw you, Bush!
EDIT - combining the DU list with OxBlog's list, we've got a few additional votes against that aren't on the DU list - Stabenow, Johnson, Pryor, Biden at least.
I'm not making this up - that's their real name. I've seen them cited alongside the aforementioned International Journal of Epidemiology study in anti-gay propaganda all over the place, so I thought I'd look into it. It was founded by a Dr. Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., a gynecologist and author of books such as "What the Bible Says about Healthy Living: Three Biblical Principles That Will Change Your Diet & Improve Your Health". You'll be shocked to hear that pretty much all of the board members are abstinence-only activists or, in one case, the founder of "a six-woman group whose dedication is to women and their reproductive health and whose mission statement begins acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ in their personal and professional lives". So yeah, these guys are definitely nonpartisan, right? Gotta love the spread of these Orwellian names, made to sound neutral but, in reality, insanely biased.
This is via Josh Marshall, quoting from Gary Bauer, the cuddly wingnut:
"Tobacco use," says Bauer, "is heavily regulated by the state and smoking is strongly discouraged. A major study conducted by Oxford University demonstrated that homosexual conduct is three times more deadly than smoking. Homosexual behavior is fraught with adverse health affects. Again, this is not opinion, but documented medical fact. Public policy must not be ignorant of medical facts associated with this lifestyle and from a public policy perspective, the behavior should not be encouraged by affording it the status of marriage."
Well, I found the study. It does basically say what Bauer claims - not in those particular words, of course. But here's a letter by the authors of the study from a few years later...
Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s.1 From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.
The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.4
It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.
In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.
So basically, that's a giant "screw you!" to Gary Bauer. Yeah, the mortality rate was a lot higher among gay and bisexual men in Vancouver during the worst of the AIDS peak. But that doesn't make homosexuality an inherently deadly behavior. If you smoke cigarettes, chances are pretty damned good that you're going to get cancer, emphysema, etc... If you practice safer anal sex, chances are that you'll never get AIDS. It's not comparable, and the very authors of the study Bauer tries to use to prove his point say so.
No, not me - Sullivan. Anyway, he pointed this out, which I found via CalPundit - take a look at this:
Via Atrios - from some hillbilly rag in Jasper, Alabama. This is an actual bonafide editorial, by the ignorant backwoods hick of a copy editor on this shit-ass paper. Here's a nice little tidbit:
The actions of these people were listed along with other practices that are still considered sin: fornication, wickedness, covetousness, murder, backbiters, haters of God, proud, despiteful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without natural affection, unmerciful...
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.
That also seems crystal clear. Those who do such things, and those who think they are amusing - or innocent - are worthy of death.
Seriously. There's a bunch of crap leading to that part, but it's the climax. Fucking A. This is just obscene.
I'm assuming this comes from some spider that saw my site reasonably high on some search engine for "gay marriage":
Note: This offer is exclusively limited to the 1st 10 qualified gay marriage customers from this special on-line offer. ---------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: Visibility & Marketing reccommendations for
improvements to your gay marriage websiteAttn: REQUEST RETURN CALL TODAY TO JOSEPH AT 1-888-210-8980
Dear gay marriage webmaster,
Did you know that 29,358 people daily search
for gay marriage right now in Google and Yahoo? (SEE BELOW)Did you know that when you type ‘gay marriage’ into a
Google search you get 3,790,000. Try it! http://www.google.com!!!ATTENTION PLEASE, IMPORTANT NOTICE!!!
YOUR 'gay marriage' SITE "MUST" BE FOUND IN SEARCH ENGINES!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1) 85% of gay marriage sites are found from search engines
2) 99% of gay marriage users only 20 engines (Yahoo & Google)
3) 91% of gay marriage users visit only 1st page search listings
4) 15% of gay marriage sites are found from OTHER ADVERTISINGYOU MUST GET YOUR SITE LISTED ON THE 1st PAGE OR YOUR
"gay marriage" CLIENTS WILL NOT LIKELY FIND YOUR SITE!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THERE'RE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE THAT KNOW HOW TO DO (SEO)
SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION... AND WE’RE ONE OF THEM!*************************************************
* WE GUARANTEE Top-10 GOOGLE and YAHOO listings *
* All year-round, 24-hrs. a day for US$1.8/mon. *
*************************************************$$$ GUARANTEED LOWEST PRICES $$$
$$$ UNLIMITED SEARCH TERMS $$$Packages start from $89.95 per month for 50 unique gay marriage
search terms, like the real-time sample gay marriage keywords
listed below that are actually typed in the search engines today.!!!!!!!!!!!!HERE'S THE SECRET TO YOUR WEBSITE
TRAFFIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IMAGINE what would happen to your WEBSITE TRAFFIC if your gay
marriage
website would APPEAR on the FIRST TWO PAGES OF YAHOO AND GOOGLE
on
following most popular typed in keywords or search terms that
users
are ACTIVELY looking for gay marriage related products and
services:29358 gay marriage
1515 gay lesbian marriage
971 against gay marriage
950 gay marriage massachusetts
(it goes on for a while here)
51 gay marriage supporting
49 gay law lesbian marriage
49 gay marriage ontario
48 court gay marriage massachusetts supremeThere are 1,000's more search terms for gay marriage!
Call us now at 1-888-210-8980 for details!
************************************************************CALL US RIGHT NOW at 1-888-210-8980 to get Guaranteed Top-20
listings in Google & Yahoo and start turning those huge
numbers of 'gay marriage' on-line searches and many more
keywords into YOUR gay marriage customers.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$RETURN CALL RIGHT NOW TOLL FREE!$
$>>>>>>>> 1-888-210-8980 <<<<<<<<$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$--------------------------------------------------------
We are proud to be the 'The World's Leader in 'Search Engine
Optimization' for gay marriage sites. We have over 1 Million
Top-20 keyword listings across the major search engines.We look forward to helping your gay marriage business soon.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph D. Alleva
Int'l gay marriage representative
mailto:seomail@bigfoot.com?Subject=gay marriageUSA Global Corporate Office:
INTERNET CORPORATE BRANDING, INC.
Van Nuys, California 9141124x7 gay marriage Service & Technical Support
Toll-free number: 1-888-210-8980
Office hours: M-F, 9AM-5PM EST
________________________________________________________
To be REMOVED, please FORWARD gay marriage email NOW:
mailto:seomail@bigfoot.com?Subject=REMOVE
How can you NOT love that?
...those deeply strange Quiznos commercials? The ones with the badly "animated" rodents (I think) with human mouths singing really, really badly about subs? I don't get it, and I generally get all the stupid, wanna-be ironic commercials. This one's even beyond me.
EDIT - while I'm thinking of it, go over and read Billmon's comparison of Arnie's "gay riot" bit from MtP this weekend to commentary from segregationist authorities in the '50s and '60s. Good stuff.
Via Billmon, from a Portsmouth, NH newspaper, regarding the anti-marriage amendment:
Portsmouth resident Bill Alton said he distrusts anything George Bush says or does at this point, adding that he is adamantly opposed to a constitutional amendment, no matter what the topic.
"You do not go changing the Constitution on a whim," said Alton. "That’s a very serious thing to do. As for gay marriages, I say keep it in the bedroom. ... It doesn’t matter to me what anyone does, one way or the other."
...
Mary Berman, of Concord, strongly disagreed [with a supporter of the amendment].
"Bush is an idiot and should be out of the White House," she said. "As for the marriage question, people should be allowed to do whatever they want. They’re not hurting anyone."
...
Maine resident Justin Edgerly said, "Trying to make this a constitutional amendment is a waste of time, and I don’t see any reason for this. I don’t care who gets married. Why should anyone care?"
...
Nick Diana, of Portsmouth, said there are a lot of homosexual people in the world and they are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual people.
"They should have the same benefits in all areas," said Diana. "Maybe we should be asking President Bush why he is having such a problem with it."
Here's the thing - a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. Ok. That's fine. We're not going to make them attend any, after all. But the thing is, most of those people aren't bigots, and they don't want to be thought of as such. The anti-marriage amendment makes its supporters look like bigots, so, well, yeah.
The responses to my post a couple entries down was...well, sadly predictable. I got violently attacked for calling people homophobes. I got attacked for calling discrimination against gays bigotry. Seriously. And then they tried the slippery slope approach, going for the pedophilia angle. There's claims of "legitimate biological reasons" for discriminating against same-sex relationships over non-child-bearing opposite-sex relationships (which is, of course, the HUGE freakin' flaw in any biological imperative argument against same-sex marriage). And I've been accused of "dogmatism" because I've said there's no compromise, no grey area, just right and wrong on this issue. *sigh* I've crashed and burned, and I'm getting out. There's nothing quite like people I thought were rational people turning out to be bigots in denial...
I'm very disturbed by the latest AT&T Wireless commercial, which uses Primal Scream's "Come Together". That's just not a song I'd ever imagine fitting into an American TV commercial...
This is cribbed from that oh-so-secret message board I frequent (and no, I'm not telling - some of you know what it is, but let's keep our little secret. =) ), written in response to the anti-marriage forces there... I'd gotten in a bit of trouble for accusing someone of homophobia earlier, so I've been trying to not get too fire-breathing on the issue since then. But after reading a few pages worth of comments on the FMA and Bush, I had to throw this in.
From the quick-and-dirty department:
I believe that barring same-sex marriage is discriminatory. Since marriage is NOT legally restricted to procreating couples, I don't see legal grounds to favor an infertile couple consisting of a man and a woman over an infertile couple consisting of a man and another man. Obviously, I'm not the only one who feels this way - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court does too, for example. Hell, the fact that an amendment to the Constitution is needed to PREVENT same-sex marriage implies that it's legal as things stand now, doesn't it? In the ideal, we'd get rid of civil marriage altogether and provide civil unions for everyone, letting churchs and individuals make their own decisions about the institution of marriage, while allowing the exact same legal rights, responsibilities, and so on that apply to opposite-sex couples to also apply to same-sex couples.
The only arguments I've ever heard against same-sex marriage are either religious/traditional or MJG's biological argument - which, honestly, is the only time I've seen that argument. Putting MJG aside (sorry, but going into your position in detail leads to a whole slew of other issues - that's its own little bioethical can of worms...), all we've got are the religious arguments. I feel that religious arguments aren't enough to overcome the Constitution, as I read it, especially since religious views are inherently subjective in the first place.
It's hard for me to see opposition to same-sex marriage as not at least intersecting with homophobia (in any of the various senses - hate, fear, feeling superior to gays, etc...) to some extent. I really can't see anyone who honestly believes that gays are equal to straights and that gays have the same rights as straights opposing same-sex marriage. I'm not calling anyone who opposes same-sex marriage a bigot - I'm just saying that your opposition itself seems inherently bigoted or at least close-minded to me. It makes it hard to debate this issue, because I don't see any grey area, any room for cormpromise: there is right, there is wrong, and, as I see it, I'm squarely on the side of right. Normally, I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong - but not here. Opposing same-sex marriage means that you don't think that homosexuals should be able to build families together, and that's wrong. It won't hurt you in any way if a couple gay guys can get married. It won't cause the world to collapse. In terms of its impact on you, it's really a non-issue, once you get past the moral huffing and puffing. It disturbs me that people feel so strongly that gays aren't equal to straights that they need to codify that second-class citizen status in the Constitution.
So yeah - I apologize if I've offended you, but this is as cut and dry and as morally clear as the fight for civil rights was in the '60s. I'm sorry if you can't see it.
Take a look at this article from Salon on the legend of "Smile", the Beach Boys' follow-up album to "Pet Sounds", which was never finished. Brian Wilson performed it in London last week, the first time it's ever been played in public. It's a great look at the history of "Smile" and the impact it's had, even without ever being released. What's more, I went to college with the writer, Jesse Jarnow, and he's a kickass writer. His email invitations to the parties he and his housemates hosted at their off-campus house, known as Studio 77, were beyond classic.
Just heard this on Signorile - pending board approval, the Log Cabin Republicans will be withholding their support from Bush. Next question is whether Mary Cheney and the other token gays in the Bush administration and campaign are going to get pressed to leave. After that, the question is - how far will the LCR go to block the anti-marriage amendment? Will they, as rumors have suggested, go "nuclear" and out closted Republicans in Congress and the administration? I doubt it, but that's only because I doubt it'll come to that. I really don't think this can pass.
Anyone seen state-by-state breakdowns of opposition to the anti-marriage amendment? I know it was 45% against to 47% for nationwide, with the false assumption that it wouldn't ban civil unions, but nationwide doesn't really matter here - we just need 14 states. I think we can assume that certain states are guarantees to vote against - Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, Rhode Island, probably New York - but I'm not sure past that. I doubt there are 38 states it would pass in, but I can't tell for sure...
So US officials are warning that 9/11esque attacks are still possible. To quote Tenet,
"Even catastrophic attacks on the scale of September 11 remain within al Qaeda's reach."
Now, at this point, Tenet's not exactly got a great track record at being, y'know, RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING. And the rest of the Bush national security apparatus are blatantly political, throwing ANYTHING they say into doubt. It's in their best interests for us to be scared shitless at all times, after all. We're more likely to vote for Dear Leader then. filchyboy mentions the spectre of an October Surprise in the comments to my previous post, which made me think of a great post by Ezra over at Pandagon (and if you're not reading Pandagon on a regular basis, especially for Jesse when he's pissed, you're missing out on the best liberal blog out there today, IMHO) about the possibility of bin Laden already being gift-wrapped, just waiting for the right (political) moment for his unveiling:
Dick Morris has a theory that Presidents get beaten for two reasons. The first is for not doing what they promised. The second is for doing what they promised. The latter argues that the people gave their Commander a mandate and, once he's fulfilled it, his usefulness is pretty much over. Bush's current argument for his reelection is that he's a wartime President and the country needs him in the driver's seat pursuing our enemies. The problem with the rhetorical frame of war is that it isn't endless, it has heroes and villains. Once Osama is captured the war, in the minds of most, will have been won. People won't stay afraid forever; if Osama's capture doesn't end terrorism (and it won't), America will just blame Bush. he did all he said he would and failed, time for someone new. If Osama is captured and the terrorism does abate for awhile, the electorate will stop worrying about terrorism and Bush will have to run on the economy. His worst nightmare.
Sounds about right to me. So yeah, the October Surprise would be bad - but if they actually DO have the bastard cornered and they're just waiting to start bragging, I highly doubt they'll have the stamina to wait 'til October to cart him out. They're already running scared - as I noted before, they've dropped every aspect of Bush's attempt to move to the middle, and are now running HARD to the right...which is interesting in and of itself, since the absence of a primary challenger should have theoretically allowed Bush to pretend to stay in the middle. But he's pissed off his base A LOT, and now needs to cater to them. If they're going to give up on a campaign plan this early, just because Kerry's leading in a few polls, how are they going to react during the extended post-convention boost the Democrat will get in August? The late Republican convention is slimy, yes, but it also leaves a longer window than normal for the Democrats to benefit from THEIR convention. That's when I expect bin Laden to be "captured", if all that crap is really true. The benefits will have faded out by November.
BTW, congratulations to me on this, my 2000th ever post to the blog. I may have deleted an entry or two, but still - not bad for a year and a half, I'd say.
Woohoo. Bush bashes gay marriage. And it makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. They can't pass this thing through 38 states. Hell, I doubt they can pass the thing through the Senate with a two-thirds majority. It's a non-issue that's being touted solely to win Bush points with the radical right-wing fucknuts and MAYBE pass, but probably not, kind of like how the indentured servant program is designed to win points with the Mexican-American population (not that it WILL, mind you) and agribusiness (who, not surprisingly, love the idea of being able to import slaves - it worked on the cotton fields, after all!) but will never pass through Congress.
I saw the whole stump speech - can't find a link right now, though. It was...bleh. Not surprisingly. None of his attempts to run to the middle really showed up in it - no indentured servants, no Mars, no NEA (no, not the terrorists, the filth-funders). It read like an attempt to rouse the base and bash Kerry, without any actual content. Shocking, I know. Eh. He's gonna lose. No worries.
Via Atrios - Rod Paige, Education Secretary, called the NEA a terrorist organization. I am NOT making this up.
WASHINGTON - Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization" during a private White House meeting with governors on Monday.
Democratic and Republican governors confirmed Paige's remarks about the National Education Association.
"These were the words, 'The NEA is a terrorist organization,' " said Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin.
I can kind of talk, but not really. This is very, very annoying - as anyone who knows me in person can attest to, I talk a LOT, and not being able to talk is really, really disturbing. I'm not sure whether to go to work today or not - it'll be too tempting to talk a lot while there, and that'd probably be a bad idea. But I haven't been in the office for over a week, since I was out in San Jose last week...ah, I dunno. I'll make a decision in an hour or so. I'll probably do a short day even if I do go in.
Maybe the most frustrating thing is that it feels like if I have one good cough, my voice'll be fine. It won't be, but it FEELS like that. Argh. Argh. Argh. Sooooo frustrating...
The Writers Guild of America gave out their awards today, and they got it RIGHT - American Splendor won for adapted screenplay and Lost in Translation won for original screenplay. Very, very much the right choices. I'm expecting LiT to win the Oscar for original screenplay, though I'm afraid that Lord of the Rings will get the adapted screenplay award. American Splendor is a better screenplay, by a lot...
I lost my voice, more or less. It's THERE, it's just barely there and rather painful to use. I'm not happy about this. At least it didn't happen while I was out in San Jose - I was really worried about the possibility of losing my voice before my presentation, once I started coming down with throat problems. Hopefully, I'll be able to talk tomorrow - this is just painful, not being able to talk. Of course, both Mom and Arwen said it was a good thing that I can't talk. Philistines. =)
Via Calpundit - marriage licenses were issued for a dozen same sex couples today. It seems there's a bit of a fight already - the New Mexico AG is saying that they're not legal marriages, but hey, they've got licenses. It's lawsuit time, baby. Here's some pictures - scroll up to see the fax from the AG that stopped the marriages as well. But like I said this morning - this is basically unstoppable now. With the legal attempts to block the San Francisco marriages slapped down, a huge enough number of people will be married by the time they ever manage to stop it (which isn't a sure thing in any case) that it'll be pretty hard to undo the marriages...
Via Atrios, I see that a county in New Mexico is going down the San Francisco path, though the New Mexico laws on marriage look like they won't even present a significant barrier - there's no mention of gender in the statutes, for example. This, of course, is coming a couple days after Mayor Daley all but announced that Chicago/Cook County will be issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples soon. Daley also gave us some great, great quotes:
"They're your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists, your politicians," the mayor said. "They're someone's son or daughter. They're someone's mother or father. . . . I've seen people of the same sex adopt children, have families. [They're] great parents.
"Some people have a difference of opinion -- that only a man and a woman can get married. But in the long run, we have to understand what they're saying. They love each other just as much as anyone else.''
A devout Catholic, Daley scoffed at the suggestion that gay marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it," he said.
Looks like Gavin Newsom really started something moving last week. All it took was one challenge by a municipality and the walls are coming down...
And one of those times is after reading this op-ed. The entire column is kickass, throwing down with moral authority on the side of the angels - that's us, by the way. Anyway - Atrios cut-n-pasted this same section, but it's to freakin' die for, so I'm posting it here, too, for the three of you dear readers who aren't also already reading Atrios. Though I've got to wonder - why in the hell AREN'T you reading Atrios? Anyway - here's the fun:
From what I can glean from some of my hate mail and the general conservative outcry, here is what the homophobes fear about same-sex marriage: bestiality.
That is, they are utterly terrified that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope of permissive debauchery that will lead to the utter breakdown of social rules and sexual mores, to people being allowed to marry their dogs, or their own dead grandmothers, or chairs, or three hairy men from Miami Beach.
In short, to the neocon Right, a nation that allows gays to marry is a nation with no boundaries and no condoms and where all sorts of illicit disgusting behaviors will soon be legal and be forced upon them, a horrific tribal wasteland full of leeches and flying bugs and scary sex acts they only read about in chat rooms and their beloved "Left Behind" series of cute apocalypse-porn books.
You know, just like how giving blacks the right to own their own land meant we had to give the same rights to house plants and power tools, or how granting women the right to vote meant it was a slippery slope until we gave suffrage to feral cats and sea slugs and rusty hubcaps.
Awwwww yeah. THAT is my kind of columnist. Mark Morford is officially my new hero - sorry, Gavin, but Mark's so much wittier. I like witty.
Seriously. You may remember that message board I've mentioned in the past, where I get in some pretty nasty political...er..."discussions". Well, I decided to dive in full-force on the gay marriage issue. I posted the picture of the two little old ladies in San Francisco, and waited. Sure enough, a shitstorm blew up after not too long. Now I've got people apeshit at me for calling them homophobic, or for pointing out that if they were to change "gays" to "blacks" in their statements, they'd be very, very obviously racist.
Now, I can understand when people get annoyed about being called homophobic when they aren't at all scared of homosexuals but just, in fact, want to deprive them of equal rights. We need a term like "racist" for that kind of bigotry towards gays, to use instead of homophobia. Any suggestions?
But the second thing... Oh, hell no. The exact quote that got this all started was this:
Americans are not pussies, they will not let less than a tenth of the population, and a few of their far-left buddies force them to ignore thousands of years of legal and religious precedent and tradition because, for a couple of decades in our history, gay people were really popular in the media.
So I said - switch "black" for "gay", and "less than a fifth" for "less than a tenth", and you've got an argument for keeping slavery in place in the 1860s. I wasn't accusing the guy who said this of racism - but I WAS accusing him of being similarly bigoted towards gay people. He flew off the handle, but I'm not backing down. There was another broo-ha-ha in the same thread after someone else started going down a "genetic diversity" argument against gay marriage AND for (over time, through genetic engineering) eliminating homosexuality altogether. Now, it really wasn't as bad as it sounds when I've summed it up, but it did sound more than a little like eugenics, and when I think eugenics, I think Nazi Germany. So I pointed out that he was sounding a little like the Nazis. Some other people threw hissies at me for calling him a Nazi. Which I didn't do, as the guy who wrote the eugenics stuff understood. I said that eugenics make me think of Nazis, so I'm very wary of eugenics. Sigh.
I'm not backing down on this one, though. I'm in the right, and I know it. Someone wants to whine because I called him homophobic? Well, then he's got two choices - find me a new word to use instead that takes out the fear implication, or STOP BEING A FUCKING HOMOPHOBE. Jesus CHRIST...
Gene Koo has full transcripts of both days of debate from the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention last week, up at his web site. Sometime later today/tonight, I'll post some selected sections from a number of speeches.
That just wasn't fair - I wake up at 5am for my flight to San Jose, and go for a shower. And the shower is absurdly cold. Arrrrgh. I did NOT need that added difficulty this morning - waking up today has been hard enough. Like I said - arrrrgh. Alright, I should get moving. Talk to y'all later...
Hi, it's Andy's girlfriend, Arwen, today's foreign correspondent. Yes, it's true, I do have a cheesy spot in my heart that can somehow only be fulfilled by seeing "50 First Dates" with Drew Barrymore & Adam Sandler. But I'd much rather see "Monster", as I have an obsession with serial killers as well. Even better would be a movie about serial killers STARRING Drew Barrymore & Adam Sandler!!! Yaay!!! Oops. That makes me sound really sick. Andy's currently making fun of the way I type. ANYway...I'm making a movie list here of movies Andy & I are planning to rent in the future, so we don't forget: "A Mighty Wind" (I saw it, Andy needs to), "The Shape of Things" (Neil LaBute--never bad), "The Talented Mr. Ripley" (Andy is theorizing that there's probably a porno out there called "The Talented Mr. Dickley"), and, uh...well, there were at least 2 more, but I have forgotten them. That's productive.
Well, that's all--it's late and I should to bed. Thanks for reading!
First - IANAL (I am not a lawyer). So I'm probably not all that accurate with any legal interpretations I'm throwing out here - it's just what seems right to me. Now, on with the show...
There's a lawsuit out in Utah right now that's challenging Utah's ban on polygamy. Given that this is happening at the same time as the first major victories in the fight for same-sex marriage, I've seen people conflate the two issues. It plays into the slippery-slope argument against same-sex marriage - if you support same-sex marriage, well, then, why do you oppose polygamy? Let me just say this first - I don't oppose polygamy, as long as all the participants are consenting adults who know what they're getting into. But the legal arguments for same-sex marriage, as best as I can tell, are completely distinct from those arguing for polygamy.
The legal grounds for opposing a ban on same-sex marriage are, largely, equal protection ones. What's at issue is deciding which consenting adult is allowed to participate in civil marriage with which other consenting adult. While marriage does have a long history of being defined as being between a man and a woman, there is an argument to be made that it is discriminatory to not allow two men to marry. Obviously, I agree with that argument. The state's definition of marriage is first and foremost that it's between two people. If you strike down the gender requirements, you've still got a definition of marriage as being between two people, regardless of gender, changing the participants but not the basic structure. Throw in the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, but a biological or neurological imperative in some people, and it's pretty open and shut, as I see it. Again, IANAL, but I consider it unacceptable to discriminate against someone based on things they can not control - their race, their gender, their handicaps, their sexuality. Based on the First Amendment and freedom of religion, I also consider it unacceptable to discriminate against someone based on their faith or beliefs, but that's a seperate issue - which we'll get to in a minute.
The argument for allowing polygamy has a very different legal basis, and would require a much more sweeping change to the institution of civil marriage than same-sex marriages do. Polygamy would require not just changing the allowed participants in civil marriage, but the basic structure itself - marriage would go from being defined as being between two people to being between any number of people. That, to me, is a far more drastic change than changing which two people can get married. The various legal and financial benefits to marriage are all structured around the concept of marriage as two people, without really depending on those two people being of opposite sex. Allowing polygamy would blow a big hole in that structure, requiring a rewrite of tax codes, property rights, you name it. That's not to say that the difficulties in making the change are enough grounds to not make the change, but it illustrates the difference between allowing same-sex marriage and allowing polygamy.
The legal argument I've seen recently for allowing polygamy is very different from the equal protection-based arguements used in Gutteridge. The Lawerence v. Texas case, the sodomy case that went before the Supreme Court last year, provides the precedent behind the lawsuit Brian Barnard, a civil rights attorney, has filed on behalf of a married couple and another woman in Utah. Let me quote from the AP article I linked to above:
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Lawrence case, arguing that overturning the Texas law would open the door to challenges of Utah's polygamy ban.
Shurtleff said he believes Barnard's case is headed for the Supreme Court, and predicted the justices would uphold the polygamy ban.
"We have a long line of cases saying that the institute of marriage is the bedrock of society. Therefore, states have a compelling interest in regulating and controlling marriage," he said.
But at least one legal expert said Lawrence's logic leads to the legalization of polygamy, since the high court held that morality is not a strong enough justification for the state to ban a practice deemed unpopular or immoral by the majority.
"It's not a case people can sniff at," said Richard G. Wilkins, a law professor at Brigham Young University. "If you can't require monogamy, how in the world can you deny the claims of the polygamists, particularly when it's buttressed by the claim of religion?"
It's not cut-and-dry, but there's definitely an argument there. If polygamy is banned due to moral opposition, then Lawerence weakens the legal grounds for that ban. It's not a sure thing, like I said, but I agree with that interpretation. The same argument could also be made for same-sex marriage - that is, that the state has no right to ban same-sex marriage on moral grounds. But that's not the basis on which same-sex marriage is being legalized in Massachusetts - it's a different angle entirely, the equal protection argument, that's been used and won out. I support lifting the ban on polygamy, since the state should have no right to legislate behavior on moral grounds, when that behavior brings no harm to others and its participants are cosenting adults. But lifting the ban on same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds does not open the door to polygamy, since it's a lot harder to make that equal protection argument for participants in a polygamous relationship than those in a two-person same-sex relationship.
An even more interesting direction that Lawerence could go in, according to my non-legally-trained-eyes, is drug legalization, specifically marijuana. If the government doesn't have the power to "ban a practice deemed unpopular or immoral by the majority", what does that say about marijuana? As best as I can tell, that means that the only legitimate reasons to ban marijuana would be on health grounds, which are shaky at best. I wonder if this could lead to a case challenging personal possession and use of marijuana soon...
Pretty much everyone in the office knows my political beliefs and positions. It's not as if I hold back - hell, I broadcast 'em and try to convert people in the halls. So it's not that surprising that people have been coming up to me to talk about the anti-marriage amendment and everything that's happened the last two days. Most reactions are positive - either excited by the fights we've won, like I am, or the most reassuring, the people who say "Hey, that's cool. I really don't care whether gays get married or not. How does that effect me anyway?" Those are the best to hear, since the fight isn't to get everyone to go onto the barricades to fight for gay marriage - it's to get people to realize that, if you're not gay, gay people getting married has absolutely no impact on you and your life.
However, there's been one very discouraging conversation. A co-worker of mine mentioned it, and I said that I'd been watching it yesterday. He's generally pretty liberal, but he's also deeply religious, so, yeah. There's some disagreement between us on this issue. That's ok - I'm pretty used to that. I tried the "Well, it's not like they're going to make your church start marrying gay people" and that didn't work. He brought up the slippery slope argument, which I know is just about as absurd as it sounds when Rick Santorum says it...and then he said "Well, what if fifty years from now, someone wants to marry a dog?" I couldn't manage to get him to see that there's absolutely no way that ending discrimination against same-sex couples marrying will lead to inter-species marriage. Honestly, I can't even figure out how you can use that as an arguing point. But yeah - that's pretty much where it ended, with me frustrated. Ah well. Gotta remind myself that most people aren't that close-minded...
Meteor Blades has written a good piece over at dKos on gradualism v. maximalism, and Boulder, CO's history with anti-discrimination against gays. Give it a read.
Wow, that was intense last night. I really don't have much to add yet, but the Globe has a spectacular editorial this morning:
THERE IS a plain and powerful reason that legislators at the constitutional convention had such difficulty reaching compromise on an amendment that would ban gay marriage: Civil rights cannot be compromised.
Late last night, having rejected three proposed amendments, the legislators wearily took up a fourth, but it could not escape the same shoals. In it, opponents of gay marriage surrendered on substantive issues, guaranteeing to gay couples civil unions that "shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law."
But if there is no reason to deny benefits or responsibilities, why deny the word "marriage?" The text said the amendment was designed "to protect the unique relationship of marriage," but in all the debate no one made clear what threat marriage needs to be protected from.
Parsing language so one group of citizens is allowed the benefits and privileges of marriage -- defined as a union between one man and one woman -- while another group is told to live with something less cannot be done in the name of equality. Almost isn't equal.
...
The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the Constitution as written provides full equality. It needs no parsing. The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the Constitution as written provides full equality. It needs no parsing.
Short, sweet, to the point. I'm wondering about one paragraph in the lead story in the Globe, though:
Shortly after 10 p.m., supporters of gay marriage staged a filibuster designed to delay the proceedings until the midnight deadline for the session. Their opponents responded by walking out to focus public attention on what was happening and force a vote, but Senate President Robert E. Travaglini allowed the filibuster to continue, by recognizing only lawmakers who opposed a ban on gay marriage to speak until midnight arrived.
While Travaglini definitely didn't go out of his way to stop the filibuster, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say that he only recognized lawmakers who opposed the ban. Legislators rose in attempts to call a vote or take the floor, but were unable to do so, due to House rules - unless the current speaker would yield their time. Not surprisingly, the pro-marriage advocates only yielded to other pro-marriage advocates. I don't know if there was some way for Travaglini to personally interfere with that, but it didn't seem like it.
This. Is. It. Time's up. We fucking WON. Oh my GOD, we fucking WON. We need to find a way to help those legislators who are going to get attacked for their votes (or lack of votes) today and yesterday - I will get that list together and try to find a way to organize contributions. They've put it all on the line. They've done it and they've done it at great risk.
Seriously, that needs to happen. I'm planning to personally donate a minimum of 10 bucks to each legislator who gets attacked by an opponent for standing up for civil rights this week, and I hope that some of you can help out too. More on that later. For tonight, I need to find a way to wind down. I'm high as a kite right now...almost on the verge of tears, to be honest. I'm not gay. This doesn't impact me directly in any way. But I feel such an incredible visceral emotion about gay marriage. It's just too damned simple, too damned obvious, too damned right, and yet it's still opposed. But we WON this one. We've got a month to prepare, to educate, to keep strong. I think we can do it.
Someone's whining about not getting called on. Um, dude, even if you WERE getting called on, the other speakers wouldn't yield. Travaglini is throwing around the humor like a blunt weapon. Good times, good times. Travaglini was just asked if he thinks there'll be a vote before midnight - and he says "I don't suspect we're going to involve ourselves in any vote." YES! And now he just got asked to reveal his list of who's next to get called on. His answer? "No." Ok, yeah, you're in my good books now, Bobby. You're not quite there with Tom Birmingham, but you're real close right now.
Here comes probably our final speaker - Rep. Kathleen Teahen, Democrat from Whitman. And it's her 33rd wedding anniversary tonight! It's almost over now... Oh yeah, this is filibuster territory. She's talking about her husband coaching football now. Wonderfully nonsensical. 2 minutes to go.
The reactionaries are screaming "filibuster!" Damn, it's loud outside the chamber itself - they're showing a clip of Barrios and Travis fighting over the filibuster - which is what it is, and I see no problem with that - anyway, they're out in the halls, and you can hear the crowds. They're singing "My Country Tis Of Thee" - that's our side, right? Dear god, this is all amazing. Simply amazing.
They're trying really, really hard to get Rep. Wolf to yield, and she's just ignoring 'em. It's nifty. One more person is probably all we'll need to get to midnight. The reactionaries are trying to complain about people getting recognized when they're not sitting in an official assigned seat. Of course, the Senators don't HAVE assigned seats in the House chamber. This is parliamentary gamesmanship at its best. I'm lovin' it.
And it's tag-team filibuster at its finest. 20 minutes to go. Rep. Deborah Blumer, Democrat from Framingham has taken the podium. We're in the home stretch.
Oh, and hi, Joanna. I can tell you're reading. =)
Yeah, it sounds like this is a mini-filibuster. Once it hits midnight, any one individual legislator can end the session just by asking. Finneran and Travaglini look very animated and tense, to say the least. If Sen. Joyce can keep talking for another 45 minutes, it's all over until March 10. Let's see how this goes...
Someone tries to move on the question, and Travaglini says "You can't move a question while someone is speaking", or something like that, so the guy says that he questions Travaglini's judgement - and he retorts "You can't question the judgement of the chair." Heheheh. Travaglini is pulling a passive-aggressive version of Birmingham from last time.
There's cheering coming from outside the chamber, but I can't tell which side it's for... According to Joyce, the scuttlebutt was that some were trying to shoot down the compromise amendment so as to pass a more restrictive amendment instead, hoping that leadership would be so desperate to pass ANYTHING that they'd fall in line. The more restrictive amendment relies on the House to create and manage civil unions, and Joyce, rightly, doesn't trust the House to do crap. So Joyce is filibustering, calling for waiting until March 10 instead.
It's a tag team - Rep. Alice Wolf of Cambridge asked to speak and Sen. Joyce yielded his time. She's saying that "we cannot compromise on issues of equality" - to cheers from outside. Gotta think this is co-ordinated...
What began as merely a social group eventually became widely known and politically driven. D.O.B. concerned itself with issues such as lesbian mothers' rights and abolishing discrimination. "We weren't really interested in gay marriage early on," said Lyon. Gay marriage today, however, is quickly becoming a possible reality, specifically in Massachusetts. Lyon said that she never thought she would see such a case in her lifetime, and is hopeful for a positive outcome. "We were all ready for a rally in July," she said, referring to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, a lawsuit seeking gay marriage, that was originally expected this past summer.
Yeah, I'd say it's become a possible reality. =)
Holy CHRIST! They just called ANOTHER recess! This one, in theory, until 11:10, so that they can have a House caucus. There's only one rational explanation for this:
They don't have the votes to pass the amendment. Unless Finneran can pull off some MAJOR arm-twisting, it's gonna go down in flames - or, more likely, they'll try to adjourn rather than lose the vote...
While we're in recess, I'm gonna check the Celtics game...damn. They lost 107-87 (and that's after 8 straight points in the last 2:30 of the game) to Chicago. Eek. Ah well. At least Kendrick Perkins, our center of the future, got 4 points, 3 boards, an assist, and two blocks in six minutes of garbage time... Sorry to get distracted by the basketball. I can't help it. =)
Heh. Sen. Joyce, a good guy from Milton, is delivering a scathing attack on discriminatory policies and misconceptions of ecclesiastical law vs. civil law - interesting things, to say the least, if not that likely to change many minds. However, there's constant grumbling in the background, repeated attempts to move on the question (i.e., to vote on the amendment), which can't be done until Joyce yields, which he refuses to do. Travaglini keeps having to bring order, which doesn't take long to fall apart. Now they're trying to override Joyce and move on the question regardless...I guess Joyce is trying to block the question. Good for him.
Hey - it's basically a filibuster. Nifty. And I guess it seems the doors were open and protesters outside were yelling loud enough to be heard inside. And again - we're low on the quorum. Shocking. Or not.
Again, via the Chronicle:
Kate Kendell, Executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Roberta Achtenberg, Senior Vice Presient of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce cry as they watch Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin get married in the first legally sanctioned same-sex marriage in San Francisco history. Chronicle photo by Liz Mangelsdorf
Dr. Davina Kotulski, left, and Molly McKay (in dress) walk through metal detectors at City Hall on their way to get married as many same sex marriages are permitted for the first time in San Francisco. Chronicle photo by Darryl Bush
Mike Kabler, left, puts a ring on partner on finger of Kevin Fox, both of Oakland, during a marriage ceremony conducted by Assessor Mabel Teng, center, at City Hall as many same sex marriages are permitted for the first time in San Francisco on Thursday. Other ceremonies are taking place in the background. Chronicle photo by Darryl Bush
Andrew Nance, left, and Jim Maloney, right, both of San Francisco, hold hands while taking vows with witnesses, Leonardo Montenegro and Marcio Castro, both of San Francisco, at far right, at City Hall as many same sex marriages are permitted for the first time in San Francisco on Thursday. Chronicle photo by Darryl Bush
And we're back - no, wait, no, we're not. We're short a quorum. Again. Dave, tell these guys to show up for work a little more often. =)
James Rappaport is whining about Tom Birmingham's heroic handling of the issue at the last Constitutional Convention, when he just gaveled through the issue without ever letting it come up for debate. God, this guy really bothers me. Every other Republican commentator I've heard on NECN has been non-partisan, but this jerkoff sounds like an exile from Texas.
Damn! 87 marriage ceremonies and 95 marriage licenses in San Francisco today! Wow! They're showing clips from San Francisco. Damn, it's nice to see, even if it is an empty gesture. Looks like this was a co-ordinated gesture nationwide - 6 couples applied for marriage licenses in Wisconsin, 5 in South Carolina, 50 in Minnesota...
Rep. Demakis, Democrat of Boston, is pointing out that passing an amendment with an incredibly narrow margin of victory isn't automatically a good thing. That is, chances are the public sentiment will shift the other way within a decade or so. When that happens, if the Constitution has been changed, we'll have to go through this same mess to undo the temporary mistake we'd be making now. People are caught up in the moment, in the shock reaction to the idea of gay marriage. This same thing happened with the death penalty a few years ago, and after a weekend, one legislator changed his mind and stopped the commonwealth of Massachusetts from having a death penalty. Let's not risk that kind of thing again. Reject the amendment.
I missed the exact text, but the compromise amendment says something like a same sex couple can enter into a civil union if they meet the same requirements as for a marriage between a man and a woman. There's a little bit of a logic gap there, a big gaping reason for shooting this amendment down HARD: one of the requirements to enter a marriage between a man and a woman, by this amendment's definition, is TO BE A MAN AND A WOMAN. By some readings of this amendment, we'd be banning civil unions as well, I think.
Also, I'm watching NECN - can I slap James Rappaport in the face? Repeatedly? He's pissing me off a lot with his constant little digs of "If the legislature had done the right thing and already banned gay marriage..." while the publisher of Bay Windows, a gay issues newspaper, isn't being near as insistent on her position being the right one. James Rappaport is just a Republican party hack who got slaughtered by Kerry in the Senate race in 1990 and nothing else. And now he's throwing as much mud at Kerry as he can. Hey, Jimmy - Kerry kicked your ass. Get over it. Oooh, and he's talking trash about the Democrats losing the South and the Midwest over this...hey, Jimmy - the Republicans have lost Massachusetts for anything beyond the governor's house for decades. DEAL.
Travaglini just tried to adjourn the Constitutional Convention until March 10th. Seriously. It's looking like his attempt is going to fail and they're going to go past 9. Gotta think they don't have the votes to pass the amendment yet...
OK - it's not very clear whether they need a simple majority to keep going or a two-thirds majority... and it's 2/3s, but the vote ends up at 135-62, so it continues. Someone's calling for a recess for a Republican caucus - Jesus, couldn't we just throw all 20 of 'em in a closet somewhere and save the hour+ recess? This is gonna go all NIGHT! Augh! I need to go to work tomorrow, dammit!
Dave B, our man on the floor, says the following:
My boss just called me. Told me to go home. The expectation is, that they will be done by 9 and "they don't have enough votes to hold it [the third compromise from passing]."
We will see if the boss is right.
More as I hear it. They're still speechifying on the floor right now.
I've been surfing back and forth between the speechifying and the Celtics game - hey, I've got an addiction - but once I realized who was speaking, I stuck - it's Rep. Liz Malia, Democrat from Boston, who's a lesbian and was the fellow rep cited by Rep. Kelly in his call for adjournment. She's making a near tears speech calling for gay marriage. Worth listening to.
Inadvertently funny bit - "I want to ask you to look into your hearts - I realize that some of you can't do it." Of course, this was followed by a call to reject the amendment, but it's funny in isolation, and I like to find the humor in things, if you hadn't noticed.
