Santa's Coming...

"Oh! OH! OH!!!

It's Get Stuffed Day!

Happy Halloweenie

In the Meantime...

Seen at Good As You the other day:

The interesting bit starts at 2:00 in.

In Face of Defeat, Illinois Bigots Draw Inspiration From Bad TV

The Chicago Free Press reports that the Illinois State Board of Elections has decided that the referendum on an amendment to the Illinois Constitution to outlaw same sex marriage won't make it to the November ballot.

The board made the determination after conducting a random check of petitions submitted May 8 by Protect Marriage Illinois, an offshoot of the anti-gay Illinois Family Institute. The PMI petitions contained more than 347,000 signatures supporting the referendum, but SBE officials immediately rejected about 10,000 of them.

In late May, SBE staff conducted a random check to determine if enough of the remaining 337,000 signatures were from registered Illinois voters to meet the requirement that referendums be supported by at least 283,111 voters.

Late last week, the SBE notified both PMI and the Fair Illinois Committee that its random check found far too many irregularities and invalid signatures on PMI’s petitions for the referendum to make it to the ballot.

Fair Illinois (a coalition of organizations) apparently filled thirteen boxes with objectionable signatures — nearly one in three of all signatures submitted by PMI. These were mainly petitions circulated at churches but I guess lying is a Christianist value. Which would also explain why Fair Illinois found evidence "indicative of fraud" in the petitions.

So what's the next step for Pimp Marriage Illinois? According to David E. Smith, Pogrom Direktor, it's time to regroup and assemble a legal "A-Team".


"I pity the fag who wants to marry in my state!"

This announcement has, inevitably, led to one-upmanship with Fair Illinois revealing a plan to install a "MacGyver" on it's board.


"With a crucifix, a rosary and a feather boa,
I'll make a fabulous argument with all t's crossed and all i's dotted."

Happy Exploding Things Day!

The Threat Down: Top Threats to Stephen's Heterosexuality

Threat #2: The Ex-Gay Movement

"As a straight man, I should never be told that same sex attraction can be cured. Because if it can, what's stopping me from taking a dip in that end of the pool? The hot, salty end? And then, when I've had enough, I can just read Leviticus and — presto! — I'm cured! The idea that it's temporary makes it all too tempting."

Happy Grillers in the Mist Day

Dequick Debunk

As if the self congratulatory screed that is the DL Fister Show needs yet one more example of how far removed from reality the author is, he has an entry relating his triumphant return from Washington, D.C. where he campaigned for the Federal Marriage Amendment. He's fairly brimming with excitement when he writes, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, liberals are convinced that they have once again beat back the advancing hordes of 'conservative homophobes'. Whatever."







"Even though I'm ex-gay I still like a finger up my ass during sex."





Whatever indeed. The "pastor" is much more interested in the souvenirs that he brought back. Like a renewed sense of outrage over gay rights which he's afraid besmirches the reputation of other civil rights movements, "like a drag version of civil rights." Something he has in common with LaShawn the Barbarian who recently wrote in a comment on her blog, "As black person, it offends me when homosexuals try to use our fight to be treated as first class citizens to argue that perversion is also a civil right. It’s nauseating, actually."

Bad Reporter by Don Asmussen


The shiny bauble that DL holds so dear is a piece written for the Weakly Standard that he calls a "blistering deconstruct" of gay rights as civil rights. There's only one teensy small problem with it. A large part of the argument hinges on the canard that "the claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination is based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states through much of the 20th century." As I showed a few months back, not only do gay marriage advocates draw this connection, but it is also recognized by those arguing for traditonal marriage. Here's a brief recap from the marriage case argued in New Jersey:

Justice Virginia Long: "Why is that an interest? The interest in maintaining marriage 'as it has been'?"

Patrick DeAlmeida: "Because it is such a fundamental institution in society that it is a reasonable thing that the legislature not change it radically. There are some things that make up our society that are so fundamental that a change in them is something that belongs to the elected representatives of the people."

Justice Barry T. Albin: "Didn't Virginia argue that in the Loving case? When they tried to support banning interracial marriage -- in fact criminalizing them?"

DeAlmeida: "They did."

DL may not have brought home an STD as a memento of his trip, but that certainly would have been preferable to what he did bring back. A "brilliant" paper by Dr. John Diggs called "The Health Risks of Gay Sex," in which the "doctor" draws inappropriate and inacurate conclusions. But don't take my word for it. The authors of the Vancouver study cited in Diggs's paper had a public rebuke for those who would misuse the information.

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. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland 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.

[...]

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive measure. 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.

[...]

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.

For all their blathering about "truth" it really is the thing DL and his ilk are least interested in.

Update: LaShawn the Barbarian repeats the phony "interracial marriage is nothing like gay marriage" argument.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who recently sent fund raising party invitations shaped like a cowboy's crotch and that only opened after one undid the cowboy's belt, said that a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment could happen as soon as June 5.

Click on the following links to send a message to your senators telling them that if they vote for the measure, they will be on the wrong side of history.

The ACLU.

The Human Rights Campaign.

This post will remain at top until June 10 or the vote is taken, whichever happens first.

How Pathetic is the Religious Right?

Protect Marriage Illinois has submitted some 345,000 petition signatures to the state legislature in order to get a referendum banning gay marriage on the November ballot. The referendum would not be legally binding for lawmakers, however it could be used as ammunition for more aggressive marriage amendment tactics.

One of the groups affiliated with PMI is the Illinois Fascist Institute. One Peter Labarbera is the executive director. (Which leads to a little side-thought I had. What if the Language Fartist were to marry him? "LaShawn Barber Labarbera." Perfect!)

Peter Labarbera is quite a character. He came to Chicago a couple of years ago to visit the International Mister Leather event in order to gather "evidence" (of what he never says). "As you can imagine, this idea didn’t go over too well with my wife," said Labarbera in a description of his little shopping spree.

I paid my two-dollar entrance fee and passed by a femmy “leather” guy who was happily greeting visitors with the line, “Welcome to the WalMart of porn!” At the vendors’ area, I found booth upon booth--there were over a hundred--selling whips, handcuffs, electric “torture” devices, leather “hoods,” etc., a veritable cornucopia for the deviant. The man was right: there was also tons of the most disgusting pornography imaginable for sale at reduced prices, right there are at the glitzy Hyatt Regency!

[...]

Perhaps I will send some of my evidence to the Tribune Company’s executive staff, so they can see what they promoted to the public.

And perhaps he did just that. Or — just perhaps — he held on to the "evidence" and, under his wife's disapproving eye, pretended to box it up and put it in the basement on a convincingly hard-to-access shelf but exactly where he knew he could pry the lid open just enough to extract some of his favorite evidence on those long weekends when the wife visits the inlaws...

But I digress. The Chicago Free Press reports that Fair Illinois, the group checking the signatures on the marriage petition "say their objective of keeping the referendum off the ballot is well within reach. As a rule, about 70 percent of the signatures filed on voter petitions are legitimate. The rest are invalid for various reasons—they are duplicates, for instance, or the signers aren’t registered to vote or list incorrect addresses." As it turns out, even this optimistic estimation leaves the petition 41,611 signatures short. But it gets better.

So far, volunteers are finding a rate of accuracy that is far below 70 percent. “If 40 percent of these names are valid, I’d be surprised,” said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois. His organization joined forces with Lambda Legal and the ACLU to create Fair Illinois.

[...]

“These petitions are so phony,” said Cathy Calderon, who ended a 20-month hiatus from volunteering in order to be part of the Fair Illinois effort. She held up an invalid petition that was circulated by a person who used two different names—one a man’s name, one a woman’s.

“The gall of these people,” Calderon said. “They think they’re going to put one over on us. It’s not going to happen.”

Which, I'd say, finds PMI at the end of their rope. Their members are proven liars who must cheat in order to force their views on all, the remnants of a disgraceful movement in its final gasp, their names forever on record as endorsing this failed rapture of bigotry, to the everlasting shame of their descendants.

Oh yeah — and I think Chimpy McSmirksalot chimed in today on the matter of gay marriage, too.

AFA's Overblown Rhetoric Hard to Swallow

AFA Action Alert:

Dear Fantod,

A liberal activist judge has struck down a constitutional amendment in Georgia which made homosexual marriage illegal! She felt that she knew better than the voters how they should vote and threw out their ballots.
The constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly by 76% of the voters in Georgia, is now null and void.

The homosexuals are determined to win this battle. They know they will never win if the people have an opportunity to vote. So they are turning to liberal activist judges to force their will on the people. They intend to force homosexual marriage down the throats of Americans. They feel our children must be indoctrinated beginning in kindergarten that homosexuality is normal behavior.

On June 6 the U.S. Senate will vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Because of a power grab by activist judges like the one in Georgia, the MPA is the only way that the sacred institution of marriage will remain between one man and one woman.

While it may be hard, I guess Americans are just going to have to get used to the pistoning sensation of the turgid instrument of the law pumping and pumping hot infusions of justice into the belly of their most untenable biases. Who knows? Maybe in time they'll like it!

If Only There Was a Vaccine for Stupidity...

If you're a straight person who thinks that you couldn't possibly have a vested interest in gay marriage, think again. Dan Savage has been sounding the alarm about how the Christianists have a much bigger plan in mind.

From this week's Savage Love:

STRAIGHT RIGHTS UPDATE: I've been running around with my hair on fire trying to convince my straight readers that religious conservatives don't just hate homos. Their attacks on gay people, relationships, parents, and sex get all the press, but the American Taliban has an anti-straight-rights agenda too. As I wrote on March 23: "The GOP's message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to fuck up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no lifesaving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You're going to have those babies, ladies, and you're going to make those child-support payments, gentlemen."

After raising the alarm for months back here in the sex ads, I was gratified to read Russell Shorto's brilliant cover story, The War on Contraception, in the New York Times Magazine last weekend. To readers who think I'm being hysterical: So you don't think the religious right would seriously go after birth control? Fine, don't believe me. But maybe you'll believe Shorto when he lays out the American Taliban's plan to deny access to birth control—any and all types, folks, not just emergency contraception.

"In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex," Shorto writes. "Contraception, by [their] logic, encourages sexual promiscuity, sexual deviance (like homosexuality), and a preoccupation with sex that is unhealthful even within marriage." Shorto quotes Judie Brown, president of the American Life League: "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion. The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set.... We oppose all forms of contraception." And there's this from R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: "I cannot imagine any development in human history, after the Fall, that has had a greater impact on human beings than the pill... Prior to it, every time a couple had sex, there was a good chance of pregnancy. Once that is removed, the entire horizon of the sexual act changes. I think there could be no question that the pill gave incredible license to everything from adultery and affairs to premarital sex and within marriage to a separation of the sex act and procreation."

I'll say it again, breeders: The American Taliban is not just opposed to straight premarital sex, with their abstinence education and hilariously ineffective virginity pledges, or gay sex, with their "ex-gay" campaigns and their anti-gay-marriage amendments. The American Taliban doesn't think married heterosexual couples should be able to use birth control. If you care about your own freedom—not just your right to have premarital sex, but your right to decide whether, when, and how many children you're going to have—you need to read "The War on Contraception." And don't comfort yourself with the notion that these are just some antisex religious wackos: The Bush administration not only listens to these wackos, it appoints them to important positions all over the federal government—and let's not even think about the members of the American Taliban that Bush has already appointed to lifetime positions in the federal judiciary.

This is some serious shit, breeders. You're being attacked. It's time to fight back.

If you're still not convinced that the Christianist kooks are out to control every aspect of your intimate lives at any cost, our good friend eyedoc over at Raging Coconuts has a not-to-be-missed post about why Tony Perkins won't allow his daughter to get a potentially lifesaving cancer vaccine and why he'd be perfectly happy to keep you from it as well.

Good Quetion

The list.

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When did you decide you were heterosexual?

3. Could it be that your heterosexuality is just a phase?

4. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexuality? How did they react?

5. If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?

6. Is it possible that you just haven't found the right same-gender partner yet?

7. Why do you flaunt your lifestyle with wedding rings, photos at work and talk of your heterosexual escapades?

8. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to come on to me, but why do so many heterosexuals try to seduce others to their orientation?

9. Considering the battering, abuse and divorce rate associated with heterosexual coupling, why would you want to enter into that type of relationship?

10. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
_______________________________________________________

Updated 05/20/06

Monitoring some of the neocon "outrage" over this incident has shown up their own hypocrisy. The more offended they pretend to be, the more they demonstrate how pointless these same questions really are. When demanded of homosexuals. A slight nuance I'm sure never crossed their pea brains. Let's sit back and watch some of the fireworks.

First up from Rightwinged, a post titled "More Gay Indoctrination In Schools, Awaiting Discipline For Teachers" the author almost shows signs of understanding the purpose of the exercise. In response to this quote from a newspaper article...

Freshman Jaime Reuter said the survey caused such a stir that, even though her class didn't take the survey, her social studies teacher made it part of a class discussion a couple of days later.

Reuter said she would have been offended if asked to take the survey. "I shouldn't have to answer that because it's private information," she said.

... the Rightwingeder writes, "Right on, who's business is it, and what purpose does this serve?" But then immediately following this insight (and totally ignoring it), opines, "The people didn't want to collect information. They are there to push their agendas. Liberals know when to strike impressionable youths, which is why the liberal virus is so prevalent in schools. This should make everyone sick."

Oh Mr./Mrs./Ms. Rightwinged. You were so close.

As a parting shot, the author makes a vague promise/threat "to tear apart each of these questions..." Well, I'm sure there a lot of gays who would appreciate your hard work on their behalf. So, by all means, have at it!

Next from McBride's Media Matters comes a pearl in response to question #5, "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?" McBride of Frankenstein writes, "This goes farther than just a survey question. It seems to almost advocate for the students to try out homosexuality because - who knows? - they just might not know what they're missing."

What do you know! Imagine how a gay person feels when that question is asked of him/her. McBride?

"Totally outrageous."

You got it and you don't even know you got it.

Matt Margolis of GOP Bloggers apparently feels put upon and unfairly singled out for his heterosexuality and that a survey "that implies that there is something wrong with heterosexuality clearly has an agenda that rightfully so has gotten parents upset. It takes an attitude that heterosexuality is abormal, and yet, teachers seemed to condone it." I presume that last "it" refers to the attitude that heterosexuality is abnormal, not heterosexuality itself.

If so, mission accomplished.

(Except that Matt obviously can't see the irony in his own outrage of course.)

Here's another one that appears to get it. adamelijah of Where I Stand starts out with solid reasoning (even though he's trying to be ironic) with, "Now, this [survey] is the type of thing that liberals will be okay with. After all, the schools are teaching tolerance and that type of virtue is so important, we can spend taxpayer dollars to teach it," but then lapses into typical neocon stoopid with the conclusion, "despite whatever concerns parents have about their kids be propogandized in government funded schools."

Ah yes. Teaching kids to be decent to one another is propaganda. *sigh*

And finally, with Liberty Bell Blues we get a twofer. Dumbbell starts off with the McBride interpretation "that the designers of the survey want to encourage experimentation with homosexuality," and then turns the "choice" argument neatly on it's head (not realizing it of course) with, "But wait -- I thought that people didn't choose it! The prevailing conventional wisdom is that being gay is not a matter of choice."

Thank you dumbbell. Thank you for pointing out the emptiness of the "choice" argument through your mock surprise to this fake question. It shall be a much valued contribution to the gay rights movement. Thank you.

Internet Blackout

Apparently, when our downstairs neighbor moved out last week, RCN inadvertantly disconnected our cable and internet service.

Just now back online.

Pastor Stupid Strikes Again



"Kincaid never ceases to amaze me. Wait, let me change that. He does amaze me."

DL Fister never ceases to amaze me. Wait, let me change that. He does not amaze me. His intellectual prowess can be measured in inverse proportion to his ever-inflating ego, providing some of the most predictable and yet tantalizing low-hanging fruit on the internet.

Why I Think it's Funny when Someone Vehemently Claims that Homosexuality is a "Choice"

Why does it seem such claims are made most forcefully by the Paul Bunyan types — outdoorsy, with a thatch of whiskers you could lose a Hungry Man TV dinner in — or by "ex-gays" on a holy crusade who can only hint coyly in the form of religious koans that as long as they keep shucking the bearded clam they'll have tricked the sky pixie into letting them into the great country club of the hereafter?

I don't need to refer to scientific studies or quote passages from scripture in exploring the hangups these raving bigots have in defining sexual orientation as a choice. I only have to consult the single best authority on sexual preference that I know: me. And all I know is that if Brittany Spears and Ricky Martin are on the same stage, gyrating on my TV (which presumably has the "mute" setting engaged) my eyes will be drawn magnetically to the bead of sweat on Ricky Martin's face as it arcs down his sculpted cheek to the impish, upturned corner of his mouth where a flash of his hypnotic smile urges the droplet to the edge of his chiseled jaw where it darts under his chin and down his muscular neck, slowly curving around to the front to finally come to a rest in the hollow at the base of his throat, the whole time his sinewy body undulating like he's going to climax with the explosive force of firecrackers going off inside a stick of dynamite inserted in a cannonball that's in the nose cone of a nuclear missile detonating under a volcano that's on a planet hurtling to the center of a sun that's about to go supernova. And that alone is enough to nullify the most emphatic "choice" argument.


I've seen enough interviews with
Ricky Martin to know it's the only way.

If one is making a choice between options, one is making a conscious decision. I find my attraction to the same sex automatic, unconscious, natural. I think this is why most thinking people find this insistence on "choice" so fundamentally preposterous. Because it doesn't matter if you are attracted to someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, or sometimes one and sometimes the other — the attraction itself is not a choice.

Take, for example, the Al Franken Show blog troll "LeftWinger" who once claimed he chose his sexual orientation every minute of every day. Note how he unwittingly proves my point for me in this comment:

If I wanted to, I could sleep with a male, but I have chosen to have intimate relationships with females all of my life. If I wanted to, I could easily sleep with a male at sometime in the future, but I really have no desire to do so.
Posted by LeftWinger at 06.17.2004 09.09 PM
(emphasis added)

His "desire" for the opposite sex prevents him from "choosing" to be attracted to the same sex. Neat how that works out.

Which leads me to why it's funny when one of these love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin hypocrites sits down to pound out a little "choice" screed with one hand while picking bits of salisbury steak out of their facial hair with the other.

If I find sexual preference a natural and automatic process based on my personal experience, I can't help but think that the knuckle-draggers' unwavering insistence that sexual preference is a choice is based on their personal experience. Which can only mean that they feel they must choose that which does not come naturally.



This goes a long way towards explaining the "lady doth protest too much, methinks" behavior exhibited in ostensibly "traditional values" blogs and websites so obsessed with homosexuality that they end up being much more about gays than about "traditional values" ("pastor" DL Fister), the voyeuristic tint of lurid sex descriptions which allows these tortured souls to indulge their fantasies under the pretense of condemning them (A Breaking Wind), and even something as simple as providing web links to graphic images or pornography complete with warnings in order to absolve the author of any responsibility (another one out of the DL Fister playbook).



Ultimately, the more vigorously they complain about homosexuality, the more suspect their protests become.

Dubya Bushytail

Nitwit Tidbit III

LaShawn the Barbarian proves once again why she is the Language Fartist...

Just as many witnesses to John F. Kennedy’s murder died under suspicious circumstances, so have witnesses to Slick Willie’s, including Vince Foster, who was the White House deputy counsel when he supposedly blew his brains out in Fort Marcy Park in Virginia.
(emphasis added)

Is there a note of panic in her post? Did she let slip some top secret intel? Does LaShawn possess some terrible knowledge that has doomed her to the same fate as many of the witnesses to JFK's murder? Or is it just that she's a horrible writer?


Two-Fer-One Tuesday

I just noticed this, shall we say, howler on the homepage of the Language Fartist:

"A yawp is a sharp cry or yelp, and the first place I’ve ever saw the word was Walt Whitman’s poem Song of Myself"

Phew! Somebody open a window! LaShawn's been writing again!

Write Your Own Caption



___________________________________________________
For my birthday, my S/O got me the first few seasons of Red Dwarf (a show which I had never before seen, but had heard about). So we've been disappearing into the far reaches of time and space every evening after work to see how Lister and Rimmer and Holly and their cat are doing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Pinky and the Brain, except that I figure we might have some fun writing captions for the picture above until I'm smegging ready to reenter the world of current events.

Fun, fun, fun in the sun, sun, sun!

Chicago City Council Relaxes Zone to Accept Great Erection

The City Council gave developer Christopher Carley and world-renowned architect Santiago Calatrava the zoning change they need to proceed with the $550 million project at 420 E. North Water, opposite Navy Pier.

"He's a great architect. It's really unique and different," Mayor Daley said. "It's a great symbol. We have great skyscrapers here. And they employ a lot of people in construction -- and even afterwards. So, it's great for the city."

Daley has such a great way with words!

All Politics is Loco

"A trial is set to begin Oct. 3 for the mayor and 13 others charged in an investigation of voting fraud and government corruption in a tiny southwest Virginia coal town, the prosecutor in the case said Tuesday.

"Most of the 14 face multiple felony counts in the 269-count indictment that alleges a conspiracy to rig the 2004 council election in Appalachia, a town of less than 2,000."

[...]

"The investigation began after several residents of a government-subsidized housing complex said they were approached by a supporter of one of the candidates and offered cigarettes, liquor and in one case a bag of fried pork skins for their votes."

By SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press Writer

Unclear on the Concept

“Homosexual activist groups like GLN and Rick Garcia’s Equality Illinois call Jim Oberweis a ‘bigot’ merely for supporting the [sic] Protect Marriage Illinois,” [Peter] LaBarbera said. “What is hateful about giving Illinois voters a chance to cast a vote for marriage as one-man, one-woman this November?”

Well, Peter, from your own FAQ (or "FAQS" as it is called on your site -- what does the "S" stand for, I wonder):

Q: Is the definition of marriage an appropriate topic for a constitution?

A: Yes, absolutely. The constitution is a place to enshrine fundamental rights, basic liberties and the limitations of government.

You're absolutely right about what the constitution is for. Unfortunately, a marriage amendment corrupts all three facets you listed. Instead of enshrining fundamental rights and liberties, it restricts rights, effectively stripping liberty from some; instead of limiting government, it would give power to government, enshrining discrimination based on nothing more than a sense of moral disapproval. Legalizing bigotry.

Get it, bigot?

____________________________

Update: Ex-Gay Watch is reporting on how LaBarbera is so disenchanted with the gay-friendly Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Barr Topinka that he says he "may vote for the Constitution Party candidate or simply not vote for governor at all."

The Constitution Party candidate is Randall C. Stufflebeam (presumably having a part in an upcoming J.K. Rowling book), who exclaims in a Freudian slip on his site, "I don't not fear the homosexual!"

The Constitution Party is opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage. That's because they would simply make it illegal to be gay. Ex-Gay Watch notes that "the Party counts white supremacists among its candidates, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

State Fare

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Lambda Legal seeking marriage for same-sex couples. The webcast of the arguments can be seen here. Lambda's case was made by a Mr. Buckle who seemed slightly, but endearingly, nervous. His argument, however, was concise and familiar: the New Jersey Constitution provides protection for all citizens under the law and therefore discriminating against same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

How did the state's argument come off? Well, here's the reaction when confronted with this quote by Sandra Day O'Connor from Lawrence v. Texas: "... we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."



Patrick DeAlmeida: "But she notes that it was moral disapproval with nothing more. Here, the state is asserting something more. It's asserting an interest in maintaining marriage as it has been."



Justice Virginia Long: "Why is that an interest? The interest in maintaining marriage 'as it has been'?"



DeAlmeida: "Because it is such a fundamental institution in society that it is a reasonable thing that the legislature not change it radically. There are some things that make up our society that are so fundamental that a change in them is something that belongs to the elected representatives of the people."



Justice Barry T. Albin: "Didn't Virginia argue that in the Loving case? When they tried to support banning interracial marriage -- in fact criminalizing them?"



DeAlmeida: "They did."


At which point Ogre interjected:


"NERDS!"

So, the next time you hear neo-cons say that you can't make the comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage, just remind them that their side is doing exactly that.

(By the way, Ogre, calm down. That's not Lewis.)

Turnabout is Fair Play

Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

Efforts to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children are emerging across the USA as a second front in the culture wars that began during the 2004 elections over same-sex marriage.

Steps to pass laws or secure November ballot initiatives are underway in at least 16 states, adoption, gay rights and conservative groups say. Some — such as Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky — approved constitutional amendments in 2004 banning gay marriage.

"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," says Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.

_________________________

Ohio lawmaker to propose ban on GOP adoption
BY CARL CHANCELLOR
Knight Ridder Newspapers

AKRON, Ohio - If an Ohio lawmaker's proposal becomes state law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.

State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to "introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents." The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.

On Thursday, the Youngstown Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.

Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.

[...]

To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.

Just as "Hood had no scientific evidence" to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.

Hat tip to InternetJunkie and jillan.

A Brief History of the Gay Cowboy

2006

Willie (ahem) records "Cowboys Are Secretly, Frequently (Fond of Each Other)"
.
.
.

2005

Brokeback Mountain
.
.
.

2003

The Rawhide Kid
.
.
.

1995

Woody. Need I say more?
.
.
.

1989

It was only a rumor, although Troy sure likes his sausage.
.
.
.

1977

Well, duh.
.
.
.

1976

International Gay Rodeo Association
.
.
.

1930
.
.
.

1890
.
.
.

c. 1,000,000 B.C.

High Stakes



Courtesy of vito excalibur.
Hat tip to Cracker Lilo.

Do They also Prescribe Drilling a Hole in Your Head to Release the Evil Spirits?

I guess this sort of quackery is fairly commonplace:

A 36-year old Kissimmee woman who mentioned to her doctor during a routine checkup that she is a lesbian has filed complaints with the Florida Department of Health and CIGNA Healthcare against him and his assistant for advocating she change her sexual orientation.

[...]

The complaints, filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of [Jamie] Beiler, allege that during the March 2005 visit, Dr. Hartman and his medical assistant Dawn Pope-Wright falsely presented their personal beliefs as medical information and provided her with unwanted treatment that has been rejected as ineffective by all major health and mental health organizations.

Said Dr. Hartman in response to the complaints, "I suppose you'd take away my magnets and phrenology maps, too, if they weren't aprooooooved by the elitists at the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers and found to actually be harmful like reparative therapy has been. What? What do you mean they're -- Dawn! Hide the leeches!"

***

A little side note on trepanation. While doing some browsing for information on the practice, I found the diary (warning: graphic pictures) of a gentleman who decided to partake in a home-trepanation procedure in order to derive anticipated mind-expanding benefits. Here's an entry from some undisclosed amount of time after the procedure:

When I take in much caffeine or THC, I feel flashes of heat from within my head. They happen in different parts of my head each time, always on top, but never by the hole itself. The first time it happened, when I was in a car with a friend, pulling a big bong hit, I started to feel the heat in my head and I heard a squirt sound inside my head. At first, I silently panicked (what's the past tense of panic?). I thought to myself, "Am I having a hemorrhage in the brain or something? Is the sensation about to get more intense in general? Am I OK?", but then it passed and I was fine. I still feel the heat in the head sensations now, very regularly, and sometimes now even when not smoking pot or drinking coffee.

And, actually, the procedure can be gauged a success when you compare that to the pre-op entry in the diary: "Me want hole in head. So me can get fuck better. What is past tense of fuck?"


Oh! And yes, I know that leeches actually have modern medical uses. But they will forever be an icon of weird, outmoded ways of illogically "curing" people. And their use as a comedic gag cannot be denied. ;-)

They Love to Hurt

Some activists in Colorado are campaigning to propose an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage.

The group's president, Bishop Phillip H. Porter Jr., said the group was acting with "the love of a mother, the gentle guidance of a caring father" to preserve marriage and protect children.

He said the proposed amendment was not about hatred toward gay people.

"We can have it (love). We are all called to have that love even when it hurts us, even when it hurts others," said Porter, of All Nations Church of God in Christ in Aurora, a Pentecostal church.

I ask that the "bishop" hurt himself with his love all he wants but to please keep his love off me if it's going to hurt me. I'm not into that S&M stuff like you crazy pentecostals.

Thank you.

Can't You Feel the Love?

Well, the strain of trying to argue against well reasoned, sympathetic and charismatic posters who use overpowering logic has finally caught up to the dear "pastor":

I can forsee [sic] the guillotine being brought back as an acceptable form of punishment to people who refuse to accept the mark of the homosexual in their forehead. Looks like the gay community is getting a lot of practice pulling the lever.
--"pastor" DL Foster

Frankly, I think that the "pastor" should be worried more about the mark of the lack of gray matter in his forehead. I predict yet another purging of the comments on his blog (he does it about once every six weeks) so that he can forget about all the nasty business of being corrected with those inconvenient facts that commenters keep leaving for him.

And if you're wondering, the "lever" that the "gay community" is pulling in reality takes the form of a poster promoting tolerance. Yup, in Dipshit Lobotomy Fosterland, there's nothing worse than people getting along together.

Just When You Think He Can't Get Any Dumber

Well, Republican Git is all full of smarmy good cheer because Georges Sada, a former top military adviser to Saddam Hussein, has just revealed that a certain infamous, war mongering ideologue made a visit to Baghdad in the mid-1980s.

And although RG is the fastest copy-paster in the west, I have scooped him. It turns out that no less than Saddam Hussein himself met with this nefarious schemer and I have obtained photographic evidence of the visit:




Oh nuts! He was actually talking about another nefariously scheming, infamous, war mongering ideologue.

"Not [sic] ties with Iraq to bin Laden, right Libertards?"

(I always think of the French Revolution when he uses that made-up word. But in Spanish: Libertad, Igualdad, Fraternidad.)

Aaaaanyhoo, if bin Laden visited Baghdad in the eighties, um, so what? Why does Republican Git attach any significance to it with regard to showing up "libertards"? In the eighties, bin Laden could have been a gold card member of the Baghdad rape-room circuit and the U.S. wouldn't have cared. We were just happy that he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Heck, he probably had fun-money in his pocket from the CIA that came from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency.

Oh! I know what a "libertard" is! It's a liberated leotard!



That it, RG?

"But then again, we all know libertards and the left wing of this country are allergic to what Generals have to say."

No. Just former generals of Saddam Hussein. But if you want to align yourself with that crowd, be my guest. Just allow me to take a few steps back first so's I don't get any of the secondary splash on me from the rancid pig entrails hurled in your direction as you loudly proclaim your loyalty to Saddam Hussein's generals.

"Kind of like how our generals say we need to retain or place more troops in Iraq, yet the libertards blame President Bush for not 'pulling everyone out.'"

(Tard-itty, tardtardtard! I bet RG is one of those blow hards that has to repeat over and over the punchline to a joke he just heard to everyone who was also present. "Only 1500 went down on the Titanic? Hee-haw! Only 1500 went down on the Titanic! Hoo boy that's a gut buster all right! Only 1500 went down on the Titanic!"*)

Actually, RG, I was thinking of "kind of like how" our generals (that's the United States of America's, not Iraq's -- I know you get a little confused about that, your liking Saddam's generals over our own and all) said we needed more troops in Iraq. And as far as blaming Bush for not pulling out . . . I do blame George Bush Sr. for not pulling out. I can't help but imagine this would have been a much better world for it.


*FYI: The set up to that joke is, "What's the difference between Bill Clinton and the Titanic?"

Panic Attacked

Some good news out of California:

The California Assembly late Thursday passed legislation to limit the use of the so-called gay panic defense.

If a defense attorney attempted to use the argument that a client committed a crime out of panic because the victim were gay or trans[gender] a judge would be required to instruct the jury that the use of societal bias, including so-called "panic strategies," to influence the proceedings of a criminal trial is inconsistent with the public policy of the State of California.

The law was enacted in response to the attack and killing of Gwen Araujo by three men who, after having sex with the teen, then discovered that she was transgender. The defense attorneys argued that their clients' charges should be reduced from first- or second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter because they had simply acted out of panic. I guess she was "asking for it", eh boys?

Fortunately, the (second) jury (after a mistrial) saw through this weak ploy and found two of the three men guilty of second-degree murder. The jury deadlocked on the third and he eventually pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter.

I find this to be a lucid indictment of the canard that hate crimes legislation necessarily requires "reading the mind" of defendants, not to mention the contention that such legislation is "not needed". It's hard to make that argument when the accused use their hatred for their victim as their main defense.

Calling Her Bluff

Recently, LaShawn the Barbarian (© Red Tory ) threw down the most odd gauntlet:

I challenge all bloggers (and journalists) who criticized Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for “divine retribution” statements to jump on New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin for making similar statements.

Okay, Barbi. Here goes. . .

Yup. It sounds just as stupid when Ray Nagin says it as when those other two nuts-of-a-sack say it.

Now I have a question. Why in the world would LaShawn consider this a "challenge"?

In her twisted little world, all liberals hang together and must defend their own no matter what. Logic be damned! We must send the same, consistent message that conservatives are bad no matter what. One is tempted to call this "projection". In her little fantasy, liberals will stand by the message even unto the humiliation of bowing to the superior intellect of the Barbarian. I picture her daydreaming of headlines on Fox News: "Liberals Foiled by LaShawn Barber, the Tom Tancredo of Bloggers!". The poor thing must get tired, knocking down straw men all day. Too bad her wittle bwain got so overheated that she decided it would be a good idea to invite others along to point this fact out to her.

There is a hint in her (rather short) post as to another agenda. She rails against the "leftist media, the godless (and Democrats), and non-Bible-reading Christians (including bloggers)" -- the usual suspects in other words. Except that she tips her hand at he end of the list there. The insinuation being that "non-Bible-reading Christians" is shorthand for "non-interpreting-the-Bible-the-same-as-I Christians", those who do interpret it correctly (according to LaShawn) being the aforementioned gonad brothers. This sort of hubris is nothing new, of course -- our resident "pastor", D.L. Foster, is a prime example -- but what is so funny/frightening (or, "funghtening") is that LaShawn doesn't see how similar she is to the "Islamofascists" she constantly chides on her blog.

Truly the blind leading the blind.