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.