Posted: 10 Aug 2010 07:15 PM PDT by the Atheist Camel  Recently Tony raged against the overturning of Prop 8 in California. He made these two statements: "The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is." "FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. http://www.frc.org/newsroom/frc-criticizes-court-ruling-warns-against-the-roe-v-wade-of-same-sex-marriage “Protect marriage”? Protect it from what exactly? My marriage doesn’t require his protection, whose does? I understand protecting children from clergy pedophiles, but how does one protect a word or concept from evolving, and why? Like all religious extremists Tony is living in denial. The "historic definition" of any word in the English lexicon evolves. I suppose he’s still wringing his hands over the evolved “historic definition” of the word "gay." He and his ilk must have accepted it, since I don't hear any of them saying things like "I'm feeling quite gay today." I imagine they stay up nights bemoaning the evolution of the word “awful,” which once meant “deserving of awe.” Sorry Tony, but just like language, cultural mores evolve. Women can now own property – historically & biblically they couldn't. People can’t own slaves – historically and biblically they could. Inter racial couples can now marry - historically they couldn't. Being gay, committing adultery, and working on the “Sabbath” is no longer punishable by death - historically & biblically it was. Inter racial marriage was once deemed to be in violation of God's plan. You'll get used to gay marriage, Tony, just like you've gotten used to, or at least grudgingly accepted, these other examples of cultural evolution.. I keep asking why religionists insist on forcing selected / cherry picked ancient Hebraic admonishments on society. How does the evolution away from these things directly negatively affect their lives, their freedoms? Why don't they rage just as much against people wearing mixed fiber clothes (Lev. 19:19), or boiling a kid goat in it's mother's milk (Exodus 23:14-19) and demand constitutional amendments to enforce them? In the absence of a satisfactory response the only answer I can come up with is hypocrisy and hate born of the religious virus. But it doesn't matter. In 5 or 6 years gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. And in 100 to 300 years the Christian churches will apologize for their homophobic hysteria , just like they apologized for Galileo's persecution, burning of heretics, the Inquisition, and the impact of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism on Europe. It just takes them that long to catch up to humanity.  |
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Those Damn Homos are Changing Word Definitions! Stop Them NOW!
via This Is What I Think: Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
A brilliant playwright (and close personal friend of mine) recently sent this editorial out regarding Prop 8. I thought I'd share.Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode (Californian)
About a decade ago, as a young playwright, I was hired to write a script for the Renaissance Festival of Kansas City. It was a period piece about knights and jousts and intrigues of the court, building up to a lavish royal wedding between a prince and a princess, restoring peace to the troubled land.
This was one of my first professional writing assignments, so I was really excited about doing all the research and making sure that everything was historically accurate, especially the royal wedding which needed to follow all the traditions exactly.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Via SacBee: Judge to rule on stay Thursday in Prop. 8 case
Read more
Via 365gay: Costa Rica court blocks gay civil union referendum
(San Jose, Costa Rica) Costa Rica’s top court has blocked the electoral tribunal from holding a referendum that would have let voters decide if same-sex civil unions should be allowed in the Central American country. The Constitutional Court’s 5-2 decision released Tuesday says such a referendum would put a minority at a disadvantage in a largely Roman Catholic country. It also says gay civil unions is a legislative issue and not an electoral one.
The court says it considers homosexuals a group that is at a disadvantage and the target for discrimination, requiring government authorities to protect their rights.
The electoral tribunal had planned to hold the referendum Dec. 5, when Costa Rica also is holding municipal elections.
The court says it considers homosexuals a group that is at a disadvantage and the target for discrimination, requiring government authorities to protect their rights.
The electoral tribunal had planned to hold the referendum Dec. 5, when Costa Rica also is holding municipal elections.
Via JMG: HomoQuotable - Jonathan Rauch
"Walker was right to say that separate isn't equal. Civil unions are hardly ideal. But his decision treats civil unions as if they were trivial or worthless. By refusing to give them any weight and declaring them not just inadequate as a matter of policy but prohibited as a matter of law, Walker uses the Constitution to put compromise out of bounds. [snip]"So I think the decision is a radical one, but not, ironically, as it pertains to homosexuality or to marriage. No, Walker's radicalism lies elsewhere: In his use of the Constitution to batter the principles of its two greatest exponents - Madison and Abraham Lincoln, a Burkean who was steadfast in his belief that ideals must be leavened with pragmatism.
"History will, I believe, vindicate Walker's view of marriage. Whether it will see him as having done gay rights a favor is less clear. For all its morally admirable qualities, his decision sets the cause of marriage equality crosswise with moderation, gradualism and popular sovereignty. Which, in America, is a dangerous place to be." - Jonathan Rauch, writing for the New York Daily News. Rauch, who gay-married in Washington DC in June, is the co-founder of the homocon site, Independent Gay Forum.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Via 365gay: Calif. seeks tax equity for gay married couples
The California legislature passed a resolution asking the IRS to tax same-sex spouses and domestic partners the same way it taxes heterosexual married couples.
The resolution, AJR29, passed the Assembly 59 to 2 on Monday.
The taxes of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California before Proposition 8 passed are quite complicated because while their state taxes can be filed as the married couples they are, their federal taxes cannot.
The Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal recognition of these marriages, which extends to taxation.
Assembly member Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) authored the resolution.
“I commend the IRS for affirming that domestic partners have the same community property rights as heterosexual spouses. Now it needs to ensure that same-sex married couples can enjoy the same protections from unfairly high taxes. I urge the IRS to respect California law and honor the rights of California’s same sex couples,” said Feuer.
Mario Guerrero a spokesperson from Equality California said, “All married couples deserve to be taxed fairly and appropriately, regardless of their sexual orientation.”
The taxes of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California before Proposition 8 passed are quite complicated because while their state taxes can be filed as the married couples they are, their federal taxes cannot.
The Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal recognition of these marriages, which extends to taxation.
Assembly member Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) authored the resolution.
“I commend the IRS for affirming that domestic partners have the same community property rights as heterosexual spouses. Now it needs to ensure that same-sex married couples can enjoy the same protections from unfairly high taxes. I urge the IRS to respect California law and honor the rights of California’s same sex couples,” said Feuer.
Mario Guerrero a spokesperson from Equality California said, “All married couples deserve to be taxed fairly and appropriately, regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Via 365gay: Calif. seeks tax equity for gay married couples
The California legislature is urging the IRS to enforce tax laws equally to all married couples in the state.
Via 365gay:What's next: Can the Prop 8 decision be appealed?
Gay Californians are waiting to hear if there will continue to be a stay on their right to marry. It may depend on the possibility of appeal. Read more here...
Via Box Turtle: Name That Bar
When not inventing drag queen names, my partner and I have a road-trip game where we invent small town gay bar names. Past nominees included Winks, Rumors, Just Friends, Club Innuendo — you get the idea. A Fox News host announced that he would open a gay bar near the proposed “ground zero mosque” (so named even though the mosque is blocks away from ground zero). Andrew Sullivan noted that the bar would need a name, and posted some of his reader’s suggestions:
I have to say I’d definitely go into a bar called Jihard. “Who’s Your Baghdaddi?” isn’t bad either. Infidel-ity is too upscale – that should be a piano bar playing only Gershwin. Halal Sailor: a little retro. Dicka Dicka Dicka should be a sex club. The Sixth Pillar is a little T.E. (but could definitely add a little upper-class English S&M for spice). imam4imam should be a website. Men-R-It is a nice play on minaret, but way too subtle. TGI Thursdays is a classic.Go here to see his winning bar name. Sully suggests that Anderson Cooper’s partner would be the perfect manager.
Via JMG: American Bar Association Announces Support For Marriage Equality
The 410,000 member 132-year old American Bar Association, arguably the most influential legal group in the world, has announced its firm support for same-sex marriage. The Advocate reports:In a resolution adopted less than one week after a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, the group acknowledges that same-sex couples "are only seeking to participate in an equal basis in a foundational institution of our civil life," former ABA president Tommy Wells told the organization's house of delegates. "They simply want to share in the legal blessings that we give to married couples. It can only strengthen marriage.”The ABA's statement: "RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."r
eposted by Joe
Via Kermit: Wildflower of the week “Gay Penstemon”
In recognition of the California Supreme Court’s overturning of that state’s Proposition 8--which had banned same-sex marriage, the wildflower of the week (this week) is Gay Penstemon. Gay Penstemon, or Penstemon laetus, occurs in southern Oregon from Josephine to Klamath Counties and also extends south into California (of course). The word Penstemon means five threads, or five stamens—however, one in every five stamens of every flower never fertilizes anything.
The species epithet “laetus” is from Latin meaning gay, pleasing, abundant, or joyful. Or in the words of Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, (as reported on August 4, in the Christian Science Monitor) "We rejoice at today's decision ..." http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0804/Proposition-8-federal-judge-overturns-California-gay-marriage-ban
Unlike people, flowers that are both male and female are termed “perfect”. Botanists describe flowers that are only male, or only female, as “imperfect”. Like all other non-gay Penstemons, botanists have always described Gay Penstemon too, as having “perfect” flowers.
Via Bilerico: The Real Che Guevara
The hero worship of Che Guevara has always irritated me to no end. While Che's life has been romanticized, it's often forgotten that he was a ruthless executioner who reinforced brutal militarism and internecine conflict for many years in Latin America. Imagine my delight to find these pictures from NYC at Andrew Sullivan's blog.
Continue reading "The Real Che Guevara" »
Continue reading "The Real Che Guevara" »
Monday, August 9, 2010
Via JMG: Christianists Call For Shatner Boycott
The Parents Television Council is calling for a boycott of William Shatner's new show, $#*! My Dad Says, because the title implies a naughty word. Last week the group sent letters to hundreds of advertisers demanding that they not support the show. "Parents really do care about profanity when their kids are watching TV," said PTC President Tim Winter. "All parents? No, but something like 80 or 90 percent of parents. Putting an expletive in the title of a show is crossing new territory, and we can't allow that to happen on our watch." Winter's letter to companies asks bluntly: "When you advertise on television, do you want your customers to associate your product with (bleep)?" His letter uses the expletive, not the word "bleep." Winter uses the real word 10 times in two pages. But how much do parents care? Parental concern about profane language on TV is clearly waning, according to the Rasmussen Reports pollsters. Rasmussen's survey of 1,000 American adults taken July 27-28 found that 57 percent said there was too much inappropriate content on television and radio. Sex and violence is the main concern; only 9 percent of those polled pointed to profanity as the biggest problem area.The title of the show, of course, derives from the best-selling book Shit My Dad Says. If the show is a fraction as funny as the book is, we've got a winner.
Last night was another cornerstone in my ongoing saga for personal reawakening
Last nite I sat at the Sacramento Buddhist Mediation Group (SBMG), it meets in the Congregation B'nai Israel Synagogue. Last night they had a 20 minute (normally 40) but cut it short to have a sharing circle. The sitting had about 45 people, the circle had 30… I didn’t have to, nor did I want to share, this being my first time, I just needed to listen, to be quiet. I was deeply moved by the consultation, love and tolerance – age, gender, race. The way the group shared their ideas on the theme – detachment, was deeply moving to me. They are very, very simple, 3 hits on a bell, and silence…
Since coming out, and doing work with GLBT issues in the Baha’i community, I have hidden under a rock, under a mistaken belief that I could act as a isolated believer in a very hostile country. When they came after me anyway… it gave me great pause. I dearly love Baha’u’llah, but his community is a mess, and well “by the fruits”.
Since 1976 I have been told things like don’t judge the revelation by the community, now I wonder what is keeping things from moving, maybe it’s just a nice idea, but it doesn’t work. There really isn’t, after all these years, much at all to show for the effort, (ok some marginally nice gardens here and there) other than a lot of disillusioned former Baha’is and a some very arrogant “much a about do nothings”. It remains a rather insignificant mean-spirited cult, at least as far as I have experienced it, and if it disappeared (as it has here in Sacramento) wouldn’t be noticed or missed at all.
Since 1976 I have been told things like don’t judge the revelation by the community, now I wonder what is keeping things from moving, maybe it’s just a nice idea, but it doesn’t work. There really isn’t, after all these years, much at all to show for the effort, (ok some marginally nice gardens here and there) other than a lot of disillusioned former Baha’is and a some very arrogant “much a about do nothings”. It remains a rather insignificant mean-spirited cult, at least as far as I have experienced it, and if it disappeared (as it has here in Sacramento) wouldn’t be noticed or missed at all.
I thought that by being open and out about my loss of rights something could happen. Initially I received a lot of encouragement… but it has been counter balanced by the silence, the indifference, arrogance, bigotry and homophobia of the Baha’is themselves. There is so much dysfunction both in the straight Baha’i response, and within the GLBT Baha’is that it has become a real spiritual burden. I can no longer deal with my anger, pain, the bigotry and the homophobia others have thrown at me. I am just not strong enough.
I cannot do this alone like this any longer, and on a day to day community level, it’s just not enough to recharge my batteries. The Baha’i Faith despite asking for a lot, have offered nothing for a very, very long time. It appears that I have been attached to some hope, some pie in the sky dream… and suddenly woke up. I feel a little silly for having held on to it for so long.
Last nite showed me that I no longer need to do this any longer. I am in need of some community and nurturing, yet not a lot of odd rules or structure. SBMG has been around for a couple of decades, and does not seem nutty or fanatical, or all “new agey”, or wrapped up in the “how to do it” which is also kind of nice as well. They seem like a diverse bunch of solid, nice people, who enjoy sitting in silence once a week in community. They rather operate like a feast (but it works!) some news, someone takes a turn at leading the meditation / watching the clock, etc. there is no clergy. They told the new folks and visitors about themselves briefly – that the tradition is not to approach people unless you invited them to (I did) that they do not want to get bogged down by bowing and stuff… and that they do invite people to come from a number of Buddhist traditions and communities to share technique and ideas.
After it was all over, and we were putting the pillows and chairs back, I approached the man who welcomed us and introduced the timekeeper, and we talked. He asked me if it was my first time with them “yes!” He asked me how I found out about Buddhism, and told him about being attracted to it for many years, and then when I was in Kathmandu living near Boudhanath Stupa I really was able to become quiet… he shared about his wife and his trips there… and we talked a bit about what we both saw and learned. It was very nice. For some odd reason I also added that I had been thrown out of the Baha’i community, and was searching for a quiet place to rid myself of my anger and hurt… He almost started to cry, put his hand on my arm, looked up at me and said, “You will find that you are most welcome here”.
I cried all the way home.
Not sure why I am sharing this, other than I feel I made a major break thru last nite, in so far as healing. And to say, that the Baha’is seem more and more irrelevant to me, and how sad I am about having to let go of it.
I am going to return to this sangha. I recognize that I am really very damaged and reluctant to be around any organized religious expression. But for me, and I can only say this works for me, there is something helpful about sitting in silence with 45 other people. I don’t know where this is taking me, but I need to rid myself of the toxic anger that is threatening to consume me re: Baha’i, my family, my work, and the general condition of the country before I move abroad… so who knows, for now I will focus on quieting the voices, and simplifying things a bit.
Maitreya Buddha protect us all!
Via JMG: Where Do Things Stand On Prop 8?
After Friday's late afternoon filings by Gov. Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown, many are unsure of what could happen next. Karen Ocamb asks Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal:
While many legal analysts thought that Judge Walker was likely to grant the stay pending appeal, Friday’s filings have dramatically changed the likelihood of that. The standards for when a stay or a trial court’s order pending appeal are well-settled. In order to be entitled to such a stay, the party seeking the stay has to make a “strong showing” that the party is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal and also has to show that that party will be irreparably injured if there is no stay. In addition, courts consider whether the issuance of a stay will substantially injure other parties and where the public interest lies. Normally, it is the party ordered to do or not do something that seeks a stay. This is an unusual situation, however, because the parties whom Judge Walker ordered not to enforce Proposition 8 have asked him not to stay his order while the appeal proceeds. [snip]The Ninth Circuit Court has tentatively scheduled to hear Protect Marriage's opening appeal brief on November 12th, but that date could be delayed upon request. Davidson questions whether Protect Marriage actually has the legal right to file an appeal at all.
Even if he denies the proponents’ stay pending appeal, Judge Walker might extend his temporary stay for a brief period of time (a week or so) in order to give the proponents time to ask for a stay from the Ninth Circuit while there’s a temporary stay in place. If he does not do that, the proponents are likely to file a request for an emergency stay from the appellate court. The Ninth Circuit would then apply the same test as Judge Walker did in deciding whether or not to issue a stay of Judge Walker’s order pending the appeal. If they deny a stay as well, the proponents could ask Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (who reviews such matters arising out of the Ninth Circuit) to issue a stay pending the appeal. If he also denies a stay, the proponents could seek a stay from the full Supreme Court.
So far, the government-defendants in the case have not appealed. Given what they have said in their oppositions to the stay request, it seems likely that they will not. If that happens, there will be a legal question of whether, when those who are ordered to do something don’t appeal, someone not ordered to do anything has any right to appeal. To understand this, one has to appreciate a few things about federal courts.
Federal courts can only hear cases where there is what’s called a “case or controversy.” They can’t issue advisory opinions about issues just because parties may have an abstract dispute with one another. Rather, in order to be able to pursue an appeal, a party has the burden of showing that it has “a direct stake in the outcome” and has been injured by the ruling in a concrete manner that is particularized to that party and different from citizens at large who may not like the judge’s ruling. In a previous case, the U.S. Supreme Court said it had “grave doubts” about whether proponents of a ballot initiative limiting government action who had been allowed to intervene in a case can pursue an appeal when the initiative has been found unconstitutional and the government does not appeal.
Labels: California, Lambda Legal, marriage equality, Proposition 8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)