- Gianni Vattimo, A Farewell to Truth, Columbia University Press, 2011 pp 59-60
thanks to BG for this insightful post.
A personal blog by a graying (mostly Anglo with light African-American roots) gay left leaning liberal progressive married college-educated Buddhist Baha'i BBC/NPR-listening Professor Emeritus now following the Dharma in Minas Gerais, Brasil.
First of all the Sisters would like to thank Peter La Barbaria for all the free publicity he is providing for our Hunky Jesus Contest. Even in the most reactionary communities and families there are brilliant young queer children aching for something truly revolutionary, a chance to be utterly glamorous, and to royally piss off their uptight, puritanical parents. The Sisters often declare their love for Peter and especially appreciate Mr. LaBabar's effectiveness in getting news and images of the Sisters to those children. Of course we don't hate anybody, but his saying we do is a great way to grab the interest of angry resentful children, and we have much experience in helping GLBT youngsters work through their anger to find a more joyous spiritual path.Read the Sisters' full message.
However, as much as Mr. La Barbarella is promoting our appeal to rebellious youth, it is not really our intention or purpose to offend Christians. Many of our friends and fans are Christians as are some of the Sisters. It's not even our intention or purpose to offend uptight, humorless prigs, though we often do so by suggesting that the Deity has a sense of humor. After all, God created a garden of paradise for us, declared His/Her love for us, and created such laughably bizarre creatures as the platypus, the naked mole rat, and Sarah Palin. But our mission is not to offend. Rather we are dedicated to the expiation of stigmatic guilt and the promulgation of universal joy. Still, we do understand that any sort of liberating theology is offensive to those who want to keep others under their thumbs. Offending prudes and tyrants is not our purpose, but we consider it a bit of a bonus.
Dharun Ravi, a former Rutgers University student, was indicted on 15 counts including charges of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation and tampering with evidence by a grand jury in Middlesex County, N.J. Prosecutors allege that not only did Ravi invade Clementi's privacy, but he tried to cover it up. Both Ravi and his alleged accomplice, former Rutgers student Molly Wei, are accused of filming Clementi during a "sexual encounter" in his dorm room with a man and then streaming it live on the Internet. Evidence against Wei has not yet been presented to a grand jury. Prosecutors allege that on Sept. 19 of last year, Ravi filmed Clementi with the purpose of intimidating him because of his sexual orientation. Ravi "disclosed a photograph, film, videotape, recording or other reproduction of the image of [Clementi]...whose intimate parts were exposed," the indictment reads. When Ravi became worried about being charged with a crime, he sent false tweets in an attempt "to mislead a public servant who was engaged in such proceeding or investigation," the indictment reads.Clementi's parents have released a statement applauding today's charges.
Republican candidates, who have placed less emphasis on gay marriage in recent years, probably cannot expect their opposition to it to be a net electoral positive for them except in select circumstances. If support for gay marriage were to continue accelerating as fast as it has in the past two years, supporters would outnumber opponents roughly 56-40 in the general population by November 2012. Past trends, of course, are no guarantee of future ones, and it’s always possible that the momentum toward increasing support for gay marriage could flatten out or even reverse itself. But this does put Republicans in a tricky position. Their traditional position on gay marriage is becoming less popular. But to the extent they disengage from the issue, they may lose even more ground. One way to read the trends of the past few years is that we have passed an inflection point wherein it is no longer politically advantageous for candidates to oppose same-sex marriage, which in turn softens opposition to it among the general public, creating a sort of feedback loop and accelerating the trend.
In order to defend discrimination by any means necessary, House Republican leaders have contracted with the law firm King & Spalding at the rate of $520 an hour to argue that they’re right to deny recognition to legally married couples, according to the contract made public today. The document caps the cost at $500,000 but can easily be increased upon further negotiations with the firm. “DOMA inflicts a great cost on same-sex couples but now its defense is burdening taxpayers to the tune of $520 per hour,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “The firm of King & Spalding and their attorney Paul Clement should be ashamed at every penny earned in trying to justify discrimination against American families.” There are currently at least nine cases challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA which bars federal recognition of marriages between same-sex couples. If the House were to intervene in all nine that would mean less than 100 billable hours would be spent per case in order to hit the $500,000 cap.Where are the jobs?
There were no “cruel, cruel” remarks. All I can ponder is that Alan Simpson is talking about a comment that I made, which I paraphrased, almost word for word, but paraphrased a Supreme Court justice in a case called Lawrence v. Texas, before that case came out, which had to do with, as you know, a Supreme Court case on the issue of sodomy, and I said that if you have -- if the Supreme Court changes the legal standard to say that sexual -- consensual sexual activity is now a constitutional right, then we open up the gates for all sorts of consensual activity. It’s not homophobic. It’s a legal argument, and it’s a correct legal argument. In fact, that’s exactly what’s happening. We went from Lawrence v. Texas to now a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and they’re going into a constitutional right to polyamorous relationships. This is the slippery slope that we’re heading down, and I stand by it.Click over to Equality Matters for an audio file.