Marriage Equality: The Camel’s Back Snaps

Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional, Irrational is an old piece of mine published at LA Progressive.  Today, a comment came from a religiously motivated ‘phobe who is under the mistaken notion that the US is a theocracy, and… well, let’s just say this misguided fellow child of the Creator picked the wrong day to mess with me. 

First, check out the Jim Crow proponent’s comment (name withheld because I respect his humanity more than he respects mine).

JCP:   I support marriage as a religious union and I also support civil unions. I am far from anti gay, I had a gay organist play the music at my wedding. I have had dinners at a gay club. I have a child who has a same sex partner and while they are of the same sex, they are not of the same ethnicity, which causes an additional problem in our current social order. Both of them feel as I do, that marriage is a “religious term”. This couple and their parents agree that strong civil unions, a secular joining outside the church is needed to provide equal rights. Civil unions should have the same legal privileges as marriages but not the same name. I also contacted a gay cousin for an opinion and got the same answers.

My family supports marriage as a religious term that declares that one man and one woman have joined as one before God and their church membership. If the term marriage is used outside of it’s original religious intent, then government is diluting a religious act.

All of my family members feel that some gays want the term “marriage” so much that they do not pursue the much more attainable solution of social unions performed under state law and outside of the church. Such a union could quickly be available in all states where as “gay marriage” is going to take a lot longer in places like the south.

I have another minority group in my family, Quakers. I have an observation about the minority members of my family, one group invites an invasion and the other group would require some converts in order to repopulate itself. How do gays become parents? If one or both would agree to carry a fetus to term I would have more warm feelings towards gays. What would happen to a country composed of only gays or Quakers? One group can not replace the population of the country and the other group can not defend it, yet my family has done both. My family members agree that a country could not survive if it were composed of only either of these two minorities.

Viel Gluck to all

My turn.

NR Davis:  Sounds like “Some of my best friends are gay, so I can’t be a homophobe.” [And apparently self-hating gays, to boot.] 

Screw that.

Let’s just agree that you are un-American and opposed to legal equality for all citizens and save the rest.

Brown v. Board of Education. Separate but equal is NOT equal. Separate but equal is UNconstitutional. And immoral.

Period.

Your religious views are yours. Period. They don’t belong in civil law. Period.

And if you expect people to accept inequality peacefully or quietly and to continue to endure the secular government punishing us because of your religious views, think again, pal.

Why should I pay taxes if I am unequal under law???

Why should I accept it — for *your* sake?

Think again.

Until the philosophy that holds one group superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, it’s war. Period. [Thanks, Bob Marley. I’m standing up for my rights.] 

You’re in my prayers. No one wants to withhold equality from you, but not only do YOU wish to do that to ME, you [expect] me to accept it. Which means that in addition to being un-American, your position is INSANE.

If what you say is so — it patently is not — then hets who marry in courthouses should be limited to civil union. And church weddings should hold NO legal status. [And no tax exemption.]

If you get civil marriage, so should I. That’s the American way. Otherwise, America is a vile, mendacious construct.

And let’s be honest: You don’t want equality; you want SUPREMACY. And that is just evil on every level. Shame on you.

Do I sound rude? I am not taking anything from you, buster. And I refuse to kowtow to your ilk anymore. I’ve had it. 

 

I know my right-wing friends and loved ones don’t like the word “ilk,” but the shoe fits. I don’t like second-class status and am forced to suffer that indignity day in, day out, year after year. Who has it worse?

Watch — I’ll be called the bad one. Be nice to your oppressor — including the new president — no matter what, right?

Screw that. I’m not trying to take his rights away. If anyone owes an apology JCP does — to me and to the millions human beings he feels should be less than him under civil law because his god says so.

Cheers to New Hampshire! Six states down, 44 to go. And we’re comin’ for ya, bigoted 44. It’s war. Nonviolent war, but war.  A loving war, but war. The second-class citizens — those who don’t hate themselves — have had it up to here. We’re done.

Advice to those, who like me, live under the majority’s boot: Be good and kind and fair to everyone, but do not accept inferior status. Do not capitulate to their terms. Those who align with the Religious Wrong and its theocratic tyranny over the secular arena don’t deserve superiority and supremacy. Period. They deserve equality and fairness — and so do we, whether their god likes it or not.

No justice, no peace.  And, if you can take the risk, no taxation without equality.

Debate: The Scold and Mr. Steady

Great debate analysis by veteran broadcaster and five-time Golden Mike Award winner Mary Lyon over at LA Progressive: 

McCain did not proclaim himself “The Scold,” per se, but that’s how he behaved. Multiple times, he pushed the same statement – that Obama “doesn’t get it,” or “doesn’t understand.” Repetition is a very effective and compelling tactic in advancing any argument – as we’ve seen from the track record of the Bush administrationand its many apologists and spinners. From the rationale for war to the justification for spying, looting, cheating, torturing, and shredding the Constitution, if they can repeat something often enough, it seems to become a de facto truth in the management of overall public perception. That, combined with McCain’s gruff facial expressions, his occasional dismissive smirks, and his failure to look Obama in the eye, might leave a slight taste of arrogance and contempt. It also did not serve McCain that while he looked somewhat pasty and pale, the strobing effect of his narrowly striped tie was distracting and discomfiting.

… Barack Obama scored points just by showing up. Foreign policy is regarded more as McCain’s most comfortable turf. But Obama had answers, strong statements, and comebacks for virtually every attack McCain threw at him. FINALLY, Obama made the point I’ve been waiting for SOMEONE to make about McCain’s constant lovemaking with the surge in Iraq. “John, you like to pretend that the war started in 2007.” Indeed, it bears repeating, ad nauseam, that the Iraq debacle began in 2003 and only recently evolved to something slightly less than gag-worthy, even if it still hasn’t achieved its stated political objectives. It was also worth bringing up, several times, how crucial presidential judgment will be in the international challenges our country will face in the next four years – especially those which have been caused by the nearly incomprehensible bungling of the last seven-and-some years.

… I would have liked Obama to go for the jugular a little more, but there was one thing that served him very well – if perhaps a little on the too-subtle side. After the last few days we’ve spent watching John McCain flail about, in and out of Washington, in or out of his campaign, in or out of the debate, it was a refreshing contrast to see Obama’s poise, steady stability, and unflappability. There was one candidate who looked presidential on stage at Ole Miss, and another candidate who looked excitable and sputtering. With the volatility everywhere, from the markets to the Middle East, Obama appeared commanding, comfortable with the issues and with his stand on them. Every time McCain declared him naïve or inexperienced or lacking in understanding, Obama had a comeback that knocked that premise down.

Read it:

The Ole Miss Debate: Whose Opening Advantage?

Is Palin “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive & Mean”?

UPDATED – Be sure to read the followup rebuttal!

Wow, wow, wow. I just had a conversation with my mom a couple of days about things little birdies have been telling me about this very thing…  People in Alaska know the truth about the lipsticked pitbull — most are just scared to death to speak honestly about her. Well, in the face of the onslaught of uncontested lies and Rovian dirty tricks coming from the McSame/Ailin’ campaign (which must believe Americans are as dumb as rocks) and the dangerous nature of a McCain presidency, it appears some people are getting over themselves and starting to stand up for the truth.

Women (or as the MSM crow continuously, “‘white’ women) reportedly are flocking to Sarah Palin because her life, they think, resembles theirs and that her values are good mom – baseball – and apple pie American values. I wonder how they would feel to learn that the gun-loving hockey mom reacted to Barack Obama’s defeat of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries thusly: “So Sambo beat the bitch!” That’s what longtime investigative reporter Charley James insists is true in the following article.

I am disgusted, but not surprised. Not one iota.

Alaskans: If you care about your country, scream your truth from the flippin’ rafters — even if that truth refutes what James reports! 

On with the article. This comes from the LA Progressive’ s Charley James.

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper):
Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”

 

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”

 

This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

 

According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.

 

“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.

 

Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”

 

Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.

 

Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimos,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.

 

But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We’re talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.

 

No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code. So much for McCain’s pledge of a “high road” campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.