Will the same-sex marriages haters risk a ruling that will affect the whole nation?

Today, the ruling on the prop 8 trial will be announced. The same-sex marriage haters have already filed a motion for a stay of the decision pending appeal if the case is going to be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Based on the specifics of the motion wording, you can bet it is a win for US!

So, appeal. The current ruling ONLY affects California, and leaves the rest of the country out of the loop. A loss at the appeal court would widen this to a loss for a whole range of states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. and of course, if they appeal it to the US supreme court, it would affect the whole nation.

So, if they want to slow down how many states (have to) recognize same-sex marriages, they would be far better of to not appeal and give away California. Why? There case was a disaster. At the appeals court, they cannot bring new arguments. So, the case will be decided pretty much based on what is now on the record. And that record is, well, shitty at least. Maybe better to qualify it as non-existing.

So, what would be the alternative? Let it stand. Throw California under the train and move on. Because this means that if another gay couple in one of the other states of the union finally wants to be treated as a full citizen, they have to start their own case. With their own lawyer, their own witnesses etc. And this gives the haters one MAJOR opportunity. Time to prepare themselves better. To have real experts. And maybe they will be lucky to find a judge who is more activist and willing to impose his own conservative dogma on the case.

Of course, some day, some case will reach the US supreme court. It can be sooner if they appeal now, or maybe later if they take the loss of one state and try to build a more solid case in the next court battle. The later would be a better strategy, because it they get more favorable evidence into the records, they actually will have a higher change of winning when they finally reach the US supreme court.

But rest assured, they won't be this smart. If their performance at the trial is a indicator, they are so convinced they are right that they are willing to risk it all, just to be right! You almost would think they are actually in favor of same-sex marriage.

And because of that, we have to thank them for helping our cause. So, please, file an appeal and help us to finally ride this country of a grave injustice!

Marriage: An $80,000,000 word

The proposition 8 campaign in California costed more than $80,000,000.00. The goal, limiting the use of the word marriage in legal context in the state of California. It wasn't about rights, because in California, the supreme court has ruled that gays should have exactly the same rights. Something they reiterated after Prop 8 passed and it was challenged in court. It is also not limiting the use of the word in religious context. Everybody can get married at a LGBT-friendly church. Just let it sink in. Just let it sink in that this campaign was about whether same-sex couples may use the word marriage in a legal context. Nothing else.

Just think about what could have been done with $80,000,000.00? I know what I would do. What would you do?

Luggage: the latest synonym for the male sexual organ.....

Am I the only one who is wondering what exactly is meant when George Rekers is saying he rented a male prostitute to carry his 'luggage'? Dirty mind immediately remembered a old cartoon I saw years ago of a man coming to the doctors office. "Doctor, I have a problem" Doctor: "Well, let me see it." At which the man opens his coat and a huge dick falls out....


Unfortunately, I cannot find the cartoon back on the internets......

Legal bigamy: The American Way

Yesterday, it dawned to me. You can get legally married to two people in the United States because of DOMA. The scenario is simple:

1. You marry someone of the same sex in one of the states that does recognize them.
2. You move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, so you are officially unmarried.
3. Because you are officially not married, you can marry someone of the opposite sex.
4. Move back to the state that recognizes the same-sex marriage.
   

It is just waiting till three people try this and see if they can get away with it. I guarantee you, it will be a major news item.....

Are Ex-Gays not Heterosexuals?

Lets pretend for a second that it is actually possible to change your sexual orientation. Not that you really can, so do not try this at home, because it most likely will result in loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety.

So, help me out. An ex-gay is someone who has seen Jebus and has become suddenly straight?

Right? Straight as in heterosexual? Right? Yup. And ex-gay is a normal heterosexual.

Not really. You see, PFOX, an organisation for parents and friends of Ex-Gays (so they can put more pressure on their kids and friends who have already succumbed to their narrow morality), want to have Ex-Gay being recognized as a separate sexual orientation.

Really? Yup. Really!

Lets think this through. An ex-gay is not a heterosexual. Well Duh. Of course not, they are homosexuals acting as if they are heterosexuals, most likely fantasizing about that cute gay man they saw several days ago when they has the obligatory sex for procreation.

No wonder that they need special protection.

The Power of the GAYS!

In Mississippi, how backward do you want to go, a school board rather cancelled the prom for EVERYBODY than to allow a same sex couple to attend. Whoow,how far do you want to go with your hatred. I hope the federal judge will issue a preliminary ruling soon so that the school can stick their homophobia up their own ass (sodomy is nowadays legal in Mississippi after Lawrence v. Texas).

Maybe we as a community can show how it is done, and that we organize a prom for the kids there, all inclusive for everybody. That would be the best response possible.

He heterosexuals, we feel you pain.

Yesterday, the Catholic Charities in Washington DC removed the health benefits for new employees in order to be able to deny same-sex couples from having the same. Basically, they extended the anti-gay bigotry to their heterosexual employees just so they could stay within their religious doctrine. That is their good right, but it tells me one thing. Those heterosexuals now feel what we are feeling all along, religion LIMITS your rights. I want to say to them, welcome to the club of lesser than people.

Security breach in US military

Rick Santorum (Repukeian) thinks that the US military commanders have been indoctrinated to support the repeal of the discriminatory "Don's ask, don't tell" policy.

Take a minute to let that sink in.






I repeat what he is saying:






US military officers indoctrinated

Really. I think if that is true, that the US defence is incredible vulnerable. Why, because it means that any foreign nation or terrorist group can indoctrinate these people. And some of them have far better indoctrination techniques available than the average gay with an agenda.

Reality is, they are not indoctrinated, but actually people who see that the policy is discriminatory and want it removed. They are the people who have to worry about losing Arabic translators because of the policy. They see it is hurting the US defence to kick people out because of their sexual orientation.

The right decision

Many are denunciating the Archdiocese of Washington for dropping their foster care program. Although I understand their reasoning, I think it is perfectly within their right to do so. If a faith-based organisation cannot abide to the worldly laws of the country, they should not get any money of those worldly authorities to do good work that is authorized by the worldly authorities.

So, I think this is the perfect outcome. They transferred their program to another organisation who does not have the same religious limitation, so no foster kids have been hurt by the principled decision.

The twisted logic of the personhood initiatives

The personhood movement wants to redefine what is a person. They want to define it as from the moment of fertilisation till death. Yes, you read it right.

This person:



has the same rights as you and me.

Really.

Yes!

So, lets look at this. A woman gets accidentally pregnant because the condom breaks. The resulted fertilized egg is a person with the same rights as the woman. Same right, but clearly incapable to take care of itself. Humm, what do we do when parents cannot take care of their child? They can give it up for adoption. If the kid is lucky. So, if I get pregnant unwillingly, can I give my fertilized egg up for adoption?

Probably not. No, most likely, the mother will be forced to function as an incubator for the parasitic person inside of her that she does not want. However, that might raise some very interesting issues. One issue that needs to be raised is which person is in charge of the body of the woman? The woman? Or the parasitic person insight of her that she did not choose to be there? And if the judges declare that the woman looses her rights to the other person, does that mean that other people can parasitize a random other person as well, in a similar matter?

Oh, but most importantly, would it reduce the number of abortions? No, study after study already has shown that the only aspects of the abortion that changes is whether it is a legal or an illegal one, and the risk to the woman. Because if a woman does not want to be pregnant, she wil get rid of it, one way or the other.

Upping the stakes

The right wing anti-gay groups are upping their stakes. They now want to get homosexuality being recriminalized. And that makes sense. For a long time, they would just yell the most outrageous claims, and they were able to get away with it because nobody had done research on it. Now that more and more studies show that their claims are just bogus, they have to change tunes. And so they move away from masking their moral crusade by bold false claims that are easier and easier refuted to a moral crusade itself.

I think that is a good thing, because it will clear the air. I encourage those people to say that they think homosexuality should be criminalized. It makes it much easier to spot the bigots, and it will drive away the sensible conservatives who actually have enough of a brain to think for themselves.

Scott Roeder: Rot in Jail

Today, Scott Roeder was found guilty on first degree murder of George Tiller. One more lunatic who can rot in jail till his death.

Reclaiming Marriage

I think it is time that the same-sex couples of the US reclaim the word Marriage. When I read about the actual objections to same-sex marriage by religious people, it is because they consider the word marriage sacred and that it should be reserved for one man and one woman in accordance with their religious beliefs. This by itself is a huge problem for the sometimes non-existing separation between church and state, but I digress.

If marriage is so important for non-legal purposes, namely for religions, queers can reclaim the term similarly. Therefore, there is no limitation to use the word marriage in a religious context. The right-wing bigots can legislate away that that the government can use the word for the legal context because they want the exclusive right to use it as a religious word for opposite-sex marriages, but beyond that, they cannot prevent anything. So, we should start using it as much as possible, and let the world know that WE are MARRIED!

Deserved loss in Massachusetts

Really, the democrats do not deserve to have 60 seats in the senate. If you cannot work together, you deserve to loose.

Change was coming. Yeah right. I still think Obama was the best choice, but it is obvious that change was not coming. And change is not coming because the democrats do not want it. As someone wrote, Washington is from the lobbyists, for the lobbyists, by the lobbyists. It should have been obvious what was going to happen as soon as the campaign promise on the revolving door for lobbyists was broken.

Anyway, with the repukeians filibustering pretty much everything just to show who is boss, and the democrats giving in to that with compromise after compromise, it would be just plain better to elect a retard to start with.

It is now time to wave goodbye to Universal Health Care. Like a mirage in the desert that fades when you get closer.......

The good thing is that in the next months till the midterm election, we can sit back knowing nothing substantial will happen in Washington, our rights will be eroding more and more, and the democrats will roll over and become the lapdogs of the repukeians once again.

Gay revolution

I have been following the federal court case against the Californian Proposition 8 that define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The more I hear about it, the more it get clear to me that it is not just prop8 that is at trial, it is homosexuality itself that is at trial.

"Protecting California Children"! Which California children? Those well adjusted kids with gay parents against their own parents? Who will have their mummies or daddies anyway, regardless whether their parents are married? Really, those kids are only negatively affected by it. But heck, those kids do not count. Because they are losers anyway because they have gay parent. No, it is not to protect those children, it is to prevent children from being exposed to alternatives of their parents heterosexual marriage. Because "Oh My God", TRADITIONAL marriage is under fire. (I will go into the canard of the so-called "traditional marriage" another time)

But really, ultimately, they do not want their kids to know that we exist. Because this is not the only way homosexuality has to be removed from sight. For example, they do not want homosexuality be mentioned in sex-ed. Homosexuality is a choice, and you can fix them (like a dog). etc etc Effectively, they want us out of sight, so that they can bread their next generation of bigotry and prejudice.

I think it is time that the gays stop hiding. The more they try to push us out of sight by denying us fundamental rights, the more visible we should become. Really, once they get that providing us with our fundamental rights is the best way to minimize their exposure to us, they will be at the front lines lobbying for it. So, we have to become more visible, and this means adopting the tactics of the anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd who are so in your face about their message. I really think it would not be a bad idea to go with groups of gays and demonstrate in front of especially fundamentalist schools during pick-up of the kids, same with fundamentalist churches, etc. Expose them to our existence. In short, No More Mister Nice Gay.

Jonathan Wells shows his ignorance. Man bites dog at page 75645

Jonathan Wells, a fellow of the Dishonesty Institute posted on the "Evolution News and Views" website the following in a post attacking Donald Prothero, someone who actually does know his shit:

Some Darwinists have suggested that ancestral four-winged fruit flies could have evolved by mutation into modern two-winged fruit flies. But this explanation doesn’t work, because a two-winged fly hasn’t simply lost a pair of wings; it has acquired a large and complex gene (ultrabithorax) that enables it to develop “halteres,” or balancers. The halteres are located behind the fly’s normal pair of wings and vibrate rapidly to stabilize the insect in flight. So the two-winged fly represents the gain—not loss—of an important structure. (See Chapter 9 of my book "Icons of Evolution"). (Emphasis mine)

Really?

Well, Jonathan Wells, tell me, why is this large and complex gene found in other insects than Diptera?

Does Ray Comfort genuinly not understand evolution?

Ray Comfort, an easy target for anti-creationists because of his incredible obvious ignorance when it comes down to understanding evolution, has apologized for not knowing where he talks about:

I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females.

And he then cointinues to state that he:

I have checked out the references you have given me as to what the theory has to say about their genesis, read them again and again, and I still don’t understand what you believe.

Well, we (evolutionary biologists) could help out here. But the problem is not the evolution of the sexes, it is:

It doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t reconcile what I see in creation with what you would have me believe about evolution.

I give him that. Yes, it is impossible to reconcile evolution with a literal interpretation of the bible. And this is also why nobody until now has been able to talk sense into him. And further, nobody will, until he is willing to look at evolution as a process by itself and see what it explains. And he knows already, you can read that between the lines of his own posts, that once he tries that, he will see the power and beauty of evolution and it will become even more difficult to reconcile with his religious perspective.

Selectivity with civil rights

Yesterday, I was once more reminded of the selectivity of people when it comes down to civil rights. When California voted for proposition 8, a large proportion came from African Americans, who should know better about civil rights. They still are struggling to get those honoured, but when it was time to support another group struggling with similar issues, they turned around and voted to uphold discriminatory practices against another group in society. The same thing you see with gay rights activists, who as easy turn around and bash another group they do not have affinity with. It sucks, but I fear it is the reality we have to deal with.

California supreme court: Marriage is just a word

Marriage for gay couples seems to be ended in California, but it seems that the justices take hat VERY narrowly, namely meaning just the word marriage. They pretty much explicitly say that gays should have the same rights, and that no form of discrimination is allowed. Or as justice Kennard, one of the two swing voters indicated:

She reminded lawyers that the "core" part of last year's marriage ruling required the state to give sexual orientation the same constitutional protection as race and gender.

Proposition 8 "hasn't destroyed equal protection," Kennard said.

So, here we go again, do we want the same rights, or do we want the same term? I think the gay movement in this country is loosing ground by requiring that we get the same term and the same rights, because much of the opposition has to do with the term. Many religious people see marriage as a sacred term, and just for that purpose, they object to it. So, by choosing for equal rights, and give the term marriage to the religious for the time being, we can improve dramatically in our rights. As soon as we have our rights, we can argue that the term marriage should be taken out of the legal system because it is a violation of the separation between church and state, but that is a fight we can fight later.

It is time that someone asks for the same rights from the Californian government without wanting to use the word marriage, and see what the justices of the supreme court rule. One willing municipality (San Francisco?) who make a move towards and it might be quickly enough resolved. As long as we want to have rights to the word Marriage, we are loosing this battle. (Now I duck and run for the anger this provokes from my fellow gay activists)

Michael Egnor's unsubstantiated claims

Michael Egnor keeps claiming that ID has produced evidence for design:

Some aspects of biology, particularly molecular biology, show clear scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Really, the same rehashed creationist claims that are presented over and over again as 'evidence' for design? Show us the irrefutable proof before claiming once again that you have proof. But let me guess, he does not have it.

And before you claim that each and every person who thinks evolution is the only sensible explanation is an atheist, I am not, you are wrong!