Tag gay rights

Here Come the Religious Bigots

I mentioned earlier that there’s a bill in the Maryland legislature to allow gay marriage. So wouldn’t you know it, that’s bringing out the religious anti-equality brigade.

Via FSTDT, I learn about Protect Marriage Maryland, a group affiliated with NOM (at least, according to Yahoo! News; this fact appears neither on NOM’s nor PMM’s site, as far as I can tell. It’s almost as if they’re embarrassed to be associated with each other).

It’s just a holding page for now, but it says:

Protect Maryland Marriage is a Political Action Committee (PAC) formed to preserve the current Maryland Family Law §2-201 which states that “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.” The following sections go on to state that “A man may not marry his: grandmother; mother; daughter; sister; or granddaughter,” and that “A woman may not marry her: grandfather; father; son; brother; or grandson,” nor may they marry their in-laws, nieces, nephews, or similar family relations by marriage. All of this will be threatened if the marriage law is changed to benefit one small but vocal and well-funded sexual minority.

Oh, goody. A slippery-slope argument. We haven’t had one of those in, oh, fifteen minutes. If Adam and Steve are given the same legal rights as Joe and Mary, then it’s only a matter of time before daughters are having sex with their father, eating bacon is sanctioned by the state, and men are allowed to trim their beards! Who will save us from such defiance of God’s law?

We believe there is value in preserving the traditional definition of marriage, and that efforts to change this definition do violence to the family structure

Pray explain to me how allowing two men or two women to marry would affect existing marriages, or prevent me from marrying a woman?

and the reality that children do best when raised in a stable family with the love, attention, and physical presence of their biological mother and father.

I hear this argument a lot, and it basically comes down to stereotyping.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the premise is true; that the optimal environment for children is for them to be raised by their loving and attentive biological parents. Let’s say that children raised this way have a 95% chance of completing college, of holding down a steady job, of not having any serious mental problems, of staying out of prison, of not becoming addicted to any drugs, and of maintaining a healthy body weight. All of that.

Let’s say that children of gay parents, children of divorced parents, children of gay parents, children of adoptive parents, children of parents who live together but aren’t married, all do worse than the optimum.

Let’s grant all that, for the sake of argument.

So what?

Should we tell unmarried couples that, because the odds are against them, they shouldn’t even have a shot at trying to raise normal, well-adjusted kids? Is that really the argument? “You probably won’t get an A+, so you shouldn’t be allowed to try”?

Because if that’s the argument, shouldn’t we forbid interracial marriages again, if those don’t last as long as intraracial marriages? Should we forbid marriages between members of different religions, for the same reason? Should divorce be forbidden once a couple has children? Should straight married couples be forbidden from adopting children?

Should we note that most world-class mathematicians are men, and forbid universities from admitting women into their math programs?

We believe that the current marriage law enshrines this reality. While some families may not always be able to provide such opportunities to every child, keeping the current law is the best way to respect the natural family, the rights of a biological mother and father to be able to raise their own children, to educate their children and teach them their own religious values–not the religious values of the state

The state doesn’t — or at least shouldn’t — have religious values. It should be neutral. That’s what the first amendment is all about, remember? Freedom of religion and freedom from religion?

Or is “teach […] the religious value of the state” code for “acknowledging that there are people of other religions, or none, and they have the same rights as we do”? If so, first amendment again.

–and to provide the model for an ideal family for children to be raised in.

For this argument to carry any weight, everyone who is currently allowed to get a marriage certificate in Maryland has to be put in the “ideal family” category. This includes serial divorcés, people who don’t like or want children, and so on, and so forth.

We are a non-partisan group composed of many faiths, different races, and all types of citizens who are concerned for the future of our state, our country, and our world being threatened

Our world is being threatened by gay marriage? Oh, puh-leeze. Quit whining and stop exaggerating. Don’t you know that hyperbole will melt the earth’s crust and unleash flocks of flying demon-hippos to piss on the heads of the godly?

by those who seek to force moral, law-abiding citizens to embrace or accept behavior that most of us find contrary to the tenets of our deepest religious & philosophical beliefs. The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that Congress will not violate our FREEDOM OF RELIGION. We firmly believe that as citizens of Maryland, our state legislature should do the same.

And you know what? Having the state grant marriage certificates will do nothing to stop churches from marrying whomever they like, or refusing to marry whomever they like. If you want to marry a man’s dog to his garden rake, go ahead (just don’t expect them to get a marriage certificate). And likewise, you can continue to be as bigoted as you like. Just don’t expect the state to impose your religious views on others.

The first amendment gives you the right to practice your religion. It does not give you the right to inflict it on others. You do not have the right not to be offended.

Here’s a video from ProtectMarriageMD’s YouTube channel:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NLPCkk9-YQ&w=560&h=345]

Note how they’re not even pretending that this isn’t motivated by religion.

Gay Marriage Advancing in Maryland?

WaPo is reporting that a bill to allow same-sex marriage was introduced in the Maryland House and Senate.

It’s just a bill, yes it’s only a bill, and it’s sitting… um, in Annapolis-il? But still, I’m cautiously optimistic that it can pass. And if it does, that it won’t be overturned by referendum. Then again, I didn’t think Prop 8 would pass, so this isn’t a done deal.

Of course, Maryland has an argument that California doesn’t: gay couples can just catch the Metro or MARC train down to DC and get married there. I’m guessing that Annapolis would prefer if the money spent on weddings (and I don’t even want to think how much two wedding dresses cost) were spent in-state.

The same argument applies to Northern Virginia, but there’s the massive red southern part of the state (not to mention a comically-reactionary attorney general) holding them back. But once Maryland enacts marriage equality, Delaware might start worrying about its own wedding industry.

Adam and Bobo?

Anti-gay-rights activists, when they’re not busy being worried about all the buttsecks going on without them, are fond of pointing out that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Clearly, men are supposed to fuck women, not other men.

Except, remember why God made Eve in the first place?:

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

<p .21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

In other words, Eve was Plan B. The original idea, apparently, was for Adam to stick his dick in one or more of the animals. Literally get some pussy, if you will.

So I don’t see why the homophobes are so upset at the thought of two dudes getting it on. At least they’re dating inside their own species.

What the Hell Is Wrong With the Obama Administration?

Okay, let’s recap:

Obama campaigned in part on a promise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Which is great, because a majority of Americans, including many (perhaps most) in the military want it repealed.

Then, once elected, he did nothing about it. Okay, I can chalk that up to priorities (the economy had to come first) and a disposition toward being cautious.

The Log Cabin Republicans sued to overturn the policy. In September, District Judge Virginia Phillips found DADT unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to stop enforcing it.

At which point he had the DOJ appeal the decision, and assured a country rightly concerned about this that “This policy will end, and it will end on my watch.”

Just not as quickly as it would have if he’d done quite literally nothing.

So yesterday, Bloomberg reported that the Log Cabin Republicans have appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to uphold the ban, “arguing that a change in the law should come from Congress, not the courts.”

Ha. As if. Congress includes Republicans, the Party of Not Just No But Hell No, remember? And Congress has been oh so much more effective than the courts at overturning injustices in the past, right?

Which brings us to today’s Post:

A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report’s authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.

So what’s the hold-up? Why is the Obama administration dragging its feet on this?

Gah.

Irony O’ the Day

BillDo, complaining about Catholics for Equality, a group of gay Catholics who support the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

Archbishop Broglio’s response pulled no punches. He wondered how Catholics for Equality got the authority to identify itself as a Catholic entity, maintaining “it cannot be legitimately recognized as Catholic.”

He’s right. While any group can slap the label Catholic on itself, bona fide Catholics are under no obligation to acknowledge it. And by bona fide, I simply mean Catholics not in open rebellion against the teachings of the Magisterium.

So a guy who heads a group with “Catholic” in its name but with no official connection to the Catholic church, who spends his time on talk shows speaking on behalf of the Catholic church, is complaining about a group with “Catholic” in its name speaking on behalf of… um, speaking on behalf of its members, as far as I can tell from BillDo’s release.

Is it just me, or are many conservatives so utterly lacking in introspection that they can’t recognize when they’re being hypocrites? Or do these champions of absolute morality hold to the absolute rule that “it’s not wrong when I do it”?

I hereby proclaim today to be Everybody Make Fun of Bill Donohue Day.

The Montana GOP, Proudly Marching Toward the 19th Century

The Montana GOP‘s policy platform, adopted on Jun 19 (via AP):

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

What’s next? Blasphemy laws? Dynamiting statues of Buddha? Mandatory burqas for women?

If you’re a Montanan and you’re still a Republican… Why?

Update: The AP article argues that Montana Republicans are lazy, not evil:

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana.

Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it’s remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said.

In other words, “Sorry, 5% of Montana! We couldn’t be arsed to take out the part of our policy that says you’re vile scum. Don’t worry about it.”

QOTD

This may be my favorite bit from the Prop 8 ruling yet (findings of law, p. 128):

To the extent California has an interest in encouraging
sexual activity to occur within marriage (a debatable proposition
in light of Lawrence, 539 US at 571) the evidence shows Proposition
8 to be detrimental to that interest. Because of Proposition 8,
same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity
within marriage. FF 53. Domestic partnerships, in which sexual
activity is apparently expected, are separate from marriage and
thus codify California’s encouragement of non-marital sexual
activity. Cal Fam Code §§ 297-299.6. To the extent proponents
seek to encourage a norm that sexual activity occur within marriage
to ensure that reproduction occur within stable households,
Proposition 8 discourages that norm because it requires some sexual
activity and child-bearing and child-rearing to occur outside
marriage.

Ooh, that’s gotta sting. “We tried to have sex and raise children within the bonds of holy matrimony, like you said we should, but you wouldn’t let us!”

Would you like your ass of fundie well done, or extra-crispy?

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

You’ve probably heard it by now, but a federal judge has ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional (; mirror).

(In case you’d forgotten, Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative that took away millions of Californians’ right to marry, on the grounds that they love the wrong kinds of people.)

Any moment now, I expect to hear explanations of how earthquakes, wildfires, el niño, the poor box office showing of Mel Gibson’s next project, and Pet Shop Boys concerts are all expressions of God’s wrath.

/me raises a Cosmopolitan (which several sites list as a contender for the gayest drink ever) to the Californian gay community.

Update, 18:04: Tony Perkins of the Patriarchy Family Research Council criticizes the ruling, on the grounds that, well, one-man-one-woman is how it’s always been. He also compares this ruling to Roe v. Wade. Which, I can’t help noticing, the right-wingers still haven’t managed to overturn despite decades of trying.

No word from NOM NOM NOM yet.

Update, 18:17: NOM tweets

NOM Decries Federal Court Decision Invalidating Proposition 8. http://ow.ly/2l9qm #prop8 #NO4M

Full text of their rebuttal:

Database Error: Unable to connect to your database. Your database appears to be turned off or the database connection settings in your config file are not correct. Please contact your hosting provider if the problem persists.

Update, 18:30: An obviously butthurt Heritage Foundation whines about “judicial activism”.

Update, 19:20: Newsweek/WaPo’s On Faith has a roundup of religious people’s reactions.

Update, 21:56: Hemant Mehta points out this kook fight, where Liberty Counsel bitches at the Alliance Defense Fund for not letting them help defend Prop 8 in court.

Godwin con Variazione

We’re all familiar with Godwin’s Law, that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

Allow me to propose a few variations:

As a discussion goes on, the probability of a theist bringing up Pascal’s wager approaches 1.

and

As a discussion on gay rights goes on, the arguments against gay marriage will be pared down to “buttsecks is nasty”.

I think it’s safe to say that the corollary to Godwin’s Law applies in both of these cases as well: if you believe in God because you’re afraid of being punished for not believing, or if you think that your distaste overrides people’s civil rights, then you’ve lost the argument.

A Modest Proposal for the Texas GOP

The platform paper of the Texas GOP shows that they’re as chock-full of crazy rightardiness as ever (like believing in “The sanctity of human life … from fertilization to natural death”, and also being in favor of capital punishment).

In several places, the document underlines their commitment to privacy, e.g.:

Real ID Act – As the Real ID Act effectively creates an unconstitutional and privacy-inhibiting national ID card, we hereby call for its immediate repeal.

Of course, any right to privacy obviously doesn’t apply to what goes on in people’s bedrooms:

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

Presumably what they mean is that they want Lawrence v. Texas overturned. The law that was overturned in that case criminalized blow jobs, but since I imagine a lot of Texan good ol’ boys like those, presumably they wrote “sodomy” as a fancy synonym for “buttsecks”. Which is something that straight people never ever ever ever do. At least, not outside of librul hellholes like Austin.

Yeah, they really don’t like teh gays:

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been
ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Republican political document if it didn’t mention abortion. The GOP is still sore about Roe v. Wade (which, by the way, reaffirmed the right to privacy that they’re so fond of elsewhere). And while they haven’t managed to get that overturned yet, they’re going for the next best thing: make it so hard to get an abortion that it’ll be effectively, if not legally, banned. And lo, the “Legislative Priorities” section begins with:

We urge the Texas legislature in its next biennial session to enact legislation requiring a sonogram be performed and offered as part of the consent process to each mother seeking an elective abortion.

And that, along with Mike Huckabee’s implied admission that homophobia is mostly about the “ick factor” of buttsecks, gave me an idea: Lawrence v. Texas isn’t going away any time soon, and neither are gays. Gay marriage is coming. So what they should do is do the same thing as with abortion. Allow gay marriage, but before two dudes can get married, they have to watch a gay porn video.

I think my favorite part of this is that this would make it someone’s job in Austin to buy pr0n for government purposes.