This Is Your Republican Party, America

I was angry when the Republicans controlled the Federal House, Senate and the Presidency (and the Supreme Court, if we're being honest). But that anger never reached the level of Rage that I feel today.

In some sweeping and utterly disgusting moves, the GOP has truly shown it's colors today. Remember, this is the party of "compassionate conservatism"…

Destruction of the Working Class

Governor Scott Walker and his lackeys in the Wisconsin house and senate have somehow, and with little legal integrity, passed a bill designed solely to destroy state workers unions. This, in their estimation, was a measure designed to Save The State. The State will go broke if the Unions are still in existence, according to their estimation.

Yet this does nothing to resolve state budget issues. In fact, if it was related to state budget issues, their senate could not have "passed" the measure in the way they did, which prohibits voting on any budget-related bill without more than 50% of the senate. But that's irrelevant, because this isn't about the budget.

At it's heart, this is a measure designed to destroy the Democratic Party's base. Unions are to Democrats as the NRA is to the Republicans. It's just an unfortunate side-effect that working class people are now set down a dangerous path where representation and fair bargaining are now longer within reach.

All Hail Cesar

Jump the pond over to Michigan, where another completely Republican-run legislative and executive branch have passed some quaint laws today. Namely, they have decided that Big State Government knows best. If the governor so chooses, he or she can dissolve your properly and legally elected local government and install one of their choosing. You know, so they can handle financial issues in a way they think is best without any recourse or due process.  Like dissolving unions, firing public employees, and other day-to-day duties.

For those of you who say your vote doesn't count, you now have a valid point. In Michigan at least. Because no matter how you decide to run your town or your local school district, if the State doesn't like it they can oust your officials and replace them.

There's really no need for those pesky elections anymore. I mean, you could hold elections, but they'd have about as much integrity as an Iranian election.

Sing It, Cindy!

So yes Republicans, we have seen your true colors today. They have sat back and made grandiose claims about the Democrats, and President Obama in particular, pushing for Socialism or Totalitarianism. Yet in one day they have shown that they really are the pushers of fringe governmental tactics.

And yes, I take the actions of these state legislators as indicators of what the national republican agenda is because there isn't a single national republican official standing up to denounce these acts as farce and lunacy. By their silence, they are showing their acceptance.

Wherein I Sound Like A Fiscal Conservative... Kinda

People don't mind a tax increase if you cut out the waste and inefficiency

So says Mayor Dailey, so say we all.

Ok, I think I've officially overused that Battlestar Gallactica reference. Moving on!

Illinois, like most other states, is in a bit of a bind. Since the economy tanked, the state hasn't done so well with managing its debt. Which is to say that the state legislature and our wonderfully corrupt chain of governors has taken every bit of tax money and made it magically disappear without so much as a thank you note for all of our contributions.

Yesterday (or this morning rather, depends on what you consider 1:30 am to be) our legislators decided that in order to fix the problem of magically disappearing money that they should obviously ask for money to magically appear! Which, of course, means that they decided to hike income taxes. Obvi.

Now instead of giving the illuminati of Illinois (I <3> 3% of our income, we get the divine privilege of giving them 5%! That doesn't seem like much to some people. But let's assume you make $40k a year; you now are giving away an additional $800 to your government per year. That's about $35 a paycheck. Again, doesn't sound like much. But can you honestly see where you can cut out $35/check?

Maybe you'll drive less. Of course, Chicago has the highest gas prices in the country right now so even driving less, you're paying more right now (lets not even consider what this summer's gas prices will be). Maybe you'll just cut out your clothing budget. I mean, you're faded, frayed and out-dated threads from 5 years ago still fit, right? Or maybe you'll start that fabulous diet you've been thinking about. You know, the one where you just fast two days a week? Yeah, that one.

Now if you make $50k, we're talking $1000 a year. Bye bye vacation!

So we're essentially being asked to cut back on our spending so that the government can spend more. Being a liberal, that idea doesn't really bother me… if we're actually getting something in return or if I can say that the state will come out of this ahead. But this time I can't say that.

Illinois will be borrowing even more money this year than it did last year, in spite of the tax hike. And I won't see any quality of life increases.

I am normally quite OK with tax hikes, normally because they are rationalized in a more equitable way (i.e. higher earners see higher tax rates), but a blanket increase unfairly places pressure on middle class and poor workers. The tax increase will cause us to actually have to sacrifice. On the flip side, I don't think you'll see Vince Vaughn or Mayor Dailey not eating out any time soon because of the tax increase. They might have to fly commercial next time the go to Hawaii for vacation, but at least they can still go. The rest of us will be stuck here shoveling snow in Chicago.

We Just Don't Know, So Don't Assume

I'm terribly conflicted. I want to be a reactionary, confused and bias-influenced blogger and point to people like Sarah Palin as "the cause" of the shooting in Arizona this weekend, but I honestly can't bring myself to agree with that assessment. One person (as far as we know at this point) committed this vile act, and unless someone can produce communications between him and these talking heads that have insinuated violent actions need to be taken, then it is just irresponsible to link them.

We can be clear on one thing right now: this was a senseless slaying. When a politician is specifically targeted we naturally assume it is because of that politician's ideology or stance on legislation, but when the killing of children and seniors alike is added to the mix that assumption becomes a little less solid.

Personally, this whole ordeal has disturbed me. We don't yet know the full motivation of this guy, but I can't help but think it was his way of retaliating against a political agenda he opposed. If that is the case, then this is no less than an act of terrorism, regardless of how sane or not sane the shooter is.

But we don't know his real motivation yet, and taking time to blame anyone other than this guy for this crime is rather pointless. I think David Gergen with CNN said it best:

The country would be well served now if we cooled the accusations until we learn more about the man police are holding in Tucson, Jared Loughner. He appears to be mentally unhinged, someone who has threatened others. Why he targeted one of the most admired and popular political leaders in Arizona is unclear.

I also have to wonder about the motivation of those using this situation as a political platform. I agree that at some point we have to realize that hyperbolic rhetoric is unproductive. I did. But should it really take a shooting (of as-yet-unknown reason) to get people to realize this?

This is not a situation that should be used to rally political bases. No political party should be using this as a "see, the problem is them, not us." And we certainly should not be looking at knee-jerk legislation calling for the (further) special protection of politicians without consideration of the consequences of said legislation.

Believe me, I want to point at the hard-line right and say "this is your fault," but I can't. Even if I could, what would that really accomplish? Those people would still be dead and the terror inflicted on the American people would still be real.

Let's take a moment to really understand what happened. Until then, we should be rallying behind the victims and doing what we can to help rather than obscure the situation.

Quandry Of The Day

If the goal of the Credit Industry is to make borrowers default (thus lowering their credit rating) just so the lender can collect more fees to boost revenues, how does a consumer work to improve their credit rating?

And if more borrowers' credit ratings are falling, how are lenders going to find new burrowers to bilch?

And if consumers wisen up and stop borrowing from assbackwards lenders (read: pretty much every lender), where does that leave the Credit Industry?

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to reasses this Credit Industry. The CARD act from last year was great, but when the ultimate result was more consumers getting the raw end of a dull stick, perhaps we should realize that magical "market forces" don't always work.

Sometimes Silver Platters Just Aren't Enough

I was going to write a big rant about the state of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and how it is or isn't still legal, depending on the time of day, the current weather, and whether or not Obama saw his shadow when he woke up this morning. But then I thought about it and there's just not much to talk about.

So instead of a big rant, here's a small one with some interesting links...

Yes, it's confusing. Every day we're hearing something new: one day DADT is dead, the next it's being appealed, then we hear the order won't be stayed and that DADT might be reinstated later, and now we're hearing that some military officials are telling current soldiers to put away their rainbow bootstraps while telling recruiters to accept LGB enlistees.

That's a lot of hullabaloo! Here's the short version: shit's screwed up.

I don't get why the Department of Justice feels the need to appeal the ruling if they agree that DADT should end. Obama seems to think it should end legislatively, yet he hasn't shown the leadership to get it done even when it was introduced. I don't get the wisdom in telling recruiters to enlist gays then turning around and telling said gays to shut up or they could be canned soon-ish.

Can't we just look at this humanely for once? I mean, it's not like LGB folk are these diseased lab rats there for the bidding and entertainment of government officials. We're human beings. It seems like the judge in this case gets it, but the Administration is lost on why LGB folk are unhappy with him on this subject. He promised to repeal it sometime-ish, isn't that good enough?

Or is another one of those things that is "inevitable," like marriage equality? If so, I'm sure we've all seen how that is going, right?

Just end the policy. Let the ruling stand, give an Executive Order, then look at the legislative challenges needed for actual equality in the military (like spousal benefits). Whatever it takes. The President was handed DADT Repeal on a silver platter and he refused it because it didn't have his name all over it. That's just silly.

Do We Enjoy Sounding Like Out Opponents?

It appears that many Queer theorists and far-leftists are having a hard time understanding the importance of repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. It affects so few LGBT people that we should be focusing our efforts on more wide-spread legislation such as ENDA (Employment NonDiscrimination Act), they say. Marriage Equality would serve to force societal change, they opine. Some even say that gays don't want to serve, anyway, so why does it matter?

It's ironic then that these same arguments are used to fight against ANY pro-gay legislation. Why should lawmakers worry about legislation that only effects less than 8% of the population when we have double digit unemployment to worry about? Wouldn't health care reform do more to advance the Democrats agenda?

We, as a community, need to understand that all of this legislation is important. Dismissing one for another is fruitless. Each is only a piece of the Equality puzzle, and none of them are the magic cure-all some seem to be hoping for.

So while it is true that only a percentage of LGBT folk serve in the military or wish to, that doesn't mean that those members of the community are any less important an valuable. Do we really want to sound like our detractors by saying that LGBT folk should just go find another career instead of doing what the love or are proud of?

Tearing Down The Argument

I need you all to take a few minutes or so and go read this piece over at Bilerico. I love Bilerico, and this piece is a fine example of why I love the site. Poster Josh Olsen tears apart the most common rhetoric from the conservative, mostly Christian Right concering marriage equality. Among the choicest quotes is this gem in regard to the claim that Californian's right to vote has been stripped from them by Judge Walker over turning Proposition 8:

The voters of Californians have had no rights stripped from them whatsoever. Our right to vote (did I mention that I live in California?) remains inviolate. In fact, not only has my right to vote not been touched, I still have the right to vote on laws that are not constitutional, such as, say, Proposition 8.

Bishop Jackson would have you believe that all that's necessary for something to become law is that the people vote for it. That we have a Constitution that our laws must measure up to is something he'd like you to forget, as is the fact that the Constitution is designed specifically to protect minorities from the unthinking bigotry of the majority.

If the voters of California voted to re-institute slavery, would Bishop Jackson object if a federal judge (especially an African-American one) struck it down? We still have the right to vote. What we have never had is the right to vote in laws that violate the United States Constitution.

The article is a bit long but worth every moment of reading. What we all need to understand is that the Right's insistence that marriage equality is evil is just plain stupid. No need to flower it up, the bigoted view that same-sex couples do not deserve equality is based in nothing short of hate and ignorance.

Repealing DADT: I'm Concerned About A Compromise

There is a lot of news today about a potential deal that may have been worked out between Congress and the White House/DOD concerning the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don't Tell policy. Here's the breakdown of what I've seen so far:

The bill will provide for the repeal of DADT under the assumption that two conditions are met. First, the study that is currently under way concerning how the repeal of DADT would effect military readiness must be completed. Second, the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must sign off that the findings in the report are acceptable and that they agree that the repeal of DADT works in favor of military readiness. Only when those two conditions are met will the DADT be officially considered repealed.

It's progress. It's a step forward toward the goal of getting rid of the discriminatory, putrid DADT policy and another step toward full equality in this country. I would argue that the full integration of LGB folk into the Armed Services is perhaps the most important equality measure this country can implement now, as I feel most other rights will fall in line after LGB people are allowed to serve their country openly, honestly and courageously. So yes, it is a progressive step.
Well… at least it sounds like a progressive step. As some have pointed out, this may not be as great as it sounds.

If you notice in my description above, there was no specific time table laid out for the completion of the two prerequisites. There is also no specific mention of protections for LGB service members against discrimination. These two issues are very troubling to me.

Without a time table, the President or his lackeys (Secretary of Defense and Chairman JCOS) can simply sit on this thing until they deign it OK for service members to serve openly. The report could be delayed for "further analysis" or the three signees may not agree and nothing would move forward. This would, in effect, completely halt the repeal of DADT. Even if the President rushes the study through, all it would take to stop the Repeal effort would be that the Chairman simply not sign off on the changes and nothing would happen and no one would have any recourse as Congress would have already passed the buck.

Without specific protections included in the repeal effort, we are for all intents and purposes putting the military back to where it was pre-DADT. For those that don't recall, DADT was considered a compromise at it's time, a way for LGB folk to serve in the military without getting discharged. The idea was that they could serve just as long as they did not "flaunt" their sexuality. As we all know, things did not work out quite like that, as anytime someone tangentially related to the service member sneezes in a gay way the service member gets the boot, but if you look at the military prior to DADT, they were able and allowed to kick men and women out for suspicion of gayness. They had a pure and simple policy that stated No Queers. Without specific protections, we're rolling back to that same era where it is up to the military how to manage The Gays… and history shows us they do not like to manage us very well.

I like the idea of DADT repeal and I have to say that I'm afraid that if we don't accept this "deal" then we won't get anything at all, but I also have to say that I don't have a single good feeling about this. Not one bit. Nothing about this smells good for our people. I feel like we're being stung along here and oddly right before the 2010 election season begins in full.

We need full repeal. We need specific protections. We need real assurances. I get that those things won't happen tomorrow, but these are the things that should happen. However, in the meantime we have LGB service members that are being bled out of the service and that needs to stop immediately, and this bill may be the only way to make that happen.

Here's what I would propose: instead of giving three people total and utter control of the repeal process, pass a bill that calls for full integration within 1 year's time with specific deadlines for integration including an immediate moratorium on expulsions based on DADT. Also include very specific non-discrimination policies with that bill. And do not give three people who have zero accountability to the Congress complete control. Pass it through Congress so that any threat of a veto can be overturned. And do it today.

One Of The Many Reasons Health Care Reform Can Only Be Seen As A Good Thing

This is one of the many reasons why Health Care Reform can only be seen as a good thing.

For years, there has been a strong contingent of gay men that have refused to get tested for HIV because of the repercussions knowingly being positive could bring. The smarter ones would get tested, but only at anonymous clinics and never reveal their status to their primary care physician. Why? It's not just the fear of "what if?" and the stigma that would come with living with HIV, it was also because they knew that if they did test positive their health care benefits would be in jeopardy.

Insurers have been known to drop patients that have tested positive for HIV. If the patient was lucky enough that their insurer did not drop their policy, they would have to pray that they never need to leave their current job (or get new insurance for any other reason) because no new insurance company would take them on because they had a "pre-existing condition." And if their treatment became too costly, they could reach their lifetime cap and no longer get anything from their insurance company.

Gay men have not stopped having sex and new cases of HIV infection continue to occur. Yet the previously policies that were rampant within the health care industry only changed to exclude men with HIV and only served to kill thousands of gay men with HIV and AIDS because they refused to cover them. And it's not just HIV/AIDS. There were forms of cancer and other deadly diseases that all lead down the same road.

Sarah Palin wants to talk about mythical Death Panels under Health Reform, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't understand that the current system is nothing but Death Panels full of MBAs with not a single doctor in sight. That's because she doesn't read anything. Like many of her mind-numbingly ignorant followers who only regurgitate what they've been force fed by her and her ilk.

Health Care Reform is good policy. It is barely a start toward what this country needs, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. I cannot fathom looking at this bill as a bad thing, and I challenge those that do to really understand what this does for us. If, for perhaps one moment, the right-wing nut balls of our society could stop making insidious and just plain stupid comments, then they might see that as well.

I've seen many young people who have no idea how this bill will help them. Frankly, that's because we're young. We are not so likely to have ever been in a situation where our doctor says "I can test you for X, but if it's positive, you'll have to find a way to pay all your doctor bills out of pocket for the remainder of your life… Or we could just risk it and hope things turn out ok." But those days will come. And now we won't have to worry about that anymore and can rest assured that we will be covered and can afford more medical care now.

What Did The Mormon Church Just Do?

I have been wanting to write more over here, but I've also been a bit distracted lately. However, a friend asked me to comment on the Mormon Church's support of the gay rights law recently passed in Salt Lake City.

Just to clear up a few things, while this law was a step forward, it wasn't a giant leap. The law only places sexual orientation in a protected category, meaning it is illegal to discriminate against LGBT people in housing, employment and services. One would think that is already the case, but sadly it's not, and it's not a Federal rule yet either. In fact, many locals it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. Like Cincinnati up to only about 5 years ago. And the Military today.

It also looks as if the Salt Lake City Council was poised to pass the bill with or without LDS consent. It possible that the blessing of the magical underwear fairies assisted in getting the bill to pass unanimously, but that's really not clear.

What is clear is that the LDS clergy came forward in favor of something that's not blatantly anti-gay. Yes, that's a shock, but the real question will be if they live up to their promises to support domestic partnerships and civil unions. Back when Prop 8 passed, the Mormon higher ups came out and made some ridiculous statements about how they weren't anti-gay, blah blah blah (and I bet the KKK doesn't hate black people…), and that they would support domestic partnerships as a matter of fairness.

This could be the first step toward that, but I really have to wonder about these nut jobs. I feel like this is more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Would they really support a "everything but marriage" Domestic Partnership program like Washington just enacted? If so, what then is the difference between that and actual, for real-real Marriage? And, if that truly is their stance, why did they not spend their money and influence being proactive and helping domestic partnership and civil union bills pass across the county, as compared to wasting millions of dollars on destructive and divisive anti-gay campaigns?

The Mormon church may have just handed a shiny red apple with a smile on their face, but I sure as hell ain't going to bite into that poison.

Another Anxious Election Day

For my first post back in a little bit, I'd like to talk about being very, very edgy today. I woke up pissy and haven't really been able to shake it. And, sadly, I think I know why… politics, as usual.

I'm so afraid that Maine will repeal their same-sex marriage law and that Washington will say queers don't deserve any better than they have… it's pretty freaking scary, to be honest, and those are both issues up for public vote today. It was scary when it happened in California, and if it happens again today, then it'll just be another sign to the bigoted haters of the world that it's perfectly OK to fuck over the queers.

I'll likely be on edge until much later tonight when the results come in.

Why, some ask, do I care about what happens in Maine and Washington when I live in Chicago? Because Illinois introduced their own marriage equality law last month and if two more state's voters reject the basic human rights of LGBT citizens, our legislators here in Illinois will be much less likely to follow through with the proposed law for fear of it getting overturned and used against them in future elections. The same goes for every state, hell even the federal level: if we don't win today, it's going to be harder and harder to win at all legislatively.

So, yes I'm scared and worried. I want to marry my fiancé here. I want to have the legal rights and protections afforded to us like straight loving couples do (or even just straight couples that don't love each other but are drunk in Vegas and think it'd be fun). We need these laws to exist.

Maybe We Could Marry In Illinois

Recently, we have been considering going to Canada to get married. That's mainly because we don't have any personal vestment or interest in any of the states here in the U.S. that currently recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and because a weekend trip to Canada could be really fun! Besides, after the debacle that is Proposition 8 in California, I'm leery of marrying in any of the states until our federal government gets behind it because we've now seen that all it takes is a few hillbillies with a drive to steal someone's rights away.

Something happened last week though that might change my position. Illinois Senate just introduced a marriage equality bill. Illinois house already has one working it's way through the system, so the Senate starting on one is a good sign. If these go through, Illinois could be the next state to officially recognize civil marriages for all couples. And it just so happens we live in Illinois.

This gives me hope, because I'd love to actually benefit from marriage like the hetero couples we know do. However, the same thing could happen here as did in California, thereby leaving us in limbo. To be fair, the main reason I'm not as concerned about where we get married right now is because it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law: we may be married in Canada, but not in Illinois. In our hearts and minds we'll be married regardless of that, but when it comes to me going to a hospital or demanding benefits for my husband when/if we decide to adopt and one of us chooses to stay home… those things are important. Those things could make me actually consider where we want to get married beyond just how nice it sounds to be married there.

Of course, this is all theoretical right now. Neither bills have passed, and if they do they will need to be reconciled then signed into law by our Governor. Then the inevitable law suits will be filed by wingnut freaks which may or may not delay the law's implementation. All this is not even to mention that we thought they were going to pass this bill last term as part of some funding bill, which they failed to do. What I'm trying to say is that this bill being introduced is a step forward, but not enough of one to give me hope just yet.

Is It Us, Or Him?

A lot has been said in the last few months about President Obama's dedication, or lack thereof, to the LGBT community. I've chimed in on it, others have spoken on it. There's been no lack of screaming on our part for action NOW. Lately, there's been some push back on the issue. Not that we should be waiting in line, but more so that we are just impatient, and on the extreme end, the gay community is being called racist.

I've take some time to think about the accusations. Sometimes when you are enraged at someone else, it's hard to see your own faults, so I thought there could be some credence to these accusations. Is the gay community racist, which has as it's core leadership a whole slew of white people? Are we just being impatient children? Do we even have a valid reason to be screaming for so much so quickly?

When I look at the racist claims, I think there's something that definitely needs to be said on that front. It's true that there is an unseemly divide between the white gay community and the black gay community. Most of it has to do with sense of identity, where many white men that exclusively (or almost exclusively) have sex with other men identify as Gay. That is their identity, a Gay Man. I don't believe the same can be said for the equivalent black community, who identify more with being Black Men than with being Gay Men. There's a cultural divide, and it's true that there's a gap that needs to be bridged there. But I don't think that racism, or even lack of cultural understanding, plays that heavily in the LGBT community's cry for action from President Obama. I think that has more to do with a man that made promises and has yet to show indications of delivery on those promises.

When I look at the claims that the LGBT community is being too impatient with the President, I think there is some truth mixed with fiction in this claim. We need to be honest with ourselves and understand that he has only been in office six months. One simply cannot accomplish all of one's political promises in that time frame. You need to rally the base, make deals with key supporters in the legislature, convince the public, etc., particularly when we talk about potential major cultural shifts like repealing DOMA. Look at the fight we're having now with Health Care, and to me that should be an absolute given. There's also now "moral" component to that debate. When he takes up the anti-DOMA cause, there will be just as much rabble-rousing from the Right, if not more. That's a fight that needs full attention, I think. However, even though DOMA is a big issue and should likely be worked on when it can be a focus issue, President Obama has given no indication since he took office that he will tackle the issue. If anything, it's been repeated that he's not interested in the issue right now, and that's my concern. I'll work with you for Health Care, but you have to work with me on DOMA.

So do we have valid reasons for screaming at the Executive Branch for their lack of action on our issues? I believe so. I've said it many, many times: The moment you let up the pressure is the moment you lose the fight. If we don't constantly demand the attention of our law makers, we will never get it. However, we do need to be reasonable with regard to the President's plans and time tables. It would be nice to have more information about when the administration plans on tackling our issues. An all-inclusive ENDA was introduced to Congress today. Talk and work on repealing (or at least suspending) Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been buzzing. Those are two key policy changes that need to be enacted. So there is some movement. But our big money items, the items that we want to see before mid-term elections… those are what I'm worried about and what I want to hear more about.

Ultimately, I don't think the LGBT community hates is mad at President Obama due to deep seated racism, nor do I think we are being unfair in our demands. I do think we need to hold him to the fire and make sure he's accountable to the promises he's made, and I do think we need to rationally understand the process, but overall I think the LGBT community is doing what it can to forge ahead. Just like every other cause has previously. We don’t "stand in line and wait our turn," because we've seen that doesn't accomplish anything. We ask, we demand, and we fight for what we want.

Thank You, Governor Paterson

... For this. The Governor of New York had this to say about the Religious Right's lack of moral standing when it comes to debate on Gay Rights:

You see, the fact is that for years these same individuals - many of them, not all of them, but many of them - who pronounced religious doctrine did not exercise it when young gay and lesbian students were being chastised for expressing their point of view.

Where were these leaders of faith when college students of gay and lesbian orientation were beaten and oftenbrutalized for expressing their feelings for each other?

All I’m saying is: Why didn’t they speak about that at the time when it was the other
way around? See what really makes a democracy work is when you speak for others
rights even when you disagree with them.

I’m saying most of the religious leaders that I hear speaking out now did not do it at the time. Had they done so I think they would have better moral standing to speak at this moment on this legislation even though I disagree with them.Thank you for stating what I've been screaming all along. PS, Gov Pat introduced a marriage equality bill in NY recently. Let's hope it goes through, despite the religouly biased pricks in the NY Legislature that want to block it.

Again With The Out Right Lies

I have to admit that I'm getting to the point where I'm tired of fighting these religiously motivated, anti-gay bigots. "Why are you always down on the religion stuff, Dickie? Seriously, lay off!" you might say. However, I'd beg you to find me an example of anti-gay sentiment that didn't stem from religion.

Bigoted religious organizations are spending all of their time right now simply creating lies and falsehoods to spread to their constituents. Clearly, I still don't understand why it's relevant to them, other than as a blatant attempt to grab some form of self-importance from the situation. Why else would a church go out of it's way to make statements like "Hate-crimes legislation will mean that we will all get arrested for saying gays are bad?" Truth is that the hate-crimes legislation proposed here in the states is specifically toward crimes. Last I heard, calling someone a fag wasn't a crime, but beating the living shit out of them because you think they are is should be.

Fact of the matter is that Religious Preference is already protected by hate-crime legislation, yet here I stand telling everyone that the religious leaders and followers of our nations biggest hate machines are bigots. Wanna know a secret? I'm not doing it from jail! I know, it's amazing! I mean, if we were to believe what this nut-jobs are saying, then I'd have to be arrested because I speak openly about the evils of the church on a regular and daily basis, right? Yet, here I am. Still blogging away without a hint of the po-po on me. Weird how that works, isn't it?

And I am STILL waiting on one person to give me a relevant reason for Equality to not be the law of our land. Just one real reason, that's backed by real science (I know that concept is hard for Fundamentalist Christians to understand, but those of us who live in Reality are fond of Science), and I'd at least understand why they are bothering to fight. They'd of course still be wrong, but I'd at least have a semblance of respect for their arguments.

But hey, it's much, much easier to build a case from out-right lies and fear-mongering, isn't it? Just ask W. He's the king of that. Shit, we're still mired in a war because of his out-right lies and fear-mongering. I should start saying things like "Christians want to castrate all men everywhere!" and site a few Bible verses that show castration as punishment and see what happens. I mean, it's not true, and the Bible verses are completely irrelevant, but I'm bored and feel like fucking with other people's lives, so I'll give it a shot and see how much power and money I can rack up…

Come on people, start thinking for your god damned selves!

Suprise! Vermont's Republican Gov Is Republican

I’m thoroughly expecting every single Conservative that has cried about the abuses of certain branches of government abusing their power and ignoring the will of the people to stand up and scream bloody fucking murder at this news:

Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vermont, says he will veto the same-sex marriage bill
if it passes the Legislature.

The Vt. Senate gave its final stamp of approval Tuesday to a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Vermont. Passage came on a voice vote with no debate, one day after the Senate gave the bill preliminary approval on a 26-4 roll call vote. Now the issue moves to the House, where the Judiciary Committee has scheduled a week's worth of testimony on the issue. It is expected to pass.

Governor Douglas has said that he opposes the bill, and this afternoon he announced he plans to veto it. He said he made the announcement to stop speculation and to focus attention on economy.

How dare he say he will veto what is obviously the will of the people! I mean, sure, that’s within his power and sort of what his job is, but this is obviously what the people want! We should oust this outdated concept of an Executive Branch of Government, because it’s overwriting the obvious desire of the masses!

Oh… wait. So he’s doing something the Conservatives like? Oh, right, then it’s OK then this time? Oooooh… got it…

Look, the guy is apparently a giant Douche bag. It takes a lot of will to stand up and say to the world “I’m such a fucking Bigot that I will willfully and gleefully deny equal rights to my constituents even though it’s plainly obvious that my people want extend those rights.” That’s balls right there. Bitter, sour, hateful, spiteful, evil, vengeful, misguided, and out-right repugnant balls, but balls nonetheless.

Based on the resounding support in both the House and the Senate of Vermont for Marriage Equality, it seems likely that they Legislative Branch can overrule the Executive Branch’s decision, which I’m sure will pique the ire of the Conservative bastards of the world. But you know what? Fuck ‘em.

Weight Of The World: What's Running Through My Head

Really Republican's? Limbaugh is your "de facto" leader? That's pretty sad and pathetic, don't you think? I suppose that make sense, given that you elected a similarly pejorative, demeaning ass wipe in to office twice in a row.

Honestly Rihanna? You married Chris Brown? I mean, I didn't realize that you wanted to emulate the life of the trailer trash wife… but OK, sure, if you're into that sort of thing. Ya know, Whitney is a great singer and all, but you probably shouldn't look up to her as a personal idol. Maybe you and Chris can have your own fabulously awful reality show at some point too.

The California Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today on the fate of Proposition 8. Many experts expect the Court to uphold the prejudicial, vile piece of voter-initiated legislation, but I'm still holding out hope. Someone, at some point, has to be able to point out that taking rights away from a people, regardless of the "will of the voters," is unethical and illegal. This is, after all, all about my right to live happily, not the religious fuck-job's right to be a mindless sheep.

American Mattress is a shitty ass company to do business with. They are charging us $40 dollars plus a tax differential (since tax went up from when we purchased our bed) to replace their busted box springs. Regardless of whether or not that is an industry standard practice, it's a shitty customer service tactic. Furthermore, if your are manager is too much of a puss to call us or to have his number given out, then you no longer deserve our business.

Congress members are starting to make moves toward revoking Don't Ask, Don't Tell via legislation, which is a very, very good thing. Who knows when this will go through, or when it will even be heard, but here's to a better tomorrow in the Service.

New Jersey: Yeah, We Kinda Figured CU's Weren't The Same

Here's something odd: Yet another group has found that Civil Unions are not equal to Marriage. In fact, the segregation of the rights into categories, Marriage with full rights/protections and Civil Unions with much less than, has severe negative affects on gay and lesbian couples. Whoda thunk it?

"The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered 'overwhelming evidence' that the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples. The commission concluded that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as unjust as government imposing racial segregation laws against African-Americans.

So the Civil Union law in New Jersey was put into place to essentially give our community the same rights as hetero people, but it turns out that's just not the case. That's just sooo weird that if you tell someone that they aren't as cool as you, that person will start to feel bad about themselves. And wouldn't it be just as convenient for organizations to adopt rules that prohibit "union partners" versus "married couples?" Yeah, it would. It happens. IT'S NOT EQUAL!

The report is being sent to the New Jersey legislature for review, who also happens to be the same people that ordered the report. It is very likely that New Jersey will be the first state to enact EQUAL CIVIL MARRIAGES (that have nothing to do with a fucking church or someone else's' kids) legislatively rather than through court action. Well, California would have been that state if the Governator hadn't been a jack-ass an vetoed it twice in an effort to save his political career.

To sum it up: GIMME MAI = MARRIDGE NOAH!