Ten thousand thundering typhoons!
Forget DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Here are some laws I'd like to see:
-- DOGMA, the Defense of Gay Marriage Amendment
-- DAIRY, the Defense Against Idiotic Republican Yahoos
-- DAMP, the Defense Against Mean-spirited Presidents
Let's dissect President Bush's speech, shall we? Bush's words are in italics, and mine are in regular text.
Good morning.
No, it isn't, you bigot.
Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
No, it shows an overwhelming amount of antigay bigotry among lawmakers. Most of these so-called "defense of marriage" laws were adopted long before Lawrence v. Texas or the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling -- that is, long before marriage equality for gay men and lesbians was on the radar screen. That doesn't show an overwhelming consensus among Americans; it shows a bunch of spineless lawmakers pandering to the Religious Right before ordinary Americans had a chance to voice their opinions on the issue.
Also, let's face it, "defense of marriage" laws aren't about defending the institution of marriage -- they're about exclusion. If lawmakers were really concerned about heterosexual marriage, their laws would have outlawed divorce and adultery.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.
Bush OWES HIS JOB to activist judges and local officials who made an aggressive attempt to redefine democracy.
In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.
And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.
Well, let's just do away with our entire system of courts and local government then.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.
Just like a few local judges and local authorities tried to change the age-old institution of segregation a while ago.
Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse.
If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
Um, George, the meaning of marriage has changed radically through the ages. It wasn't long ago when the institution of marriage treated women as property, not individuals.
The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."
That's right!
Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.
Well, DUH! That's the goal, George.
Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.
First, the Defense of Marriage Act will be struck down because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Got that, George? You know yourself it is -- it all goes back to that full faith and credit clause in the Constitution.
Second, don't try to frame the issue through semantics, such as "any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage." That relationship is a MARRIAGE. You can claim that your own marriage is a relationship that judges in a certain part of the country choose to call a marriage.
Third, what you're not admitting here is that you believe that certain Americans don't have the same rights as others. Why bother to hide behind a speech that someone else has written for you. Just pull off the mask and admit the truth: You are a bigot, and you believe that gay men and lesbians are second-class citizens in this country and should have second-hand rights.
Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.
Uh, what?
For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.
No, it doesn't.
An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.
Once again, this has NOTHING to do with the preservation of marriage. It's about denying equal rights to gay men and lesbians. Quit with the fancy semantics, George -- we can see through your rhetoric.
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
First off, let's face facts: heterosexuals aren't doing such a great job taking care of the institution of marriage. Have you seen the latest figures on divorce and adultery?
Second, consider some of the other institutions that have been honored and encouraged throughout time: slavery, segregation, castes, imperialization. Lots of civilizations embraced monarchy, but that doesn't mean that we should adopt a constitutional amendment that creates an American royal family.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Once again, George, you need to take a trip to the library. Lots of history books there for you to read.
Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
No, it serves the interest of spineless politicians trying to drum up votes from antigay bigots.
Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
You are a fucking moron and I hate you.
The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
Oh good -- separate but equal status! That's worked well in the past.
America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.
No one is redefining a social institution, George. People are just demanding equality.
Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
Double-plus good.
We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.
Do you want a debate or a Constitutional amendment, George? Because, based on everything you've said up until this point, you've made it very clear that you want an amendment and you want it yesterday. I think you and your cronies are afraid of an honest debate on this issue, because you know you would lose. You're not right. You are driven by biases, not truth.
Thank you very much.
Fuck you.
It seems that all I write about these days is equal rights and the struggle for marriage equality for gay men and lesbians. I'm not surprised that it's all I'm writing about -- it's pretty much all I'm thinking about too. As I pointed out a while ago, I feel like an eyewitness to history right now. Everything that's happening in San Francisco and Massachusetts feels so significant and important. I just know that today's headlines will show up in our children's history texts.
I may be wrong. I but I hope I'm not.
To all of you who are sick of this topic right now: just hang in there. Between President Bush's continued idiocy, Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic film, and Alex Rodriguez's trade to the Yankees, I'm sure it won't be long until I find another issue to tickle my fancy.
Heterosexuals are destroying our society and infecting our culture. Consider the facts:
-- Every single divorce in America has been between a man and a woman, and many heterosexuals have been known to have sex outside of marriage.
-- Countless heterosexuals are addicted to alcohol, drugs and gambling.
-- Television viewers and moviegoers are shown positive images of heterosexual singles and couples, but these shows and films rarely show the consequences of the heterosexual lifestyle. In fact, every year millions of heterosexuals die from diseases such as cancer or heart attacks.
-- Books by heterosexuals, and promoting the heterosexual lifestyle, line the shelves at stores like Barnes & Noble and Wal-Mart.
-- Both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are, to the best of our knowledge, heterosexual.
-- Heterosexual teachers are working in our schools.
-- Many unmarried heterosexual girls and women become pregnant every year.
-- Many heterosexuals say they were born heterosexual, and believe that heterosexuality is a genetic characteristic like eye color or skin color.
Needless to say, this heterosexual menace is everywhere. Here are some things you can do if you are confronted by a heterosexual friend, coworker or family member. (The following steps were adapted, ironically, from a list published by Focus on the Family, a group that promotes heterosexual relationships without any concern to the consequences of the heterosexual lifestyle.)
1. The best thing you can do for someone you know battling the sin of heterosexuality is pray! Ask God to give you opportunities to show your care and concern for them and pray for the strength and courage to share the truth in love.
2. Remember that all of us have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. So, be willing to share about your own personal struggles and temptations.
3. Don't condemn. People have not "chosen" to "have heterosexual feelings" the way some choose to live in a certain city. To describe it this way is to convince them that you have no understanding at all about their experience -- and no sympathy for it, as well. Know that the core of the heterosexual struggle is rejection.
4. Don't start citing all the problems with heterosexuality. Consider how rarely exhortations convince someone to give up alcohol or smoking. But don't go to the opposite extreme either. Unquestioning acceptance of heterosexuality as a legitimate "alternative" may seem at first to be the only compassionate option. But there are better and more appropriate approaches that show concern and understanding, yet deal with the reality of the situation.
5. Try to prevent the problem before it occurs. Openly discuss the subject of heterosexuality with your friends or anyone you are close to who may be struggling. Familiarize yourself with the causes and address them at an early time. Help them understand the risks.
6. Share specific avenues of help, like the Metropolitan Community Church, that has helped thousands of men and women in the midst of their struggle with heterosexuality. Give them hope that change is possible! Perhaps even share this article with them. Even if the person is defensive and resistant, a specific route of assistance that is lovingly offered may be followed some day down the road.
7. Show love, concern, gentleness and respect as you point the way to healing.
Remember, we can only win the battle against heterosexuality with love and compassion!
Has it been a whole week since my last post? Six days! Time flies when you're having fun.
And, indeed, I am having fun. I'm overjoyed by the rush to City Hall to San Francisco, and by the approaching deadline for marriage equality in Massachusetts, and by the sight of right-wing conservatives who are running around like headless chickens because they're just starting to realize that they can no longer expect the government to reinforce their antigay biases.
I am having fun because my partner and I are now talking about marriage -- a conversation that would have been hypothetical just a few months ago.
I am having fun because I understand that history is unfolding before my eyes. I want to remember every headline, every story, every little detail so that I can tell my children and grandchildren that, yes, I was there when America truly became a land of opportunity, freedom and equality.
I am having fun, and I hope this fun never ends.
Sorry for the lack of new posts over the weekend. It's hard work -- ranting anonymously against The Man and his PHB Minions while I'm still trapped inside the system -- and sometimes I just need a little break. After all, if you think too hard about all of the injustices and inequalities in the world today, your head will just explode. And that could be really messy: bits of brain matter and skull fragments everywhere. Yuck. Pity the poor cleaning lady who has to clean up a mess like that.
Or cleaning gentleman. We're not sexist here in the Logorrhea Underground.
Okay, on to the required reading. I've got two articles today for you to check out:
-- "Bush Family Values: War, Wealth, Oil," a column by Kevin Phillips in the Los Angeles Times. Phillips wrote "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush." Note: you must register before reading anything on the LA Times Web site, but registration is free and relatively painless.
-- "Cincinnati group works to repeal law on gays," a story in today's Cincinnati Plain Dealer. Cincinnati has one of the most notorious anti-gay-rights ordinances in America, and it's about time that the law is wiped off the books. I'm pleased to see Cincinnati's corporate community weighing in with support and money to repeal the law. Firms like Procter & Gamble are letting everyone know that intolerance in the community is bad for business.
George W. Bush and his anti-equality allies are reportedly pushing ahead with their plans for a constitutional amendment that would deny equal rights to gay men and lesbians:
President Bush, reacting to the Massachusetts high court ruling Wednesday supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples, says a constitutional amendment may be necessary to ban gay marriages if judges persist in approving them. In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush termed "deeply troubling" the decision that same-sex couples in Massachusetts have a right to marry--not just form civil unions--and reiterated a position staked out in his State of the Union speech last month. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said in the statement. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." [story]
Gay columnist George Bouley II weighs in on the issue:
Thanks to George W. Bush, Congress will consider the first constitutional clause since slavery that is designed to limit the rights of certain Americans. Thanks, Mr. President.
He continues that:
The losers (in this national debate) are the 15% or more of the country who are gay and lesbian and will have to hear daily about how they are welcomed but just don’t fully belong, how they’re God’s children but immoral and how we should all treat them with compassion but not with equality. [story]
Three cheers to the Massachusetts Supreme Court for maintaining its stance on marriage equality, and for telling state legislators that their proposal for civil unions -- aka "marriage lite" for gay men and lesbians -- won't pass muster under the state constitution! And three hisses to the Massachusetts lawmakers who tried to revive the separate-but-equal approach to civil rights!
The Supreme Court writes about the civil union proposal:
The bill's absolute prohibition of the use of the word "marriage" by "spouses" who are the same sex is more than semantic. The dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.
What about the Federal Defense of Marriage Act? What about those other states that won't acknowledge a same-sex marriage? The Supreme Court writes:
That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists is not a reason to insist on less than the Constitution requires. We do not abrogate the fullest measure of protection to which residents of the Commonwealth are entitled under the Massachusetts Constitution. Indeed, we would do a grave disservice to every Massachusetts resident, and to our constitutional duty to interpret the law, to conclude that the strong protection of individual rights guaranteed by the Massachusetts Constitution should not be available to their fullest extent in the Commonwealth because those rights may not be acknowledged elsewhere.
And here's where the Supreme Court tells the right wing, in no uncertain terms, to go fuck itself:
But neither may the government, under the guise of protecting "traditional" values, even if they be the traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination that our Constitution, "as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach," forbids.
I'm so happy about today's Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts. I think civil unions were an important step toward equality, but they reinforce the idea that gay men and lesbians are second-class citizens whose partnerships deserve second-class recognition. Civil unions mean that we're allowed to sit on the bus, but civil marriage means that we don't have to stay in the back rows.
I'm sure George W. Bush and his Bible-clutching cronies will respond with some comment about "activist judges" foisting their political views upon the rest of the country. Perhaps Bush doesn't remember that it was a handful of activist judges, foisting their political views upon the rest of the country three years ago, that got him his current job.
TiVo Inc. says that the Janet Jackson's Super Bowl expose was the most TiVo'ed moment of television ever [cf].
I find this news disturbing -- not because record numbers of people wanted to see Janet's boob again, but because I didn't know the folks at TiVo were keeping tabs every time we used our remotes. I'm shocked. It's like waking up one morning to discover that your cable box is not actually a cable box, but John Ashcroft.
If you haven't yet, check out the winning entries at MoveOn.com's Bush In 30 Seconds. I wish all these ads could find their way to broadcast television.
I have just been informed that we are now living in the Year of the Monkey, according to the Chinese calendar. What a fortunate coincidence, considering the name of the blog. Perhaps Alanis Morissette will offer to write a song about it, provided she hasn't yet learned the difference between irony and coincidence.
Hey, Alanis, here's a little formula for you to memorize:
Black flies + chardonnay ≠ irony
It seems the entire nation is abuzz about Janet Jackson's bare-breasted Super Bowl performance yesterday, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. Here are some halftime show questions that are more worthy of our attention:
FIRST, why did Kid Rock feel it necessary to rip a hole in an American flag and wear it like a poncho? I, for one, don't think people should be told what they can and can't do with the flag -- but a poncho? What the fuck?
SECOND, why do P. Diddy and Nelly keep singing the same songs at these events? Have they not written any new music in the past two years -- or, in P. Diddy's case, appropriated other people's music?
THIRD, why must Nelly grab his crotch all the time? Does he have a rash?
FOURTH, why did the show feature so much music with sexual overtones? I'm no prude, but I don't believe the Super Bowl halftime show is the appropriate venue for songs with lyrics such as, "It's getting hot in here / so take off all your clothes" and "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song." With songs like these, can we really be surprised that the halftime performance culminated in a peep show?
I'm sure we haven't heard the last of the Boob Seen 'Round The World -- which, of course, is George W. Bush. We also haven't heard the last of Janet Jackson's titillating halftime performance.
I predict that next year's halftime show will be a deliberately wholesome and corn-fed affair. What a shame. I'd take Jackson's tit over Up With People any day.
I was going to write something mean about Phil Simms and Greg Gumbel, but I've decided against it. As boring as Simms and Gumbel may be, I'm grateful that this year we don't have to endure the inane ramblings of John Madden during the Super Bowl.
CBS won't air MoveOn.com's Super Bowl ad, claiming that the network has a policy against "advocacy" ads [cf].
Um, isn't all advertising a form of advocacy? Why are advertisers spending so much money if they're not trying to sway us, the viewers, to their point of view: mainly, that buying their products and services will improve our lives -- and that the competition's products and services aren't nearly as good. Shouldn't CBS's anti-advocacy policy require the network to ban all advertising?
Let's break this down a little:
Advocacy that's OK for CBS: Drinking a certain brand of beer will make large-breasted women want to sleep with you.
Advocacy that's not OK for CBS: The staggering national debt is a major problem for our country, and citizens should demand leaders that understand the gravity of the situation and can address it properly.
Advocacy that's OK for CBS: Your peers will look down on you if you're not drinking a certain brand of artificially flavored carbonated water.
Advocacy that's not OK for CBS: A $1 trillion national deficit will create an enormous burden, not just for today's taxpayers, but for future generations of Americans.
Advocacy that's OK for CBS: You will not satisfy your lover unless you take a certain pharmaceutical drug to make your penis hard.
Advocacy that's not OK for CBS: Our current elected leaders -- actually, there's still lots of lingering doubt whether some of them were truly elected -- are exacerbating our nation's financial problems through poor social and fiscal policy.
Well, I guess we all know now what the BS in CBS stands for.
