Federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

Posted on July 8, 2010 by Michael

In a ruling most interesting for its reasoning, the federal ban on gay marriage has been struck down.

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

This ruling has both an upside and a downside and then another upside. The upside is that it says DOMA is crap. The downside is that it only really says marriage ought to be left up to the states, leaving in place all the bigot-based constitutional bans so many states have in place. But then on the other upside, this opens the door for a strong challenge using the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution that says each state must respect the laws of other states. (The whole reason for DOMA was to circumvent this part of the constitution.)

I doubt many conservatives will see the legal validity in this ruling, instead ranting and raving based upon their bigotry, but this is the correct analysis. DOMA has always been an obvious violation of the constitution, no matter what one thinks about gay marriage.

But there’s a second, better ruling.

In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, [Judge] Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit,” Tauro wrote.

This ruling, while also correct, is the dicier of the two. Bigots will argue that homosexuality is a choice and an act which somehow magically harms society, therefore it is okay to classify those who engage in that life style. People on the right side of history will demolish that weak, weak, weak argument by pointing out that DOMA was classifying a group of people, not particular actions. As Tauro said, the constitution does not allow for any law to specify that any group of people be limited in their rights.

Now it’s time to wait until this gets appealed to the Supreme Court.

Filed under: News, Rights, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Gillard is against gay marriage

Posted on June 30, 2010 by Michael

If it was ever true that anything followed from atheism, then it’s odd that there are a number of atheists like myself who favor equal treatment of gays, while at the same time there are other atheists who think just the opposite. The Prime Minister of Australia is one example.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she does not support legalising gay marriage in Australia.

Labor policy on gay marriage will remain the same under her prime ministership, Ms Gillard told Austereo show today.

“We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples,” Ms Gillard said.

Asked if that was also her personal view, Ms Gillard said it was.

I suppose she did only say she was atheistic, not anti-theistic.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Jack Hudson is a moron, part 1

Posted on April 25, 2010 by Michael

In all likelihood, Jack Hudson still reads this blog. As regular readers will know, he left in a huff when I exposed the ‘anonymous’ phone calls he or one of his friends had been making to a family member of mine. Of course, I went out of my way to point out that the best evidence was track phone numbers which originated from his home state, but he’s likely one of the most deluded, arrogant individuals I’ve encountered so that fell on deaf ears since he didn’t want to hear it. My relative then berated him for the sake of causing anger, pulling out a number of insults which any rational person would have seen as zingers that should have little consequence beyond a small blog in the corner of the Internet. Then after all that, Jack blamed me for what someone else said (sharing 1/4 of my genes with someone makes me guilty, I guess?), defriended me on Facebook a la John Lott style, and stormed off the set.

But he still probably reads this blog.

He has this post about a case of bigotry in Sonoma County in California, likely having taken the news from FTSOS; the main ways of finding the story were via a short post from PZ or by being someone who specifically searches gay and lesbian sites for news. And since most of Jack’s posts relating to PZ only pop up after I post about them, it’s hard to believe he doesn’t still peruse FTSOS. And that’s fine. I glance at some of his posts. I’ve even tried leaving a couple comments, but alas, he has already gone out of his way to block my IP. Some people just can’t take it. (Even those who can beat people up real bad!)

But enough qualification, let’s get to the post in question (which is about two elderly gay men who were forcefully separated by Sonoma County).

So the story came out, was gobbled up (though not digested) – and of course no follow-up will happen, because these folks aren’t interested in facts which might muddle up their epistemic closure on all things homosexual.

Of course there will be follow-up. If the result is in favor of the elderly gay man who is still living (despite having all his property stolen), then that’s good news for gay rights. If the result is against the elderly gay man, it’s an unfortunate blow which serves roughly the same political purpose as the initial story.

At the outset its important to note the events themselves take place in Sonoma County, California. This is important because we aren’t talking about some back-woods, redneck, right-wing enclave that systematically oppresses anyone who isn’t a white heterosexual – this is perhaps one of the most gay-friendly places on earth. It is also one of the most ‘progressive’ parts of the country; so there is little indication that politics ordered the set of events detailed in this story.

Here Jack wants a strawman. No one said there was some deep political current. Those in charge separated the two because the couple could not get married. Nothing beyond that matters.

It also went without note the reasoning the county gave for acting as it did with the two men…In this case of course, the left-wingers weren’t interested in the whole story, because another set of facts might threaten the usefulness of the story they had concocted

(The ellipsis is for some meaningless, irrelevant excerpt from the Bible.)

One of the first sites to break the story actually linked to the .pdf of the lawsuit which included that claim.

No one is saying supposed accounts of abuse are unimportant, but the county did not charge anyone. No convictions were made. The county had no right to dissolve all the legal arrangements the two had set up. They did it with no authority, and in fact, they repeatedly claimed both men were suffering from dementia. Isn’t it just convenient that both men were suffering from severe mental impairment, yet the county was still able to selectively believe certain claims? And how can anyone believe these people? The man who is still living, Clay, is not actually suffering from anything (other than the torment of having not seen the final days of his partner’s life). He is actually free from the abuse he actually suffered at his prison nursing home.

And what is even more ironic is what is really bothersome in this case is the wanton disregard the county showed for property rights. The fact that they felt they could imprison an individual and then confiscate his property to pay for his incarceration, even if they felt it was for his own health, is outrageous – but it is outrageous for conservative reasons, not progressive reasons. In this situation the bureaucrats were acting exactly as progressives want the state to act; to be indifferent to our property, to act in what they deem is our best interest, and to intrude into what should be personal and individual financial issues.

Going off the looney deep-end with a non-sequitur much? If the couple was married, the county would not have been able to steal property. End of story.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Kelly Glossip

Posted on March 11, 2010 by Michael

Every so often I will get a comment on a post from a person I’ve specifically discussed or who is specifically involved in the topic at hand. Sometimes those posts are inane. Other times they are worthwhile and concise. Then there are the times when they deserve to be highlighted for the sake of their sincerity, meaning, and even application to bigger social issues (even if that application has no bearing on what the commenter would say one way or the other).

So Dennis is shown gratitude for giving his life while he was working for the state of Missouri by leaving his entire debt onto his life partner. It just doesn’t seem like the state appreciated his life. This simply makes me sad; because he loved his job and loved helping others. Yet to show their gratitude for his life; the person that Dennis loved more than anyone (and yes I have the documentation to prove it, he kept a journal in his handwriting) he often states that I was his one and only and the person of his dreams. I’m thankful for Dennis giving his life for the safety of others, for that I will pay off his debt on my own. Because I unconditionally loved him and that is what love is.–May the Peace of the Lord be always with you and your family.

Written by Kelly Glossip, this was in response to my post about Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard. Engelhard was a Missouri patrolman who died in a traffic accident while on duty last Christmas. Under Missouri’s anti-equality laws, his partner, Glossip, is not entitled to any of the benefits upon death that would be awarded to married couples. Missouri has failed to make any steps forward in granting protections to such couples, instead forcing them to feel like they mean nothing, both socially and morally, not to mention economically and as productive members of society; of these four examples of forced demonization and degradation, the moral matter is the most important. However, given the nature of the concern over the loss of benefits upon death in the original article, the economic impact cannot be ignored. Glossip and Engelhard shared a home. Whether they jointly owned or not it is unclear (and Glossip need not clarify, both because my point can be made without further information and for his own privacy), but if the two are homeowners, it’s entirely plausible that the loss of one of them could result in the loss of a home. For those who make the disingenuous economic arguments against same-sex marriage (“What’s the benefit to the prosperity of the government?!?!”), this is one convincing reason to abandon such inane stances.

Of course, it has never been about the triviality of economic welfare.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

I declare Poe’s Law

Posted on March 4, 2010 by Michael

Bigots have suffered a couple of blows recently; one is in D.C. and another in Mexico City where same-sex marriage has started. Don’t worry. All the buildings are still standing and the birds are still flying.

Unless you’re Robert Moon.

Washington, D.C. has now officially become the sixth place in the U.S. where homosexuals can go to force the public to endorse their lifestyles. Until now, insecure gays in need of validation had to travel to Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire or Vermont if they wanted to help dismantle our foundational institution of marriage.

…f-for real? For real real? Am I endorsing all the heterosexual marriages right now? What about the bans on same-sex marriages nearly everywhere else? Am I and all the other non-bigots endorsing those by living in places where they exist? Is everyone endorsing Obama by him being president? Do we all endorse each others checks when just one of us signs?

Never mind the fact that the will of the people is completely against this (as evidenced by the overwhelming rejection of gay marriage even in ultra-liberal states like California) or that marriage in this Judeo-Christian country is, by definition, incompatible with homosexuality, polygamy, and other deviations from “one man, one woman.” A liberal special interest group needs to feel more mainstream than it is, so there is nothing else to think about.

I don’t understand. Does Robert Moon just smash his face against the keyboard when he writes? This must be an accident.

As I have noted, whether it be trying to criminalize dissent against homosexuality, forcing taxpayers to fund special gay high schools or strong-arming homosexuals into a military that does not want them (especially in the middle of a war), gays are simply on a war path here…one that is all about special treatment, not actual equality.

I still don’t understand. All these letters form words. If he’s just smashing his face, then wow. What are the chances?

Filed under: Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Good news for gay atheists

Posted on February 23, 2010 by Michael

Your numbers and the numbers of those who accept you are on the rise.

According to a new report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the gap on some issues has widened into a chasm, notably on issues related to gay rights and tolerance.

“Young people are more accepting of homosexuality and evolution than are older people. They are also more comfortable with having a bigger government, and they are less concerned about Hollywood threatening their values,” said the report, which was released on Wednesday.

The report also found “Millennials” (aged 18-29) were far more likely than their elders from “Generation X” and the “Baby Boom” to be unaffiliated with a specific faith. Generation X was born between 1965 and 1980, Baby Boomers from 1946 to 1964.

While I fully plan on lamenting later generations as I grow older, I like to take advantage of earlier generations still being around to do the same thing to them*. Because really, Baby Boomers and Gen X really fucked a lot of stuff up, the least of which might be their slow come-around on social morality.

The number of those 18-29 who accept homosexuality (and presumably same-sex marriage, by and large) nearly double up the rickety old fogies who reject it (63 to 35 percent).

Those without any particular faith go from 13% for Baby Boomers to 25% for the 18-29 group. Unfortunately, this doesn’t fully translate into better acceptance of the fact of evolution. Only 55% of my generation accepts it while 47% of all other older groups accept it. (Incidentally, these numbers seem to be higher overall than what commonly gets touted.) One reason may be that while religion is obviously the primary root for ruining the thinking parts of people, the poor focus on science education is also to blame here. Of course, with the older generations making most of the policy decisions and passing most of the terrible laws, it’s not surprise the younger generations have been harmed.

And while this still seems like a generally positive trend, that may not be the case.

But in other ways American Millennials are not so radically different in their religious beliefs.

“Though young adults pray less often than their elders do today, the number of young adults who say they pray every day rivals the portion of young people who said the same in prior decades,” the report said.

“This suggests that some of the religious differences between younger and older Americans today are not entirely generational but result in part from people’s tendency to place greater emphasis on religion as they age,” it noted.

Credulity is as much a trait of the very old as it is the very young, it would seem.

*Of course, I don’t restrict myself from yet again doing the same when it comes to my own generation. Maybe it’s just humanity.

Filed under: News, Religions | Tagged: , , , , | 12 Comments »

Vermont begins equality

Posted on September 2, 2009 by Michael

Same-sex marriages have officially begun in Vermont. All monuments still stand, children are just fine, and no storms have ravaged the Ben & Jerry factory.

Maine is currently facing possible discrimination by the will of many of its Christians. One of the primary groups pushing for bigotry is the Maine Family Policy Council. You can tell just by the arrogance in its name that it’s bad news. Who the hell would want people who cannot justify their own beliefs*, who hate based upon an ancient cultural book, who have radically immature views on sex, who…well, the list goes on…who would want these people in charge of any policy regarding the privacy of one’s family?

Here’s a small taste of what these slime balls do. There’s a man who was arrested earlier this year on manslaughter charges. A few days before his arrest, he spoke at a public forum discussing Maine’s same-sex marriage bill (which passed and is now being challenged via a People’s Veto). Naturally, the MFPC is focusing on this guy a lot. It isn’t hard to find articles where this organization of immoral scumbags tries to connect homosexuality to logically leading to things such as manslaughter and murder.

One plausible scenario is that the sadomasochistic activity on the night of the killing became more and more depraved until LaValle Davidson inflicted the greatest possible harm on his victim, that is, death. If the details of the crime come out at trial, the public will see a part of the homosexual lifestyle that is very different from the positive image the gay rights movement is trying to project.

That isn’t plausible at all, and it’s irresponsible to suggest to a group of gullible readers (Christians) that these words may actually represent facts. They do not.

But that isn’t the half of it. Go back to the first link I posted to their site and there’s something even worse.

The connection between homosexual activists from Southern California and the effort to foist same sex marriage on the people of Maine is a mysterious one. The individual most responsible for the success of gay marriage in Maine, Senator Larry Bliss of South Portland, was born and raised in Southern California, and both the victim and the alleged killer involved in the South Portland killing were from Southern California. The victim, Fred Wilson, had moved to South Portland only three years ago, and lived one half mile from Senator Larry Bliss in a comfortable home near Willard Beach. The Maine Legislature acknowledged Bliss’s leading role in enacting same sex marriage by making Bliss President of the Maine Senate for a day so he could sign the bill on behalf of the entire Senate.

This sort of illogical, monstrous, immoral, irresponsible, inane, butt-headed, stupid, crass, ill-conceived, incorrect nonsense reminds me of the other bad arguing styles of Christians. The difference in the other styles in that link, however, is that they are intentionally reduced to being especially absurd. The above quote isn’t humorous at all. It’s just evil. If there has ever been a call to show a prime example of some widely-accepted dangerous thought as wrought by mainstream religion in the United States, this answers that call. People who have no moral qualms with connecting a random man with such an awful death should not be given any respect at all. The deference we give these people cannot be justified. Yet as November makes it way here I suspect I will continue to see people from this organization quoted in local papers and interviewed on the local news.

*Falling back upon faith – something all religious people necessarily must do – is falling back upon nothing at all. It implicitly says “I have no evidence, and thus cannot actually justify my beliefs. I just have them because I have them because I have them. It’s faith.”

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The pride of bigotry

Posted on August 1, 2009 by Michael

090801-lg_918099455

These are some of the wholly ignorant individuals who are seeking to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage bill before it officially becomes law. They’re actually proud of themselves. It’s gross.

Bob Emrich is a hateful, stupid man. He has absolutely no idea that he’s actually advocating for discrimination against himself. He thinks homosexuality is icky or perverse or just like having sex with a dog or he’s uncomfortable in his own sexuality or he’s just another mook propping up the bible for his own ends (which is easy because that is one of the most morally malleable books ever written) or maybe it’s all of those things. Ultimately, he has no universal justification for denying people the right to marry on the (purely legal) basis of sex/gender. I doubt he’s smart enough to come up with many principled arguments for his beliefs in the first place, but even if he was capable of that, such an argument does not exist for his absurd position.

It’s an utter disgust that people like this are given legitimacy. Why don’t more people just lash into crap like this? Bob Emrich has a lot of bad ideas predicated on a lot of bad bigotry. I hate to be redundant with “bad bigotry” but aside from the grammatical flow, it supports the notion that Emrich doesn’t even understand the true basis for his hatred. He has no idea that through his outright bigoted, hateful views of homosexuals (what did they ever do to anyone?), he is taking legal aim at absolutely everyone. And that’s what this all is: a legal issue. Emrich has no logical basis to be demanding that the state of Maine discriminates against everyone on the basis of what chromosomes they have (again, go here).

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Only a matter of time

Posted on July 22, 2009 by Michael

Teachers in Florida can now officially use the word “evolution”.

For the first time, teachers can say it, they are now being taught how to handle this controversial subject.

The word evolution appears in student’s textbooks.

But when teachers get to that chapter, they say it’s always been a juggling act — how to teach evolution, without actually using the word.

Florida science teaching standards didn’t allow the word “evolution” to be used.

Instead teachers had to say the phrase, “biological change over time.”

But that’s about to change.

It’s almost like the standards are, dare I say it…evolving. Hardy-har.

It’s sad that Florida is often so backward. They vote for the Bush’s, they ban same-sex marriage out of weird culturally-based belief systems that have no bearing on reality, they refuse to acknowledge a simple word…it’s ludicrous. It’s only a matter of time until this state progresses to something respectable. Not that it’s an anomaly. Plenty of other U.S. states have no clue how to behave like civilized beings. But regardless, time washes away bigotry – facts tend to get in the way. It’s just all happening very slowly. Really, though, New England and especially Europe can’t stay socially ahead of the majority of the U.S. forever.

“One of the things we can now discuss is human evolution. Which has been a very taboo topic in the past. Now as science teachers, we’re excited,” explained teacher Kristy Chiodo.

Chiodo got it mostly right. The only problem is that, unfortunately, it isn’t only in the past that people have had problems with human evolution. From high-quality biologists like Ken Miller to good organizations like the National Zoo, human evolution is treated as a subject which needs to be approached very, very carefully. Sometimes (such as with Miller), superfluous exceptions and qualifications are randomly inserted. People certainly still have big issues with human evolution. But ultimately, we’re just one line of “Great Apes”. God may exist, but probably doesn’t. And if he does, then there’s no indication of such. Get over it and let’s get on with the science; stop letting your god interfere with quality educations.

And finally…

Subjects that are not science, like creationism, will not be taught in schools.

Nice jab.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Bob Emrich

Posted on July 20, 2009 by Michael

Bob Emrich is a major bigot and a danger to the well-being of Maine and the good reputation of Maine. Of course, he is one of the hateful Christians seeking to invade the secular nature of Maine law to deny people the right to marry on the basis of gender. He also says dumb things like this.

State voters have repeatedly defined marriage as between a man and a woman when given the opportunity, with the latest vote in California, said Emrich, founder of Maine Jeremiah Project, which aims to get people of faith involved in setting public policy.

“Without exception, they’ve always voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage,” Emrich said.

And for a long time, so did the South. After all, the “traditional definition of marriage” for a very long time was that interracial unions were unholy and thus not allowed. Emrich is presenting a plainly dumb argument. “Well, we’ve been doing it for so long!”

I’m tired of parsing words or dilly-dallying around the issue. These people are fucking stupid. They have the intelligence of a glop of mud. These huge bigots (not that small bigots are okay) find homosexuality icky and/or they’re uncomfortable with their own sexuality. Often, their sexuality is repressed (see priests). They have immature views on what sex is, what its purpose is, what it means, and they are unable to make universal appeals which support any of the dogmatic inanity they embrace. Why do we listen to these fools?

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »