Good one NOM!

The National Organization for Marriage made this new ad for New Hampshire's House bill supporting gay marriage:



The guy on HuffPost that posted this made a good point: These children aren't confused about gay marriage, but about homosexuality itself. And the kid who says that it should be "Ann & Eve" was totally put up to say that, so his confusion was manufactured. It's almost like, "oh, kids say the darndest things" and that is it. As someone who watched the "storm gathering" video, completely shocked by the overt homophobia, I find myself even more shocked that this group is using children to sell its point, just like the Prop 8 supporters did last year. Talk about exploitation. Children inherently don't understand many abstract things that adults do. Their brains really can't do it. At the ages shown the commercial, most are egocentric and think concretely. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are very foreign ideas to them, and to use them to sell a sick point is just wrong.

Let's be frank, NOM: You're a homophobic group who want the religious teachings of your intolerant "God" (I use quotes because these people are hardly Christian or understand the teachings of Christ) melded with civic life, so that you may oppress other whom you deem second- or third-class citizens who do not, under any circumstances, deserve the same rights you enjoy.

If they only used that language when selling their filthy shit to the public.

Another point to make about confused children: "Why does Daddy hit Mommy when he drinks out of the green bottle with the reindeer on it (Jägermeister)?" Nobody is exploiting the children on this issue, as it is a delicate issue. Same sex marriage should be the same way.

Let's leave the children out of this fight, you idiots. Go back to spreading your homophobia the "traditional" way, and let's hope you get run out of town.

I Weigh in on Miss California

So by now everyone has seen the clip of Miss California totally blowing a question on the issue of same-sex marriage:



Ok, so Perez asked her if other states should follow Vermont's lead, and she starts out by saying that she thinks it is great that Americans can choose. Doesn't answer the question by any means. She is specifically asked if states should fall in line and grant same-sex marriage, and she says that it is great that Americans can choose same-sex marriage. That's not a choice! You either have it or you don't. Heterosexuals don't say to themselves: "Hmmm, I have the choice to either marry the opposite sex or the same sex. The choice is too hard, I think I'll flip a coin." That doesn't make any sense. The legislature CHOSE to enact a law granting same sex marriage, but no individual is choosing to do it just for the fact that the choice has been granted. She also says "we live in a land where you can choose" and she thinks it's "great". But then 10 seconds later she says in her country, marriage is between a man and a woman. In her country? That must not be the USA, because she just said that we live in a land that grants same-sex marriage.

Don't even get me started on "opposite marriage" because I have no idea what that is. For the countless times she's heard traditional marriage, she was so nervous, she couldn't spit that out. In all actuality opposite marriage would be divorce or separation, as the opposite of marriage. If she was going to throw in the word opposite before marriage, she should have squeezed "sex" in the middle and it would have made much more sense.

Another one: "[she] thinks [she] believes" that a marriage is between a man and a woman, but since she said she thinks, she is obviously unsure of herself and her non-answer. She either thinks or believes, but not together or the other way around, because it just makes you sound uncertain and brainwashed. "I think I believe the grass is green, but I am incapable of seeing the color green."

And lastly, you cannot say that you were raised to believe marriage is between a man and a woman, a) as I am sure that never was a conversation when you were a kid, nor were you ever taught that, except maybe sparingly in Sunday school, and b) come out the next day and say your sister is a gay rights activist so it makes it OK, even though you were most likely raised the same way with the same parent who most likely held the same values as the two of you were growing up. It makes it sound like your sister is some sort of black sheep of the family, was raised horribly, or decided to cast off your family values like some rebel with a cause because it magically popped into her head.

The non-answer is filled with crap, and sure she was nervous, but if you're on stage in just a bikini, I think you can answer a simple question. A simple NO and then a supporting explanation would have answered Perez's question. Not some diplomatic "everyone wins" sort of answer with "my opinion" thrown in there for good measure.

DO IT New York

If New York passes the bill proposed by Governor David Paterson on legalizing same-sex marriage, that would be historically awesome. They would be the second state to legalize through the legislature after their neighbor Vermont, and we all know many gays and lesbians live in and around New York City.

I know I haven't talked about same-sex marriage a lot since I first opened my blog with all the jazz on Prop 8 here in California, but I've been extremely happy about the recent developments in Iowa and Vermont, which is better news for us Californians.

Unfortunately, we still have to deal with Constitutional arguments in the California Supreme Court, as opposed to directly attacking the problem of stripping rights away from citizens.

I've got fingers crossed for New York that they do the right thing, and that more states start following suit. California, we're still waiting.

If you are wondering what might become of certain states that might accept same-sex marriage in the end, look to my previous post about secession, all the way at the end. You will all understand since Canada has been allowing same-sex marriage for years.

Religious Majorities: My Thoughts

I skimmed a new Newsweek article that touched on a possible "end" to "Christian America" (LINK) and I am actually happy about the new statistics regarding religion in America.

I am an agnostic individual. I do not confirm nor deny the existence of a God or gods that may or may not exist in the supernaturality (if it's not a word, it should be). I gracefully take a skeptic's stance in the face of organized religion, effectively saying the phrase, "I'll believe it when I see it, and even then I'm going to questions 'why?'". My main problem with humans is the creation of such religions that claim extraordinary things. I understand that humans must make sense of the world around us, creating explanations of unexplainable things, but when it is morphed into any old interpretation, used as a rule of law or moral code for the majority, there is a problem.

For any of you that come from my Facebook, my info states under my religious views that I don't care, as long as you don't tell me you're right. Which is as plain as I can be. I am more than willing to discuss theology with anyone, use their circular logic against them, but when I am told that I am wrong and they are right, there is a disconnect. If I truly believed the sky was red, and ended a conversation with "you're wrong, it's not blue, it's red, I'm right," you'd look at me as if I were crazy and walk away. This is my feeling on proselytizing is it should not be around. If we are all truly meant to believe in something, it would present itself to each and every one of us, and make us a core believer, not a follower of some esoteric doctrine said on high. Of course, there is that convenient thing in Christianity saying that if one does not accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior, then one is doomed to damnation, electrifying the whole free-will debate (but that's a whole different story for another time).

So to say that Christian America is shrinking is to say that we as a nation are moving toward a more inclusive country, that even though our fore fathers were Christian and used Christian principles to govern, we can still use those laws in a blanket fashion, where one's creed or religious affiliation has nothing to do with how one is treated. One specific debate would be same-sex marriage: Is it morally wrong for two people of the same sex to have a legal joining under the eyes of the law based on the teachings of people who don't exist anymore, or is discriminatory to not offer Bob and Rob the same rights under the law as Bob and Sue, regardless what the teachings say in that case?

What I see in the fall of any religious majority in any country is parity among all who dwell within. Because then, and only then, does the rights of man (and woman) come before the rights of a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu.

The more people who become atheists or agnostics create an army of questioners (some more than others, of course) that pause to look at the moral majority, and say "Wait a second, that doesn't sound right..."

Think of this way, if you are religious and spiritual and believe the Bible: The more non-believers there are means heaven won't be so crowded. Just something to think about the next time you try to spread the good news.

I know there are some strong thoughts and viewpoints on the other side, so I am willing to hear them!

My Thoughts on Huckabee's Gay-Sexism

I know it's a bit old (from Tuesday), but I was extremely frustrated by Mike Huckabee's appearance on the Daily Show. First off, he got two segments, which also annoyed me, but I saw what Jon Stewart was trying to do, at least with the second segment. It dealt with Prop 8 and Huckabee's strong support of the same-sex marriage ban (he is from Arkansas; but his wife looks like a man, so I don't know, maybe he's trying to pull a Larry Craig?). Here's the segment:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

So here's my thing: Did anyone else see that the only argument Huckabee had was, in essence, semantics? Because that's all I saw.

I would like to break down his argument in sections. His first point was procreation. Of course, gay couples cannot procreate like a heterosexual couple can, but as Jon points out, there are numerous avenues a gay couple can go down to "prep" the next generation. Things like artificial insemination from a sperm donor, which is expensive, but definitely an alternative that is open to lesbian couples, and being taken advantage of by heterosexual couples that cannot have children on their own (in and of itself a Christian disgrace). Another avenue is adoption, and studies have shown that kids can grow up healthy if they are given the love and affection and attention that they need, even if it's from two dads or two moms. Talk about a general population crisis, especially in other countries. If we gave every gay-married couple 2 kids, why I'm sure our foster care services, orphanages, and general poverty would be greatly improved. So when Huckabee suggests that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman on the insistence of procreation, he is sorely missing the point.

My next point is one that Jon makes, which is discussing the Bible's role in marriage. Yeah, all of the forefathers of Judaism had multiple wives (it's a case for variation, since there weren't as many people then as there are now), so what? You know, that's not my major beef. What my major beef is religious folk pick and choose what is supposed to be followed from the Bible, and want literalism from those selected verses (like creation), but as soon as an outsider suggests that marriage thing from the Bible should be taken literally, they're are yelled that they are taking the Bible "too literally". Where does something like that end? It's impossible to tell, because religion is powerful enough to allow hypocrisy to exist relatively unfettered. My basic thing is, you either take the Bible literally or you don't. You either allow polygamy or you don't. You either believe in Jesus' teachings (all of them) or you don't. You either stone gays or you don't. But if you stone gays, you have to stone adulterers and the like too, so perhaps that might not be the best thing to believe in. My point is thus: Since you don't believe in polygamy, why not same-sex marriage?

Huckabee then suggests a slippery slope fallacious argument that if we change the definition, we have to include every lifestyle change, like polygamy. No, you don't, because we already agreed that polygamy is illegal, and gay couples don't want to have more than one partner, they just want to have the right to have ONE, like everyone else does in this world.

Again, Huckabee throws around shades of meaning with regard to "equality". You know, we're either created equal with all of the same rights as our neighbors, or we're not. It's that simple. You know how simple it is? It's so simple, that for many many years, black people were classified as 3/5 of a person. It's so simple that, before that, most black people were slaves. If it's simple one way, why not the other, right? Privileges are not the same as rights, I agree. Having a license to drive a car is not a right, but a privilege. But, at least in this country, we have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I believe marriage fits into all three of those. Life; it's been shown that marriage extends life expectancy, or that for some, marriage is a way to live life. Liberty; We are a free people, and all that is granted to free people should be the same, no matter your race, age, creed, religion, or sexuality. And the Pursuit of Happiness; well, isn't that every one's ultimate goal, to be happy? I have not met a soul who has not wanted some sort of happiness in their life. And you know what, for some, marriage is happiness, and we should not, no, we SHALL not interfere with that pursuit, regardless who that marriage is to.

Then there is the big one: Huckabee suggests there is a"big difference" between being black and being homosexual. He obviously is stuck in the 50s. For many years, it is widely accepted by psychiatrists and psychologists that homosexuality, much like heterosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but a biological occurrence with no conscious choice of the individual whether to be gay or straight. Jon rightly stops him by saying he knows many more than Huckabee does, and rightly puts him in his place that his argument is malarkey. Jon is right, religion is absolutely a lifestyle choice, and one that takes the cake in protections from the government. (Remember what I said above, religion is powerful enough to do what it wants, in the face of conflicting information.)

Then Huckabee shows his hand by going back to "redefining the word". Who cares? What does it do to people? Aren't the monotheistic religions individualistic anyways? Meaning that what one person doesn't affect your own salvation, as long as you follow what you're supposed to do? Words are redefined everyday, every decade, every century. Does gay even mean what it did when  "Deck the Halls" came out? I don't think so, unless guys "don their gay apparel" of a shirtless vest and tight leather pants a la New York nightclubs of the 1970s.

My last point that I want to make is thus: "we have to agree to disagree, because you're not going to change my mind" is horrible, and humans tend to be this way. This is where being a skeptic comes in handy, because open minds trump all. Truly open minds, not the ones that say "I'll try anything once". Because once you become a skeptic, you say, well let's see how it works out, and if new information comes in to either support or contradict what we originally knew, then we'll go from there. None of the other stuff that says we're going to only believe the first thing and not any other new information. This is what I feel Huckabee is stuck in. He feels so strongly in this position of man and woman = marriage, but he won't even let others try it out to see if it will work. What is truly telling, is that in the 6 months in California where gay couples married, no one exploded, and life went on, ob la di ob la da, and since it wasn't in the sensory experience of Mike Huckabee, I'm sure he was none the wiser, and did not lose any sleep.

Perhaps when we all come to realization that what someone else does doesn't affect our own existence too greatly, then we can truly embrace the idea of personal liberty or what discrimination truly means to human existence.

(Sorry if there were spelling or grammatical errors, I was too fucked to proof-read after writing all of that above)

Prop H8 ... and my shame of being a Californian...

I have to say... Tuesday was great and crap at the same time. I am proud to be an American, but shameful about being a Californian. This is what my shame amounts to at the moment (image above).

Why, you ask, is my shame bringing feelings about the Jim Crow south that I was never apart of? Well, I shall lay it out for you in the simplest terms that I can. OK, so Proposition 8 passed in California on Tuesday which would ban same-sex marriage in the state and cancel the ruling by the Supreme Court that said it was allowed earlier this year. It would be an amendment to the California State Constitution defining marriage between a man and woman ONLY. Now, about 18,000 gay couples got married in California since May. Their marriages are assured to continue to be valid by the State Attorney General, but I have some misgivings. Let me give you a scenario that I thought of the other day. Say Gary married Steve in June 2008. Steve got into a huge auto accident last month. Gary, being Steve's spouse, wants to visit Steve in the hospital. The hospital happens to be a private hospital and not a government-run facility. The hospital denies Gary the right to see Steve in the hospital. Gary sues the hospital. Gary wins on the basis that the Attorney General said their marriage was still valid in the face of Prop 8 and the subsequent amendment to the constitution and the hospital wrongly disallowed Gary to visit Steve. However, the lovely appeals process is taken up by the hospital, claiming that the marriage is unconstitutional. Now, I'm not a constitutional law student, or even a law student, but it seems easy for this case. I could be wrong, so bear with me, or please, tell me I'm wrong. So anyway, the appeals process takes the case all the way back to the California Supreme Court. Since it is their job to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, they refer to the State Constitution. The Amendment states in plain language that marriage is between a man and a woman and side the case with the hospital. Unfortunately, all the 18,000 marriages granted by California are basically found unconstitutional. Even though the attorney general said they would be safe. I believe all it takes is one case to make it so.

But Alex, you haven't equated Jim Crow to the issue at hand yet. I know, I'm getting there: So here's the deal, what do we do with same sex couples that would like to have the same rights as hetero-couples? Well, since we obviously don't want to grant them marriages like everyone else, we say civil unions. Here's where the connection makes sense. I'm sorry, but civil unions are nothing more than "separate but equal". I for one found the Jim Crow laws to be beneath that of decent human nature, and I am ashamed it took so long for them to be abolished. But apparently it is OK for same sex couples to feel the same type of discrimination? In 2008? Separate but equal should not be language I'm using at this stage in US history, and I am ashamed I am using it now. We, as a nation, elected a black man to the highest office in the land, yet we continue to subject different parts of the population to undeserved discrimination? So what if civil unions are exactly like marriages. That's not the point. Many people fight battles based on principle, and in this case, it is the principle. I know marriage is just a word, but Westerners have placed so much meaning behind the word, it leads a country to continue to discriminate and make others feel less welcome or less of a citizen. That is my point, because civil unions just do not cut it. There are many churches or synagogues out there that will perform the religious ceremonies of same sex couples. The only other aspect is to be allowed in one's civic life to get a marriage license and not a civil union license. Why is it so hard for people to let others do what they wish, considering we live in the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE? It's not free to hand someone something separate but equal, and it is not brave to allow that to happen when you know it is wrong.

I would like to add that it is also shameful the ads for Prop 8 that were everywhere stating that same sex marriage would be forced upon Californians, churches would lose their tax-exempt status because they would be against it, and that children would have to learn it in school. None are true, but it was all they had because their main argument would violate the line between church and states. Utterly shameful. And another thing: Hey LDS church based in Utah, mind your own business! Was California all up in your shit when you were allowing polygamist marriages because Mormonism said that was OK? I highly doubt it. Since the United States loves the whole thing about states' rights, keep to yourself in Utah, and Californians will continue to keep to themselves. Again, mind your own fucking business! You wouldn't have recognized the gay marriages anyways!

I hope the California State Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, and call it what it is: complete and utter discrimination, allowing all free citizens of this great nation to do whatever they want as long as it is not breaking any laws or hurting anyone else. It's not like their having gay sex in a church.

I'll leave it at that. Please feel free to leave any comments.