Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

YouTube – No on 8 PSA: FAMILY Molly Ringwald.

AWESOME. Send to everybody you know. There is SO MUCH MORE we could be worried about right now. I saw that one couple sacrificed all their vacations for the next couple of years so they could donate $35,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Holy crap. Do you know how many LIVES you could have saved with that money? And you wasted it on Prop 8? It’s like being granted a wish, any wish in the world, and wasting it on designer jeans or a cute purebred puppy. If you want to make sacrifices for the greater good, make it mean something. Like our Yom Kippur prayer book said, “Always look after your own soul and another’s body, not another’s soul and your own body.”

YouTube – No on 8 PSA: NO vs YES

Joe. My. God.: Yes On 8 Worker Attacked.

Wow. I have never read such a blatantly biased article about something that may or may not have happened like they said it happened. They’ve been killing us, beating us, and torturing us for YEARS, and encouraging violence against us, but god forbid one of them gets a black eye and a couple of stitches, and suddenly they’re brutally beaten, “seriously injured,” and are turned into martyrs for the cause? Let’s ask Matthew Shepard how badly he thinks Jose was injured. Maybe we could see what Lawrence King thinks of Jose’s black eye. Let’s ask Sakia Gunn if she thinks Jose’s injury is serious.

Oh wait, we can’t – because they’re DEAD.

Then again, it’s entirely possible this “assault” was staged in order to garner negative publicity for the No on 8 campaign. At this point I wouldn’t put anything past the Yes on 8 bigots.

The REALLY funny thing is that this guy is a “native of Mexico” who “just” became a citizen 2 months ago. Hm. Weren’t you people (Yes-on-8ers) the same ones voting to deny public services to “natives of Mexico” only a few years ago? Aren’t you the same people who rail on Mexicans, whether or not they are citizens? Aren’t you the ones who try to fight any Spanish-language education in our schools for fear that Spanish will replace English as the national language? And yet suddenly you’re willing to use them as poster children for your cause?

What. The. Fuck. Seriously?

In light of all the money pouring in from the Mormon Church to help pass Prop 8 (I just had a deja vu moment and almost wrote Prop 22), it is nice to see that there are at least some in the LDS Church who understand what the marriage equality movement is about.

Well, that is just skeezy. One of the ads that comes up in my Google ad feed reads, “Support Marriage Rights / Get Involved in Discussions on Gay Marriage. Learn More Today.” You click on it, and it takes you to a YES on Prop 8 page! What the fuck? Prop 8 protects no marriages; if it passes, marriages will be destroyed, and thousands of future marriages will be barred. I don’t see how this protects anybody’s marriage rights, or protects anybody’s children, as the website loudly proclaims.

It does take away my marriage rights, though. This is not a political issue – it is about people’s lives. Real people. When you vote, think about the fact that there are actual, real people facing real and tangible harm if this proposition passes. And yes – those real people include the thousands of children being raised by same-gender couples in California. Marriage discrimination hurts them, too. If we really believe children are better off when their parents are married, shouldn’t we seek to encourage this healthy environment by letting their parents get married?

The Supreme Court of Connecticut has become… yet another high court to rule that marriage discrimination against same-gender couples is unconstitutional. This makes Connecticut the third state to allow same-gender marriage. I would say it was the third court to make this ruling, but I think people underestimate the number of state supreme courts that have ruled against marriage discrimination. For the record, they are: Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (for out-of-state marriages), California, Connecticut. Other states, like Alaska and Hawaii, have seen court decisions become void because the states were allowed to pass DOMA amendments, which are entirely unconstitutional but have yet to be successfully challenged.

The reason DOMA is unconstitutional is that it violates the original constitution itself – not even an amendment – by flying in the face of the Full Faith and Credit clause, which directs that states give full faith and credit to other states’ public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. Marriage, and later divorce, has been established as a public act/record and if you get married in any state, you are married in all states – and if you get divorced in any state, you are divorced in all states. For states to recognize some out of state marriages and not others violates the 14th Amendment. If states want to recognize out of state marriages, they cannot pick and choose which marriages they will recognize. Let them stop recognizing ALL out of state marriages, divorces, and adoptions – let’s see how well that works! Let’s see how well that protects families!

Interesting quote:

State Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Republican of Fairfield, issued a statement today saying: “While I believe these decisions are better left to elected representatives, it is ultimately the province of the State Supreme Court to interpret our constitution. The Court carried out that responsibility today and ruled that the institution of marriage in Connecticut must include same-sex couples. Whether people agree or disagree, we all need to respect the Court’s decision and abide by the ruling.” (Read more)

Now, why is it that they recognize this in Connecticut, but not in California?

If CA’s Proposition 8 passes, it will amend the CA constitution to define marriage as only existing between a man and a woman, and will overturn the historic CA Supreme Court decision that recognized the unconstitutionality of marriage discrimination.

Even if you don’t live in California, I hope you will consider contributing a small amount to the No on Prop 8 campaign. The people supporting Prop 8 have had money pouring in all over the country lately because everybody knows that whichever way this proposition goes, it will have long-term ramifications for the rest of the country. Their commercials are running NONSTOP around California, and they are full of lies and fear-mongering – and they are working, as recent polls show.

The proponents of Prop 8 are scaring people into believing that churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages (NOT TRUE), and they are claiming that school children will now be forced to learn about Prince Charming marrying a prince – also not true! The claims they are making are outrageous lies – but they are desperate at this point. They’ve even claimed that Christians will be put in jail if same-sex marriage is legal! Many people are looking for any excuse possible to justify voting yes on 8 – please help EQCA fight these lies so there are no excuses left!

Please, if you care about marriage equality, please consider making a small donation – every dollar helps fight this horrible amendment!

A great article from the LA Times:

Still, just because gay marriage is nothing new for the general public doesn’t mean kids necessarily understand the complete concept. But that doesn’t have as much to do with homosexuality as it does with the fact that some young people can’t tell the difference between getting married and going on a really long date. So maybe marriage class should be mandatory — with an emphasis not on gay or straight but, rather, “wait!” (As in, “until you’re older.”) (Read more)

‘Bride’ and ‘groom’ being restored to California marriage forms – San Jose Mercury News.

Wow, I’m sure all those people out there who were worried about losing the right to heterosexual marriage will be so relieved that they don’t have to vote yes on Prop 8 anymore!

Seriously, though. There were a lot of people who were put off by the Party A and Party B forms, so hopefully this will assuage their concerns.

Bailout Provides More Mental Health Coverage – NYTimes.com:

WASHINGTON — More than one-third of all Americans will soon receive better insurance coverage for mental health treatments because of a new law that, for the first time, requires equal coverage of mental and physical illnesses. (Read more)

This pretty much speaks for itself:

A graduate of Wasilla High School comments on lack of sex education:

Abstinence-only education is great in theory, but it is not practical. For every emergency drill I went through to protect myself from an intruder or bomb threat, I think of the condom wrapped in foil and how unprotected I could have been. (Read more)

I felt compelled to re-link to this blog entry after the recent comment on my entry about Google’s taking an official stance against Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment which would literally dissolve thousands of legal marriages across the state of California (and they say LGBT Californians are trying to destroy marriage?).

In my article, Five Myths About Same-Sex Marriage, I discuss some of the common arguments folks will make against same-gender marriage in California. One of the key arguments put forth by most Prop 8 supporters is the “overwhelming” passage of Prop 22 in March of 2000. Do not believe them. Prop 22 did pass, and at first glance it passed with a hefty majority – but once you look at the numbers more closely, you’ll see that it definitely didn’t pass with the level of support claimed by proponents of Proposition 8.

This shouldn’t surprise you, though – these are the same people who brought you Proposition 22 in the first place, and if they were willing to lie about the motives and goals of Prop 22 in order to confuse voters into supporting it (it was supposed to be about marriages from other states), then they’re certainly not going to balk at lying about its outcome and its passage rates.

If people start throwing Prop 22 in your face, I encourage you to either direct them to the article or show them the numbers so they see the truth about Prop 22. Odds are they will refuse to see the truth, but if even one mind is changed, then that is better than nothing.

As for the “bride and groom” issue raised by the commenter in the Google entry, here is the response I sent:

It’s not “illegal” for you to marry as bride and groom. You are still a bride and groom regardless of what title the form gives you. If you are a woman, you are a bride. If you are a man, you are a groom. That doesn’t change. It wouldn’t make sense for a same-gender couple to have to decide which is the bride and which is the groom – contrary to popular jokes and beliefs, there isn’t that kind of gender dichotomy in a same-gender relationship.

It’s the same as with parents; a child’s parents are still mother and father (or mother and mother, or father and father), even if the birth certificate says parent 1 and parent 2. Listing them as the first and second parent of the child doesn’t change the fact that they are a mother or a father. It’s not like the child is going to run around saying, “Hey Parent 1, Parent 2 said to ask you if I can go outside and play with my friends!” It’s not like Hallmark is going to start putting out “Parent 1’s Day” cards. A man is a father, and a woman is a mother. Reality is reality, and a form is just a form, for bureaucratic purposes and nothing else.

If you have a church wedding, I am quite certain your clergyman will be more than happy to refer to you as bride and groom. As for me, my rabbi referred to us as kallah v’kallah (bride and bride), and that’s exactly how we wanted it. We didn’t need to strong-arm the government into giving us a special form that says “bride and bride.” We wouldn’t want it. The state license simply does not discriminate, and that is the whole point. There is no reason for a state form to impose or mandate specific gender permutations, because the gendered titles are pretty self-explanatory by themselves. If you need a form to tell you whether you are a bride or a groom, or a mother or a father, then you have bigger problems than I am trained to address.

Official Google Blog: Our position on California’s No on 8 campaign.

Sticking to their corporate motto: Don’t Be Evil.

Thanks, Google!

Pam’s House Blend:: Tony Perkins: If Prop 8 is defeated, the next step — Christians will be jailed.

Guess the Yes-on-8-er/Haters are getting desperate. Does anybody really believe this bullsh*t?

Op-Ed Columnist – McCain’s Radical Agenda – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com.
Of note:

The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)

If you think we’re not headed toward a police state with no constitutional rights… you NEED to watch this:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

The Michigan Messenger is reporting that the county GOP will use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting if they live at those addresses. The problem?

The Michigan Republicans’ planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being “true residents.”

One expert questioned the legality of the tactic.

“You can’t challenge people without a factual basis for doing so,” said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. “I don’t think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.”

So basically, if you’re unfortunate enough to be in danger of losing your house, the Republicans will rub salt on your wound by trying to prevent you from voting out the administration that let the economy turn to such shit that you lost your house in the first place. Pretty great racket, eh?

Women Against Sarah Palin is a fantastic blog. Check it out!

Gay Republicans: GOP on ‘wrong side of history’ – CNN.com.

They are SO. DELUSIONAL. McCain has said OUTRIGHT that he supports California’s hateful Proposition 8, a mean-spirited and truly anti-family ballot initiative that will literally dissolve marriages into thin air and destroy lives in the process. He also promised Jerry Falwell he would support the Federal Marriage Amendment if federal courts strike down state constitutional marriage bans. And Palin, this “mostly unknown” quantity? Palin explicitly stated that she would oppose extending benefits to same-gender partners of state employees (“No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution”). She is adamantly opposed to expanding hate-crime legislation, offering up the ridiculous old party line that “all heinous crime is based on hate.” She also listed in her THREE TOP PRIORITIES AS GOVERNOR, “Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution.” No, she didn’t list health care. No, she didn’t list the environment. No, she didn’t even list the energy crisis. But protecting the definition of marriage? That is a top priority. On what planet does this constitute “mostly unknown”?

Look, I realize the Log Cabiners are mostly gay men – but does that mean they have to walk around with their heads up their asses?

For all of you out there, including Barack Obama, who allege that Sarah Palin’s family life is private and off limits: Can I just remind you that it was SARAH PALIN who fed this piece of information to the public in the first place? Nobody spied on her; nobody got hold of secret medical records or hacked into her computer. Sarah Palin CHOSE to release this information to the American people, and now it is our inalienable right to talk about it, react to it, and decide how we feel about a woman who supports abstinence-only education when it’s clear from her own family situation that abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK.

Can we call her a hypocrite? Absolutely. She doesn’t support same-sex marriage (or domestic partnership rights, even) because marriage is soooo sacred, but she’s willing to let a CHILD enter into this sacred union as punishment for having premarital sex. So is marriage a sacrament, or a punishment? Make up your mind!

She comes from a party that cracks down on access to birth control and yet doesn’t want abortions to be legal – but STILL doesn’t support education about how not to get pregnant in the first place. This is the woman we want thisclose to inheriting the presidency from ancient, ailing John McCain?

So is her daughter’s pregnancy private? It was, until she made it public. And is it relevant? HELL. YES.

I know that many people will claim that the Palins were forced to make this announcement in order to quell rumors going around that Palin’s youngest “son” Trig is actually her grandson. There are a few points to address here. I think the people who made these speculations in the first place were just having a hard time reconciling Palin’s uber-family-values stances with the fact that she endangered her child’s life multiple times the evening she gave birth by flying even after her water broke, the fact that she simply did not look pregnant and her staff was shocked to find out she was seven months along, the fact that no picture exists that demonstrates the woman was ever pregnant in 2008, and the fact that she returned to work three days after giving birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome. It just doesn’t add up to the Family Woman that Palin claims to be.

Much more likely (and logical, for that matter) is that she found out her daughter was in labor and THAT is why she rushed back to Alaska. Much more likely is that she thought her daughter’s pregnancy might undermine her image as uber-family-lady, while her own pregnancy might garner her some sympathy. Much more likely is that if she didn’t look pregnant, she WASN’T pregnant, especially given the photos circulating of her when she actually WAS pregnant – because let me tell you, when Sarah Palin is pregnant, she LOOKS it.

So now we’re left with this situation where the Palin family has announced their daughter’s pregnancy in order to cover their own asses as far as Trig’s parentage. This announcement proves nothing. Palin could have protected her daughter AND her image by simply providing a dated photograph of herself visibly pregnant at the time she was supposed to be pregnant (although I suppose once you’ve decided you’re going to lie to millions of people, you might as well go all the way and stuff something under your shirt). She could have provided hospital records showing that she was admitted and in labor – after all, John McCain had to provide the media with his own medical records, so why shouldn’t Palin? She could have done a lot of things that didn’t involve exposing her family and her children to further controversy and ridicule.

Instead, Palin “outed” her own daughter, thrusting her into the limelight of her OWN accord. But again, the news itself proves nothing except that the rumor-mongers weren’t so far off – the teenage daughter of this abstinence-only-education proponent IS having sex, and she IS being irresponsible about it. It actually makes the case stronger, not weaker, that Trig is her son.

But of course the real brilliance of Palin’s feeding Bristol to the lions instead of stepping up to the plate herself is that by the time the truth comes out, it will be too late. It’s entirely possible that Bristol Palin is more like three months pregnant, which means she could easily be Trig’s mother as well; we all know that teen mothers frequently make the same mistake twice (or three times, or four times…). But by the time we know for sure, either Obama will have won and nobody will care, or Palin will already be VP and it will just be another “White House Scandal”: Vice President Palin’s daughter is miraculously eleven months pregnant. Gee. Who saw that coming?

There IS a way to settle all of this without throwing your pregnant teenage daughter under the train. But I guess Palin’s choice pretty much shows us what kind of parent she is, and what kind of candidate she is, and what kind of VP she will be – a person willing to sell out those who depend on her in order to cover up her own dishonesty.

From EQCA:

August 27, 2008

It is with great sadness that I share with you that today, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community lost an iconic leader and a beloved friend.

Del Martin, 87, passed away in San Francisco with Phyllis Lyon, her lifelong partner and spouse, by her side. Martin was one of the nation’s first and most visible lesbian rights activists who dedicated her life to combating homophobia, sexism, violence and racism. Martin’s many contributions to the LGBT movement will resonate for decades to come.

We are saddened to lose such a wonderful friend to our community and our love goes out to Phyllis and her family during this most difficult time. We would not be at this incredible moment in history, where all couples have equal rights under California law, if it had not been for Del’s lifetime of courage and leadership.

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were married in California on June 16, 2008 after 55 years together. EQCA honored Del and Phyllis with the Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon Marriage Equality Award in 2003, an award the organization gives every year in their honor.

Read more about Del Martin.

Gifts in lieu of flowers can be made to honor Del’s life and commitment and to defeat the California marriage ban through the National Center for Lesbian Rights NO on 8 committee at www.nclrights.org/NoOn8.

Our community will forever honor Del’s life and legacy.

Respectfully,

Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

Equality California is dedicated to achieving equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.

Our work depends on individual financial contributions. Donate now using our secure website or download a donation form to send via fax or mail.

Donations to EQCA support our political work and are therefore not tax-deductible as charitable contributions.

Americans for Safe Access is reporting that the DEA now claims the agent wearing the Blackwater shirt is not actually a Blackwater employee, but rather, merely a DEA agent. Not only that, but they’re also requesting censorship of the photo involved for the “safety” of that employee, who allegedly sometimes does undercover work. They asked the LA Times to blur the face of the agent in the Blackwater shirt. Since the LA Times has a policy of not altering photos, ASA reports, they removed the photo altogether.

Let’s get a few things straight… First of all, if you do undercover work, exactly how wise is it to be involved in a very public raid of a legal medicinal cannabis co-op? Shouldn’t undercover people STAY undercover, and not make themselves even more conspicuous by wearing extremely controversial and noticeable clothing in a situation where media and cameras are certain to be present? Or you know, by being involved at all in such a raid?

Second… do private security companies frequently offer their logo-bearing t-shirts to the public? And do DEA agents frequently wear logo-bearing t-shirts to raids? Do raids call for casual street attire? Wouldn’t the only logical logo for a DEA agent to be wearing during a raid be… oh, I don’t know, the DEA logo???? When’s the last time you saw a DEA raid in which the agents were wearing Abercrombie or Disney t-shirts? So this Blackwater shirt was just a coincidence? Sure. I believe that. Uh huh.

As if the recent raid on a Culver City medicinal marijuana cooperative by DEA agents wasn’t enough, it’s now become apparent that this raid was conducted not only by DEA agents, but also by Blackwater employees. Yes, that would be the same Blackwater that has government contracts for private security in Iraq, and the same Blackwater whose trigger-happy thugs killed more than a dozen Iraqi civilians for no particular reason. What’s next – will Blackwater agents start shooting medicinal marijuana patients too?

As I browsed pages while reading about this story, I came across this article about Blackwater’s broader functions in the present and in the future. Then I came across this chilling paragraph:

What could prove to be one of Blackwater’s most profitable and enduring enterprises is one of the company’s most secretive initiatives–a move into the world of privatized intelligence services. In April 2006, Prince quietly began building Total Intelligence Solutions, which boasts that it “brings CIA-style” services to the open market for Fortune 500 companies. Among its offerings are “surveillance and countersurveillance, deployed intelligence collection, and rapid safeguarding of employees or other key assets.”

Now, if you read the LA Times article you’ll find that while the DEA agents and Blackwater people ransacked people’s bedrooms and stole all of the marijuana and live plants on the premises (and uprooted their vegetable garden too), they did NOT arrest anybody. They did, however, crack open the ATM and help themselves to its contents. More importantly, they also seized medical records, which basically would include the names of all of the co-op’s customers. Why does this matter? Well, those patients are not breaking any California laws, but until the CA legislature passes a new employment protection bill, employers can still fire patients who test positive for marijuana use, even if they have a valid prescription, are not medicated while at work, and there has been no negative impact on job performance (although apparently it’s perfectly fine to come to work hopped up on Vicodin or Xanax or suffering a hangover from a massive drinking binge the night before). There are also other non-criminal ramifications of being a known cannabis user.

So what I’m thinking is that we’re seeing Blackwater doing its “CIA-style” intelligence gathering, with the generous and convenient help of the DEA. If you’re a patient who goes to Organica Collective, you can bet both dollars AND donuts that Blackwater has your information now, and will be keeping it on file for those Fortune 500 companies and selling it on the open market.

I think Organica employee Brian V. Birbiglia, a disabled former Marine who was handcuffed for more than four hours during the “raid,” said it best: “We follow the law,” he yelled, his face red and his eyes teary. “We might as well have just got robbed by a bunch of thugs downtown.”

Brian, I think you were closer to the truth than you imagined.

Massachusetts legislative leaders, along with Governor Deval Patrick, are supporting an effort to lift the ban on same-sex marriage for non-Massachusetts residents. Currently, couples cannot marry in MA if the marriage would be illegal in their home state (you can imagine why that 1913 law probably originated, considering that MA allowed interracial marriages more than 100 years before Loving v. Virginia came down).

The repeal would allow MA to cash in on some of the tourist market generated from the legalization of same-sex marriage in California, which does not have the same restriction on out-of-state couples. Without the repeal, only couples from MA, RI, NY and CA can marry in Massachusetts.

I’m all for repealing the residency requirement, but I still think it’s a shame that so few states are allowing the marriages in the first place. Aside from the obvious arguments, which I’ve already discussed in depth, there’s also the whole problem of the right wing shooting itself in the foot. Marriage, fidelity and monogamy are supposed to be huge conservative values, right? Children fare better when their parents are married, right? You would think encouraging these things would be a numero uno priority, regardless of who the partners are. (Not to mention that “Not Having Sex, Never Ever,” seems also to be a conservative value, and we all know married people have less sex, right? *wink* Juuuust kidding.) So I really don’t get the conservative opposition to same-sex marriage. Or rather, I do, but I just think it’s totally illogical given their general platform.

p.s. This is a joke, right? FAUX News reports that MA will be the first state to legalize human/robot marriage, because it allows same-sex marriage? With no sign of satirical intent? Seriously? They still call themselves a news network???