I Double Dog Dare You

Tomorrow, my newly adopted home state of New York becomes one among a minority of states to prove itself as a more enlightened, more compassionate state then all the rest and the federal government. That would be the day that New York legally permits something often referred to as “gay marriage,” something I would rather refer to as “equal marriage rights for everybody.”

Except that it’s not.

Here’s an article in the July 22 USA Toady:

Same-sex couples who tie the knot in New York starting Sunday should visit a financial adviser for advice on money matters when they get back from their honeymoon.

And that advice holds true for any gay couple married under state law.

The reason: While gay couples who say “I do” in state-sanctioned marriage ceremonies are afforded the same rights as traditional husbands and wives in the state where they get hitched, it doesn’t mean these newlyweds are recognized as a “single economic unit” by Uncle Sam, says Jennifer Hatch, president of Christopher Street Financial, a New York City-based financial advisory firm that caters to the gay community.

In short, so long as the federal government continues to enforce the “”Defense” of “Marriage” “Act,”” a piece of law that is so hideous and horrible that when I refer to it I use as many sets of scare quotes as I can, the state laws allowing and recognizing the marriage rights of everyone still don’t prevent those couples from being treated as second class citizens.

We can applaud New York for its bold and correct manuever all we like, but as long as the federal government insists on discriminating against our queer brothers and sisters, it’s still just a big pile of santorum.

And here’s another point that I think must be mentioned when talking about “gay marriage” and the idea of somehow prohbiting it and defining “marriage” as being “between a man and a woman” (as DOMA specifically does): It isn’t actually possible.

Let’s say you’re a woman. You’ve been a woman all your life; you have a vagina and you have breasts and you wear your hair long and always have and you wear frilly clothes and hearing Tom Jones sing makes you a little damp. And you’re also an Olympic athlete. And the Olympic committee yahoos start doing genetic testing to make sure there aren’t any men folk trying to pass themselves off as women and such. And they come back to you and they tell you that you’ve FAILED THE GENETICS TEST; that, in the eyes of the Olympics, you are not a woman.

This has happened. And what it means is that in order to enforce something so insipid as the “marriage is between a man and a woman” horse shit, you have to start by defining what a man is and what a woman is. And, believe it or not, that seemingly simple mission is not necessarily as simple as it seems. You must run, do not walk, and read “Kudzu and the California Marriage Amendment” by Rick Moen, right this very minute. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

So you see, not only are such laws cruel, not only do they violate the Constitution by creating a secondary class of citizens, they are also god-damned impossible to enforce. In fact, as Mr. Moen argues, an argument can be made that there are cases where enforcing such laws can and may actually force the recognition of same-sex marriages. That irony is delicious like licking batter off the spoon.

But there is, for me, a more basic and more urgent reason that this federal government needs to get off its ass and recognize marriage rights for all. I embedded it before, but I shall embed it again, an interview by one Lawrence O’Donnell, during which the lady he’s interviewing says EXACTLY what I have always said regarding this issue: That prohibition of marriage rights for everyone does nothing more but to hurt children. Here, give it another watch:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And I’m not talking about hypothetical children. I’m not talking in nebulous terms about some concept, some what-if children that might just exist someday down the road. I’m talking about my cousin.

Yep, I’ve got a cousin who was conceived in the turkey-baster kind of way. One of my relatives provided the seed so that his lesbian friends could make a child. He’s a real kid, and he’s a really interesting kid at that. But I’m certain he pays a price because his mothers cannot be legally married. In fact, in the state where he lives, they are so into hating queers that they felt it necessary to prohibit marriage rights for everybody not just in law but in the state constitution as well. Stay classy, Virginia.

I am glad to now live in a state that has seen the light on this issue. It makes me swell up a little. Makes me proud. But it’s a tiny, tiny step. One day, these Untied States of America will have to come around. I lift my glass to the couples who will be able to achieve some kind of matrimony after this weekend. But take that advice. Go see an accountant after your FABULOUS honeymoon. Ya’ll might not be as protected as you’d like to be.

Also, I have a double dog dare for anyone who is opposed to the notion of marriage rights for everyone: You must sit down soon and watch a film called All Aboard! Rosie’s Family Cruise. If you can get through this film and not admit that your perspective has been altered even just by a little bit, then I shall have to give up on you as a lost cause. But I believe in this film. I believe it can warm even the most fervent, most stubborn among you.

Here’s to “gay marriage” in New York. 44 states to go.

Nice Work, Judge

I have long predicted that this whole “gay marriage” brouhaha would someday end up in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. It has to, it just has to.

From what I’m reading, SCOTUS won’t have much to go on to flip this decision. This Vaughn Walker fellow really did his homework and created a decision that seems to fairly insurmountable. (No pun intended). Eugene Robinson breaks it down nicely in today’s The Washington Post.

What a banner day.

And, by the way. You’re going to hear a lot from conservagoats about how this is an example of the tyrannical court system going against the will of the people. Blah, blah, blah, it’s horseshit. Let’s recall what ACTUALLY happened, shall we? In sunny California, a court said, okay, you guys can get married. And so they DID. They showed up in droves in Sam Framcisco to wed. Then the Mormons came to town and funded a petition drive and got this Prop 8 thing on the ballot. It passed with a slim majority. So what happened was that the state extended a right to all of its citizens via the courts, then an election swapped that right away. That is not justice, folks. It’s disgusting. Kudos to this judge for setting that right.

Yes, Virginia, There Are Homosexuals

Hey, Virginia. Meet me at camera 3.

What the hell are you so surprised about?

August 30, 2009. The Washington Post and Shitty Corporate Mouthpiece reports:

At age 34, two years before his first election and two decades before he would run for governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell submitted a master’s thesis to the evangelical school he was attending in Virginia Beach in which he described working women and feminists as “detrimental” to the family. He said government policy should favor married couples over “cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.” He described as “illogical” a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.

Nobody in Virginia should now be surprised that the McDonnell administration is moving to undo protections against discrimination for gay people in the state. Nobody.

Not to mention, nobody should be surprised that McDonnell’s horrible, shitty, no-good ideas that he trumpeted on the campaign trail to fix Virginia’s transportation infrastructure aren’t going anywhere. They were horrible, shitty, no-good ideas, and I told you they were goddamnit.

There is nothing surprising about this Republigoat governor. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. He ran as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Why is everyone acting so surpised that he’s a god-damned wolf?

Truth to Morons, Re: Hate Crimes Legislation

You’ll hear it all day today, from the morons, in light of President Obama’s historic signing of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act today: I don’t know why the queers need their own special protection under the law, blah, blah, blah, there are already laws on the books to cover that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It’s issues like this that really bring out the stupid. So let’s examine a few truths regarding this landmark legislation.

#1. American justice traditionally factors intent in its consideration regarding violent crime. That’s why you have “manslaughter” and varying degrees of murder. Why shouldn’t “because he hated homosexuals” be considered as a degree of intent?

#2. Violent crime against a homosexual is not often merely perpetrated against an individual. It is often perperated to send a message, to, oh, what’s the word…TERRORIZE. That’s right, kids. “Hate crimes” can be boiled down to its own little version of parochial terrorism. As I recall, the federal government is kind of interested in that kind of thing.

#3. Youse guys do understand that race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, and sex have been covered under hate crimes legislation since 1994. Right?

Not that any of these sound points will make a difference to someone who’s rabidly against this legislation. So, let’s add a fourth talking point just to be safe.

#4. What are you, soft on crime?

Gay Marriage. Again.


No, PB and I do not always agree. We both are avid fans of moonbat radio. But our tastes within the genre vary widely. He probably could care less that Randi is back to broadcasting. I am over the moon.

Something funny happened on her air today—and, in fact, in Twitter-space—that allows me to write on something other than torture. Some Tweeps started a row when they came across an archived story at the L.A. Times, about when the California Supremes overturned gay marriage bans. A YEAR AGO. They tweeted it as if it were current news. Ms. Rhodes grabbed it and ran with it as the lead of her show, proclaiming that California had overturned Prop 8.

Not her finest moment. Especially considering that Tweeps as credible as @anamariecox were calling it a false alarm well before 3 p.m. eastern. As a result, though, Randi took up the issue for the first hour instead of what she’d intended to discuss—that time she hung out with Annie and Willie Nelson on the bus that runs on Crisco and then Melissa Etheridge and Al Gore came by. I mean torture.

I have decided today on a new policy. I will not debate this issue with anyone who has not seen All Aboard: Rosie’s Family Cruise. This is a perspective-changing film. You cannot see it without understanding the real nature of family when it comes to gay people. It will deconstruct abstractions. It is a mind-opener. And there is no sense in trying to speak to somebody about this issue who does not actually understand this issue.

Randi had a few of those callers. One fella she actually made an effort at having a discussion with. She argued with them and railed, correctly, against bigotry. Unfortunately, she didn’t get to the larger issue, though I’m sure she’s quite aware.

These aren’t what-ifs we’re talking about. It’s not a matter of “if we let them marry, then there will be gay families and stuff.” There are families with gay people as heads of household. They exist. They exist right now. And it’s not a matter of “well, they can’t have children.” Yes, Belial. They can. And they do. And those children live without the protections that marital law can offer them and their families. And their more complicated, more vulnerable, more terrifying lives are on the heads of the Proposition 8 numbskulls and the rest of youse.

There is a scene in the Rosie movie where a teenager is discussing the evolving of her own sexual identity. The daughter of two moms, she’d wonder and wonder and wonder if she’d like girls or boys. When she came of age, she at last realized that she was straight.

And she was a little bit disappointed.

Stories like that is what the issue’s about. The people and the situations we’re discussing are in actuality more complex, more nuanced, and more real than the opponents of true human rights will ever wrap their heads around. Two moms don’t just automatically raise a lesbian, dumbass. The ghey isn’t communicable, no more so than is the breeders’ disease. This isn’t an argument of right and wrong or any issue of morality. It’s an argument between superstition, fear, and misunderstanding, versus what’s really going on, right now, right this very minute. Kids are suffering for this shit and it’s on your heads.

Five states down. Keep marching.

Trust Me. It's Offensive.

We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.

There is a four-letter word ending in “u-n-t” referring to a female person that is not “aunt” that I am not generally allowed to use, and I will not start today. If I did allow myself to use said word, it would apply to Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for this ignorant, obnoxious, stupid answer she gave to “Perez Hilton” at the Miss USA pageant this week. I guess what do you expect to come out of an obsolete tradition that objectifies and demeans broads and whatnot. But this answer is ignorant, obnoxious and stupid. “That’s how I was raised.” You were raised as a prejudiced idiot who hates people, specifically children? And you’re proud of that?

These assholes seriously believe that they’re talking hypotheticals. They don’t understand that they’re talking about real people, specifically, actual children who actually exist whose society tells them that their families are inferior to other families. This shit wrecks people. It wrecks them here and now, not in the clouds, assholes.

Miss Californ-i-a, you are hot as all get-out, but man, are you ugly.

Go Hawkeyes!

I’m not sure if I’m happier about the decision in Iowa today regarding gay marriage because it’s another plodding step toward justice in these Untied States or because it makes me right. I’m like that; I’m an opinionated bastard who loves when developments make me right. Also, I’ve clearly hung around too many Landmarkians.

I’ve been saying this for years, that the courts are simply going to have to come around on gay marriage. They have to. Not because they love or hate homosexuals. Not because of politics, or culture, or “God.” But because of the law.

The striking thing about the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court is that it so frankly bears this out. The court simply said that the Iowa law defining “marriage” as “between a man and a woman” denied equal protection and therefore was unconstitutional.

And it is. You cannot offer straight people legal protections that you deny to gay people. That’s “separate but equal,” and that bullshit was struck down by the Supremes in 1954. Look, I can give you a moral argument, I can give you a policy argument, I can give you a political argument, I can tell you until I’m blue in the face that discriminating against gays marrying hurts the hell out of children, I can even offer you arguments about the enforceability of legal constraints on a couple with a friend and a turkey baster. But the Iowa Supreme Court today simply took it down to brass tacks: Discrimination of gays in marriage is unconstitutional. There is no argument that will stand up to the legal truth on this issue. The courts will come around.

Slowly but surely, my gay loved ones in Kansas will one day be able to wed legally. That time is gonna come, people. It is.