Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

I’m sick to death of people trying to pass themselves off as “impartial” or “independent” by stating that both sides of the political battle are responsible for this government shut-down mess. It is simply not true. If you want proof, imagine how it would look if the Democrats decided that they were going to shut down the government until Republicans stopped enforcing the 2nd Amendment. Is that a good way to get your way? No. But that is what’s going on here. The Tea Party Republicans couldn’t win via election and they couldn’t win via Congressional votes and they couldn’t win in the Supreme Court – so now they are deciding to take what they want whether it’s theirs or not. And it’s coming at the expense of the American public.

You don’t negotiate with terrorists, you don’t reward children for temper tantrums, and you don’t agree to defund or delay existing law based on obstructionist tactics. If the Democrats give in on this Tea Party hissy fit, I guarantee you that shutting down the government will become the preferred way to get what you want from Congress. Capitulating on this issue will only harm the country in the long run.

Jon Stewart says it best:

That.

I could go off on a long rant about gun control here, but I’ll just share some scattered thoughts on yesterday’s shooting in Santa Monica, which hit way too close to home in every respect.

How come people only freak out and demand gun control legislation after one of these massive shootings in a usually-quiet neighborhood? Isn’t gun violence also terrible when it happens on a daily basis in cities across the nation? At our old house, we used to hear gunshots fairly frequently. The first time it happened, we tried calling the police. They brushed us off. And it really sucked when a guy was murdered in a drive-by shooting a few houses down from us because some gang members thought he was a member of a rival gang. He wasn’t. But nobody made any demands for gun control then. I don’t even think they published the guy’s name in the newspaper. You had to try really hard just to find the inch of column space the shooting received. This happens every day. Why are we letting this happen every day?

Why is it that the same people who bitch and moan about the constitutional notions of “separation of church and state” and “fundamental right to privacy” do a full flip-flop when it comes to the alleged unequivocal constitutional right to personally own military-style weaponry with virtually no governmental regulation or interference? Have they read the full 2nd Amendment?

How many more mass shootings is it going to take for us to make a change? When is enough enough? If a classroom full of murdered kindergarteners wasn’t enough… what is?

If we can regulate and track the sale of pseudoephedrine, why can’t we regulate and track ammunition sales? As with ammunition, mere purchase of pseudoephedrine is not illegal, nor is possession. But if somebody lives in the middle of a densely-populated city with virtually no open land for hunting and they suddenly start stockpiling ammunition meant for semi-automatic weapons, it seems like we ought to care as much as we do if somebody goes to four different pharmacies and buys out their supply of Sudafed. And yet somehow we don’t.

Required viewing.

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Rolling Stone

The incredible untold story of the 2012 election so far is that Romney’s run has been a shimmering pearl of perfect political hypocrisy, which he’s somehow managed to keep hidden, even with thousands of cameras following his every move. And the drama of this rhetorical high-wire act was ratcheted up even further when Romney chose his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin – like himself, a self-righteously anal, thin-lipped, Whitest Kids U Know penny pincher who’d be honored to tell Oliver Twist there’s no more soup left. By selecting Ryan, Romney, the hard-charging, chameleonic champion of a disgraced-yet-defiant Wall Street, officially succeeded in moving the battle lines in the 2012 presidential race.

While GLADD is urging folks to come out to their families at Thanksgiving, Maggie Gallagher of NOM fame (you remember – the gathering storm that brought us some of the best commercial parodies of all time?) offers up some helpful tips on smacking down your gay relatives if they try to talk about their own lives at the dinner table.

Summary: Step 1: Tell them marriage is between a man and a woman for a reason (procreation argument, yadda yadda yadda). Step 2: Refute the charge of bigotry by saying that it’s not bigoted to treat different things differently; it’s just common sense. (I’m sure that argument will go over well). Step 3: Demand mutual toleration of each others’ sincere moral opinions (even though you have the moral high ground), and then state that it’s unkind and intolerant to suggest that you’re a bigot or a hater. Repeat Step 3 incessantly until your gay relative shuts up or until there is pie.

Now I’m sure there is an argument to be made (most likely by Ms. Gallagher herself) that these same steps might apply (with obvious content edits) to gay people talking to their relatives about their own lives – i.e. state the point, refute claims of narrow-mindedness against opponents, and then request mutual tolerance and respect in light of differing opinions. But I would argue that mutual tolerance and respect is not the compromise in this situation. It merely maintains the status quo of discrimination and asks us to be accepting of our own oppression. You don’t get to say, “Can’t you just respect that I believe you are inferior and will legislate to the extent I am able to keep you in a legally-inferior position?” and expect me to say, “Oh, sure, that sounds like a fair compromise.”

Mutual toleration and respect require that individuals be on equal footing. If you want mutual toleration and respect, let us get married and then disagree with it. Don’t funnel money and manpower into passing discriminatory laws to strip us of our civil rights and then expect us to be respectful and tolerant of your “moral” stance.

The CA Supreme Court held today that the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to defend the initiative on appeal in the 9th Circuit.

This is a technical ruling on standing, and has no bearing on the substantive arguments for or against same-sex marriage. Predictably, however, ProtectMarriage.com has claimed the ruling as a monumental victory that deals a fatal blow to supporters of marriage equality:

“This ruling is a huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists. The Court totally rejected their demands that their lawsuit to invalidate Proposition 8 should win by default with no defense. Their entire strategy relied on finding a biased judge and keeping the voters completely unrepresented. Today that all crumbled before their eyes.”

Let’s get one thing straight (so to speak): The only thing that crumbled before our eyes today was the barrier that prevented the 9th Circuit from deciding this case on the merits. The CA Supreme Court’s decision today only gives the ProtectMarriage people their day in court – a day which they already had and, let’s be honest, squandered. It’s now up to the 9th Circuit to determine whether Prop 8 violates federal constitutional protections.

Speaking of courtroom farce, oral arguments will be heard in early December as to whether or not the Prop 8 trial videos will be released to the public. The Prop 8 supporters have fought tooth and nail to prevent the public from seeing these footage – so you know it must be worth watching. So long as the videos remain suppressed, ProtectMarriage.com can continue to claim that Prop 8 was overturned based on judicial bias in the face of hard evidence against same-sex marriage (e.g. the admission by their own star witness that this nation would be more American the day we allowed marriage equality). That they fight the release of the videos is proof that they don’t want the public to see what the judge saw. Will update on that proceeding as well.

Kenyan Police Disperse Gay Wedding – NYTimes.com.

NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenyan police officers broke up a gay wedding on Friday and arrested several wedding guests, saying they had to intervene before an irate mob could stone the wedding party to death…

ProtectMarriage completely misses the point. I’m shocked. Or not.

Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sharply criticized the notion that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. That argument, they said, is like saying that extending the right to vote to women “deinstitutionalized” the voting process.

Nice sound bite, but the analogy fails. Securing women’s right to vote didn’t do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting. By contrast there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation. Nice try.

I think that’s kind of the point. Before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, politicians and pundits argued that extending voting rights to women would de-legitimize the political process, destroy homes and families, lead to double-voting, create crime, injure women, result in military ruin, and generally destroy the world. It didn’t. And neither will same-sex marriage.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I could just call your attention to the final lines of the latest ProtectMarriage.com entry…

In fact, when the video cameras stop rolling and the sensationalism of this trial fades away, it will become clear that plaintiffs have essentially presented a political argument—not a legal claim. Such a case belongs in the public debate, not a courtroom.

Tags: Gregory Herek, prop8, protect marriage, traditional Marriage

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

Raise your hand if you see something glaringly wrong with this?

Let’s break this down:

1) What video cameras? This guy would have you believe there’s some sort of media circus going on in the court room. Seriously? These people went to the SUPREME COURT to keep this thing from being televised. Yes, it’s being recorded for the judge, but those recordings are not being released to the public, and from the court transcripts they already appear to be biting their nails about what’s going to happen to them at the end of the trial. So… “When the video cameras stop rolling”? Really? Can we say, “HYPERBOLE”?

2) What sensationalism? There’s been virtually no media attention to this trial. If I wasn’t a gay law student taking an active interest in the trial, I’d have no reason to know it’s even happening. Network news hasn’t really touched it much. Stewart and Colbert are barely even acknowledging it, if they have at all. So again – what sensationalism would that be, exactly?

3) If the case belongs in the public debate, why have you turned off both pings AND comments?

Obama to Offer Aid for Families in State of the Union Address – NYTimes.com.

Dear President Obama,
If you want to “help families,” could you please get rid of the Gay Tax? I’m really not sure exactly where we’re supposed to come up with that kind of money – and I find it terribly ironic that you expect us to pay more for less.
Thanks,
Disenfranchised Taxpayer

My favorite “Gathering Storm” parody…

Protect Marriage avoids inconvenient truths.

Then Thursday, for the first time (we believe) ever in a court of law, a proponent of a voter initiative was put on the stand to be interrogated under oath about his own political, moral and religious views. Not only was the Prop 8 supporter forced to reveal his political and religious views under penalty of perjury, but he was further forced to defend and substantiate his views so the court can decide whether his views are “improper.”

They make it sound like Plaintiffs plucked a random guy off the street. This was an OFFICIAL PROPONENT of the amendment, and also the executive director of one of the campaign coalition organizations. This was a guy who JOINED as a Defendant Intervener (despite efforts to withdraw under pretense of fear once he realized he was making matters worse by being there)! That makes him a VOLUNTARY PARTY TO THIS CASE. Why shouldn’t he be put on the stand under oath and interrogated as to his actions and motives? Tam voluntarily stepped into the public eye in order to make outrageous claims about the “gay agenda.” He participated in public debates on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign. And perhaps most importantly, Tam’s beliefs reflect those of a great number of Prop 8 supporters – and that is entirely relevant to this case, because the Plaintiffs need to show that animus was the driving factor. Tam SHOULD be held accountable for his public statements, especially because he not only inserted himself into the campaign, but also inserted himself into the very case in which he is being examined.

Protect Marriage’s summation of today’s testimony. Virtually NO mention of the fiasco that was the impeachment of William Tam, even though his testimony took up the entire second half of the day. Definitely a must-read (his testimony, not PM’s summary). Lawyering at its finest.

Actually, the really hilarious part is that the post is entitled “A Head Shaker of an Afternoon.” Segura testified in the morning. TAM testified in the afternoon. I’ll bet it WAS a real head-shaker.

From yesterday’s expert testimony based on analysis of hate crime statistics: “There is simply no other person in society who endures the likelihood of being harmed as a consequence of their identity than a gay man or lesbian.” I think the transgender community would disagree, but you get the point: If being queer is a “dangerous lifestyle,” it’s only because y’all keep killing us.

FDL News Desk » Prop 8 Trial Livebog Week 2 Day 2 Pt. III 28.

This is mindblowing stuff. I mean, it’s not surprising; we all knew that the Yes on 8 campaign was just a front for the Catholic/LDS churches. But today’s evidence proves it, and that’s why the Yes on 8 people fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being read into the record.

ProtectMarriage.com issues Cease and Desist for Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo depicting family of two mothers with two kids « Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Every lawyerly communication should include the word “sassy.”

The opposing side’s blog is here. While prop8trialtracker.com and this site have some very deliberate similarities in design, what strikes me most is the difference in content. The Prop 8 folks are basically spinning faulty summaries of the testimony that are meant to convey the notion that the Prop 8 lawyers are knocking it out of the ballpark, shooting down flimsy expert after flimsy expert. They have also turned off comments. The No on 8 folks, on the other hand, are including minimal commentary, but are mostly just trying to get as close as they can to providing a real-time transcript, to let people see the testimony for themselves, with commenting open to engage people in discussion (firedoglake.com has another excellent live trial blog).

Meanwhile, the Yes on 8 folks are trying to impeach the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses by pointing out that they all support same-sex marriage and many contributed to No on 8. Well gosh, I guess that makes their expert research inadmissible. Incidentally, were the Yes on 8 people planning to put up expert witnesses who believe strongly in same-sex marriage, but decided to testify against it, just for argument’s sake?

“Insurance companies are detail-oriented enough to deny claims for things like typos. If you spell something wrong, do you really deserve surgery? I don’t think so.”

When I first heard about this so-called “controversy,” I thought, “What could he possibly have said to enrage these people so much?” Now I find out – it’s not so much WHAT he said, because he hasn’t yet said anything. They’re concerned about the mere fact that Obama will address school children at all. I guess when you teach your children that black people are uneducated and unworthy, you don’t want them picking up newfangled ideas at school.

“Thinking about my kids in school having to listen to that just really upsets me,” suburban Colorado mother Shanneen Barron told CNN Denver affiliate KMGH. “I’m an American. They are Americans, and I don’t feel that’s OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now.”

Yes. How dare schools expose AMERICAN children to… um, the President of their nation?

Uneducated wingnuts never fail to amaze me.

Incidentally, both Reagan and Bush addressed schoolchildren as well. Neither address sparked such a ridiculous backlash. Then again, neither of those Presidents had dark skin and a foreign sounding name. Also, they weren’t liberals. Therefore, their addresses were entirely appropriate.

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Renames Chubby Hubby to HubbyHubby.

From the press release:

“At the core of Ben & Jerry’s values, we believe that social justice can and should be something that every human being is entitled to,” said Walt Freese, Chief Executive Officer of Ben & Jerry’s. “From the very beginning of our 30 year history, we have supported equal rights for all people. The legalization of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction and something worth celebrating with peace, love and plenty of ice cream.”

Don’t Need To Be a Rocket Scientist | TPM.

So it’s come to this… the facts truly no longer have a place in the debate, at least on the Right.

Then again, did they ever?

Incidentally, those two medications, Lapatinib and Sutent? Sutent was rejected by the UK because it costs too much. But many US insurance companies also refuse to pay for the drug, or have obscene copayments for it – largely because it is so BLATANTLY overpriced! One year of treatment for one person costs about £24,000. That is roughly $40,000. And that’s the price for the UK’s national health service. For an oral medication. I’m not saying an extra year of life isn’t worth it – maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t, depending on the patient’s own view of his/her condition. But in addition to restructuring our national health system, I think it’s also critical for us to think about what is a reasonable price for the medications these massive pharmaceutical companies are developing. I understand that it takes money to research and develop these medications. I also understand that these companies are making profits we can’t even imagine. Profits are important, but you can produce on a smaller profit margin and still have an incentive to keep going. So even as we think about what insurance companies should cover, maybe we also need to think about whether $40,000 for one year of medication for one person is a reasonable price to charge in the first place.

And while we’re on the subject… raise your hand if your private insurance has refused to cover something WAY freaking cheaper than $40,000, or has required a copay that really struck below the belt? You can focus on random examples of ways in which certain countries’ national health systems are deficient, but when it comes down to it, Americans are still getting screwed on a daily basis by their private insurance companies, which get away with a hell of a lot more.

Bill Maher: New Rule: Smart President ? Smart Country.

A Missing Culprit, but Culpability All Around – Forward.com.

p.s. This was no nightclub shooting.

Think Progress » Freshman Democratic lawmaker ‘physically assaulted at a local event’ by activists.

Not to mention the email forwards going around about how shooting liberal lawmakers is the answer to the healthcare problem, since prison will provide health care to elderly murderers.

This, my friends, is why I strongly believe that the Democrats should NOT be attempting bipartisan deals right now. The Republicans are not interested in bipartisanship; they’re interested in sinking the ship altogether, staging fake rallies and protests and then claiming people are just so gosh-darned passionate about it that they can’t contain themselves. You just wait until a Democratic lawmaker is shot by one of these mobsters, at the Republican Party’s urging. They’ll say they did not incite the violence, but with language of “delay and kill” and constant refrains of “They want to euthanize Grandma,” how long will it be before somebody takes their bullshit rhetoric seriously enough to do something about it?

The Republicans are not acting in good faith. You make a deal with the devil and there will be consequences.

Jeff Vrabel: Leave the mermaids alone, senator – Norwich, CT – Norwich Bulletin.

Last week, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and the dark side of Neptune and 2008 presidential candidate for exactly 24 minutes less time than Fred Thompson, just in case you were worried that was impossible, introduced legislation banning the creation of terrifying-sounding ANIMAL-HUMAN HYBRIDS, such as mermaids, or Perez Hilton.

Umbridge what?