Calling Shenanigans

So much has happened since my last post, and so many people have spoken about it all more eloquently than I could. But I have to respond to this.

Via Time.com, a quote by Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes on 8:

"No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."

This is total bullshit, and somebody needs to say so to this douchebag's face. Intolerance of intolerance is a virtue.

Needlessly trampling the civil rights of others is not itself a civil right. If you want to treat people badly because you're insecure, fine, do it. But you'd better be willing to face the consequences when people point out that you're being an asshole and stop patronizing your business.

Semantics

Okay, this one is nuts.

Via Pharyngula, this wonderful story from the Sacramento Bee.

Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride.

To the state of California, however, she is either "Party A" or "Party B."

Those are the terms that have replaced "bride" and "groom" on the state's new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

"We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."

In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. "Bride" and "groom" became "Party A" and "Party B."

Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

You know what? You little dipshits have fun doing your little dipshit protest over a couple of words on a piece of paper that will be tossed in a drawer somewhere and forgotten until a few years from now, when Gideon panics about forgetting the date of your anniversary and scrambles wildly to find it. You had your church wedding. That's where you can inject all the meaning you want into your marriage. A marriage license isn't about making you feel special. It's a legal document meant to afford you the status of married couple, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it. The wording changes nothing, except for tweaking your confused notion of what is sacred and what is legal, and giving your privileged, pompous pseudo-Christian pride a big, raw purple nurple.

Where you cross the line from being jackasses to raging assholes, though, is when you and your little pals try to equate your invented persecution with denying other people the right you're getting to opt out of.

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," [Bird] said.

To some, the couple's stand may seem frivolous. But others believe "bride" and "groom" are terms that are too important for the state to set aside.

"Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. "This debunks that argument."

What fucking right has been violated? What difference, other than hurting your tender little feelings, do the terms "Party A" and "Party B" make? What is this important civil liberty that will be denied to you as "Party B" that you would have enjoyed as "Bride"? You're just being brats. And as bad as a couple of twenty-something brats are, what makes your petty tantrum a hundred times worse is that you're arrogant enough to use your pretend persecution in justifying your desire to continue persecuting people who actually have had their rights denied.

Bird and Codding say they are trying to figure out what to do next. Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance. "I really don't know," she said.

Fuck you. I don't feel sorry for you. Do you know why? Because you are choosing to stay legally unmarried. That's a choice you don't only want to make for yourself... you want to make it for thousands of same-sex couples as well. Gay people aren't keeping you unmarried. You are. But in almost every state in this country except yours, people like you most certainly are keeping gay people from getting married. They don't enjoy the right to make the choice you are making. You want to risk your health over some ridiculous argument about semantics on a legal document? Go nuts. But don't pretend your right to choose is being infringed upon. It isn't.

Of course, maybe I'd be more willing to accept your argument if you actually represented the incredible sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.

Fantastic.

The Democratic nominee for president just said that he opposes gay marriage because it violates the tenets of Christianity.

Why should I bother to fucking vote this year?

Embarrassing

The Syracuse Post-Standard, via Syracuse.com, has responded to Governor Patterson's statement of equal rights by posting verbatim the response from the Conservative Party. No other reactions are given. For some reason, the Conservative Party not even been given top billing on this issue, but the only billing. One has to assume, given that fact, the response must be concise and factual.

Of course, one should not assume.

Yesterday, Governor David Paterson declared that New York State must recognize out-of-state gay marriage while the residents of New York State are denied the opportunity to be heard on this subject.
Judges are supposed to interpret the laws as written, Governors are supposed to administer the laws as written and the Legislature writes the laws and so far, they have been silent on this issue. Marriage in New York State is between a man and a woman. The California Judges overturned the will of the California people and Governor Paterson is apparently trying to do the same thing in New York.
- Conservative Party of New York

Hey, you know what would be awesome? If a major newspaper didn't present this information as fact, when it is completely detached from anything approaching reality. Governor Patterson did not declare anything in the formal sense. He simply administered and enforced the law as interpreted by the judges of the New York state appeals court, who determined that refusing to recognize marriages performed elsewhere is a violation of the New York State constitution, which is maintained by the legislature. Every branch acted within its sphere here. Alleging that Patterson is trying to overturn the will of the people is not only irresponsible; it is a complete fabrication. It is a lie. And yet it is the position of the only organization given voice about the matter in the Syracuse Post-Standard.

Unbelievable.

Governor Patterson FTW

Hell yeah.

Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.

That came out of nowhere to provide a particularly good morning. Not that it should take a governor's decree to get people to follow human rights law.

Rockin' in California

It's nice to see some good news.

In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional...

[The ruling] said that the state law's language "limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

Simply awesome news. Of course, leave it to me to find something to complain about.

"The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."

Dammit, journalists really need to call these people on this shit. I would love to hear an actual rational explanation on why the welfare of children should have any weight, let alone be the sole factor, when deciding marriage laws. You don't need to be married to legally have children. You don't need to have children to be legally married. There is no legal connection between marriage and childbearing. So in what way does allowing gay couples, who within the confines of a marriage contract are unable to conceive children, impact child welfare at all? What parenting situation is now legal that was not legal before? There isn't one. Period. So if you're going to interview bigots, I'd appreciate it if you made them be honest about their bigotry, instead of letting them slide by with more "It's for the children!" bullshit that doesn't hold up to five seconds of scrutiny.

Florida Gets a Chance to Vote Itself Bigoted

A proposed pro-bigotry amendment to the Florida constitution now has enough signatures to go to a vote.

"We believe kids need a mom and a dad, very simply," [Amendment Advocate John] Stemberger said. "Moms and dads bring something different to the table. Dads are not optional."

Really? Let's take a look at that proposed amendment.

"Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

Huh. So this amendment would actually have zero influence over adoption, child custody, parenting rights, or anything else you could link to kids 'needing a mom and a dad.' It really only stands to keep consenting adults from having the same rights you enjoy.

So let's be honest here, Mr. Stemberger. Not only is your rationale wrong-headed, but it's also one hundred percent bullshit.