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.

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.

From Syracuse, With Anti-Intellectualism

Aw, hell, it's a slow morning. Let's make it a twofer.

To the Editor:

I was very concerned to see on the editorial page in your Sunday paper that a high school student who aspires to be a young journalist was so closed-minded. Mr. Cal Thomas did not accuse schools of teaching students to be "gay."

The schools do teach theories that cannot be proven, one of which is evolution; and apparently (from the letter cited) another is that people are born "gay." Both of these are theories that are not provable.

Mr. Cal Thomas and many others believe that the "gay" lifestyle is not acceptable. With a little research, Dani Walters should be able to understand the other side.

I am sorry that our young adults do not research the things that they encounter before they are willing to "spike" the opinions of those that they do not agree with. Dani, to be a good journalist, you will need to look at "both sides of the story." This is the reason many taxpayers are upset with the public schools. We feel our tax dollars are being wasted on a low-standard education for our upcoming leaders.

William Bellows

There's nothing better than an ignorant anti-intellectual lecturing a budding young mind about the dangers of accepting scientific data. With a little research, Dani Walters should be able to understand the other side. With a little more research, Dani Walters should be able to point out that the other side is deluding itself with propagandized fiction.

One of the most prevalent symptoms of anti-intellectualism and unreason in America is the constant misuse of the term theory. If one does not understand the distinction between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory, one should not construct an argument around it. Certainly you shouldn't expect journalists, or even young students of journalism, to take you seriously.

Oh, and of course, I'm certain that Mr. Bellows has a valid point about the state of our educational system. If only we followed the lead of the rest of the world, which has collectively abandoned scientific psychology and evolutionary theory in favor of religious dogma and pseudoscientific nonsense.

I'm Homophobic Because I Was Born Too Late To Be Racist

J. Matt Barber has dropped a steaming pile of horseshit on Renew America, and it fucking reeks.

Yet again, more preaching to the choir, trying to rationalize prejudice. It's every American's right to be a raging asshole, to paraphrase Barber, and the gay agenda is to infringe on that right.

It's not only the same horseshit about the gay agenda we've been hearing from these ignorant pricks for years. It's the same old horseshit bigots have been rolling out for decades... centuries even.

So let's compare some of Barber's statements with statements that were once used to decry interracial marriage, culled by Eric Zorn for an article in the May 19, 1996 issue of the Chicago Tribune.

Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for "civil rights."
-Barber on homosexuality

This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”
-on interracial marriage

And so words like "homophobe" and "heterosexism" were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a "homophobe," a "hatemonger," a "bigot."
-Barber on homosexuality

"I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose interracial marriage as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” claimed a noted psychologist.
-on interracial marriage

This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. It would legally allow pedophiles, and homosexuals who were so inclined, to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification — so long as those children "consented" to having sex.
-Barber on homosexuality

"The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization."
-on interracial marriage

You can always rationalize hate. It's not even hard, especially when you have the work of generations of bigots to leech from. But it's just more of the same. Ignorant, hateful people huddling in a circle and desperately trying to convince themselves that this time they have it right. This time prejudice is the right answer. This time the oppressed minority really is a threat to the empowered majority. This time they don't have to change.

J. Matt Barber is a bigot. He can waste as much bandwidth as he wants trying to blame gay people for his bigotry, but when it's all over, it's still his fault.

Picket Me, Please

Those crazy kooks at the Westboro Baptist Church are up to their wacky hijinks again! They're going to picket Heath Ledger's funeral, of course. He did play a gay man in a movie, after all. And it was such a stirring, haunting performance that he very nearly managed to portray a homosexual as an actual human being. This obviously cannot be forgiven.

There's a lot of outcry over this, and I understand that. But you know what? If Fred Phelps wants to picket my funeral, let him. Seriously. Don't get upset about it. Don't yell back. Wave, say hi, and maybe bring them some coffee. I can think of no clearer an indication that I've done something valuable with my life than to piss off Fred Phelps and company. If I've made the kind of impact that gets Fred to assure his l'il legion that hell ripped open when I died, I'm grateful for the recognition.

How College Made Him More Insufferable

This via Sadly, No!:

Some doofus named Rudy Takala (a 19-year-old in a bowtie, no less) explains that he used to be a libertarian, but those damned whiney homos made him go all batshit social conservative.

Today I am unequivocally in favor of a marriage amendment at both the state and national levels. This isn't about allowing people to live as they wish. It's about reaffirming democracy. In a democracy, everyone is given a chance to vote, and the majority prevails.

Actually, you ignorant waste of parental libido, we live in a republic, specifically for the reason that some wise old fuckers in the 1700's didn't think that the majority (in this case, you and your meddling ilk) should be able to tyrannize the minority (the gay people you seem to think wield so much power). You're the kind of douchenozzle that can claim 'it's not about allowing people to live as they wish, it's about a principle' and then blast your way through a loophole, subverting the principle for no reason but to keep people from living as they wish.

Of course, it's no surprise this moron was homeschooled. I'm sure his parents had degrees in every subject he took from them, and were totally qualified to instruct him. I mean, just look at how well he understands our system of government. Special ironic twist: he's 'laboring' over a book about the public school system, something with which his homeschooling would indicate a complete lack of experience. This kid is a social conservative hero in the making.

"Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable;...the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"
- Thomas Jefferson, 1801

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.

A Dandee In King George's Court

Retired brigadier general Keith Kerr was, at one point, appointed to a steering committee for Hillary Clinton, a committee he did not ever actually work on. He is, however, an active member of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group whose very existence never ceases to confound me but nevertheless indicates a Republican bent. Which of these affiliations do you think matters more to the conservative jabbersphere?

Kerr asked a question during the debate that brought to light a fundamental problem not with any individual candidate, but with the conservative platform itself. If national security is so important, why do we disallow qualified individuals to serve in the military over an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with soldiering? Conservative punditry looks at this as an obvious plant, and an attempt to make the candidates look bad. I disagree. In my view, it was a chance for any of the candidates to step up to the plate and hit one out of the park by refusing to pander to social extremists. It wasn't a malicious ambush, it was a missed opportunity.

It's this simple: If you can't answer a simple policy question without it making you 'look bad,' then your policy is flawed. I don't care who asked the question. If you can't answer it without sounding like a spineless panderer, than you're almost definitely a spineless panderer.

Thumbs up to the crowd who booed Kerr for his question, though. Support Our Troops, you hypocritical assholes.

Also, Michelle Malkin is also busy digging up more 'plants' among the debate questioners. I find it interesting that she considers anyone who does not currently support a Republican candidate to be a 'plant'. Maybe this is why the Republicans are worried about a "Coming Cataclysm"... their mouthpieces have become so out of touch that they impose permanent banishment for anyone who disagrees with them. It was hypocrisy that drove me out of the Republican party, but it's the lunacy that keep me away.

God Hates People Who Make Me Indirectly Support Fred Phelps

This does not sit well with me. The Phelps family, aka the Westboro Baptist Church, aka The "God Hates Fags" people, aka the lowest slime that currently oozes along the face of this planet, was just slapped with a total of 11 million dollars in damages for doing their disgusting protests at the funeral of a soldier.

Don't get me wrong. There are not enough terrible things that can happen to these people. Fred Phelps is a cancer, and his children are metastasizing into legal professions and activist positions. I truly despise them and everything that they stand for. But dammit, this is not good law.

The bulk of the award was awarded as punitive damages for invasion of privacy, with another two million tacked on for inflicting emotional distress. The problem is, the protest did not take place on private property, and while their zealous hatred causes me plenty of emotional distress, that is not their goal. Regardless of how abhorrent their convictions may be, there is no doubt that these lunatics believe in them. There should not be a litmus test for expressing convictions, and certainly not one based upon likelihood of causing someone else emotional distress.

I don't like to hate anyone, but I am imperfect, and I can not help hating the Phelps and everything that they do and stand for. But Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder gave up his life for a commitment to American freedom (whether or not our presence in Iraq is in any way related to those ends was not up to him). While the presence of the Phelps at his funeral was an insult to that sacrifice, I think this ruling may be an even bigger insult. My heart goes out to his family for their loss, but this is not the way.