Dan Savage in yesterday's NYT

Read the whole thing.

He touches on a lot of the same issues I've discussed, but obviously from a more personal perspective.

Even if gay couples who adopt are more stable, as New York found, don’t their children need the security and protections that the court believes marriage affords children? And even if heterosexual sex is essential to the survival of the human race (a point I’m willing to concede), it’s hard to see how preventing gay couples from marrying increases heterosexual activity. (“Keep breeding, heterosexuals,” the Washington State Supreme Court in effect shouted, “To bed! To bed! To bed!”) Both courts have found that my son’s parents have no right to marry, but what of my son’s right to have married parents?

A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child’s life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all — or once they’ve had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them — unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking “special rights.”

*****

These defeats have demoralized supporters of gay marriage, but I see a silver lining. If heterosexual instability and the link between heterosexual sex and human reproduction are the best arguments opponents of same-sex marriage can muster, I can’t help but feel that our side must be winning. Insulting heterosexuals and discriminating against children with same-sex parents may score the other side a few runs, but these strategies won’t win the game.

The more I think about it, the more I think the New York and Washington high courts are 1) passing the buck and 2) setting up a major league ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. The NY and WA courts' rulings are so ridiculously lame I can't believe a legitimate jurist could make them with a straight face. I'd like to think the majority justices are saying, "We know this argument is bullshit, but we're not going to stick our necks out and get them chopped off. We're just going to pass the buck and make the U.S. Supreme Court rule gay marriage is okay."

Part of the problem is what happened in Hawaii. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state couldn't ban gay marriages, (on equal protection grounds, btw) and before the ink was dry on the opinion, the Hawaii legislature slapped the court down with a statute expressly banning gay marriages. There are movements afoot to do the same thing in Massachusetts, right after the Massachusetts high court did the same thing.

Seems to me the state courts don't want to step forward on this issue anymore. Probably just as well. The ultimate decision authorizing gay marrage is going to have to be at the Federal level, anyway.

P.S. For more from Dan Savage on gay marriage, I recommend "The Committment," his account of his own internal debate about whether or not to marry his partner. I loved it.

The Holy Terror Mindset

Case in point...

Reverend Greg Boyd, pastor of a Minnesota mega-church, was asked to preach sermons toeing the fundamentalist line and endorsing politically conservative positions. The Reverend refused to do so.

From the article:

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul -- packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals -- was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.

Good riddance to them, I think. I realize this article doesn't discuss sex per se, but it's an interesting proving point that a signifucant portion of the congregation tied faith and religious belief to Republican politics. When their pastor opted to instead take the high road, they responded by leaving. "Preach what we want to hear, or we're going somewhere else."

A Primer On The War On Whoopie

I'm coming up on a year since my first post, and I thought it'd be a good idea to re-iterate some of the basic principles and notions that are behind what I tend to rant about.

First, we are at war here in the U.S. On one side we have decent society, normal, polite, respectful people, people who say, "Whatever consenting adults choose to do to get their rocks off is their own damn business and none of mine. I won't stick my nose through their bedroom window and I hope they'll do the same for me. I may not understand my neighbors' kinks and turn-ons and hang-ups, but I don't need to understand. If you mind your own business, I'll mind my own business, and we'll all be happy."

Then, there's the other side. I call them the "Holy Terrors." They're religious fundamentalists who hide behind the Bible and use a warped, sanctimonious version of their so-called faith to justify breaking down bedroom doors and shoving their self-righteous, depraved moral turpitude down everyones' throats.

The Holy Terrors, and their designated whores, the mainstream Republican Party, have determined that if it isn't for the express purpose of having chindren, within the bonds of marriage, sex is depraved and evil and must be outlawed. Any sort of "fun" element of sex must be banned. Sex education must be banned. Preventative measures such as HPV vaccines and contraception will only encourage sex, and can't be tolerated. Sex toys, masturbation, kink, and pornography must be made illegal as they inject a little fun into sex, and we can't have anything fun about sex going on. Homosexuality is a special bugaboo. Since the Bible says it's bad, it's bad, and three thousand years of human development and understanding about homosexuality make no difference. Homosexuality is an abomination so we have to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens. Gay marriage is even worse. If we allow homosexuals to behave like normal people, well, they'll start acting like normal people, and they're not. Worse, letting gay people marry will irreparably sabotage the institution for us God-fearing, righteous, one man-one woman unions. We don't know how it will do it, but it just will.

In short, the Holy Terrors oppose any form of sex which isn't "married-making-babies" sex. If it's fun, or a little kinky, or just something consenting adults want to do to enjoy themselves and others, it's bad. I've dubbed their campaign, "The War On Whoopie."

"Whoopie" is anything that puts a little, "Whoo-hoo! That was FUN!" into sex, as opposed to the simple procreative act. I'd rather call it a "War On Fucking" but "whoopie" is a more PG-13 term.

The Holy Terrors' purpose is nothing less than reducing society to a dull, lifeless existence, to reducing sex to a purely mechanical, procreative act, and reducing women to baby-making machines. Shades of Orwell's "1984."

The purpose of this blog is to catalog some of the Holy Terrors' outrages, and to give a forum for the voice of reason, sanity, and decency in this War On Whoopie.

Carry on. More later.

Sometimes you just gotta say, "ENOUGH POLITICS!!"

Time for some boobage.

This is one of those times.





Ahh, much better now.

The Holy Terrors, Turning Extended Families And Clergy Into Criminals

I confess I haven't followed this very closely until now, but the Senate passed the Child Custody Protection Act this week.

More details here.

Basically, the act makes transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion, without parental consent, a crime. No exception has been made for family members or members of the clergy who might be attempting to help the child in question.

Here's the scenario. A minor gets into trouble. For whatever reason, she feels she can't go to her parents for help. She asks a friend, an adult sibling, a grandparent, or her preacher to help her cross state lines for an abortion. By doing so, that good Samaritan is committing a crime.

Members of the Senate majority argued that the bill protects parents' rights to be informed of their daughters' situation, but common sense tells me that if a teenaged girl could go to her parents with this sort of problem, she wouldn't have to ask a clergyman or family member to help her cross state lines.

In other words, the Senate majority is bound and determined to make sure that if a teenaged girl gets into trouble, she's having that baby whether she's able to or not.

From the article:

Another (proposal), sponsored by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., would have encouraged the federal government to provide money for more sex education. That bill failed earlier in the day, 48-51."If we do nothing about teen pregnancy yet pass this punitive bill, then it proves that this (bill) is only a political charade and not a serious effort to combat the problem," Lautenberg said.

Abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy, responded U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

"How many people really think it's in the best interest of young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Does anything positive ever come from that?" Coburn asked.

The emphases are mine.

Like I said, I haven't followed this very closely until now. Mostly I'm bringing it up here to emphasize that while everybody wants to reduce the teen pregnancy problem, the Holy Terrors' solution seems to be to keep people as ignorant as possible, make sex as risky as possible, and to force as many people who for whatever reason are incapable of being parents, to be parents to as many estranged children as possible.

Call it the "Dance With The Devil" strategy.

Something on the lighter side...

Interesting article here about the history of human sexuality.


Just for fun, take the test, too.

Not to sound like I'm bragging, but I got 8 out of 10 correct.

Well, that didn't take long...

Only six pages into the Washington Supreme Court's majority's opinion:

The plaintiffs have not established that they are members of a suspect class or that they have a fundamental right to marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, we apply the highly deferential rational basis standard of review to the legislature's decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage in this state. Under this standard, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.

The emphases are mine. Notice the Washington Court's using the old "one man-one woman is best for kids" model and that "marriage is for making babies" argument.

Still reading...

Okay, something interesting here. The Washington Supreme Court's claiming that the "rational basis" standard applies because, under Washington law, the "Strict Scrutiny" standard only applies if the law in question applies "positive favoritism to a minority class." That is, that under the law in question a minority receives some special benefit not available to the rest of society. Naturally, the minority in this case (homosexuals) isn't seeking some special benefit, but the same benefit available to opposite-sex couples. Ironically, anti-gay marriage homophobes often claim that gays wanting to marry are seeking what they call "special rights."

Looks like the plaintiffs were in a quandry. Either they argue they want identical rights to those of heterosexual marriages and lose, or they argue they want "special" rights...and lose because how can being considered married be considered a "special right" if heterosexual couples can do it all the time?

More on the "rational basis" analysis: Page 25 of the majority opinion says:

The fundamental right to marriage "is part of the fundamental 'right of privacy' implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." (citations omitted) While the State agrees that marriage is a fundamental right, it says that it does not include same-sex marriage. Plaintiffs maintain that they have the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.

The court goes on to argue that most often, fundamental rights are established by history and tradition. Homosexual marriage doesn't meet this standard because, naturally enough, history and tradition barred gays from marrying. Seems like a vicious cycle.

"

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."

Again with the "marriage is for making babies" argument.

Reading on...

I've seen this one before. The Washington Supreme Court is arguing that sex discrimination is fundamentally different from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

(In order to conclude Washington's DOMA should be subject to strict scrutiny analysis)

(W)e would first have to find that DOMA discriminates on the basis of sex and then conclude that the right to marriage is violated because of the restriction due to sex discrimination. However, as the state urges, DOMA treats men and women the same.

The plaintiffs also contend, however, that DOMA is embedded in sexism just as much as miscegenation laws were based on racism. Plaintiffs urge that keeping marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution is based on gender-role stereotypes and exclusion of those who do not conform to them. This argument is unpersuasive. FIrst, there is nothing in DOMA that speaks to gender stereotyping within marriage. Such stereotyping as exists does so apart from DOMA. Second, Plaintiffs fail to show that gay and lesbian persons are excluded from marriage on account of or in order to perpetuate gender stereotyping.

The New York Court Of Appeals made the same argument. Prohibiting gay people from marrying affects gay men and gay women equally, so it's not sex discrimination.

Sooo....if a woman gets fired from her job for being a woman, would her firing be okay if she was a LESBIAN woman?

This opinion appears to be BEGGING to be overturned. By my count, the majority opinion mentions four times that the ultimate decision rests with the legislature. The majority also mentions at least five times that only the tiniest shred of rationale justifies the "rational basis" standard.

One final point, and then I'll let this rest. In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court said the right to marry was a fundamental right, and that anti-interracial marriages are unconstitutional. In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

So: Consenting adult heterosexuals can marry whomever they want...
and consenting adult homosexuals can have sex with whomever they want...
but consenting adult homosexuals can't MARRY whomever they want.

Makes perfect sense.

NOT.

On a losing streak, here...

Gay Marriage shot down in Washington State, too.

Wash. court upholds gay marriage ban
CURT WOODWARD
Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. - The Washington Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on marriage for same-sex couples Wednesday, dealing the gay rights movement its second major defeat in less than a month in a liberal-leaning state that had been regarded as a promising battleground.

Massachusetts is still the only state that allows same-sex couples to wed.

In a 5-4 decision, the court left any action on Washington state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act to the Legislature or the ballot initiative process.

I haven't gotten through all the opinions yet, but they can be found here.

From what I've seen so far, it looks like the Washington court did the same thing as the New York Court of Appeals did; namely, they punted and said it's up to the state legislature to legalize gay marriage.

I suppose that's all well and good; eventually, I'm confident state legislatures will come around. However, the only problem is that when left to their own devices, the state legislatures used to pass laws banning interracial marriage, too. That's when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to marry was so fundamental that it was subject to the 14th Amendment's rights of equal protection.

Something tells me when I read the opinion, I'll come across the determination that while "regular" marriage is subject to "strict scrutiny" analysis, gay marriage isn't.

Why, I don't know. Logic has nothing to do with it.

More later.

The Holy Terrors' playbook

I met him at a rest stop midway between Denver and Colorado Springs, just off Interstate 25. It was two-thirty A.M. At that hour of the morning, it was practically deserted; there were only a couple of eighteen-wheelers in the main parking lot, both of which resembled giant, sleeping dinosaurs. Neither vehicle displayed any sign of life or movement, as their drivers were copping a few zees before hitting the road again.

As I pulled into the rest stop, I followed instructions and turned right, away from the main parking lot and the restrooms and the soda machines, and toward a small picnic area hidden away in a small forest of tall pine trees. I parked my truck, as instructed in front of the third metal picnic table past the "Fire Danger Extreme" sign and I got out of the truck and walked into the small forest.

As soon as I'd gotten ten feet into the forest, or just out of view of any passerby from the picnic area, a voice told me to stop. He asked, "You're alone, right?"

"Of course," I said.

He stepped out from behind a patch of scrub oak, five feet away from me. As he requested, I won't describe anything about him except to say he looked completely out of place, even if the forest primeval was a small cluster of trees and bushes next to a rest stop just off the interstate.

I asked, "What can I do for you?"

"You write a lot about sex and the Religious Right."

"They make it easy to do so," I said.

"You call us...I mean them, 'Holy Terrors.'"

I shrugged. "So?"

He removed a white letter envelope from his back pocket. "I've got something for you," he said as he handed it to me.

"What is it?"

He said, "It's a memo of sorts. A list of talking points. Position outlines."

"For whom?"

"I can't say."

"Why are you giving this to me?"

"I have my reasons."

"So you're like a secret source?"

"I guess so."

"Can I give you a nickname," I asked.

"What?"

"How about 'The Missionary?'"

"What," he repeated. In the moonlight, a look of confusion apeared on his face.

"Kind of like what 'Deep Throat' was to Watergate. Using a sexual term to describe him, only I think 'The Missionary' matches you perfectly."

"I have no idea what you're talking about," he said.

"Never mind," I said. I opened the envelope and glanced through it. I said, "Wow. This is interesting," but when I looked up to talk to the Missionary some more, he was already gone. If this had been a movie, he'd have disappeared without a trace, but although I couldn't see him, I could hear him thrash through the woods, trip and fall, and curse, after a fashion.

"Dagnabbit," came faintly out of the darkness.

I came home and read the Missionary's position outline for the Holy Terrors.

Here it is.

1. Sex is evil. It’s evil because it’s fun. When people have sex they enjoy themselves and feel attractive and powerful and self-confident and they’re in a good mood all the time. We can’t have that. If people feel good about themselves they’re not listening to us tell them what terrible sinners they are and how guilty they need to feel and how they need to redeem their souls by doing what we tell them to do.

2. Sex is seductive. If people see sexual images or read sexually oriented books or watch people having sex or talking about sex or having anything to do with sex, they’re going to want to try sex so we can’t let them come into contact with anything even remotely related to sex. For that reason, we can’t even allow people to become educated about sex. If they’re educated about sex, they’ll want to try it. If they’re ignorant, they won’t be interested or curious about sex at all, and it’ll be easier for them to hear our message.

3. Sex is contagious. If some people are having sex, other people will want to have sex, too. Worse, homosexuality is even more contagious. If we allow people to see homosexuals or talk to them or listen to what they have to say or read books by homosexuals or let them teach our kids or even know homosexuals exist, people will want to be like them and try homosexuality themselves.

4. Sex is a slippery slope. If we let people have any kind of sex they want, they’ll have EVERY kind of sex they want; everybody knows that the slightest temptation away from acceptable sex leads consenting adults to sex toys, porn, oral sex, gay sex, anal sex, swinging, orgies, S/M, bondage, role-playing and so forth, and it’s an even shorter step from those abominations to rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality.

5. The only acceptable reason for having sex is making babies (within certain restrictions. See #6 below.) God told us to be fruitful and multiply. If people have sex for any other reason, they’re defying God’s will. We have to oppose anything that either makes it easier for people to have sex without making babies, or makes sex more fun. This includes not just abortion, but contraceptives, sex toys, pornography, French ticklers, or anything that prevents or cures sexually transmitted diseases.

6. Marriage is the only acceptable forum in which people can have sex, and then only for the acceptable purpose of making babies. (See #5 above.) One man-one woman is the only acceptable form of marriage. (We realize that Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and most of the men of the Old Testament had multiple wives, but this is okay because they were all having children left and right.) Marriage is the foundation for the existence of all human society.

7. Marriage is a fragile, delicate institution and any slight deviation from the norm will irreparably shatter it. Remember, marriage is the only acceptable forum for having sex, and the only acceptable purpose for having sex is making babies. Therefore, the main purpose of marriage is making babies. If we let people (e.g. homosexuals) marry for any other reason, (e.g. love,) the institution will be destroyed for everyone. We don’t know how it will be destroyed, but it won’t be pretty.

8. Gay people don’t deserve to get married. Since they can’t have children of their own, they want to get married for other reasons, such as wanting to grow old together and be happy. This is unacceptable, since marriage is all about having children. Since marriage is such a fine institution with such noble motives, it’s too good for gay people, who are only selfishly interested in themselves and each other and having sex for fun.

9. Anyway, even if gay people do want children, they don’t need to be married to do it. When gay people have children, it’s most often because they want them and they’re willing to work hard to raise them. They’re already committed to being good parents. Since heterosexual couples are more likely to accidentally have children, they need the institution of marriage to make sure they stick with it.

10. To summarize:

1. The only acceptable reason to have sex is to make babies. To do otherwise is to defy God’s will.
2. Babies should only be made by people married to each other.
3. The only reason to be married is to make babies. Therefore, the only good sex is married-making-babies sex.
4. Anybody who marries for any other reason is being selfish and is trying to destroy the institution for the rest of us.
5. For the good of humanity, any kind of sex which doesn’t conceive children must be discouraged. This includes making it as risky as possible. If it’s not for the purpose of conceiving, sex must be treated as a dance with death and eternal damnation.

An insight...

Back in college, my International Politics class covered the anarchist movement at around the turn of the last century, and how they were bound and determined to kill as many kings as possible. Why? Because they felt kings were the main source of tyranny in the world and if all the kings got killed, nobody would want to be king anymore.

Simple enough logic.

It occurred to me the other day that although the Holy Terrors say they're against unwanted pregnancies, they oppose virtually every movement out there to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies. They're fighting women's choice, birth control, vaccination to prevent STDs, and even sex education, practically guaranteeing as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.

Why? I'm thinking they figure if they can turn sex into a high-risk activity, where people have to chance pregnancy, disease and even death, nobody will want to have sex anymore. At least, no more sex than is absolutely necessary to keep the species going.

Sort of like "Russian Roulette" with five bullets.

Just thought I'd share.

And some more interesting news...

More from Raw Story I love that website.

Several states are rebelling against "abstinence-only" sex ed, a.k.a. "ignorance-only" sex ed.

Following on yesterday's news of faulty information being pushed by anti-abortion pregnancy "crisis centers," RAW STORY has learned that state governments, local communities, and families are fighting back against the abstinence-only sex education mandated by federal government grants.

A report published by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) found that the more than $1 billion in federal funds spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have provoked strong reactions in some parts of the country due to the concern that it is filled with false and misleading information.
States pushing back against abstinence-only education include Maine, California, and Pennsylvania which all rejected funding that comes through the federal welfare law. New Mexico restricted use of the funds to programs in the 6th grade and below. And, New York and Illinois are working to fund comprehensive, well-designed sexuality education.

What a shock. The Feds are lying to us. Whodathunkit?

Feds are lying to pregnant teens

From Raw Story

A new study released by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) finds that federally-funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, RAW STORY has learned.

Investigators, who called into 25 such centers posing as pregnant 17-year-olds, were often told by the centers that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.

*****

According to the report, the centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer. Despite what Waxman calls a medical consensus that induced abortion does not cause an increased risk of breast cancer, eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk.

One center said that "all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years," while another told the caller that an abortion would "affect the milk developing in her breasts" and that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion.

The centers also allegedly provided false and misleading information about the effect of abortion on future fertility. Abortions in the first trimester, using the most common abortion procedure, do not pose an increased risk of infertility. However, seven centers told the caller that having an abortion could hurt her chances of having children in the future. One center said that damage from abortion could lead to "many miscarriages" or to "permanent damage" so "you wouldn't be able to carry," telling the caller that this is "common" and happens "a lot."

What's more, the centers allegedly provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion. Waxman's office points to research that shows that significant psychological stress after an abortion does occur, but is no more common than after birth. However, thirteen centers told the caller that the psychological effects of abortion are severe, long-lasting, and common. One center said that the suicide rate in the year after an abortion "goes up by seven times." Another center said that post-abortion stress suffered by women having abortions is "much like" that seen in soldiers returning from Vietnam and "is something that anyone who's had an abortion is sure to suffer from."

I'm not saying pregnant teens should be told abortion is a walk in the park, but they're in a vulnerable position, and they should be entitled to honest and truthful medical information.

Suppose the Federal government were telling men that vascectomies lead to an increase in testicular cancer.

Suppose the Feds tell people asking for Prozac that the drug causes strokes.

Suppose that information's false.

Seems to me there's a malpractice issue here.

A little light reading...

Just picked up former President Jimmy Carter's book "Our Endangered Values" from the library. Every time someone (e.g. my in-laws) complain we need more morally upright men in politics, I point out that we had one, and we booted him out for Ronnie "Rambo" Reagan.

Anyway, I came across this passage on pages 68-69. Reminds me of the issues the Republican congressmen brought up (referenced in one of my previous posts.)

"Since the punishment for adultery in the Christian era and more ancient times was death, and since Christ himself strongly condemned both adultery and divorce, a constitutional amendment with more biblical authenticity might be 'Adultery and divorce are condemned, and marriage is defined as a legal and spiritual union between a man and a woman until they are parted by death.' With a clear majority of Americans condoning divorce and believing it is acceptable for gays and lesbians to engage in same-sex behavior, it may be best to leave the U.S. Constitution alone."

Amen, brother. I met the guy, by the way, at a booksigning. I'm not much of a star-gawker, but it was still a "wow" moment for me.

More on Bush the whore

He vetoed the stem-cell bill, like he'd threatened to do. First one in five and a half years.

"The president believes the killing of human embryos, from which stem cells are harvested, is murder, says press secretary Tony Snow."

Wish I could find the link for this, but it came up a few months back. If you happened to be in a medical laboratory, and a fire broke out, and on one side of the room was a baby, and on the other side of the room was a petri dish containing four embryos, none of which was larger than the dot in this "i", and you could only save one or the other, who would you save?

Think Progress points out that Bush would allow no press to witness the veto. Doesn't want anyone to see him whoring himself.

Back to the politics...

Some interesting stuff at Think Progress about the G.O.P.'s anti-gay agenda:

It's God's fault.

BEAUPREZ: We celebrate the fact that we were all created equal by our Creator — equal, but different, and for a purpose. He showed us that purpose in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve.

GINGREY: This is all about marriage that results, or potentially can result, in the procreation of children. And this is what our Constitution has implied for 223 years, and indeed, what the word of God has implied for 2,000 years.

PENCE: I believe first, though, marriage should be protected because it wasn’t our idea. Several millennia ago, the words were written that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two should become one flesh. It wasn’t our idea. It was God’s idea.

GINGREY: But I do know a little bit about the sacrament of marriage, Mr. Speaker, as one of about 200 Catholic members of the United States Congress. And I think God has spoken very clearly, very clearly, on this issue.CARTER: The reality is, marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. Now in China, they might say a civil union. In Rome they might say a church union. But it’s always been a union between a man and a woman. In my faith, I believe it’s part of God’s plan for the future of mankind.

BEAUPREZ: And marriage since the beginning of time, as close as I can tell, has been between a man and a woman. And if it was indeed good enough for our Creator and it was indeed our Creator’s plan that we were created different for an absolute divine purpose, I think we best not be missing with His plan today.

The emphases are mine. And by the way, the Constitution doesn't say one word about marriage. It does, however, mention something about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor of prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Seems to me that invoking God to justify legislation seems a little...unConstitutional. Especially when the legislation is discriminatory.

But hey, what do I know?

Enough politics of sex for a while...

and let's just focus on sex.



Whoo, baby!

Carry on.

Bush will veto the stem cell research bill today

Full story here.

I know, I know. Stem cell research issues are about as sexy as is Paris Hilton, (that is to say, not at all), but Bush's veto threat illustrates a larger point.

Since I was a liberal arts major in college, I won't try to explain or even understand the science involved, except that the embryonic stem cells in question are a collection of about 150 cells called a blastocyst, which is formed sometime after the sperm cell fertilizes the egg, but before the embryo start to take on the characteristics of a fetus. A blastocyst can still become twins, for example. It doesn't have a heart, a spinal column, or any characteristics of a living being.

Basic stem cell primer here.

Nevertheless, in the eyes of the Holy Terrors, once that sperm cell hits the egg, life is created and so blastocysts are living beings, and any type of stem cell research is therefore murder.

This is nothing new. The Holy Terrors are bound and determined to push back the definition of when life is created until they say it happens when the guy gets the girl's bra undone.

What interests me is who's opposing Bush on this one. Neo-con/fascist Orrin Hatch, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, (That's DOCTOR Bill Frist, btw), and even Groppenfuhrer Governor Ahnold Schwartznegger are on the other side of the President.

This is just one more example of how Bushco is a slave to the Holy Terrors. He's opposing the leadership of his own party to make sure Dobson and Co. are happy.

Bush isn't even smart enough to realize this veto is unnecessary. He could do the honorable thing to advance scientific research and show the GOP and the nation he can be reasonable once in a while, and sign the bill into law.

But since his popularity is still in the mid-thirties, he feels he has to shore up his Holy Terror base and show them he's still their stooge. But Bush's base is never going to abandon him. He could be anally raping Karl Rove on his desk in the Oval Office and they'd still support him.

The bottom line is Bush simply can't do anything to oppose the people who put him into power. The Holy Terrors say "stem cell research is murder," and he parrots their line.

He's not just a whore, he's a cheap whore.

Dubya's barn door is open.

Priceless...absolutely priceless.



Just imagine the conversation between the secret service men working that day.

"You tell him!"

"No, YOU tell him!"

S S D D

Thankfully, those whores for the Holy Terrors failed again.

House Rejects Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

Jul 18, By JIM ABRAMS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on Tuesday, a setback that conservatives hope to turn to their advantage in the fall elections.

"Be assured that this issue is not over," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

The vote was 236-187 with one member voting "present," a slight improvement over the last House vote just before the 2004 election but still 47 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.

*****

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading supporter of the amendment, said his group will put out a voter scorecard that will go to millions of Americans before this November's election. "This will be a very prominent issue," he said.

"The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage," said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., sponsor of the amendment. "And the people have a right to know whether their elected representatives agree with them."

The proposed amendment says that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

This is, apparently, the most important issue facing the nation, saving heterosexuals from the hordes of gays and lesbians who want to consider themselves married.

The bad news is that when polled on the issue, most Americans still don't like the idea of letting gays get married.

The good news is they're coming around. Slowly, but they are coming around.

According to Gallup, in June 1977, 33% of Americans felt homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights regarding job opportunities; in May 2006, that figure had dropped to 9%, with 89% of Americans favoring equal employment opportunities for homosexuals.

In June 1982, when asked if homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle, 34% of those polled said yes, with 51% saying no. In May 2006, 54% said yes, 41% said no.

In March 1996, when asked if homosexual marriges should be treated as valid, only 27% of Americans polled said it should, with 68% saying it shouldn't. In May, 2006, the "shoulds" numbered 39%, with the "should nots" numbering 58%. The "shoulds" hovered in the low thirties until after the 2004 election, and since Bush and the Holy Terrors have made it their pet issue, they've been easing up, flirting with 40% ever since.

Full poll numbers can be found here. Margins of error are plus or minus 3%.

And, since Representative Musgrave brought out the point that "The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage," I want to add that according to Gallup, the ratio of those who favor or oppose a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is exactly 50% to 47%.

By the way, as a Colorado native, I want to apologize for being the home state for Representative Musgrave, Senator Wayne Allard, and Focus On The Family.

Our new state motto should be, "Please come to Colorado. We're not all homophobic assholes."

From the April 2006 Edition of ERWA

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT REDEFINING MARRIAGE
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2006

As has been well-documented by my own humble self, the
Holy Terrors are engaged in a War On Whoopie, an
all-out campaign to banish all things not related to
marital intercourse for the specific purpose of
procreation. That is, everything fun about sex.
These include pornography, sex education, sex toys,
birth control, obscenity, homosexuality in general,
and specifically gay marriage. To name a few.

However, in documenting the Holy Terrors’ war, I
realize I have not spent much time exploring their
motives. WHY do the Holy Terrors feel the need to
remove the “FUCKIN-AY! THAT WAS GREAT!” out of sex?

I could simply presume that the War on Whoopie is
being waged because the Holy Terrors are just a
collection of self-righteous homophobic bigoted
assholes who have nothing better to do than to stick
their holier-than-thou noses into other peoples’
business because God Forbid people should be out there
having more fun than they, that is, any fun at all.

But I won’t do that. I’ll instead take it for granted
that the Holy Terrors have only the most noble motives
in mind, and I’ll take them at their own words to
discern their motives. Why, for example, do they so
vehemently oppose gay marriage?

Taking the Holy Terrors at their word, they oppose gay
marriage because it threatens the very institution of
marriage itself.

Don’t believe me? Pay heed to the words of Fearless
Leader. “(S)ome activist judges and local officials
have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage
[by legalizing homosexual unions] ….If we are to
prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed
forever, our nation must enact a constitutional
amendment to protect marriage in America. …Today I
call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send
to the states for ratification, an amendment to our
Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a
union of man and woman as husband and wife.” (George
W. Bush, Feb. 14, 2004).

I’m sure it was an oversight, but Fearless Leader’s
call to arms was devoid of specifics. I still have a
few questions. How does legalizing gay unions
redefine marriage? What is the meaning of marriage
such that it’s at risk of change, and what is so
special about “man and woman as husband and wife” that
therefore needs the protection of a Constitutional
amendment?

In other words, why do people get married?

Because they love each other, of course. Why else?

Okay. But in all the media coverage of gay people
wanting to marry, they say they want to do so because
they love their partners and want to be with each
other until death do they part. So why not let them
marry? How does letting more people do it for love
redefine it? Are there other possible reasons for
people to marry?

As a matter of fact, over the course of history,
people have gotten married for an enormous diversity
of reasons: to seal political alliances, for business
and property ownership purposes, to produce children,
(heirs and laborers, mostly), and generally to
maintain an orderly society. And what about love and
sexual gratification? Well, that’s what mistresses,
concubines, prostitutes, and fuckbuddies were for.
According to Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage: A
History,” (The Penguin Group, 2005), “(f)or thousands
of years, marriage served so many economic, political,
and social functions that the individual needs and
wishes of its members (especially women and children)
took second place. Marriage was not about bringing
two individuals together for love and intimacy,
although that was sometimes a welcome side effect.
Rather, the aim of marriage was to acquire useful
in-laws and gain political or economic advantage.

“Only in the last two hundred years, as other economic
and political institutions began to take over many of
the roles once played by marriage, did Europeans and
Americans begin to see marriage as a personal and
private relationship that should fulfill their
emotional and sexual desires. Once that happened,
free choice became the societal norm for mate
selection, love became the main reason for marriage,
and a successful marriage came to be defined as one
that met the needs of its members.” (pp. 306-307,
Coontz).

With hindsight, the marriage of Prince Charles and
Princess Diana is a perfect example of Ms. Coontz’
theory. The pairing was a mis-match made someplace
other than heaven. Once the couple had produced
Princes William and Harry, (“an heir and a spare”)
ensuring the royal line would continue for another
generation, Charles and Diana each found someone more
well-suited to their wants and needs. The marriage
ended, like so many others, in divorce.

In fact, you might say that the true fairy-tale
wedding with the “happily-ever-after” ending is that
of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Marry
for love? To hell with the political consequences?
Oh, you crazy kids!

Wait a minute, you might say. We’re living in the
twenty-first century. Don’t tell me the Holy Terrors
are still saying people should marry for reasons other
than for love!

Okay, I won’t tell you that. I’ll let them tell you
that.

Quoting the Catechism for the Catholic Church, Article
7, Section 1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which
a man and a woman establish between themselves a
partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature
ordered toward the good of the spouses AND THE
PROCREATION AND EDUCATION OF OFFSPRING,” (emphasis
added).

Until 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), states
could legally prohibit the sale of contraceptives to
married couples or to individuals. Why? Because
birth control was anti-family. In upholding a similar
law in 1917, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held
the law’s purpose was to “protect purity, to preserve
chastity, to encourage continence and self-restraint,
to defend the sanctity of the home, and thus to
engender in the State and nation a virile and virtuous
race of men and women.”

The Family Research Council website
offers a lengthy article by Dr. Allan C. Carlson, PhD, entitled,
“Marriage And Procreation: On Children As The First
Purpose Of Marriage.” Dr. Carlson himself
acknowledges, “When Massachusetts officials facing the
court case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
set out to defend that state's marriage law from a
challenge by seven homosexual couples, their major
line of defense was procreation. Making babies, the
state argued, was the first purpose of marriage.”
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking
Republican in the U.S. Senate, is a special piece of
work. He’s got his eye on the Presidency and in his
recent book, “It Takes A Family,” he complains among
other things that too many women are working outside
the home, (p. 94), public schools are weird, (p. 386),
and “The notion that college education is a
cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried
mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the
economic ladder is just wrong.” (Pg. 138)
However, the junior Senator from PA saved a special
message for the “Brian Lehrer” radio show on August 4,
2005. There, the Senator said, “(T)he point of
marriage from a societal point of view is not to
affirm the love of two people, and to make people feel
good about who they are in their relationship, but in
fact the point of marriage is for having children …If
we change that, we devalue the institution and we
change it, and re-orient it more toward parents, and
away from children.”

Being the father of four myself, I can get behind the
idea that we need to raise our children in the best
home environment possible. However, I’ve known of too
many negative “one man-one woman” family arrangements
and too many positive “single parent” or “one
parent-one significant other” or “two moms” or “two
dads” or “one or more of the above” arrangements to
trust the Catholic Church, a monolithic governmental
bureaucracy, or a crackpot Pennsylvania politician to
know what’s best for everyone.

So, I hate to admit it, but the President is right.
We liberals are out to re-define marriage. I say a
marriage ought to be about unconditional love and
affection between consenting adults. Call me nut,
call me crazy dreamer.

No, it’s okay. Go ahead. All together now. “J.T,
you nut! You crazy dreamer!”

My apologies...

Earlier, I commented that the New York Court of Appeals majority was applying a "caveman" argument in opposing gay marriage.

I most humbly apologize for my stereotypical, grossly insensitive and inappropriate comments about cavemen and their positions on gay marriage and privacy rights in general.



These two gentlemen have kindly pointed out to me that several members of the caveman community have been working in several states with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance and other organizations, advancing the cause of homosexual and privacy rights.

The one on the right shared with me a draft of an amicus brief he was preparing which pointed out several errors in logic in the New York Court of Appeals' interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The one on the left wanted to hit the New York Court Of Appeals majority with a big club.

Again, my most humble apologies.

Interesting analysis of the New York Appeals Court ruling on gay marriage...

My previous comments are here, in case you'd forgotten...

Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino shares thoughts on the decision here.

Quoting from the article...

What’s noteworthy about the New York decision, however, is that it became the second ruling by a state high court to assert a startling rationale for prohibiting same-sex marriage — that straight couples may be less stable parents than their gay counterparts and consequently require the benefits of marriage to assist them.

*****

First, Dr. Yoshino points out that the New York Court of Appeals majority brought out the tired old canard that children do best in a home with a mother and a father, and that this is sufficient justification to keep marriage an exclusively heterosexual arrangement. "It's best for the kids." As Dr. Yoshino points out, this argument is preposterous. In Arkansas, of all places, the high court there concluded there's no such evidence that children do worse with parents in a homosexual relationship as opposed to a heterosexual relationship.

As I discussed here.

Then, Dr. Yoshino brings up another argument that the New York court majority raised, which I confess I missed. Apparently, it's been raised in Indiana, too.

But the New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples.”

To shore up those rickety heterosexual arrangements, “the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.” Lest we miss the inversion of stereotypes about gay relationships here, the opinion lamented that straight relationships are “all too often casual or temporary.”

So the New York Court of Appeals is essentially saying, "Gay people don't have kids by accident. Couples, gay and straight, who plan to have kids are more likely to raise their kids well than are couples who don't plan to start families, since they're more mature emotionally to do so. Since heterosexual couples DO sometimes have kids by accident, heterosexual couples need the protections of marriage to make sure kids of straight couples are raised as well as are kids of gay couples. You get that, gay couples? You guys are actually BETTER parents than straight couples are, so we need to keep you from being married to level the playing field. So really, we're paying you guys a compliment."

The argument is brilliant in its absurdity, since it contradicts the Court of Appeals' other (ridiculous) argument that kids in heterosexual households do BETTER than kids in homosexual households.

As I said before in my previous post, the New York Court of Appeals argued that homosexual marriage was subject to the "Rational Basis" argument and not "Strict Scrutiny." Here, as Dr. Yoshino so brilliantly points out, the New York Court Of Appeals doesn't even bother with a rational argument to justify its "rational" basis.

Another interesting point is that the New York Court Of Appeals is still falling back on the old caveman argument that marriage shouldn't be about consenting adults' committment to each other or love or anything like that; that marriage should only be about raising kids.

I could reduce the New York Court Of Appeals' arguments to their most absurd conclusions, but they're already pretty absurd.

An announcement...

Attention, shoppers.

In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, I'd gotten into the sex-writing biz to write about the fun stuff about sex, and not so much with the political rantings and ravings.

Things haven't worked out so much that way for a while. I got into "All Worked Up" and then this blog, and the more I think about it, the more I realize I want to have my cake and eat it too.

Soooo...

da-da-da-da-da-da-daaaaah!

Check out my NEW blog, "Sexual Intercourse Is..."

where I promise to devote more time and space on the information superhighway to just fun stuff about sex, and not so much the political stuff, which I'll save for right here.

Stay tuned.

More bigotry from a pair of red states...

On a losing streak lately...

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, with a federal appeals court reinstating Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that voters should have a say on the issue.

Last week, the highest courts in two others states also dealt gay rights advocates setbacks. The New York court rejected a bid by same-sex couples to win marriage rights, and the Georgia court reinstated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage there.

In the Nebraska case, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon had ruled that the ban was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Friday that the amendment ''and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.''

*****

Opponents of the ban ''are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and generally participate in the political process however they see fit,'' [NE Atty General] Bruning said. ''Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, just as supporters ... did.''

I suppose if there's any good news here, the Nebraska and Tennessee courts fell back on the same weak-ass arguments that New York relied upon last week; that the voters can change things and that same-sex marriage is subject to rational-basis interpretation instead of the tougher strict scrutiny standard.

When Bushco and their Holy Terror handlers claim a Constitutional amendment is needed because of "activist judges," I wonder if they're counting this bunch of assholes.

Oh, you meant activists who rule AGAINST you.

Got it.

More on the religion front...

I need to post some naked pictures soon. All this religious discussion is making my rod go limp.

But anyway...

Religion Taking A Left Turn?
Conservative Christians Watch Out: There's A Big Churchgoing Group Seeking Political Power

*****

"Jesus called us to love our neighbor, love our enemy, care for the poor, care for the outcast, and that's really the moral core of where we think the nation ought to go," Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches told CBS News correspondent Russ Mitchell.

The National Council of Churches represents about 50 million Christians in America — the majority of them mainline Protestants.

"Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion," Edgar said.

He calls this movement the "center-left" — and it's seeking the same political muscle as the conservative Christians, a group with a strong power base in the huge Evangelical churches of the South.

But the left has its own Evangelical leaders, such as the Rev. Tony Campolo.

"We are furious that the religious right has made Jesus into a Republican. That's idolatry," Campolo said. "To recreate Jesus in your own image rather than allowing yourself to be created in Jesus' image is what's wrong with politics."

This article discusses more social issues than simply sexual freedom, but I'm posting it because I think it's one sign in what I hope is a shift in momentum. As I said before, the Holy Terrors are claiming a monopoly on moral authority simply because they claim God is on their side. Nobody on the left (or even left of center) has been in a position to challenge them on this. However, it looks like someone is finally starting to say, "We're Christians, and you hatemongers don't speak for us, so shut the fuck up!"

Or words to that effect.

Although I'm a student of faith, I don't personally have much use for religion myself. However, I recognize its influence. If more people like Dr. Edgar and leaders of the Episcopalian Church step forward and push more tolerance and understanding and less persecution, self-righteous judgment and homophobia, we can't help but win.

More news on the spiritual front...

I seem to be paying lots of attention to the Anglican Church lately (We call them Episcopalians on this side of the pond) but I find the debate interesting.

From BBC News via Raw Story:

The Dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London has attacked traditionalists in the Anglican church for conducting a "witch-hunt" against homosexuals.

"The thought that anybody should be shown the door by the Church, I just find deeply offensive," said the Very Reverend Dr John Moses.

The Dean made the comments on the eve of his last service at St Paul's before his retirement in August.

He said the Anglican church must adapt to global conditions.

"It has to be recognised that we live in different cultural contexts, and pastoral questions which are deeply sensitive might have different solutions in different places," said Dr Moses, one of the most influential members of the Church of England.

"What I do know is that I don't find the truth by slamming the door on the debate. I do not actually want to know about people's sexual orientation, if I am honest, I take people on trust."

Controversial row

The Anglican Communion has been bitterly rowing over the issue of homosexual and women bishops, and in recent weeks, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has faced the issue of how to deal with a split church.

*****

Dr Moses, who has led services for Asian tsunami and the 7 July bombings, conceded that he had no answer for the bitter dispute but "hated" the idea of exclusion from the Church.

"We are preoccupied with one small matter and it is being presented as a question of Biblical truth and fidelity to scripture. I think this is simply not good enough.

"Because on that basis, you will not have a divorced person, you will not have a woman, and I could go on."

On the one hand, we have the traditionalists, whose position is similar to that of the Holy Terrors: homosexuality is evil and homosexuals are sinners. On the other hand, progressive members of the Anglican Church (including some in high-ranking positions) are beginning to treat the matter as one of love and compassion and, most importantly, tolerance.

To this point, the Holy Terrors have claimed the (so-called) moral high ground by claiming ultimate authority on God's behalf. However, if progressive religious leaders can make their voices heard, they can drown out the homophobes with common sense, compassion, and, most of all, Jesus' teachings.

The other night, my Lovely Wife and I were on the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, Colorado.

On the sidewalk, we saw two groups of three people; three men in business suits and ties, talking about this corporate business deal or that, and just beyond them, three young people dressed like they'd just come out of an Ani DeFranco concert. Torn, faded jeans, dreadlocks, worn-out t-shirts, and an old felt hat on the ground half-filled with change. The businessmen were caught up in their own corporate world, and the grungy kids were asking for money to get out to California.

My Lovely Wife found a dollar in her purse and she gave it to the three kids. As we walked away, she said, "Which group do you think Jesus would have hung out with?"

Which group, indeed?

This debate is about more than just fucking or sexual preference or political power or morality or quotations from scripture.

It's about the basic human dignity and respect we owe to our brothers and sisters, and that we ask for ourselves.

Great Literature thread...

Okay, class. Pay attention.

I finally went to see "The Da Vinci Code" last weekend. I thought about the same of it as I had of Dan Brown's novel. Not exactly up there with "The Grapes Of Wrath," but I found it a crackling good yarn. Which is what I was looking for.

Naturally, the critics have been as savage to the movie as they were to the book. "It's the worst sort of bubble-gum entertainment," supposedly.

Well...I beg to differ. "The Da Vinci Code" is, in my opinion, the BEST sort of bubble-gum entertainment. What's so bad about that?

If I had to choose whether to be a little-read literary genius, or a multi-million selling spinner of yarns and tall tales, well...to be honest, gimme those millions of sales, Baby! (Of course, I'd really rather be a million-selling literary genius, but only one pipe dream at a time, please.)

And yet, what makes great art? Is it something that touches the very depths of one's soul, or is it simply a matter of numbers? If I write a novel that speaks to Great And Noble Truths, how effective is my message if only a few thousand people see it? On the other hand, if a story shallow as a puddle gets millions of people talking about it, is that necessarily bad?

And what about the quality of the work? If millions of people like Stephen King's writing, he must be doing something right.

One of the reasons I like writing erotica is the challenge of it. Writing about sex is seen as such an unseemly genre that people just assume the quality of the work is non-existent. Crafting an entertaining and arousing story that still digs something up from the Great And Noble Truth section of the brain is a daunting task, and I enjoy taking a stab at it.

My first lit professor in college was a bubbly, charming grad student who rarely wore a bra. (Why do I remember that so vividly?) She kept enthusiastically pumping us up about our book assignments, arguing that the novels we were reading, (The Red And The Black, The Golden Bowl, and something else I don't remember: the theme was adultery in literature) were great because they were in part about sex; that touching on these themes was part of what made them great and worthy of discussion.

I do remember something else she said that stuck with me: "Great literature is a book you want to read again."

So how about it, sports fans? Are the critics off base to slam "The Da Vinci Code" so mercilessly? Could they just be jealous of sixty-one million sales? What good is a "great book" that nobody has read?

Talk amongst yourselves.

From The May-June edition of ERWA

ALL WORKED UP ABOUT ORWELL
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2006

Back in 1984, appropriately enough, I read George
Orwell’s anti-utopian science fiction novel “1984” for
a political science class. In class, we discussed
whether the novel, (published in 1948), described a
possible future society under Communist rule, under
Nazi or possibly British socialism, and even whether
Orwell was describing then-contemporary post World War
II Great Britain.

Who knew the novel would be describing the Bush
Administration’s plans for governing the United
States?

In case you haven’t read the novel, or if you have and
have successfully blotted out the memory, “1984”
paints a bleak, depressing picture of the future.
England is ruled by a worldwide totalitarian regime.
Many of Orwell’s descriptions of English life under
the single ruling party, dubbed “Big Brother,” have
eerie parallels to contemporary U.S. life.

Orwell foretold the 24-7 electronic surveillance of
citizens, modern torture and brainwashing techniques,
perpetual war against ethereal enemies, governmental
control of mass media, massive uber-patriotic
propaganda campaigns, and attempts to stifle dissent
by altering the very language through the concepts of
“doublespeak” and “newspeak.”

Orwell also coined the term, “sexcrime.” I’m not
referring to bona fide and properly prosecuted sex
crimes such as rape and child molestation. In the
appendix to his book, Orwell provides his own
definition of the term.

“(The party member’s) sexual life, for example, was
entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime
(sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime
covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. It covered
fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other
perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse
practised for its own sake. …He knew what was meant by
goodsex -- that is to say, normal intercourse between
man and wife, for the sole purpose of begetting
children, and without physical pleasure on the part of
the woman: all else was sexcrime.”

The novel’s hero, Winston Smith, is a minor
functionary in the ruling party. Not surprisingly,
following his dick leads Winston to his downfall. He
meets and falls in love with Julia, another minor
party member. Julia is an unashamedly promiscuous
woman who commits “sexcrimes” (that is, she sleeps
around), as a form of protest against the
establishment. After the first time Winston and Julia
hook up, Orwell writes, “Their embrace had been a
battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck
against the party. It was a political act.”

Over the course of their affair, Winston and Julia
begin acting rebellious in other ways, including
reading prohibited materials. Eventually, the two are
caught, tortured, brainwashed, and ultimately betrayed
by each other.

Why do I bring this up?

Because it’s not hard to see eerie parallels between
Orwell’s definition of “sexcrimes” and the Bush
Administration’s modern-day “War On Whoopie.”

If you’re a regular reader of this column, (and if you
aren’t, why the hell not?), you’re aware that the
Christian Right, through their designated puppet, the
Bush Administration, have been trying to shut down
pornography, profanity, sex toys, sex education, a
woman’s right to choose, birth control, gay marriage,
homosexuality in general, and to otherwise in every
way, shape or form take the “WOO-HOO, That was FUN!”
out of sex. If the sex isn’t specifically between
married people, and for the specific purpose of
bearing children, the Christian Right, (whom I’ve
dubbed the Holy Terrors), want to shut it down.

So picture a future in which the Holy Terrors win.

“John, shall we engage in marital intercourse after
dinner?”

“Afraid not, Marsha. The permits haven’t come back
from the Department of Homeland Fertility yet.”

“But I’m ovulating, John. And don’t tell anybody, but
I’m really, really horny.”

“Then we’d definitely better not do anything, Marsha.
The last time you exceeded your orgasm quota, we had
to pay a fine.”

If this sounds far-fetched, while you’re in the
bookstore, picking up a copy of “1984,” buy “The
Scarlet Letter” by Nathaniel Hawthorne for a picture
of religious views toward sexuality in the U.S. not so
long ago. And while you’re at it, you’d better grab
some books by Henry Miller, D.H. Lawrence, Stendahl,
Henry James, Anais Nin, Susie Bright, Maxim
Jakobowski, and as many other erotic writers, old and
new, as you can find, because if the Holy Terrors have
their way, you won’t be able to find them anymore.

Imagine living in a society with no photos,
literature, movies, or music that could in any way be
considered erotic or appealing to the prurient
interests. No colorful language. No provocative
outfits. No v-necked blouses showing off cleavage, or
tight blue jeans accentuating a firm ass. Drab
clothes, drab art, drab words, drab literature.
Homosexuals are “out of sight, out of mind.” They’re
imprisoned, brainwashed, or worse. Sex is a chore. A
burden. If the act doesn’t result in conception, it’s
a failure. People don’t hook up because of love or
even sexual attraction, but for their mutual ability
to produce offspring. If you’re infertile, maybe
you’re just treated as second-class citizens. Maybe
you’re in the same place as the homosexuals. And yes,
all intercourse must be within the bonds of matrimony.
And all of this is rigidly enforced and overseen by a
pseudo-benevolent loving government. The Powers That
Be dictate with whom we have sex, when we have sex,
and how we have sex.

In other words, it’s a society a lot like that of
Orwell’s “1984.”

Will the Holy Terrors succeed in their War on Whoopie?


Of course not.

In the first place, sex is everywhere. Of course,
it’s always been everywhere, but these days it’s
positively moved into the mainstream. Porn is chic.
Jenna Jameson has a best-selling autobiography. Porn
stars make reality shows and documentaries. Writers
of erotica are cult figures in the literary world.
Thanks to the internet, anyone can get any access to
any sexually oriented material he or she wants
anywhere, anytime. Porn isn’t just in the mainstream;
it’s on the cutting edge. Barely ten minutes after
Apple introduced its new video Ipod, porn video
distributors announced they would make clips available
for the new device.

As far as sexual preferences are concerned, gays can
marry in Massachusetts, Canada, and an ever-growing
number of European countries. For every anti-fun
statute that is passed in a “red” state, a pro-fun
measure passes in a “blue” state.

Trying to curb peoples’ urges to make whoopee is like
trying to stop a breach in a flooded levee with
sponges and “Brawny” paper towels. (Bad, tasteless,
insensitive joke there. I humbly apologize to the
citizens of Hurricane Katrina-devastated New Orleans,
Louisiana, and to the heroic efforts of those trying
to repair the damage to that great city’s levees with
government-issue sponges and “Brawny” paper towels).

For all their bluster and busy activity, the Holy
Terrors don’t realize their War on Whoopie is already
lost. Which leads me to the second reason why their
failure is a foregone conclusion.

They’re just not smart enough to pull it off.

That’s not to say the Holy Terrors don’t have power.
That’s not to say they can’t make life miserable for
the rest of us. That’s not to say they won’t make
every effort to drag us, kicking and screaming, back
to the Middle Ages or, more likely, forward into
George Orwell’s dark vision of the future.

Which is why, fellow fun-loving freaks, we must resist
the tyranny of our would-be oppressors! We must stand
up (or lie down, as the case may be) for our right to
spread our legs, drop our drawers, break out the
whips, nipple clamps and candlewax and have dirty,
kinky, twisted, sweaty carnal knowledge with our
fellow consenting adults in any way and every way,
shape or form. We must not just watch porn for its
own sake, we must do so as an expression of freedom of
speech. When we’re punishing a very bad, bad person,
we’re not just spanking a bare bottom, we’re also
striking a blow for personal liberty. With a leather
paddle, to boot.

They say politics makes strange bedfellows. I’ll show
you some strange bedfellows.

Come on, Baby. Let’s go on up to my place and we’ll
stick it to The Man.

Then there's Georgia....

Another blow against gay marriage.

Ga. Top Court Reinstates Gay Marriage Ban

By SHANNON McCAFFREY
Associated Press Writer


ATLANTA (AP) -- The state Supreme Court reinstated Georgia's constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday, just hours after New York's highest court upheld that state's gay-marriage ban.

The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. Superior Court Judge Constance Russell of Fulton County had ruled that it did.

No link to the opinion itself, but it appears this case was decided on a technicality regarding the ballot issue, and Georgia's top court didn't have to lay down the line of bullshit that New York's Court of Appeals had to.

Well, Hell.

Interesting decision from New York's highest court.

N.Y. Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

New York's highest court today turned back an attempt by gay and lesbian couples to win equal treatment under New York State's marriage law, saying that the state constitution "does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex."

The entire opinion is here.

My opinion? The most compelling work of fiction available until Harry Potter 7 comes out.

A few key points:

1. The majority went to great pains to emphasize that this wasn't a "strict scrutiny" issue, but a "rational basis" issue.

In English, when someone claims the state is discriminating against him or her, he or she has to claim the law treats him or her unfairly. He or she is denied "equal protection" under the law, which is un-Constitutional. If the discriminatory conduct affects a "fundamental right" (e.g. race-related issues, religion, etc.) the court applies a "Strict Scrutiny" standard, the highest available. The state has to prove the discriminatory statute in question addresses a compelling objective, and there's no other means available to meet that objective. In lesser forms of discriminatory conduct, the party harmed by the conduct has to disprove that the state only has a "rational basis" for the conduct. (Not even a good reason for the discrimination, just one that sounds good).

Did you get all that? If it's a fundamental right, the state's on the spot to justify its actions. If it's not a fundamental right, the harmed party has to prove there's no good reason whatsoever to justify the state's conduct.

Marriage has always been considered a fundamental right. In 1996, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled the state couldn't discriminate against gay marriage because it was considered a fundamental right, subject to strict scrutiny, and the reasons the state gave for denying the rights of homosexuals to marry failed the test. (The Hawaii legislature quickly overrode the court's ruling.)

So, at first glance, the New York high court had to apply the strict scrutiny standard, right?

Wrong.

It seems that while the rights of heterosexuals to marry is subject to strict scrutiny, the rights of HOMOSEXUALS to marry is only subject to the "rational basis" argument. At least, according to the state of New York.

The court's "rational basis" argument fell along typical Holy Terror talking point lines. Children are best raised in a one-man one-woman household, that the main purpose of marriage is to have and raise kids, blah blah blah. Same eighteenth-century stuff they always spew out. The court didn't even bother addressing whether the arguments were even rational or not. Apparently, there's even an "irrational basis" standard.

Even then, the New York high court punted. Ultimately, said the court,

"we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives. We therefore express our hope that the participants in the controversy over same sex marriage will address their arguments to the legislature; that the legislature will listen and decide the issue as wisely as it can; and that those unhappy with the result--as many undoubtably will be--will respected as people in a democratic state should respect choices democratically made."

See how creative a load of bullshit that was? J.K. Rowling's stuff about Lord Voldemort and the Half-blood prince should be so imaginative.

However, not everybody on New York's Court of Appeals is an idiot. Chief Judge Judith Kaye says in her dissent,

"Marriage is about much more than producing children, yet same-sex couples are excluded from the entire spectrum of protections taht come with civil marriage--purportedly to encourage other people to procreate. Indeed, the protections that the State gives to couples who do marry--such as the right to own property as a unit or to make medical decisions for each other--are focused largely on the adult relationship, rather than on the couple's possible role as parents. Nor does the plurality even attempt to explain how offering only heterosexuals the right to visit a sick loved one in the hospital, for example, conceivably furthers the State's interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to have children, or indeed how excluding same-sex couples from each of the specific legal benefits of civil marriage--even apart from the totality of marriage itself--does not independently violate plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the laws.

The plurality's decision is positively prehistoric in scope, and it displays the worst mentalities of the Holy Terrors' War on Whoopie.

I've been asked more than once what it will take for the Powers That Be to finally admit that same-sex marriage ought to be legalized.

They will have to admit:

1. That gay couples are no better or worse than heterosexual couples or even than single parents, when it comes to raising kids;

2. That being married can be, but doesn't have to be about raising kids;

3. That maybe, just maybe, being married ought to be about consenting adults sharing lives, regardless of race, relgion, or sexual preference;

4. That deciding which consenting adults pair up with whom is really none of the state's damn business, anyway.

Rant over. Return to your regular broadcasting schedule.

Mobilize the Sodomy Squadron! Scramble! Scramble! Scramble!!

Thanks to Pam Spaulding for finding this.

Joe Murray of Agape Press running off at the mouth.

The Judeo-Christian compass that once guided our leaders and citizens has been displaced. A new moral order, one fueled by hedonism and a mutated form of individualism, has taken its place. Translation: Christians have become strangers in their own country.

What is the state of our Union's culture? Poor. In regards to Christian values, Jesus has not just been moved to the back of the bus, he has been thrown out the emergency exit door. Not only has talk of Jesus, and His Church, been evicted from public discourse, but Jesus has become a favorite target of a cultural elite who have grown intolerant of His nagging presence.

*****

If one digs deeper into the cultural psyche of America, he will find that Christianity no longer sets the standard for proper human behavior. The Sodomy Squadron has been flying high, for the Supreme Court has deemed sodomy a fundamental right, the Federal Marriage Amendment was DOA, and Massachusetts strong-armed the Catholic Church into ceasing its adoption program when it demanded that a Catholic agency allow same-sex couples to adopt children under the care of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Sodomy Squadron? Wagner's "Ride of The Valkyries" swells underneath. Jets with massive thrusting power soar overhead. Missiles stand by to deliver their awesome phallic-symbol type payloads.

Murray quotes liberally (no pun intended) from George Washington in his editorial.

"It is the duty of all Nations," thundered George Washington, "to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." To Washington, obedience to God would ensure a prosperous and free America. God was the rock upon which our liberties rested. How far we have fallen from the standard espouse by President Washington.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to scare up that quotation from my reference library, but I'll take Murray's word for it that Washington did in fact say those words. Washington also said, however,

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy--a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

*****

May the children ... who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig-tree, and there shall be none to make them afraid."

George Washington, to the Jewish Congregation, New Port, Rhode Island, August 1790

"As mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more able to allow that those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality.

George Washington, message to Catholics, 1789

And while he didn't write these words, President Washington did swear an oath to defend, preserve, and protect them, (among others)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof..."

U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.

While President Washington and the First Amendment are specifically addressing religious choices, on the broader scale it's a matter of individual choices in general; choices of faith, of conscience, of association, of what makes one happy, and the choice to live free from the interference of others. Especially from the interference of the government.

Mr. Murray's rant, while comical at first, displays the very real and frightening mindset of the pseudo-fascists whom I've dubbed "The Holy Terrors." Notice how he frames the debate so that so-called "Christians" are the minority facing persecution. Notice also how he's framed the debate into a "my way or the highway" point of view.

The Judeo-Christian compass that once guided our leaders and citizens has been displaced. A new moral order, one fueled by hedonism and a mutated form of individualism, has taken its place. Translation: Christians have become strangers in their own country.

As if respecting someone else's right to be left alone is anti-Christian. Here's a key passage:

And the final nail in America's cultural coffin? The American public. In a poll recently conducted by Gallup, just 48 percent of Americans believe that the federal government should "be involved in promoting moral values." Another 48 percent believe the feds should mind its own business. Thus, we have become a nation home to two different peoples, and we Christians constitute the counter-culture.

Nearly half of the American people believe in my mantra of "Mind Your Own Business." To me, that's ecstatic news. To Mr. Murray, this is a sign of the Apocalypse. He and the rest of his ilk can't fathom giving people the respect and trust to which they're entitled. They can't be left alone to live by their own values. The Holy Terrors have to do that for them.

Mr. Murray's ultimate point is one of optimism in his point of view. That the forces of sodomy and individual "hedonism" will give way to the principles on which he believes the U.S. was founded; faith in absolutes. Black and white. No gray areas. He references Napoleon's defeat in Russia and compares it to the Holy Terrors' battle against freedom. "Napoleon may have had the manpower, but he did not have the staying power."

Mr. Murray has a point, but he's got the outcome backwards. The Holy Terrors have the manpower; they've got the White House, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the airwaves.

We've got the staying power. Ultimately, moral behavior is a matter of respect for someone else's choices, whether we understand them or not. Hell, we don't HAVE to understand them. We just have to respect them. The notion that shoving one's position down someone else's throat is the antithesis of moral behavior. And that's the position Mr. Murray has taken. That position is in direct opposition to that of President Washington, the Framers of the Constitution, and of the United States in general.

Mr. Murray also quotes Ben Franklin in saying, "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." Again, Mr. Murry doesn't cite the quotation, but I'll take his word for it. Apparently, in his mind, the "Sodomy Squadron" is the tyranny, and the so-called "Christians," by opposing their right to be left alone, are the rebellion.

Here are some more sage words from Mr. Franklin:

"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdon, and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man, as far as by it he does not hurt and control the right of another: and this is the only check it ought to suffer, and the only bounds it ought to know"

Benjamin Franklin, "Dogwood Papers, 1722." (He was 16 at the time!!)

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac.

Rant over. Back to your holiday.

Happy Independence Day!!

Today, I'm planning to celebrate the Fourth of July by...

looking at pictures of naked women...

watching a porn movie or two...

reading erotica...

maybe writing some...

having the kind of sex that's still illegal in several states...

flirting like a horny crazy man...

and generally letting my libido out to play.

Because this is America, dammit! This is a country that was founded on the principle that the decisions about the course of a person's life belong with that person. Those include, (those ESPECIALLY include) a person's sex life.

In part, I'm doing this precisely because the Powers That Be don't want me to. In their besotted, gin-soaked minds, they have this delusion that 1. sex is bad, and 2. due to their holier-than-thou status, they have the right to impose their pseudo-religious bullshit down the throats of us sinners and make us like it, besides.

I realize that to some, the desire to express one's sexuality is rather low on the scale of freedoms for which our brave and noble forebears fought and died, and for which we're still fighting. The rights of gays to marry, for example, might not seem like a big deal when compared to issues such as taxation without representation, slavery, civil rights, the rights of women to vote, the right of labor to organize, the right not to be forced to testify against oneself, and on and on.

Maybe so, maybe not. I choose not to prioritize liberty that way. My lesbian friends love each other so much they appear on the verge of tears every time they see each other after a separation. The notion that Wilma (a pseudonym) can't be consulted if Betty (another pseudonym) is in an accident and needs medical decisions made for her scares them both to death. In their eyes, their right to share their lives is as important as any of the other freedoms for which America stands. I won't disagree with them on that point. I refuse to. Because part of what America stands for is the notion that the individual's considerations of freedom and liberty must be given due respect.

To me, one of the most essential forms of freedom is that of consenting adults of any gender, number, and/or kink to close the bedroom door and do whatever the hell they choose, free from interference from neighbors, passersby, and/or the government. Especially the government. If they can get into our bedrooms, there's literally no place left to truly be free.

It's all about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any happiness.

Have a good one.

Some Sunday Morning Fun...

J T Benjamin -- [noun]: An oral sex master 'How will you be defined in the sexual dictionary?' at QuizUniverse.com