John McCain: Ignoramus, Idiot, or Whore?

First, I will give Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) all due credit for his admirable military record. He distinguished career as a pilot, warrior and prisoner of war are a credit to his own courage and to the dignity of our country. He should justly be proud of his service to the United States.

As a politician and Presidential candidate, however, John McCain is a disgrace.

From the New York Times:

SOMEWHERE in NORTHERN IOWA — The unthinkable has happened. Senator John McCain met a question, while sitting with reporters on his bus as it rumbled through Iowa today, that he couldn’t – or perhaps wouldn’t – answer.

Did he support the distribution of taxpayer-subsidized condoms in Africa to fight the transmission of H.I.V.?

What followed was a long series of awkward pauses, glances up to the ceiling and the image of one of Mr. McCain’s aides, standing off to the back, urgently motioning his press secretary to come to Mr. McCain’s side.

The upshot was that Mr. McCain said he did not know this subject well, did not know his position on it, and relied on the advice of Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma.

His press secretary, Brian Jones, later reported that Mr. McCain had a record of voting against using government money to finance the distribution of condoms.

The transcript of the discussion is VERY enlightening.

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

To his credit, the reporter gave McCain every chance to rescue himself on this. But let's summarize. We've got a Presidential candidate, who spent four years in the House of Representatives before entering the Senate in 1987, so that's twenty-four years as an elected official. Notice he got started in the 1980's, when the AIDS outbreak first hit the fan. Twenty-four years in government service, during which the AIDS virus and the prevention of same became the most talked-about health issue of our time.

And this guy says he doesn't know whether condoms prevent HIV-AIDS? (Correction: to use McCain's phrase, the question "stumped" him.)

What planet has this guy been living on?

There's loads more to find fault with on this one. McCain's support of Bush's current "Just keep your legs crossed and take lots of cold showers" policy towards stopping the AIDS epidemic in Africa is as inexcusable as Bush's position itself.

Secondly, McCain says he defers to his colleague, Sen. Tom Coburn (an M.D.) on these sorts of issues. Considering another medical doctor, Sen. Bill Frist said in December 2004 that first he "didn't know" whether you could catch the HIV virus through tears or sweat, and then he said that you can, I'm not sure it's a good idea to trust the medical judgments of members of Congress. They seem not to stay caught up on the latest literature.

For the record, you can't catch the AIDS virus through tears or sweat, and condoms are considered "highly effective" in preventing the spread of the virus when they're used properly. Page 3 of the CDC's factsheet says "latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens."

So, essentially Sen. McCain has been living down a rabbit hole when it comes to the most public health issue of our time. When the subject of HIV-AIDS comes up, he sticks his fingers in his ears and runs down the hall going, "La-la-la-la-la! I"m not listening! La-la-la-la-la-la!"

Or, there's another possibility. Sen. McCain knows perfectly well that condoms prevent the spreading of the virus. However, he also knows that if he comes out pro-logic, fact and common sense on the issue in any way, shape or form, he's going to alienate the Holy Terror base of the Republican Party, a base he desperately needs to fellate if he expects their support during his Presidential run.

I suspect it's Option B. McCain's track record demonstrates a willingness to whore himself to the Holy Terrors at every available opportunity. The guy actually once said he'd support ceremonies to join gay couples in civil unions, but ONLY if the ceremonies had no legally binding effect. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, Bush's campaign slandered McCain's family, calling him crazy and a "fag", his adopted daughter illegitimate, and his wife a drug addict. In response to these attacks, McCain should've met Bush in a dark alley behind a seedy bar and beaten the draft-dodging little asshole senseless with a two-by-four. Instead, McCain attached himself to Bush's dick and he hasn't been dislodged since.

The irony is that McCain holds Barry Goldwater's old Senate seat. Goldwater must be spinning in his grave. I'm not a Goldwater fan, but he never would've put up with that shit.

P.S. Upon due reflection, it appears that no culprit has been identified in the 2000 South Carolina primary smear campaign. Call me crazy, but my hunch is the mastermind's name rhymes with "Tarl Bove."

Some truly mind-blowing bullshit from the Holy Terrors

The anti-sexual freedom crowd seems to have the upper hand these days. An enormous majority of U.S. states have legalized discrimination against sexual orientation and in the overall War On Whoopie, the bad guys are still firmly in control.

And yet there are chinks in the armor. Every time a Holy Terror attempts to justify his thoughts and actions, he manages to demonstrate the illogic and sheer stupidity of his position. As a wise man once said, "It is better to remain silent and have people think you're an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Case in point:

Furor over Baptist's gay-baby article

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Wed Mar 14, 5:59 PM ET

NEW YORK - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, acknowledged that he irked many fellow conservatives with an article earlier this month saying scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality.

Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality — which they view as sinful — is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling.

The emphases are mine.

Get all that? The Holy Terrors argue that homosexuality is a choice, not a part of one's genetic makeup. This way, they can argue that homosexuals can be persecuted because they simply made the wrong choice. If homosexuality were something one was born with, such as one's skin color, that'd remove one of their justifications for their bigotry.

So, Reverend Mohler appears to be saying, "mmmmmmmmmaybe there's a scientific basis for homosexuality." He's not following the script. Never mind that the Holy Terrors treat science like a four-letter word. This is big.

But wait. It gets better.

However, Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was assailed even more harshly by gay-rights supporters. They were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could switch an unborn gay baby's sexual orientation to heterosexual.

"He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, a spokesman on religious issues for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "He's more than willing to let homophobia take over and be the determinant of how he responds to this issue, in spite of everything else he believes about not tinkering with the unborn."

Again, the emphases are mine.

So, Rev. Mohler is saying, "Okay. Maybe you can be born gay. However, your loving parents can hopefully save you from assholes like myself by subjecting you to some kind of medical treatment to switch you back from DC current to AC."

As barbaric and stupid as this all sounds, it gets even worse.

(Rev. Mohler) also referred to a recent article in the pop-culture magazine Radar, which explored the possibility that sexual orientation could be detected in unborn babies and raised the question of whether parents — even liberals who support gay rights — might be open to trying future prenatal techniques that would reverse homosexuality.

Mohler said he would strongly oppose any move to encourage abortion or genetic manipulation of fetuses on grounds of sexual orientation, but he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment — if such a technology were developed — to reverse homosexuality. He said this would no different, in moral terms, to using technology that would restore vision to a blind fetus.

"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem."

Mohler's argument was endorsed by a prominent Roman Catholic thinker, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI's U.S. publisher.

"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."

What a titanic load of bullshit. In one breath, the Holy Terrors condemn homosexuality as a sin, and in the next they consider it a disease or a "disorder." Make up your fucking minds!

Actually, now that I think about it, they don't have to. In the first place, before you make up your mind, you need a mind to make up with. In the second place, the self-righteous have been painting the sick with the sinners ever since Job's friends said, "Sorry about the boils and pestilence and the deaths of your children, dude. What'd you do to piss God off?"

But I digress.

Such logic dismayed Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, a group that supports gay and lesbian families.

"What bothers me is the hypocrisy," she said. "In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child."

Amen, sister. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. Again, it's a concept with which the Holy Terrors are very familiar. The good news is that once they give in and admit homosexuality isn't really a choice, they've got one less rationale for their bigotry. That won't stop them from thinking up new ones, of course, but the new ones will be even more stupid and brainless than are the current talking points.

And it only took them...what? Four hundred years to admit they were wrong about that whole "sun-goes-around-the-earth" bullshit? Sorry, Galileo about that whole Inquisition thing. No hard feelings?

P.S. I just had to make one more comment on Rev. Mohler's outlook on all this. Quoting again:

"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said.

Ummm...I thought of another way a Christian can look at it. Just spitballing, here. How about treating homosexuals with the same love, understanding, respect and compassion with which you'd like to be treated? You know, "do unto others as you would have done unto you" and all that?

Just a thought.

More coming up, I promise!

Manohmanohman! Lots going on but I haven't had much time to blog on it. Big stuff, too. Promise to get some meaningful stuff out soon, after work tonight or tomorrow.

In the meantime...a little cheesecake.

But...but...I'm just furthering diplomatic relations...

With Mistress Eva, maybe?

Too strange for fiction.

Israel has recalled its ambassador to El Salvador after he was found drunk and naked apart from bondage gear.
Reports say he was able to identify himself to police only after a rubber ball had been removed from his mouth.

*****

Haaretz website reports that police found Mr Refael in the Israeli embassy compound where he had been found bound, gagged and naked apart from sado-masochistic sex accessories.

Here's more from Middle East Times:

According to a story initially published in Israel's tabloid-style Ma'ariv newspaper, police in the Salvadoran capital found Israeli Ambassador Tsuriel Rephael on the streets two weeks ago bound and gagged with sado-masochistic sex accessories.

Despite his inebriated state, Rephael clearly identified himself to officers as Israel's ambassador to the central American state.

Call me crazy, but I'm in the M.Y.O.B. camp on this one. The guy digs S/M but he hasn't broken any laws. Frankly, in light of the things diplomats and politicians of all stripes have been pulling lately, it's nice to know one who's apparently on the receiving end of some punishment instead of administering it.

Words fail me

I was trying to come up for a catchy title for this post, but no go. I can't sum up in a few words how contemptible, hypocritical, and downright scary this stuff has become.

First, an apology. I know it's been nearly a week since my last post. Real life intrudes, and now it's reached the point where I can't nearly post all the stuff I want to post. Time is precious so it's catch-as-catch can, here. I don't want to feel compelled to put something up every single day just because, and I don't want my posts to just be a link to another site along with a "this sucks" comment. I'd rather it be a little more meaningful than that, so I have to pick and choose and monitor my time carefully.

Then there's stuff like today. Can't NOT post about this one.

Back to business.

You might remember the turncoat Zell Miller, former Senator from Georgia, who stabbed the Democratic party and America in the back by sucking George Bush's dick in the 2004 Republican convention.

Now that we know him for the slimeball traitor that he is, Zell's free to continue his rants unimpeded. This one's a doozy.

Zell Miller: Abortion has shrunk our military, hurt social security, caused illegal immigration

Michael Roston

Zell Miller, the former Democratic Senator from Georgia who backed President George W. Bush in 2004 and spoke at the Republican National Convention, recently told an anti-abortion gathering that the "killing" of unborn babies was the cause of many of America's woes, including its military, social security, and immigration problems.

"How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?" Miller asked. "Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed."

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been "killed" since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

"If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security," he asserted.
Miller was speaking at a fund raiser for Sav a Life Center of Macon, Georgia, an organization which tries to persuade women not to have abortions.

The emphases are mine. I have no idea whether Miller's figures are accurate, but I don't believe a word out of that chickenshit sumbitch's mouth. For now, I'll assume the asshole's telling the truth for once when he says there've been 45 million abortions since Roe v. Wade came down in 1973.

Now the rant.

Miller's assertions are beyond perposterous on so many levels. This country's just passed the three hundred million mark in population. It's ludicrous to claim we're producing "too few people." And for what purpose? Let's say that all forty-five million people allegedly aborted since 1973 lived to the present day. (A very iffy assumption, for reasons on which I'll elaborate later). So right there, the country's population is boosted by fifteen percent. Fifteen percent more people to feed, clothe, educate, and provide for. For every six mouths to feed, add one more. And, in light of our current economic situation, all those who are doing without, we can add fifteen percent more of those to the mix. Instead of 50 million people without health insurance, we've got another 7.5 million doing without. Instead of 37.8 million people living below the poverty level, we've got 43.47 million people doing so, almost 5.6 million more. You get the idea.

Now, I admit it sounds a little grisly, insensitive, and cold-blooded to reduce forty-five million people to a bunch of numbers. To treat human lives as a series of columns, without any attempt to measure the depth of their experiences.

And yet that's exactly what Zell Miller has done. All those additional people would be great for contributing to the tax rolls, for padding employment numbers, and (here's the one that made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up), for being cannon fodder in our military's adventures in imperialism.

This line of thinking is nothing new. As I've recounted in this blog, the righties have this obsession with making babies, not for their own sake, but for keeping the population boom going, for making sure blacks and hipanics stay in the minority, and for making "arrows for Christ." I shit you not. (Too many links to add, for now--those damn time constraints. Hopefully later. For the time being, check my archives).

This is what the "sanctity of life" crowd is pushing when they oppose women's right to choose. The Righties don't give a damn about those babies in the creches once they're born, except as part of a numbers game. They don't support health care programs for them, they don't support education, they don't support economic assistance. They're just worried about the bottom line. The U.S. standard of living, especially with regard to health issues, has been steadily declining for more than a decade, especially when compared with the progress in other western nations. And yet, in the eyes of Zell and the rest of the Holy Terrors, the solution is to add more to the rolls.

Finally, let's not forget that abortion is as old as is civilization. According to "When Abortion Was A Crime," by Leslie J. Reagan, about 2 million abortions were performed per year in the 1930's and 1940's. That's about, on average, five hundred thousand more per year than are performed today, in a population that has more than doubled. For Zell to think that sort of stuff simply didn't happen before Roe v. Wade, then...well...he's been sippin' at his daddy's moonshine a little too much.

My rant is getting off track. The ultimate point is that the Holy Terrors and their tools in the pseudo-conservative, neo-fascist wing of American politics are still trying to stifle Americans' sexual freedoms, and their motives are being made ever more clear.

They want us to breed like bunnies. After all, all those pawns on the chessboard gotta come from somewhere, don't they?

John Amaechi, Gay Pro Athlete

From the Washington Post. In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, John Amaechi, former NBA basketball player, wrote a book about being gay in the NBA. Haven't read the book yet, but he seems like an articulate, thoughtful, well-spoken fellow.

Which makes it hard to believe he was able to spend any time in the NBA at all.

From the article, an online chat.

Houston: John,

Based on your experiences, have your found homophobia to be more prevalent in the black community or the white community? Also is homophobia more prevalent in the U.S. or the U.K.?

Thanks.

John Amaechi: I don't think that Europe and the UK is a utopia, but governmental backing of homophobia doesn't exist in the same way it does in America. As for the white and black communities, I think they have a disconnect that is being manipulated by people for political gain. I think both regional and national elections are being won on the back of trumped up bigotry.

******

Lugano, Switzerland: When did you realize that you are gay, at what age?

John Amaechi: Nine or 10.

******

Crazy In Alabama

From AVN...

Here's the long and the short of it. Sherri Williams, a businesswoman, was charged for selling "adult entertainment devices" in violation of Alabama law.

You know...dildos.

Ms. Williams won her case, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals kept sending the case back for new trials. See, the Court figures that although the Alabama legislature's reasons for banning sex toys is a stupid reason, they don't need a SMART reason to do so. ANY old cockamamie reason will do.

Mark Kernes' analysis is much better and more thorough than any I could provide. It's worth reading the whole thing.

Sheesh. What do they say in Mississippi? "At least we're not Alabama." If you're a Seymore Butts fan, you're probably aware that Alabama's where that fisting video got sent which started all his legal troubles.

One part I liked..

News Analysis: Does Williams Case Call For The Return Of Sexual Hysteria?
By: Mark Kernes
Posted: 10:00 am PST 2-23-2007

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, defines "female hysteria" as "a popular diagnosis in the Victorian era for a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and a 'tendency to cause trouble.'"

"Patients diagnosed with female hysteria," the entry continues, "would undergo 'pelvic massage' — manual stimulation of the woman's genitals by the doctor to 'hysterical paroxysm', which is now recognized as orgasm." Wikipedia also calls it an "incorrect diagnosis," but if the ruling in the Williams case remains unchallenged, physicians in the Eleventh Circuit may find that they have to resurrect the "condition" in order to keep their patients out of jail.

In its latest Williams opinion, the Eleventh Circuit notes that Alabama's obscenity statute exempts sales of sexual devices "for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose." Is what's called for, then, some form of guerilla theater, where hundreds of free-thinkers, feminists, porn stars and strippers display "faintness, nervousness ... muscle spasms, shortness of breath, irritability ... and a 'tendency to cause trouble'" in public places across the state, and have friendly medical practitioners prescribe dildos and vibrators to relieve their "female hysteria"?

Ahem.



Honest, Judge! I have a prescription!!

More on Mitt Romney

I know I'm picking on him lately, but this is too rich to pass up.

ROMNEY FAMILY TREE HAS POLYGAMY BRANCH

by Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson
Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY — While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

None of my business, of course, and frankly, if consenting adults want to engage in polygamy that's none of my business, either.

I just find it interesting. Romney's trying to burnish his fascist-right credentials and this certainly won't help. Of course, he has no control over what his ancestors did, but this is one more reminder to the Holy Terrors that as much as the Mormons WANT to be considered part of the Evangelical Right community, they're really not a part of that community.

Rhode Island to recognize Massachusetts gay marraiges

At least, the R.I. A.G. thinks the state should do so...

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch says his state should recognize the gay marriages of state employees performed in Massachusetts.

A letter dated yesterday from Lynch says Rhode Island prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and also extends benefits such as health insurance to domestic partners of state employees.

And because there’s no Rhode Island law banning gay marriage — Lynch says there’s no reason to deny recognition of same-sex unions performed in Massachusetts.

****
Lynch spokesman Michael Healey says the opinion is not binding, but a staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders says she expects most government agencies in Rhode Island to heed the legal advice of the state’s top lawyer.

Another of those small victories that add up. States usually honor reciprocity agreements with regard to what constitutes a valid marriage in one jurisdiction. For example, the state of Colorado recognizes common law marriage, but New Mexico doesn't. If a common law married couple moves from Colorado to New Mexico, New Mexico would recognize the marriage as being valid under Colorado law.

Until now, no state has taken the position that a gay marriage recognized in Massachusetts should be honored in another state. In fact, most states have expressly taken the opposite position.

The Flip-flopper (one of them) who would be President

Not sure why I'm picking on Mitt Romney so much. It's not as if I think he can really win the Presidency.

From the column, talking about how Romney's been dancing around his pro-choice past/anti-choice present.

Romney proceeded to expound one of the odder positions I've heard in years of listening to politicians talk about a subject most would prefer to avoid: "I can tell you what my position is, and it's in a very narrowly defined sphere, as candidate for governor and as governor of Massachusetts," he said. "What I said to people was that I personally did not favor abortion, that I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.

"Now I don't try and put a bow around that and say what does that mean you are -- does that mean you're pro-life or pro-choice, because that whole package -- meaning I'm personally pro-life but I won't change the laws,
*****
During his Massachusetts races, Romney paraded his conviction that "abortion should be safe and legal in this country" and promised that "you will not see me wavering" on Roe v. Wade.

Now Romney says he opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the mother, and supports overturning Roe. At the National Review Institute Conservative Summit last month -- at the very hotel where he had told us of his commitment to not altering state law one way or another -- Romney boasted that each time an issue involving reproductive rights came up during his governorship, "on every single one of them I came down on the side of respecting human life."

Romney's "Extreme Makeover: Political Edition" goes beyond abortion rights. Once he supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military and backed a federal law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- not anymore. He's gone from saying "I don't line up with the NRA" to becoming, last August, a life member.

I suppose I'm bringing this up to illustrate how strongly the Holy Terrors still have a hold on the Republican Party. A few years ago, Romney claimed to be a semi-progressive governor of a semi-progressive state. Now that he's seeking national office, he's abandoned any attempt to position himself in the political middle and he's moved to the far far right to secure the G.O.P.'s base. The only problem is that he's like the witness on the stand who's been caught in a prior statement inconsistent with his present testimony.

Lawyer: So tell me, Governor, were you lying then or are you lying now?

To Commemorate President's Day

Found this on Susie Bright's website. I'm not net-savvy enough to link to it directly, so here's the link through her.

Making The Procreationists Put Up Or Shut Up

The bad news is I haven't posted much lately. The good news is there's no shortage of stuff to post. Going to be busy just keeping up.

Anyway, one of the favorite arguments against gay marriage is the notion that marriage is all about having kids and, since gay people (theoretically) can't have kids, they shouldn't enjoy the benefits of marriage.

This isn't a fringe argument, either. High courts in New York and Washington have actually said the marriage isn't about love or companionship or legal rights, but about procreating.

Okay, so the Washingtion Defense Of Marriage Alliance is pushing the issue. They're pressing to put on the state ballot an initiative requiring heterosexual couples to have children or have their marraiges decertified, among other things.

Here's Initiative 957 in a nutshell:

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;

require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
benefits.

The WDMA admits they're pushing a ridiculous agenda.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

I admire their ingenuity, but the execution is flawed. People don't like being called on their hypocrisy, so I fear that Initiative 957 will die a quick death and it won't even make it to the ballot. Especially since the WDMA admits it's promoting a pro-gay marriage agenda.

They'd be better off if they'd pretended to be funded by Holy Terrors and claimed to be an ANTI-gay marriage group. THAT would get them backing.

Gay Civil Unions in Jersey, Whoo-hoo!

No, it's not real marriage, and it's now in only the third state in fifty.

Still, small victories add up.

Benefits for gay couples start in N.J.
By Nick Petruncio, Asbury Park (N.J.) Press

ASBURY PARK, N.J. — Five gay couples filed civil union applications in the predawn hours Monday in Asbury Park, N.J., as the state law enacted to give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual ones without calling the relationship a marriage went into effect at midnight.

The city was one of a handful of New Jersey municipalities that opened its records offices in the early morning hours so gay couples could apply for licenses and start the required 72-hour waiting period before a civil union ceremony could take place.

"There aren't words to describe how happy we are. It's time for this," said Brett Noorigian, a 31-year-old who came to City Hall with his partner of eight years, Sean O'Dea, 32.

Noorigian called the law a step toward marriage equality.

The New Jersey Supreme Court in October ruled that gay couples in the state were constitutionally entitled to all the benefits of marriage, but left it up to lawmakers to decide the details. Instead of following Massachusetts, the only state that allows gay couples to marry, the state legislature chose to offer civil unions, as Vermont and Connecticut permit.

Thomas Mannix, 44, and Kevin Pilla, 43, were domestic partners in New Jersey. Mannix said he is happy civil unions have been extended to them, but not calling their relationship a marriage is a shortfall.

"It's a second-class status," Mannix said. "It doesn't have the same weight."

However, Richard Clayton, 46, who was applying for a license with his partner of 15 years, Ron Fleckenstein, 43, is not bothered by the difference in terminology.

"It's a big step. I don't find it insulting that it's not called marriage," Clayton said.

To him, marriage is a religious bond between two people and civil unions are for people who want to feel bonded without the religious aspect. The only difference Clayton sees is that he and Fleckenstein cannot file federal income taxes jointly, and that is OK with him.

But to gay-rights advocacy group Garden State Equality, marriage is the only currency people understand.

"Civil unions are like a song with the words but without the music," said Steven Goldstein, the group's chairman.

Goldstein fears that some people in places such as hospitals and schools may not know what "civil union" means.

"Our goal is marriage for gay couples," he said. "We do see that on the horizon in the next two years or less through legislation."

Sarah Branin of Roxbury, N.J., refers to her sister's partner as her wife. Branin came to support and be a witness for Julie Branin, 26, and her partner of three years, Sue Abatemarco, 31.

They already had a ceremony done and were applying for a civil union license to make things official.

"I'm just really happy for them. I'm glad they have equal rights, but I was hoping it would be called marriage," Sarah Branin said.

Degn Schubert, 40, and Mark Rado, 35, moved from California and have been together six years. This is the seventh time the couple has had to go through procedures to have their relationship legally recognized because of obstacles such as changes in laws and resolutions that were non-binding.

"It's a game. You try to do the best that you can," Schubert said. "You know what you mean to each other."

Deputy City Clerk Kiki Tomek opened the office from midnight to about 1 a.m. and planned on being open again during the daylight hours of President's Day, when many government offices are closed.

"The law took effect at midnight, and our residents called and asked if we'd be open, and we take care of our residents," Tomek said.

If it's any consolation, as I've written about myself several times, the real benefits of marriage are the legal ones; legal rights, health benefits, property rights, adoption and child-rearing rights. Whether it's called a "marriage" or a "civil union" makes little difference from that perspective. And, technically, Richard Clayton has a point; any mutual, exclusive relationship that isn't solemnized in a religious ceremony can be considered a "civil union," including the millions of people married by justices of the peace, or by common law. Or, for that matter, myself. My Lovely Wife and I were joined in union by a religious leader (a family friend) who nevertheless conducted a non-religous ceremony that was not in keeping with the tenets of his faith. (Don't ask. Long, complicated story).

Now THAT'S what I call therapy!!

He's cured!!! After only three weeks!

In case you didn't know, or knew but simply had forgotten, Rev. Ted Haggard, formerly of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and the National Association of Evangelicals, got busted hanging out with a gay prostitute and doing crystal meth last year.

But he's much better now.

Seems that after only three weeks of intensive counseling, Rev. Haggard is now completely heterosexual. He's cured! Cured! Praise Jesus!!!

This is revolutionary. James Dobson has bragged about how homosexuals can overcome their perversions, but after only three weeks? These guys outta bottle that stuff and sell it!

Rev. Tim Ralph, a spokesman for the four ministers, says Haggard underwent intensive counseling at an "undisclosed Arizona treatment center." Wow. Stuck in the desert with four other guys? If I were gay, that would sure as hell cure me.

Interestingly, I haven't found much about the qualifications of any of these ministers or about this treatment center. Rev. Ralph, in addition to his duties at the New Covenant Fellowship in Larkspur, IS a volunteer Larkspur fireman, which I'm sure is helpful.

Who knew going ex-gay was so simple that non-qualified non-professionals could get someone to break the habit?

Tanned, Rested And Ready!

Okay, so here's the situation. Haven't figured out whether to take this blog in a new direction yet or not. Haven't figured out whether I want to turn it into a sex news blog or just keep posting pictures and ranting as often as possible. Haven't figured much out.

What I have figured out is I've missed doing this, for whatever reason, and for whatever I get out of it.

So, for now, I'll just have to jump back in with both feet and see where the blog goes of its own accord.

Onward!