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!