Oh, motherfuckers.. this shit is ON.

[docwebster]

First we have Vice Preznit Cheney blasting Kerry's "sensitive" remarks about the war, all the while ignoring the Preznit's remarkably similar remarks from March of 2001 wherein Preznit Bucky The Wonder Chimp said the U.S. must be "sensitive about expressing our power and influence."

If anybody feels the need to spout some crapola here about that was before the events of That Day, save it. I'm not interested.

Then there's this post which absolutely beggars description.

Finally, of course, there's the California Supreme Court caving in to the Religious Reich. I hope every last one of the black robed sonsofbitches burns in hell.

People, when the fuck are we going to throw off this yoke of government imposed fear and paranoia and lay the smackdown on these silly bastards?

I'll tell you when.

November.

Tick tock, motherfuckers. Tick tock.

Comments

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I'm a libertarian who firmly believes that as long as the parties are all consenting adults, the state has no business determining what is or is not a valid domestic arrangement. The sexes and number of the partners is irrelevant. Period. That said, the California Supreme Court's decision was probably the right one. Mayor Newsome was in violation of the law, and had no right to act unilaterally and illegally in his capacity as mayor.

In addition, unless you're willing to call the vast majority of your fellow citizens members of the "Religious Reich," you might want to rethink your assessment of the California Supremes as having "caved." I think the majority is often wrong, and they're wrong on this issue, but a large majority of Americans (including the man you want to be president) think gay marriage is simply wrong. Is John Kerry part of the Religious Reich's vanguard?

[worldmage.livejournal.com]

I'm really curious about your definition of "vast majority". First off, 60% of 40% of CA's population isn't exactly what one would call "the vast majority of my fellow citizens". Second, every poll I've seen on the issue was fairly close. Only a few of the "majorities" in recent polls breached 50% and none I recall breached 60%. That's hardly what I'd call a "large majority". Also since most polls included two options for the supporters of gay rights (full marriage rights and civil unions) the vote in favor of gay rights was split, making it seem smaller than it actually was.

Statistically speaking, the people against gay marriage rights (regardless of what we choose to call "marriage") are a slim majority. And the fact remains that the anti-gay movement is overwhelmingly funded by the Religious Reich, as Doc calls it. Most people against gay marriage may not be members of the Religious Reich, but they ARE their dupes. As for Kerry, he supports civil unions, which the Religious Reich are also against, so please cut the old "there is only one party" line. I'm really sick of hearing it, especially when the argument is rife with hypocrisy.

That said, though, I agree about the fact that the judges had to uphold current law, regardless of whether or not said law's constitutionality was in question. They really had no choice, no matter how unfair or just plain stupid the whole thing is.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I think there's actually a majority in favor of civil unions, and many of the civil rights attendant to (no pun intended) marriage. I wasn't just talking about California (apologies), and the national polls I remember had rather large majorities opposed to gay marriage, when the magic word itself was used.

People against gay marriage are not necessarily the dupes of the religious right simply because they happen to take the same position, and there isn't a vast religious conspiracy to suppress gay marriage. It's just that many people, sadly, are still a bit uncomfortable with gay marriage. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and politics really does make strange bedfellows.

Yes, there isn't only one party, and there are some very substantive differences between Bush and Kerry on gay rights. However, just as I'm more angry at Bush than Kerry for failing to cut government spending (he's the Republican, and purported "fiscal conservative" [HA!]), I'm more angry at Kerry than Bush for failing to support gay marriage explicitly (he's the Democrat). No, there isn't just one party, but there is just one tactic: take your base for granted, and tack to the mushy middle to make yourself look safe for swing voters.

[worldmage.livejournal.com]

I think there's actually a majority in favor of civil unions, and many of the civil rights attendant to (no pun intended) marriage.

Actually, that issue was something I found very interesting about every poll I've seen. The number of people who indicated support of civil unions over marriage for gays was usually around 5% and never more than 10%. That's one of the major reasons I think it's stupid of Kerry to keep on with the civil unions nonsense, besides the fact that "separate but equal" was proven conclusively faulty back in the days of the black civil rights movements. Civil unions will only make a very small minority of the people happy, so what's the point of fence-sitting? Unfortunately it seems like no one in the Democratic party besides Sharpton and Kucinich have the cojones, and they've got other things I don't like them about.

People against gay marriage are not necessarily the dupes of the religious right simply because they happen to take the same position, and there isn't a vast religious conspiracy to suppress gay marriage. It's just that many people, sadly, are still a bit uncomfortable with gay marriage.

While you can't call it a conspiracy (there's nothing illegal about campaigning in and of itself), the religious right provides nearly all the overhead for the social conservative spin machine. I mean really, how many foundations provide money for the anti-gay rights groups don't mention bringing God to the masses in their mission statements? None that I'm aware of, certainly. I'm not sure how much you know about Prop 22 here in CA, but nearly all of its funding came from the LDS Church. I was a Mormon at the time, and they bragged about how much they were helping the cause.

The only arguments against gay marriage are based in religious dogma. And the only reason there are so many people uncomfortable with it is because they're bombarded with whack-jobs who go on and on about the Gay Agenda(TM) how gay marriage will literally be the end of the world. If it wasn't for the religious right propaganda machine, gays would very likely already already have their civil rights. Visibility, showing people that we're not all scary and threatening, would have been enough to allay the fears of most people within a couple of decades. But since we also have decades of fearmongering and lies by the religious right, it's going to take that much longer to undo the damage.

No, there isn't just one party, but there is just one tactic: take your base for granted, and tack to the mushy middle to make yourself look safe for swing voters.

That is, unfortunately, very true. I'm not real happy with Kerry either, on several fronts. He was a rather distant fourth or fifth choice back in the primaries (depending on how I was feeling about Edwards at the moment), and very little has happened to improve my opinion of him. Unfortunately, this is one of the few cases where the devil you don't know is preferable to the familiar one.