BREAKING NEWS
June 3, 2009
Traditionally conservative New Hampshire today became the sixth state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, after a bill was enacted by both the state House and Senate and then signed by Governor John Lynch.
“Today, we’re standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said before signing the bill at about 5:20 p.m.
Lynch said it was a New Hampshire tradition “to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections, and that tradition continues today.”
In early May, Lynch reiterated his position that civil unions were best for the state. But two weeks later, he said his thinking had changed. He said society’s views on civil rights have “constantly evolved and expanded” throughout our history. “That is what I believe we must do today.”
Lynch said at the bill signing ceremony that he hoped that despite passionate debate about the issue, citizens would respect each other as they had after the civil union law was passed.
“It is my hope and my belief that New Hampshire will once again come together to embrace tolerance and respect and to stand against discrimination,” he said.
Gay marriage is now legal in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts — all of the new England states, except for Rhode Island. Gay marriage is also legal in Iowa.
People React to Prop 8 Upholding
May 26, 2009
Christopher Rice: Stop Prop Voting
“The California supreme court and the gay and lesbian residents of the state are the victims of a backward proposition system that must be abolished if the state is to be restored to social and financial stability. Proposition 13 had done untold economic damage to California’s infrastructure, and now Proposition 8 has reduced us to a cultural backwater and created a bewildering two-class system of gay and lesbian people that is profoundly un-American by its very nature. Even worse, Proposition 8 exemplifies the degree to which obscenely wealthy interests from outside the state can manipulate the proposition system to enable religious radicals to enforce their social agenda on the majority of America’s West Coast. Let no one for a minute paint this as a war of believers versus nonbelievers. Any Christian with a good conscience knows Jesus weeps for those who willfully restrict the right of others to engage in peaceful, largely interior acts of self-realization that pose no physical threat to other members of their community. The hostility toward gay and lesbian people exhibited by the supporters of Proposition 8 originates from those who feel a sense of powerlessness and frustration over the endemic social problems within their own communities, be they working-class Latinos or Orange County Republicans. Denying gays and lesbians equal protection under the law will never restore the semblance of order to social communities that have been upset by financial inequality or spreading social enlightenment among younger generations. This absence of self-awareness combined with a gross perversion of religious principles deserves to be called by no other name than what it actually is — mental illness.”
– Author Christopher Rice on the California supreme court’s decision to uphold Prop. 8
Cynthia Nixon Reacts
“Upholding the discriminatory Proposition 8 marks May 26, 2009 as a dark day for the people of California. The idea that gay families like mine should not be included in our country’s promise of equal rights for all citizens is deeply un-American. While California has taken a giant step backwards, states like Maine and Iowa (and soon, I hope, New York) are leading with way towards a fairer and better tomorrow.”
- Cynthia Nixon on the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Prop 8
Fred Karger on Prop. 8
“As the country moves forward on gay and lesbian equality, our supreme court took a giant step backwards. One year ago the California supreme court showed great courage and conviction in recognizing equal protection for all. Now we must regain marriage equality and immediately go back on the ballot to repeal Proposition 8.”
– Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, which launched an all-out effort to uncover those behind Proposition 8, especially leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He assured others that the organization will continue to move forward in making the next steps to gain marriage equality in his state.
UCLA’s Brad Sears on Prop. 8
“I think it’s disappointing that the court has decided to uphold Prop. 8. The core of its decision runs counter to its analysis a year ago where it held that the term ‘marriage’ is extremely important and degrading if not applied to same-sex couples. In this decision, they hold the opposite, that as long as you protect the underlying rights and protections of a family relationship, whether or not you call it ‘marriage’ is not so important. And therefore when voters took the name away, there is now no significant fraction on same-sex couples written in the California constitution.”
– Brad Sears of UCLA’s Williams Institute, a research center for LGBT issues
Melissa Etheridge Reacts
“So, will anyone be sleeping better tonight? Those full of hate and fear will surely be disappointed that 18,000 same-sex couples will be living in wedded bliss, kissing their spouses goodnight, checking off those little ‘married’ boxes on all those forms we fill out nowadays. That’s really going to drive them crazy. Then there are those of us like me who still dangle in ‘domestic partnership.’ We can adopt our own children, but we can’t bring our partners who might be citizens from out of the country, here. We can’t file joint tax returns. I could go on. Who will be happy tonight?
“How do I explain this to my children? ‘Well, you know Ellen? She is married, but Mommy and I are not.’ That is liberty and justice for all? I am hopeful as I see more and more states turn to the inevitable future of equality, California will get there. Change takes time.”
– Melissa Etheridge on the California supreme court’s decision to uphold Prop. 8
“The decision the justices made was a weak and safe one as they hold positions that can be recalled. They also flip-flop around which is dangerous as it’s their job to protect ALL Californians. Today they did not do that.”
Judge Judy Encourages Americans on Larry King Live
May 22, 2009
Viewers have learned that television’s no-nonsense Judge Judy cuts through the bull and gets to the heart of the matter. Judge Judy says Americans have the fortitude to get through this economic crisis.
On Monday night’s “Larry King Live,” Judge Judy turned her sharp legal mind to matters of the economy, sharing why she thinks Americans have what it takes to navigate the hard months ahead. And she also has some advice for President Obama and sharp-worded assessments of Bernie Madoff and AIG bonuses.
The following transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity:
Larry King, host: The polls show the public worried about the economy. You had Warren Buffett on, and we had him on. And he called it an economic Pearl Harbor. When you look around, what’s your take?
Judge Judy Sheindlin: A lot of people are scared. A lot of people who had money don’t have money anymore. A lot of people who didn’t have a lot of money have a lot less. And I think everybody is frightened because for the first time — at least in my memory — people like Warren Buffett are saying that this is not a good thing. However, I do believe that this is a great country. And I do believe that. I think the fundamentals of America are strong. This country has a wonderful spirit. And I think that, in the end, the spirit will take it through. It may take a couple of years. I wish I were younger so that I would have more years to enjoy it. But I think we’ll be fine.
King: Do you think the president is setting the right tone?
Judge Judy: I resent it when any part of the government refers to people who have money in the pejorative. When states and cities and our country say we’re going to tax the rich — and that word rich or wealthy doesn’t sound like it comes from success of hard work, but from something negative — I resent it. …I don’t mind paying more taxes. It’s not going to impact on my lifestyle. I would say we respect those people who realized, through their hard work, the American dream. And what we’re asking them for is a little more of a sacrifice, because the people at the low end can’t give anymore. That would make me at least feel as if I was giving more, but it was appreciated.
King: So don’t seem like it’s a slam at being rich.
Judge Judy: Right.
King: The top-named villain of the piece, when the history of this era is written, will be Bernie Madoff. What do you make of that whole story?
Judge Judy: I think he has — or had — the ego the size of Noah’s ark and very little conscience.
King: Why do you think he confessed to all this? He could have gotten on a plane and gone to Brazil, where we don’t have an extradition treaty. … And so he [gets] life in prison
Judge Judy: Maybe he never thought it would happen. I don’t know. I think that the book hasn’t yet been written on Bernie Madoff.
King: Anyway, we’ve got a King Cam question relating to the Madoff case. Let’s watch and then we’ll get Judge Judy’s answer.
Randy: Hi, Judge Judy. My name is Randy. And I just wondered what kind of sentence would you give Bernie Madoff if you were giving him a sentence?
Judge Judy: Well, Bernie Madoff is 70 years old. And I think if he’s sentenced to 30 years in prison, that’s an appropriate period of time. And if he lives to be 100 and he is eligible for parole and makes parole, so be it. … I was surprised he didn’t kill himself, quite frankly, weren’t you?
King: Yes, I was. … We took King Cam to the streets to see what all of you are talking about. Most people wanted Judy to answer one thing in particular.
Debbie: I was just wondering what you think about the AIG bailout and giving over $160 million in bonuses?
Judge Judy: We now own, you and I, 80 percent of AIG. And the excuse given for paying out these bonuses were that they were contracts and you can’t void those contracts without consequences. And I think it’s sort of interesting that you can’t void contracts because these people were engaged in actions that were irresponsible, reckless and caused substantial damage. How can they void the contracts of police officers and firemen and other civil servants who they’re forcing to take furlough days despite the fact they have contracts? They’re forcing them to take furlough days to make up budgets.
King: Are we going to get it [AIG bailout money] back?
Judge Judy: I don’t think you’ll ever see it back. I think that these people know that money is never coming back. But it seems to me if a company isn’t working, there comes a point where you have to say that’s what Chapter 11 is for.
King: Your parents were shaped by the Great Depression, right? How did they handle money?
Judge Judy: My parents were generous. My mother always said it’s nice to give with a warm hand. So I think that that shapes the way I deal with my children and money. … I think that maybe we’ll get back to more basics. Maybe people will understand that they have to have something in the bank because in hard times, you never know when they’re going to turn around. Never. And I also think that while banks and financial institutions have to bear a great deal of the blame for where we are, I don’t pass over the individual and individual responsibility. If you’re earning $50,000 a year, you have no business buying a million dollar house. …
King: Proposition 8, it bans marriage of two [people of the] same gender. The high court of the state of California heard the appeal of the vote of the people. What do you think?
Judge Judy: We’ve got a lot of trouble in this country. We’ve got a lot of trouble in the world. Why the state should be interested in proscribing the word marriage from two people who love each other, who are responsible, tax-paying, productive people, who have created a family … why the state would have an interest in proscribing that kind of conduct, I don’t understand. I understand the anger about poverty. I understand the anger about AIG. I understand the problem about the banks. I understand the problem about Afghanistan and the Taliban and everything else. But I don’t understand the preoccupation with gays being permitted to marry.
Steve Schmidt’s Speech on Same Sex Marriage & Rights
May 16, 2009
Former Campaign Manager for John McCain speaks on same sex marriage rights
Thank you for that introduction, and for your invitation to join you today. I haven’t done much public speaking since the election. I haven’t done any, in fact. But over five months have passed since the election, and in gratitude for your contributions to our party and out of concern for its future success, I appreciate this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you about the direction I hope our party takes as it seeks to recover the support and trust of the American people.
To state the obvious: the Republican Party needs to grow. A review of the exit polls and current demographic trends in the United States should make it clear to all but the most determined optimist that our coalition is shrinking, and losing ground with segments of the population that are growing. Whether it’s with suburban voters, working class voters, college educated voters, Hispanics or left handed Albanian psychics, the percentage voting Republican has declined. Perhaps, the most alarming of these various and generally worrying results of the last election is the huge margin by which we lost voters under 30. Having said that, it is not a foregone conclusion these are long term trends or even trends at all. They might just be the results of two lost elections, although I doubt it. And even if they do represent movement toward a center left political realignment, unanticipated events could arrest or begin to reverse them even in the near term.
Political scientists and campaign consultants tend not to account for contingency when they are busy predicting the future. The McCain campaign, for instance, initially thought our most difficult problem would be the war in Iraq, an assumption we made based on exit polls from the 2006 mid term elections. Obviously, we guessed wrong, thanks in part, paradoxically, to Senator McCain’s statesmanship as an early advocate of the surge.
We had many environmental challenges that made our campaign an uphill struggle from start to finish. In addition to the President’s unpopularity and two wars the country had tired of, we had historic wrong track numbers, record high gas prices, an unprecedented resource disadvantage, and a disparity in press coverage. While we worried about these and many other challenges in 2007 and early 2008, we never believed the election was unwinnable, and had by early September managed to fight our way to a rough tie, and even a very small lead. None of us, however, expected a global financial crisis to be one of them. I’m pretty confident, President Obama’s campaign didn’t anticipate one either. It was the last obstacle imposed on a very challenged campaign. It proved to be insurmountable. And no one had really seen it coming.
Should the recession grow deeper or linger longer; should President Obama’s hugely expensive domestic policies begin to worry swing voters more than they are reassured by his skill at promoting them; should some national security disaster happen or any number of other contingencies occur, the advances made by Democrats in the last two elections might be short-lived. But no one should take comfort from knowing our Party’s success could come at the expense of the country or must rely on blunders by the Administration and the Democratic Congress. Moreover, while I think projections of a political re-alignment are premature based on the results of two elections, I would rather be in the Democrats’ shoes than ours. Their coalition is expanding. Ours is shrinking. Their vote share is increasing among voter segments that are growing. Ours is not. The rapid growth of the Hispanic-American population, for instance, could soon cost Republicans the entire Southwest if we don’t recover our previous share of their vote. Had Senator McCain not been the Republican nominee in 2008, I’m convinced we would have lost Arizona. It’s very hard to see how we put together 270 electoral votes without the Southwest.
As a percentage of the total vote, younger voters didn’t really increase in the last election. But the Democrats’ margin with those voters certainly did. In short, we were crushed by the Obama campaign with voters under 30. President Obama was a uniquely attractive candidate to younger voters, in matters of style as much as substance. And maybe as those voters grow older and acquire greater responsibilities they will develop a better appreciation for Republican values of limited government, fiscal discipline, low taxes and a strong defense. That has happened in the past.
But even if they do, I doubt they will abandon social attributes that distinguish them from older voters; among them, a greater acceptance of people who find happiness in relationships with members of the same sex. And I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters.
Of course, a party cannot grow if it subtracts while it tries to add. Social conservatives remain an indispensable part of the Republican coalition. I don’t subscribe to the notion that social conservatives are a monolithic bloc of close minded people who would tread on the rights of Americans who disagree with them. Nor do I think conservatism will or should abandon its reluctance to change or abandon social conventions that are important to the strength and stability of our society.
The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and alterations to its definitions shouldn’t be lightly undertaken. It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans. And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society. And as long as those changes do not conflict with the tenets of our national creed then they can, and inevitably will, be modified by a society that has come to view them as inequitable.
Our national creed is a declaration of natural rights not a compact for the preservation of social customs, as important as many of those customs are. It was precisely and elegantly defined 233 years ago as adherence to certain self-evident truths. All are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans’ fidelity to that creed ended the tradition of slavery because it was understood that slavery denied to the slave the universal rights America was founded in blood to protect. Women were constitutionally disenfranchised. But in time that injustice was rectified because the nation realized such discrimination violated our national creed.
The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force because it holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in its dignity from the life of the born, and, thus, possesses a God-given right to be protected. The same protection cannot be argued to extend to the institutional definition of marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite sex.
It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.
I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don’t honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same sex marriage. Nor do I yet see support for it from a strong majority of the general public. And, I do believe that such a highly charged political question such as this should be settled by the freely expressed will of the people, and not by the courts. That doesn’t relieve advocates of the responsibility to make their case urgently. I understand how tired many Americans are of being admonished to be patient to right what they believe is an injustice. But I’m confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it. And I believe the nation’s acceptance of same sex unions as lawful marriage would provide a far more secure guarantee that the change made to this profoundly important social institution will be permanent than would judicial fiat.
If we cannot achieve a consensus today on recognizing the marriages of gay couples, surely, in simple justice, we can respect their human dignity by protecting their rights to assign unique privileges and responsibilities to another person. Whether you are for or against same sex marriages, every Republican ought to value the right of people to make such personal decisions for themselves. As former Vice President Cheney observed, freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think Republicans should always be on the side of freedom and equal rights.
I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality. It is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person. It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice. Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not.
Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds the question that the party might be in the wrong on the question. We should publicly affirm that gays are entitled to the same respect and protections we accord heterosexuals to be secure from discrimination in their employment and the places they choose to live; to enter into contractual relationships with another person that grant them the same benefits and privileges allowed married couples, such as tax advantages accorded married couples or the responsibilities to make end of life decisions for one another.
There’s nothing inherently objectionable about debating whether same sex marriage would undermine the institution and, by extension, society. Some people believe strongly that it would. I argue that it wouldn’t. But that debate should be conducted with respect for the dignity of all parties involved. Opponents to giving women the vote argued such a change would undermine marriage and other social institutions. I think the institution would be strengthened by the inclusion of more couples who are genuinely committed to each other. But even if you believe marriage would be changed for the worse by same sex unions, I’m not sure it’s a compelling argument for their exclusion. We don’t forbid divorce, a more proven and prevalent threat to the health of our society.
As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds. I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it. But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position. If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.
Last February, an opponent of same sex marriage, David Blankenhorn, and an advocate, Jonathan Rauch, suggested in a New York Times op-ed a compromise that could serve the interests and values of both. They wrote that Congress should grant federal civil union status to same sex marriages and civil unions licensed at the state level as long as those states recognized religious conscience exceptions for religious organizations that do not want to recognize same sex unions.
I think that idea makes a lot sense. While it might not satisfy either side completely, it respects and values the rights of both, and would go a long way to correct the existing inequality.
Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that’s a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that’s hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others.
There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same sex marriage. I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one’s liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage. In a marriage, two people are completely responsible to and for each other. If you are not willing to accept and faithfully discharge those responsibilities, you shouldn’t enter the state of matrimony, and
it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if you’re straight or gay. It is a responsibility like no other, which can and should make marriage an association between two human beings more fulfilling than any other.
Many studies have shown that married people are generally happier than unmarried people. Marriage gives greater purpose to life, and, to borrow from Pastor Warren, the more purpose driven your life is, the happier it is. Marriage does not or should not depend on transitory emotions. It is a partnership in all aspects of life that changes the way not just society, but the individual perceives him or herself, and gives greater incentive to an individual to live a good and virtuous life because the happiness, not just momentary pleasure, but the lasting happiness, of others depends on it. Marriage can be a profoundly gratifying state that strengthens the virtue of individuals and societies, and increases the measure and quality of the happiness we enjoy. It seems to me a terrible inequity that any person should be denied that responsibility, and the emotional enrichment it can provide. And I cannot in good conscience exclude anyone who is prepared for such a commitment from the prospect of such happiness.
In closing, I’ll return to our national creed, what Lincoln called the inestimable jewel of American history, and offer my respect for and urge my fellow Republicans to respect every human being’s rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as they cherish their own.
Customs change. Societies change. People change. But that creed must never change. It is the foundation upon which the success of not just of our party, but our country rests. If you do not impede my pursuit of happiness, I must not impede yours, but stand with you, as fellow Americans, lovers of liberty, to defend your natural right to seek happiness in life and love according to dictates of your heart and your heart alone.
Bill O’ Reilly on Gay Rights
May 15, 2009
An interesting article and view point from Bill O’Reilly’s side of things. I have to say he actually makes a lot of sense, especially the part about those that despise gays like the Religious Nut Jobs, he says, who cares. Ignore it and move on, there’s no point in trying to convince someone like that they’ll just throw some Revelations 666 in your face. Agree to disagree. He says if Same Sex Marriage is everywhere, fine, great, if it happens, he’s not going to try and stop it and says marry whoever you want, but enough of the war between both sides. Focus on other things now.
The conservative, argumentative host of Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor favors gay rights laws and gay adoption but does wish that gays would shut up already. [Reposted from the September 17, 2002 issue of The Advocate.]
Bill O’Reilly is a brash, aggressive man who, at 6 foot 4, towers over everyone around him and exudes the no-nonsense working-class Irish Catholic background he proudly claims as a native of Levittown, N.Y. The nuns at his school had O’Reilly pegged as a handful at an early age. So it’s hardly surprising when the 52-year-old host of Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor tells The Advocate, “I’ve never, ever, in my life been hit on by another guy. Ever. I don’t give out that aura.”
Any sensible person would wait for him to make the first move. But the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association took the initiative and asked O’Reilly out for their annual convention, and he said yes. He’ll appear by satellite at the group’s mid-September gathering in Philadelphia. Sure, he’s debating whether there’s a liberal bias in the media. But still, Bill O’Reilly? At a gay convention? After all, he continues to insist, “I’ve never understood why anyone, why any American, would want to tell the world what their sexual preference is. It’s no one’s business but yours.”
During an extensive interview at his rather messy Fox News office in New York — “It’s always like this,” he explains — O’Reilly talks about almost every gay issue under the sun, from the gay pride parade (“It’s offensive, it’s foolish, it’s counterproductive, and it backlashes against you”) to gay adoption (he supports it and did a terrific interview with Rosie O’Donnell, but adds, “I’m not looking out for the gays here; I’ve got to tell you the truth. I’m looking out for the kids”).
O’Reilly’s show reaches some 20 million viewers a week, and his books are megasellers. He is the de facto face of hard-line conservatism, the way Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell once were. But O’Reilly is more of an iconoclast than you might imagine. He opposes the death penalty, admires Susan Sarandon, doesn’t think much of Jesse Helms, and supports the decriminalization (but not legalization) of marijuana. He also states flatly that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in the workplace as everyone else and shouldn’t be fired because of who they are. He thinks gay-inclusive antidiscrimination laws should be enacted in every state and opposes the repeal effort against such an ordinance that’s on the ballot September 10 in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
And he wouldn’t mind in the least if someone thought he was gay.
“If people want to think I’m gay, fine,” he says. “In fact, I wish I were gay. I’d get a lot more free meals, OK? Somebody take me out to the movies once in a while. I’m sure in my career — because I didn’t get married until very late in life — that people said I was gay. I’m sure they did. I never heard it. But I’m sure it was said once in a while. I wasn’t going to say, ‘No, I’m not gay.’ I don’t care what they say about me. I couldn’t care less. Because that was empowering those people. I learned that very early in life.”
To Read More:
Finally, someone in the media with real intelligence comes forward and tells Miss “Idiot” Carrie Prejean to shut up if she can’t be nice, and he does it as always with eloquence, giving her a real good kick in the butt, which is something this dimwit needs, not for exercising her right of free speech. Free to attack others on a superficial beauty pageant show? What a dumb fuck, maybe others will figure out that it has nothing to do with her values or her ‘warped’ views on same sex marriage that she can have, she has that right, and do we have to agree with it? No, but keep it to yourself when you’re representing an entire state. Oh hey, I hate dirty Mexicans and illegals, lazy niggers in Compton, wait I can say that right? I’m only exercising my right of free speech. I can say whatever the fuck I want and when I want it. Now the Prejean Family is playing that martyr victim card, which is what all opposing same marriage supporters do when people strike them back for not thinking before speaking, not realizing that they hurt many people by saying that. Christians my ass. Fucking Bull Shit is what it is.
The only non-truth to that statement was my attack on other minorities, because I don’t hate them, I’m simply making a point and if you get it great, if you don’t that’s your problem and nor do I hate Carrie Prejean. She just needs to get a good education and learn what not to say. There’s a difference between living your own life, and peeing all over someone else’s because you don’t get it or aren’t exposed to it. Travel around the world, gain knowledge of other lifestyles and cultures and realize that not everyone lives the same way you do. This should’ve been your first task before showing off your body in a superficial pageant show. Dumb Fuck.
Remember Carrie and all the negative haters out there that restrict others from being happy, “It’s OK to disagree as long as you don’t limit the rights of others. That’s how you need to try and live your lives.” Be happy. Stop the negativity. Stop the hatred and stopping others from being happy. Enough! Grow up!
Now let’s move on to Keith Olbermann, a man whose heart and mind are in sync and in exactly the right place.
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann conducted a postmortem on the Miss California controversy in the premiere of a new regular segment called the “WTF Moment” on Tuesday night. The pundit issued less of a countdown, and more of a smackdown, against Carrie Prejean, whom he called “St. Carrie of La Jolla,” for the “amazing, holier than thou know-it-all-ism” that she exhibited by defending her beauty pageant title on freedom of speech grounds.
“You were not exercising your freedom of speech during the Miss USA pageant,” said Olbermann, distinguishing between the kinds of speech protected by an employer and the government.
“Your freedom of speech, my freedom of speech, has nothing to do with something as crassly commercial as a beauty pageant, nor as crassly commercial as Donald Trump,” he said.
The 21-year-old Prejean invoked principles such as freedom of speech on Tuesday following the announcement by Donald Trump that she may retain her title despite advocating against marriage equality and appearing in seminude photos.
Olbermann continued with the dissection: “Your grandfather did not fight to protect your right to answer a question during a network television soft porn special without consequents or fallout.”
”If your National Organization for Marriage suddenly decides that people with breast implants also shouldn’t be allowed to get married, and for some reason you disagree with them, they won’t have to honor your freedom of speech, either.”
“They weren’t electing a new pope over there, they were just exercising their corporate freedom of speech,” Olbermann concluded. ”What the f- – -, Carrie?”
Same Sex Marriage in Washington D.C.??
May 7, 2009
Washington D.C. has approved a bill that recognizes all same sex marriages performed anywhere in the U.S.
Also, if you missed it yesterday, Maine became the 4th State to legalize Same Sex Marriage. New Hampshire is next in line, they’re just waiting for the governor to make the final official sign or veto it. If he signs it, then that leaves Rhode Island as the remaining “New England” state to legalize Same Sex Marriage. It’s a mighty movement, and I’ll be happy once it’s everywhere and we can all move on to more important issues that need rallying and advocating, like the Economy and Poverty.
MAINE legalizes Same Sex Marriage!
May 6, 2009
Maine becomes the 4th State in America to legalize Same Sex Marriage today! One by one they all open up. The negative Proposition 8 campaign ended up being a blessing in disguise, as it opened up people’s eyes and making them pay attention to this issue and thus propelling it quicker across the country to recognizing this once and for all, so we can all put it to rest finally and focus on more important issues like poverty and the economy.
Carrie Prejean Topless
May 5, 2009
Miss “alleged” California Carrie Prejean, the supposed spokesperson who is anti-same sex marriage and has gone as far as accepting meetings with the National Organization of Marriage behaves in many dirty ways. She’s a hypocrite just like all those Yes on 8 Supporters. You pull each and every single Yes on 8 supporter, anti-same sex marriage supporter and you find nothing but filth and skeletons all up and down in their closets. They are the biggest parasites, the biggest embarrassments to society who use the smallest fraction of their brains when they speak and are responsible for the downfall and creation of the worst cultural human war ever in existence. Take a good look at your California Spokesperson for anti-gay marriage, Carrie Prejean, posing happily, topless for America:
“I am a Christian, and I am a model,” Prejean said. “Models pose for pictures including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be.”
Perfect, she’s definitely NOT. She’s a hypocrite. You can’t put nude model and Christian in the same sentence. And those poor saps over at the National Organization for Marriage are so desperate this is the spokesperson they want to push for anti-gay marriage. I know hundreds of homosexual people that live very professional, good human being, non-nude model lives, they blow this bitch out of the water, and that organization right out of the water. But I get it they’re hanging by a thread and on their last rope trying to figure out what else they can do stop gay marriage. And poor Carrie Prejean continues to justify herself for posing nude UNDERAGE no less! Ooo boy, this just gets better and better everyday. Now homosexuals look like saints in comparison to the this kind of double standard presented by this idiot. I am perfect and I don’t pretend not to be, I guess that’s the difference between her and I.
Olbermann: Gay marriage is a question of love
November 13, 2008
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about Prop-8. And I don’t have a personal investment in this: I’m not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can’t have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don’t cause too much trouble. You’ll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you’re taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can’t marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn’t marry?
I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage. If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn’t marry another man, or a woman couldn’t marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.
How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the “sanctity” of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace… that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate… this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.
You don’t have to help it, you don’t have it applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it. Just don’t put it out. Just don’t extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don’t know and you don’t understand and maybe you don’t even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
“I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam,” he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love.”
