Democrats now have gay marriage on their platform

*packs bags to switch political camps*

Or not.

Because I’m not a moron.*

First of all, you are a gay person and think this means that the Democratic party cares about you one iota, you are naive…and a moron.

Just the same way you are a moron if you think that Obama’s jury-rigged, executive order dream act (which not even top officials at ICE agree with) means they care about illegal immigrants.

As Mark Steyn, over at National Review, put it: You are the Democrats house pets. You are convenient now, but the moment you aren’t good for their cause they will cut off all the favors and nice words.

As an exercise in sheer political muscle, it’s impressive. But, if you’re a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the Democrat menagerie, you might want to look at Rahm Emanuel’s pirouette, and Menino’s coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their political advantage. But political winds shift. Once upon a time, Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes. One day it’ll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim populations have muted leftie politicians’ commitment to gay rights, feminism, and much else. It’s easy to cheer on the thugs when they’re thuggish in your name. What happens when Emanuel’s political needs change?

- Mark Steyn, National Review

Liberal politicians regularly cozy up to Islam, a religion which, the the countries where it runs the show, encourages institutionalized hatred of women and homosexuals. Want to talk about American culture ‘blaming rape victims’? Let’s talk about women being whipped for being raped in Muslim cultures under Sharia law, the law of Islam.

In Muslim countries, homosexuality is still a punishable offense with either prison or death being the punishments in most cases. In Iran, only months ago, 4 gay men were hanged for being homosexuals.

But liberals have an uncomfortable habit of viewing Islam as “an unfairly maligned religion of peace” as Sam Harris pointed out earlier this year.

But hey, no need to worry about that, because liberals will let us get married! Don’t worry about the fact that the groups which they considered allies (The Muslim Brotherhood), support (Hamas), and protect (Iran), are all in a hurry to kill or imprison all of us.

No need to make a stir over the fact that the same Boston mayor (Tom Menino) who said “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail” in reference to the owner of Chick-fil-A saying he supports traditional marriage, also have given $1.8 million of municipal land to the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston. Who lists Yusuf-al-Qaradawi as a trustee.

In case you don’t know who that is, he’s a man whose tolerant view of homosexuality led him to say “Some say we should throw [homosexuals] from a high place, [s]ome say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement. . . . The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.”

Yeah, no cause to worry about what liberals REALLY think about gay people.

No reason to think they only want to support us for as long as we are useful.

Because, hey, they say they are going to put gay marriage on their platform.

______________________________________________________________

*Also, it would helps because I don’t support gay marriage, but if you read my blog you already know that…I hope.

Fresh from her high school prayer banner victory, Jessica Ahlquist throws her hat into another ring.

I would like to start this post by saying two things.

First, I absolutely hate the cruel and violent words that have been used against Jessica Ahlquist. You will not find me on friendly terms with anyone who I find have insulted her.

Secondly, I would like to note that I have read her blog and it reads like the blog I kept at the age of 16.* I was also a very adamant atheist at the age of 16 and I believed I would never change my mind on the subject. I regularly sought out Christians to argue with and reading over the old posts I offered in arguments with Christians is actually an embarrassment to myself. I give age and overabundance of zeal, though not knowledge, as an excuse for my words at the time.** I did not remain in my atheism, not that I claim Ahlquist will change her mind on that, and my ignorance and need to change other people’s minds or even to police the public expressions of religion.

Now I want to address what this post is actually about.

Jessica Ahlquist and her fellow atheists who are extremely talented at making mountains out of molehills.

I will admit that, constitutionally, she had a case when it came to the school prayer at her school in Rhode Island. This isn’t about that.

I can empathize with some of what Atheist’s do, especially when it comes to say…the Ten Commandments being placed on courthouses. After all, I’m not a Christian and I don’t want to be judged by the Ten Commandments in court, neither does anyone else of other religions in this country.

But then there are things like this. Where atheists, who Jessica Ahlquist has thrown her hat in with, are protesting the existence of a WWI/WWII memorial in Woonsocket, R.I. which has a cross on top of it.

As previously reported, the Christian cross, which was built in Woonsocket back in 1921, is causing a great deal of angst among secularists who stand firmly opposed to its presence on public property. Taking on even more significance beyond WWI, the monument was re-dedicated back in 1952 to honor three fallen WWII soldiers who lived in the area and has since been a public statement of remembrance.

In a April 13 letter sent from the FFRF to Leo Fontaine, the city’s mayor, FFRF staff attorney Rebecca Markert called the presence of the cross “unconstitutional” and claimed that a concerned citizen made the group aware of its presence.

- The Blaze

Jessica threw in her hat by tweeting, recently, that she supported the removal.

My question is…why?

Sure it’s on public property.

Sure, it’s a war memorial.

But it’s not like they are using current tax money to put the memorial up.*** In fact, I’m quite sure that if the issue was that the state was using tax money for upkeep of the statue, that the more than 1,000 people who have gathered to support it would be willing to pay for the cleaning and upkeep of the memorial.

But that isn’t what the Atheist organizations want. They want the monument gone.

Why?

Is it causing them undue emotional distress to even see a cross or walk past one? In which case, why aren’t they trying to sue every church they walk past for pain and suffering?

Is it uncomfortable for them to have to explain what that strange T shaped object on top of that stone is to their children?

Does the idea of Christianity just offend them so much that historical monuments and memorials to our service men just have to go?

There are crosses and religious symbols on many of the historic monuments in this country. Should we tear down every single one of those as well, because atheist just can’t handle the stress.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that cross on a historic monument is creating a situation where you can’t live comfortably. Nor do I think it is making you a second class citizen, nor do I honestly believe it is constitutionally wrong.

There are many issues in this country that you could be starting useful fights about, but this is not one of them.

Image Credit: ABC6

Jessica, I fully believe that, no matter what your religious beliefs in the future, you will regret getting involved in this fight at such a young age. No matter how mature you think you are, or you actually are, you will not keep the same 16 year old beliefs, all your life.

_____________________________________________________________

*No, I can’t show it to you. I cleaned out the old posts on my old blog a long time ago…because most of them, quite frankly, embarrassed me.

**Though I must admit that the Christians I debated often had an overabundance of zeal and an underabundance of knowledge on their side.

***In which case I would understand their upset and even support their case.

Dan Savage’s hypocrisy

(This is the first,  in what may be 2 or 3 posts on this issue. This is a general response, next I will respond to the rest of his speech, and perhaps another post to deal with some of the responses that liberals have had to the completely justified outrage that conservatives are feeling about this.)

I spent most of the day, yesterday, trying to figure out how to start this post.

I’m usually quite witty (if I do say so myself), but I’m honestly just very angry about this. Wit has deserted me in favor of mental equivalent of “HULK SMASH!”

Now let me preface this with something that I don’t talk about often.

I am not a Christian. Let’s get that out of the way so that I won’t be categorized as a “religious bigot”, “butthurt Christian”, “conservative fundie”, or any of the other terribly tolerant language that the liberal blogs have been categorizing anyone who takes issue with Savage’s language as.

Yes, that’s right, I’m personally pro-life and extremely conservative in most other ways…but I don’t believe that Jesus Christ rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, ate the last supper with the 12 apostles, or died on a cross and rose again 3 days later.

I do believe that the Bible has some good stories and some good lessons to teach, just as I believe about many religions. I believe that it shows a unique look at a society (or a religious history, for the Jewish people, if you are looking at the Old Testament) and it must be read in the context of its time, as a form of history. (Something even my mother who, unlike my father, can be a bit of a Biblical literalist, freely admitted in a conversation with me last night).

The Bible, similar to most other philosophies and religions, has some bad parts as well. The large portion of the Old Testament is history and some truly awful shit has gone down in every society/religion at some point.

Now, having said that.

What Dan Savage said in his rant (yes, that’s what I categorize it as. Lot’s of anger, no real substance) just made him a bully and destroyed his credibility as a promoter of “anti-bullying” views.

Yes, calling a holy book, or part of it’s contents, “bullshit” is sometimes accurate (I often say similar words about things that about the Q’ran) however, saying the things he said in a pre-planned speech, to a group of high school students, was bullying. This wasn’t said in the heat of the moment, when he was angry at someone coming after him personally, this was pre-meditated and there is no way he did not know that many students and teachers in that crowd would be Christians. That would be a statistical improbability.

Then, of course, he took it a step further and called those who did the mature and walked out (rather than I would have done, even as a non-Christian, which would have been stand up and take him to task…or possibly pop him in the mouth…depending on my mood) “pansy assed”. Which, unless I’m wrong, is a pejorative used to refer to effeminate gay men.

Oh the irony inherent in a man who hates the bullying of gay people, using a gay slur to insult others.

Maybe he should have just called them faggots and gotten it over with.

I have an intense problem with hypocrisy. It is the one thing that will automatically make me lose all respect for you.

I may not like the views of certain groups (PETA, liberals in general, the Taliban, etc) but if you can remain consistent in your views and actions, I can at least respect that you know your own mind…even if I can’t stand the way your mind works.

It is the hypocrisy of Dan Savage’s views that kills me.

You cannot truly know yourself or your beliefs if you believe that bullying of one group is wrong, but bullying of some other group is fine…because you don’t like them.

You can’t be believed or respected if you say “It Gets Better” from one side of your mouth, while the other side says that you wish an entire political group was “just fucking dead”.*

You can’t demand respect for gay people, while using gay slurs to categorize those that you don”t like.

You can’t demand change and respect from people, when your actions against those who disagree with you is to make up vile uses for their name.

Not only has he shown his hypocrisy, but Savage has once again shown his sheer lack of intelligence (Yes, I think you are unintelligent if you can’t hold consistent beliefs, it isn’t hard to do) and his immaturity.

Is this really the person the gay community wants to represent the great future that is in store for young GLBT people?

How can life “get better” if the role model for a better life is so filled with anger, so bitter and hurtful to others?

You can’t fight fire with fire Mr. Savage. Perhaps it was your intent to live up to your name, but you are doing a great disservice to those you claim to be trying to help.

As Perez Hilton said** “Can’t we just be good and kind to each other? Isn’t faith in love and honesty and kindness all any of us really need?”

That is what will get our world where it needs to be, not divisive language and anger towards anyone who doesn’t fall in line with your ideal.

 

*As a gay conservative/Republican I would like to know what that means for me. Should I just die to make Savage happy? Or does life get better for me too, since I’m gay?

**Yes, I was shocked that he was one of the people to speak out about this.

The Prop 8 Decision and Why It Hurts Gay Rights

Reblogged from The Conservative New Ager:

So the Prop 8 Court decision came in a few weeks ago and along with the Birth Control Mandate helped push Rick Santorum up in the polls.

And the gay rights community rejoiced.  Which I found odd, as usually, people don’t rejoice in  their own downfall (ignoring the Obama inauguration and mythical behavior of Nero).  Wait, ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is bad for gay rights? 

Read more… 1,708 more words

I never got around to writing a post about the Prop 8 decision in California (aside from the short piece, partially blaming it for Santorum's surge in votes). However, this is the EXACT point I would have made if I had found the time. TCNA and I are on the same wavelength so often that it's almost scary.

Thursday has been a let down really.

Last night my school’s server was hacked and as a result my first class of the day, Politics and Government (which is my favorite class), was cancelled. Of course I didn’t find that out until I got there, since the server is down and none of the teachers can send emails out to their students. So I got there, the professor apologized for having to cancel class because her lecture for today was stored on the server instead of on her own personal jump drive.

So it was a disappointing beginning to my day…a very long day since I am not leaving campus until 10pm..I have an astronomy lab in about 3 hours. A lab that is over 2 hours long. Ugh. So tired! I’m ingesting large amounts of sugar and caffeine over the next few hours so that I can stay awake in class.

Anyway, my next class was not cancelled and here are a few highlights from today’s lecture.

First the class started out with the teacher making fun of the Tea Party. (Not the historical one in Boston, the current Tea Party…just to clarify.) Making fun of their tri-corn hats (I want one of those!), their revolutionary war era outfits (these also look fun), and the fact that, according to him, they only have legitimacy as a political movement because they “romanticize the history of democracy”.

I find that a bit insulting really.

I also wanted to ask him if he believed that Occupy Wall Street had political legitimacy by stomping all over the constitution and what he thought about them defecating on cars and destroying private property.

I didn’t though.

We discussed the history of Democratization in the world, including Samuel Huntington’s description of Democratization as coming in waves. It’s an interesting concept that I think could apply to any number of civil rights movements over the decades as well. In everything from African American, to gay rights. Everything comes in waves that advance and recede over the years, but the tide keeps getting higher and the waves recede a little less each time.

These things take time. I fully believe, in my romantic view of democracy, that eventually democracies will be in every country in the world. We see it happening every day, even if some of the attempts in the last decade or so have gone a bit pear shaped. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, etc.)

 

 

He compared Jim Crow laws to Apartheid. Tiny bit of a stretch there I think.

 

 

In the last part of class we discussed the Weimar Republic of Germany, which lasted from 1919 to 1933 before failing completely.

The words from the powerpoint were “from the outset it was beset with problems which led to the eventually collapse of a democratic nation”. Then he asked “if it happened there, could it happen here?”

Maybe it’s my bias, but I think he sounded a bit gleeful at the prospect.

However, I was considering this over lunch and came to the conclusion that the situation in the Weimar Republic was a bit different than ours here in America.

After all they were a fairly new democracy, we are not, which was on shaky legs because of a bad economy caused by exorbitant war reparations, that was in a state of national despair and looking for a leader to find someone to blame for the horrible situation they were in and promise a quick fix to the problem and give them someone to blame.

Wait…

Bad economy, check, charismatic leader, check (at least he thinks so), quick fix to the economic situation (bailouts), and a boogeyman to blame for all our problems (the rich)….

umm….

help….?

Here’s an awkward question.

Is marriage actually a right?

I started thinking about this the other day when I saw this picture on another blog.

 

I mean, don’t get me wrong. I understand that we want equality. That we don’t want certain people to be able to do things and ban other people from doing them. That’s discrimination.

However, where is marriage mentioned as a right in our constitution or bill of rights…or anywhere in our law in fact? Or is there some legal precedent that was set at some point that made marriage a de facto right of some sort?

I’m just a little confused.

I’m going to leave this up to my readers. Tell me why you think that marriage is (or is not) a right. I’m more than a little bit interested in your opinions on this topic.