The Gay Fray

Not really. We use our bodies in many ways that don't conform to some alleged biological function. When people masturbate or have oral sex, they're pretty much disregarding the procreative function of the gonads. When people kiss, what function is being met by the nutrient-seeking mouth? When people lift weights and break down muscle tissue to build more muscle, they're not really using their bodies in any functional way. When marathon runners go thru their brutal training, what function of the body is being met? When I drink wine, I am imbibing a toxic liquid that doesn't really suit the function of my mouth, throat and stomach. Sane people do not live their lives under some strict regimen of only fulfilling their own bodily functions. They creatively define themselves from the inside out--from who they want to be and how they identify and what they take pleasure in. The body simply becomes a tool towards that end.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, those who base their arguments in the idea of a collective delusion might have more serious challenges to deal with than bigotry.

Given the influence of body and brain chemistry over individual perception, it actually seems more unlikely that nature would not demonstrate transgender and other results. Remember, the default status of all developing humans in utero is phenotypically female; this is because our heritage begins with XX. The Y chromosome is a deviant outcome that thrived; its purpose, incidentally, is ultimately the perpetuation of XX, because without XX, XY cannot propagate.

The male phenotype results later, triggered by hormonal contributions from the mother. That is why phenotypical female XYs exist in this world, and also there is at least one recorded lineage in the Caribbean in which the transformation from female to male was periodically observed to occur ex utero, approximately coinciding with the onset of puberty.

Given the range of what life has to offer―

―your proposition is virtually untenable. It would be more accurate to say that transgender is something they perceive that is out of bounds for your aesthetic demand for their natural cause and effect.

That you would purport to know more than life itself is very nearly delusional.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The capacity for imagination has proven to be a hindrance to the advancement of our species. When someone had the notion that they could emulate the behavior of a bird, such a fantasy could only lead to ruin.



Replace the bird with countless other objects of fantasy and the results have been the same. Wanting to possess the fur and power of the bear, or the swiftness of the horse, we’ve always striven to be what we inherently are not. Take away that human characteristic and we’d still be swinging in the trees.

As Magical Realist pointed out, in our present culture we are constantly driven to push the boundaries that define our present existence. If we can devote massive amounts of resources to artificially inhabit alien environments.



Then why should it be considered so outlandish to more easily inhabit the form of something much less alien?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Through the fuzzy door once again. I think there's a lot of dissension where sexual morphing is concerned.

 

It doesn't matter if a few people don't approve of transgenderism. We live in the age of live and let live now. We only get one life, and if being a woman is what a man needs to be to be happy, more power to him.

 

Suffer the Little Children ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

God bless the children of the Beast?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has instructed local church leaders that same-sex couples are apostates and that children living with them can't take part in church activities until they're adults and leave home, the church told NBC News on Thursday night.

(Johnson and Connor↱)​

This is the sort of thing that makes us wonder what the LDS think they are doing.

There is, of course, first of all, the basic question of decency:

“It is astounding and deeply disturbing for me to see the LDS church list legal same-sex marriage … as a sin comparable to murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse,” said John Dehlin, a gay-rights advocate and podcaster who was excommunicated earlier this year.

“What's even more disturbing about this new policy change is that the children of LDS murderers and rapists can still get baptized, but children of legally same-sex married couples cannot. This is troubling even by Mormon standards.”

‡​

It's a position church officials have informally dubbed “fairness for all.”​

But beyond that is a question of potentially communally suicidal myopia:

The Mormon church typically baptizes children at age 8, and it has said that children so young aren't old enough to understand that their parents' relationship is contrary to the church's interpretation of God's laws.​

Functionally speaking, it would seem the church expects to alienate young people until they are eighteen, at which point the kids will want to abandon their families and return to the Church that rejected them.

Because, you know, that's apparently how youth think.

What sort of future does the LDS expect if the youth don't come back to hear more abuse about how terrible their loving parents are?

Lamenting the low character of the LDS is what it is, and thus practically useless; they are, after all, a conservative, self-centered religious organization.

But you know, I recall that point from politicians and pulpits, the idea that homosexuality will somehow die you because, you know, homosexuals never breed, and all that. Sure, everything about it is exactly askew, but consider for a moment that the LDS are culling their next generation.

Really? This is worth it?

Just, you know, whatever we might say about basic human decency, there is also the question of just how stupid Church leaders actually are.
____________________

Notes:

Johnson, M. Alex and Tracy Connor. "Mormon Church bars children of same-sex couples from baptism, blessings". msnbc. 6 November 2015. msnbc.com. 7 November 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1PfNrMD

 

Utah

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

A grim report, from KUTV↱:

April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce of Carbon County said the baby they've loved and raised for the last three months will be removed from their home and sent to heterosexual foster parents because a judge said the baby would be better-off.

‡​

The women, who are legally married and were approved as foster parents in Utah earlier this year after passing home inspections, background checks and interviews from DCFS, said the judge told them there was a lot of research that indicated children who are raised in same-sex parent homes do not do as well as children who are raised by heterosexual parents.

‡​

Attorney Mandie Torgerson, who represents the baby's biological mother, said Johansen did not cite the research he referenced in court saying only that there are "a myriad" of studies that support his order.

‡​

Brent Platt, Director of the state's Division of Child and Family Services, said he had not seen the judge's order - but his caseworkers must comply. At the same time, he wants to make sure his caseworkers don't break the law by removing the child. He will have his division's attorneys look at the judge's order.

"For us, it's what's best for the child," he said.

He said the state does not track the number of same -sex married couples who are fostering children but the state needs as many married couples as possible to help raise the state's 2600 children now in foster care.

"Any loving couple if they are legally married, and meet the requirements, we want them to be involved," he said.​

What is this? What does this judge think he is doing?

I mean, clearly this will not stand.

Yet he would do it anyway, cause all this harm.

This is what they do. And this is how they do it.

Bigotry is cruelty, and that is why people are bigots.

How is this worth it?

What is it even worth?
____________________

Notes:

Flores, Cristina. "Foster parents say child removed from their home because they are gay". KUTV. 10 November 2015. KUTV.com. 12 November 2015. http://bit.ly/1WVdR5s

 

At the Intersection of Inanity and Justice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

"And while his 'What about child abusers?' question was very likely rhetorical, let’s go ahead and answer it anyway since Scalia’s obviously confused. It’s not complicated: child abuse and relationships between consenting adults have nothing in common. The fact that he doesn’t already appreciate the differences is rather alarming."

―Steve Benen↱​

Every once in a while I get to experience a wonderful sense of gratification, when one of the seemingly completely obvious things I say finds a place in the discourse. Steve Benen↱, in this case, takes after Justice Antonin Scalia's most recent comparison of homosexuality and child rape. As Adam Liptak↱ reported for the New York Times:

The Supreme Court’s decisions protecting gay rights were not rooted in the Constitution, and their logic could as easily apply to child molesters, Justice Antonin Scalia told a room filled with first-year law students at Georgetown University on Monday.

“What minorities deserve protection?” he asked. “What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities?”

He said those decisions should generally be made by the democratic process rather than by judges.

He also allowed that the First Amendment protects political and religious minorities but suggested that there was no principled way for courts to make further distinctions based on the text of the Constitution. “What about pederasts?” he asked. “What about child abusers?”

“This is a deserving minority,” he said sarcastically. “Nobody loves them.”​

Thus framed, Benen explains:

Just to be clear, Scalia wasn’t advocating protections for pedophiles and child abusers.

The high-court justice was, however, drawing a parallel between pedophiles, child abusers, and gay people.

And while his “What about child abusers?” question was very likely rhetorical, let’s go ahead and answer it anyway since Scalia’s obviously confused. It’s not complicated: child abuse and relationships between consenting adults have nothing in common. The fact that he doesn’t already appreciate the differences is rather alarming.

The justice’s broader point seems to be built around his discomfort in identifying minorities deserving of legal protections. To hear Scalia tell it, if gay people deserve equal protection under the law, then maybe adults who abuse children deserve equal protection, too.

The problem with the comparison, to borrow a phrase, is that it’s “pure applesauce.” The underlying point is entirely disjointed – is Scalia worried that if same-sex couples have a legal right to get married, the next thing we know, child abusers will be able to get married, too?​

The question arises: If Justice Scalia argues, as Liptak paraphrases, "that there was no principled way for courts to make further distinctions based on the text of the Constitution", then Justice argues that consent is not a principled way for the court to distinguish between consenting adult lovers to the one, and child rape to the other.

And, you know, to most of us, consent seems really, really important. But its irrelevance to anything comes up a lot when the "family values" crowd tells us what they really think.

This is significant.

I would call on my Christian neighbors to put a stop to this; it's getting to the point where we can't tell the "Christians" from the rape-wolves in Christian sheep clothing. No, really. It's been twenty-four years since Christian zealots introduced me to the gay rights dispute, and in all that time they haven't learned to respect consent in sexual relations. You have judges on benches, politicians in office, preachers in pulpits, and how many of your fellow congregants running around demanding the irrelevance of consent in sexual relations. What about the children? I would ask my Christian neighbors to remind society, in some useful way, why such a panic cry should not include them among the suspects.

Twenty-four years ago, we had a handful of identifying Christians in our corner, small groups among Northern Baptists, Evangelical Lutherans, Jesuits and the Sacred Heart, and the Society of Friends. Comparatively, it's not much, but it does remind that not all Christians buy into this rejection of consent. But, honestly, over the years the list has gotten so deep we're better off betting, when we hear someone identify as "Christian" in the political discourse, that they are dangerous.

We would much appreciate the opportunity to cross some of you off the list of people we wouldn't allow anywhere near our children.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Scalia takes aim at legal protections for LGBT Americans". msnbc. 17 November 2015. msnbc.com. 17 November 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1SBhsEt

Liptak, Adam. "Justice Antonin Scalia Questions Logic Behind Gay Rights Protections". The New York Times. 16 November 2015. NYTimes.com. 17 November, 2015. http://nyti.ms/1HWQ1PJ

 

A Word You Never Wanted to Know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Sometimes it seems easy to understand traditionalists being so squeamish about the fact that gay men exist. Then again, the poopapocalypse can affect heterosexuals, too.

Yeah, that's a word you never wanted to know, isn't it? Poopapocalypse.

And as neologisms go, personally I think it's a bit predictable.

For the latest episode of the HuffPost Love+Sex Podcast, host Noah Michelson (this week flying solo without co-host Carina Kolodny) invited Prest and Breger to chat about how they've turned The Heart into thriving community of fans who can't get enough of how the show uses humor and smarts to elicit personal experiences from their subjects. He also asked them to weigh in on some intimate questions sent in by listeners, including one man who wanted to know what to do if he faced a "poopapocalypse" while engaging in anal sex.

"If you're having regular anal sex there's a pretty high chance that's going to happen," Berger notes. "Be a sport… you know that you're around the butt and sexual fluids happen. In this scenario, poop is your sexual fluid. So, just clean it up like you would anything else and know that the person who is bottoming did not decide to poop everywhere. It happens… just be nice about it.”​

It's true, I'm not much into podcasts; and in the long run, if you don't want the advice on how to counsel your mother about anal sex and "he ins and outs of how to do it", well, I certainly wouldn't blame you. In fact, I'm banking on the notion that I'm never going to have to give my mother any advice or instruction about how to receive a man in her ass.

Nor would I want to explain to her that she need not be embarrassed if the poopapocalypse comes.

I'll check in with that advice when reality decides I specifically need it.
____________________

Notes:

Michelson, Noah. "Here's One Thing You Need To Remember If You're Having Anal Sex". The Huffington Post. 17 December 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 17 December 2015. http://huff.to/1T4xFTf

 

What? Again?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

This time it is Tennessee:

Just one day after a Tennessee House committee rejected a bill to nullify the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision, the head of the state’s top conservative organization filed a lawsuit hoping to, at the very least, stall same-sex marriage. And he has the support of several state lawmakers.

David Fowler, head of the Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT), filed the state suit in Williamson County, asking County Clerk Elaine Anderson to cease issuing marriage licenses until the suit is resolved. His contention relies on a mix of odd technicalities relating to the impact of the Obergefell decision on Tennessee law, particularly the idea that the state’s entire marriage statute was invalidated. He argues that because lawmakers would never have passed a marriage law inclusive of same-sex couples, there is no longer any law stipulating marriage for any couple, and thus all marriage licenses issued in the state since last June are void. This, he fears, exposes the pastors who join him as plaintiffs to liability, because a separate Tennessee statute dictates that it is a Class C misdemeanor to solemnize a wedding between two people not legally eligible to marry, punishable by a $500 fine.

(Ford↱)​

Previously, this valence of stupidity had been largely contained in Oklahoma (1↑, 2↑, 3↑). True, we saw some pushback in Mississippi (parental permission for student clubs) and Flordia (county clerks cancel courthouse weddings), but the whole thing about going after marriage itself? One wonders if Mr. Fowler has stopped to consider the implications for existing marriages.

See, most of these Wile E. Coyote schemes have their predictable, glaring flaws. You know, like the part where you're dropping a bomb on your enemy, or maybe a piano or anvil, and then hide in the impact zone, invariably landing the falling whatever on oneself.

Two glaring faults stand out. First is the question of standing; these are all ministers, and thus have no standing to require the County Clerk to hang everyone else's rights just for the sake of a few Christian bigots. Secondly, the suit itself makes plain that this isn't really about anything but the plaintiffs themselves:

8. All Plaintiffs are also an appropriate class of persons who wish to preserve the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity by requiring their governmental representatives to adhere to the requirements of the written Constitution of Tennessee in all respects where it is not in conflict with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treateies validly enacted pursuant thereto.

(Fowler, 2↱)​

To themselves and their posterity, which seems nearly an appropriate phrase, except that preservation requires the abrogation of the blessings of liberty to others.

We might also note that marriage equality is the law of the land pursuant to the Constitution; the attorney Fowler seems to consider this point irrelevant (ibid, 3-6, 6-7).

The "Minister Plaintiffs" are asking nothing more than the cancellation of Tennessee's marriage law on the grounds that the Tennessee legislature has never voted to obey the Supreme Court, nor officially revised the statutes to accord with the U.S. Constitution.

The problem with such convoluted logic is that one generally cannot plug all the gaps. Grant et al. appeals to an interesting proposition:

→ The gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, therefore the whole marriage statute is unconstitutional.

→ Therefore, all marriages after the date the law was recognized as unconstitutional should be invalidated.

↳ What of the prior marriages solemnized under an unconstitutional law?​

The suit's description of "Applicable Facts and Law" is abysmal, pretending a degree of stupidity about the Minister Plaintiffs suggesting perhaps they ought not be entrusted with any duties pertaining to the fulfillment of law. No, really, the argument goes that the State of Tennessee will punish under law any ministers who fulfill the law. In the end, it is nothing more than an interesting parlor question, since nowhere in the suit is it established that the Minister Plaintiffs will be forced by law to solemnize these marriages.

But even still, what about the other marriages? By the suit's logic, all those other illegal marriages are ... well, Fowler never got around to that point.

Courts cannot overlook such implications, but neither are judges anxious to invoke those kinds of crises if other solutions remain available.

Laughing Mr. Fowler and his Minister Plaintiffs out of court is a solution that still remains available.

Nonetheless, the sanctity of marriage is so important to these Christians that they would, in the face of accepting that anyone else has a say in what marriage is, rather call the whole thing off.

Volunteer Cowardice, unto the Glory of God.

No news.

Shit, someone find the dog.
____________________

Notes:

Ford, Zack. "Tennessee Lawmakers Endorse Bid To Declare All Marriage Illegal In Order To Spite Equality". Think Progress. 25 January 2016. ThinkProgress.org. 25 January 2016. http://bit.ly/1OLuoav

Fowler, David. "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment". Grant et al. v. Anderson. Chancery Court for Williamson County at Franklin. 21 January 2016. Factn.org. http://bit.ly/1KB8AdC

 

The reasonable solution for all this marriage is to make marriage a private contract. So, every religious sect has the right to decide which of such private contracts they support and which they reject as sinful or so. And people who do not care about religious blessings are free to make whatever marriage contracts they like. It is not the states business to care who decides to marry.

 

Maybe where you're from, that's how governments work, but in the U.S., all this pretend victimhood from the right wing depends on people surrendering to government. We can vote for whoever we want; we just choose not to.

In that vein, people want it to be the state's business to care who decides to marry. Taxes. Inheritance. Medical advisory. Property ownership.

Take marriage out of the tax equation; Americans will pitch a fit.

Take inheritance out of the tax equation; Americans will pitch a fit.

Take medical considerations, including treatment decisions, end of life protocols, and simple visitation, away from Americans; they will pitch a fit.

Take joint ownership out of property considerations; Americans wil pitch a fit.

Self-centered empowerment slogans sound really neat, and all, but sometimes it's worth taking a moment to consider how those ideas would work out in application.

To wit, get the state out of marriage? Okay. Now, what are we going to do about the mess?

Oh, I know: Blame government.

 

In a civilized community, if there would be taxes, they would not depend on marriage.

In a civilized society, everybody would be completely free to define who inherits what he own.

In a civilized society, everybody would be free to choose who is allowed to make such decisions.

In a civilized society, joint ownership would be in no way restricted.

Which mess?

 

The one you are apparently incapable of perceiving for the facts of your utterly self-centered politics and general ignorance of American society, government, and law.

 

You are engaging a poster who literally denies the Holocaust. Of course he is incapable of perceiving facts.

 

Don't worry, I'm able to understand the mess of actual American politics. Self-centered? LOL. As I have explained already several times, I have no interest at all in America.

And I have also no interest, and, therefore, no opinion about the Holocaust, instead of being a denier of this.

 

It's that longer-term consideration, though, about the balance between ignoring what seems silly and not worthwhile, to the one, and, to the other, leaving such superstitious, ill-conceived, and uninformed bluster to propagate.

Analogously, it's like bamboo or ivy. I don't specifically hate either one, but at my brother's place, one neighbor never controls the ivy, so we struggle to keep it from invading the lawn; another planted bamboo, which, again, requires ridiculous effort to control on my brother's property. I like bamboo, actually, but the stuff is invasive and shouldn't be planted around here for the amount it disrupts other flora. Actually getting rid of the stuff would require a chemical warfare atrocity I am unwilling to inflict against the ecosystem. For now, it's enough to keep this invasive stuff at bay on the surface.

Incidentally, I did some landscape work on the back lawn hillside last summer, and suddenly understand the physical reality of where "world-tree" myths come from; the hillside was originally mostly castoff concrete and rocks, but on one occasion I had to move and reset a couple pieces exposed by weather, and it turns out underneath the outmost layer of rock and concrete, much of that portion is being held up by bamboo. Staring into that twisted, gnarled mass? It looks like the ground is held aloft by a tree.

 

Her Name Was Maya Young

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Maya Young died Monday, shortly after midnight. She was twenty-five years old.

NBC Philadelphia↱ reports:

Maya Young, 25, was found at 11:50 p.m. Sunday along the 4800 block of Penn Street with multiple stab wounds to her neck and chest, police said. She was lying on the street when officers arrived ....

.... The motive for the stabbing is unknown.

"Maya’s name and memory now join an ever growing list of trans identified people who have lost their lives at far too young an age to violence," Nellie Fitzpatrick, director of Philadelphia's Office of LGBT Affairs ....

.... "We must work to increase opportunities for jobs and career paths, access to meaningful health care and the coverage to go along with it, housing and education," Fitzpatrick said.​

Police still seek her killer.

Maya Young was twenty-five years old; she managed to crawl or stumble or somehow manage approximately two blocks from Griscom onto Penn before responding officers found her lying in the street. She died shortly afterward, at Aria Frankford Hospital.

Please say, and remember, her name.
____________________

Notes:

Lattanzio, Vince. "Stabbing Leaves Transgender Woman Dead on Frankford Street". NBC Philadelphia. 23 February 2016. NBCPhiladelphia.com. 26 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1QCbKzH

 

Eleven Words

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

"It is ordered that all pending motions and petitions are dismissed."

―Supreme Court of Alabama↱​

Eleven words, and then it was over. The Alabama Supreme Court has refused further challenges to marriage equality. Associated Press↱ reports:

The Alabama Supreme Court refused Friday to defy the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, cutting off a conservative bid to prevent gay weddings in the state.

The court issued a one-sentence order dismissing a challenge by a probate judge and a conservative policy group that wanted the state to bar gay marriage despite the landmark federal decision.

In one of several written opinions accompanying the order, Justice Greg Shaw called the decision a “clear refusal” to ignore the Supreme Court ruling last June.

Several other state justices railed against the high court’s ruling while noting they can’t overturn it.​

"The order effectively ends the case," explained Eric Johnston, attorney for the Alabama Policy institute, in an email interview with Associated Press. "It appears to give us no option." This is significant; API was a petitioner in this case. Chief Justice Roy Moore, for his part, pitched something of a fit.

While the court used only 11 words in its order, members of the all-Republican bench railed against the U.S. Supreme Court decision in multiple written opinions totaling 169 pages.

Quoting everything from past court rulings to the Bible and the 1974 song “Feelings,” the chief justice called the court’s ruling “immoral, unconstitutional and tyrannical.” He referred to homosexuality as a “disgrace to human nature” which can’t be compared to opposite-sex intimacy.

“Sodomy has never been and never will be an act by which a marriage can be consummated,” Moore wrote.​

Other justices lamented the outcome, as well. Justice Tom Parker bemoaned the Obergefell decision, arguing, "the rule of law is dead". While complaining that last year's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming marriage equality lacked constitutional basis, Justice Michael Bolin wrote, "I do concede that its holding is binding aouthroity on this court."

And as Justice comes, and comes again, because Alabama is just so damn needy, it is fair to enjoy the nearly pornographic spectacle; while nobody's soul need be laid bare in such undignified manner, the main alternative is outrage at the notion that state supreme court justices spent one hundred sixty-nine pages complaining about their own concurrence. It's one thing to issue a ruling one doesn't like because that's how the law works. And, to be certain, from time to time I recall the Oklahoma Supreme Court, where the justices do their job, and some days it is quite literally the written equivalent of muttering bitterly and grimly through clenched teeth; they struck an anti-abortion ballot measure from the ballot that way, simply pointing out that there was no way, if implemented, the law would withstand constitutional scrutiny. That one had to hurt, judging by its concision. But, damn it, they did it. And, in the end, so did the Alabama Supreme Court; even the complaining judges concurred.

But then they spent one hundred sixty-nine pages complaining. It really is an incredible and undignified show. And, yes, it is certainly acceptable, and even recommended, that you enjoy the hell out of it.

This is not the village idiot wanking in the square. Seriously, because, you know, Scalia's dead, how could Roy Moore not be at the top of, say, a President Cruz's wish list for the Supreme Court? And, you know, seriously, how badly would Main Street conservatives take it when the Senate said no? Yes, go ahead and enjoy that notion because it's never actually going to happen.

Still, let's talk about role models.

Homosexuals who seek the dignity of marriage must first forsake the sexual habits that disqualify them from admission to that hallowed institution. Surely more dignity attaches to participation in a fundamental institution on the terms it prescribes than to an attempt to wrest its definition to serve inordinate lusts that demean its historic dignity. A "disgrace to human nature" cannot be cured by stripping the institution of holy matrimony of its inherent dignity and redefinit it to give social approval to behaviors unsuited to its high station. Sodomy has never been and never will be an act by which a marriage can be consummated.

―Chief Justice Roy Moore​

Of the late Antonin Scalia, I recently wrote:

Think about it in terms of role models, and here's an outlier to crystallize: There was, ten or fifteen years ago, a judge who gave a man convicted of raping a fourteen year-old an exceptionally light sentence because Bill Clinton got away with adultery. More realistically, our society has a constant murmuring discourse about role models, and as the viciously antisocial politics of the empowered social-conservative hardline have risen to such prominence in recent decades, they have found themselves relying more and more on completely illogical, even paradoxical balbutive vomited in lieu of rational argument, and, honestly, if e'er they had an empowering role model, it would be Justice Antonin Scalia.

(#3364391/94↗)​

There is a reason bigotry feels various pressures in society; there is also a reason bigotry feels empowered. To the one, bigotry is verging on rupture right now because it feels tremendous pressure from society to simply go away. To the other, bigotry is empowered to fight back; it is a traditional empowerment, and come on, the Supreme Court of the United States? The Supreme Court of Alabama? As various assertions of supremacism feel cornered enough to leap forth and roar, one of the reasons we bother entertaining such idiocy as some manner of serious discussion is, well, look at their role models. If it's good enough for a Supreme Court justice, it's good enough for Main Street. It's one thing to elect politicians, but Justice itself is supposed to be above all that. And within that rarified range, we find this sickness. That is to say, by the time we hear it openly espoused on Main Street, it has precedent.

So enjoy the hell out of the tantrum against marriage equality.

And no, you don't have to love the smell of futility in Alabama.

Nor need you be surprised that, in the end, it really is about penetrating women: "Sodomy has never been and never will be an act by which a marriage can be consummated."

Or so says Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Which in turn points to a discouraging question in and of itself, so, yeah, take the moment to enjoy this.

The Yellowhammer Tantrum: Eleven words, and then it was over.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Alabama Supreme Court refuses challenge to gay marriage". msnbc. 5 March 2016. msnbc.com. 5 March 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1prz3WX

Supreme Court of Alabama. Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, Alabama Citizens Action Program, and John E. Enslen, in his official capacity as Judge of Probate for Emore County. Petition for Writ of Mandamus (In re: Alan L. King, in his official capacity as Judge of Probate for Jefferson County, et al.). 4 March 2016. ACIS.Alabama.gov. 5 March 2016. http://1.usa.gov/1RNBj48

 

Well, Scalia was smart man. And like what the late Kurt Cobain said "what more can I say?, everyone is gay."



in the sun i feel as one, in the sun ...

What else should I be
All apologies
What else could I say
Everyone is gay
What else could I write
I don't have the right
What else should I be
All apologies

In the sun
In the sun I feel as one
In the sun
In the sun

....

buried
I wish I was like you
Easily amused
Find my nest of salt
Everything is my fault
I'll take all the blame
Aqur scafoam shame
Sunburn with freezeburn
Choking on the ashes of her enemy
All in all we all are


Man, this guy was...i cant wrap my head around this now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The genius of it all. I feel humbled, i feel as a though a rank neophyte...what more can I say? I copied the lyrics and they seem off a little...but, whoa...no wonder this guy checked out.