The Gay Fray
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
What, That's It? That's All You Have?
Huh?
Which Christian supremacist?
Ah, I see.
So, here's the thing: If you are going to keep ignoring function, then we will be stuck going around in this circle. And this is one of those things I refer to as people not being able to tell the difference. In this case, it's the same petulant excrement we've been hearing from bigots for decades. Please explain to me how a minister fulfilling people's right to marry is supremacist. She's already been sentenced for the trespassing, though we might wonder, after this contempt issue is settled, how long Kim Davis should serve in prison for civil rights violations under color of law.
What the judge said: You can't have your constitutional rights because they violate my right to prevent you from having them!
What the minister said: Oh, you have a marriage license? I can perform that ceremony.
Your attempt to redefine supremacism lacks substance, to say the least. I mean, really: You can't tell the difference?
You speak of useless factors when trying to equivocate between different actions by ignoring the details that establish the difference. And, really, some sort of substantial example of the "illegal actions" you inquire about would have saved us a hell of a lot of this back and forth.
I would also note that statements like, "you have not established that one side is fighting for equality", don't really mean much coming from someone who can't tell the difference.
Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "equal protection under the law"? It is an obligation of government personnel; it is Kim Davis' obligation, and she has refused. It is Judge Booth's obligation, and he refused.
Let us try it this way: If a particular book offends me, does that mean you should be prohibited from reading it?
Remember that the arc of the Gay Fray that brings us to this moment started with a library book: Our Christian right to free religion is violated as long as Lesléa Newman's right to free speech is intact! And that's how Measure 9 came to be in Oregon. Indeed, Measure 9 failed, but Colorado Amendment 2 passed, and was promptly gutted by the courts; this is the Romer decision we hear so many conservatives complain about. And there again we see the same device; they are upset because they cannot use the ballot box to take away people's rights for the sake of religious aesthetics: Our Christian right to free religion is violated as long as we cannot take away the constitutional rights of people we don't like!
And we've been going through this over and over again.
And this is where we're at; Judge Booth, like Kim Davis, would assert a constitutional right to refuse other people equal protection under the law for the sake of allegedly Christian conscience: Their Christian rights to free religion are violated as long as they cannot take away the constitutional rights of people they don't like.
This is the device you are so desperate to wipe off the table. This is the fundamental distinction. In terms of civil disobedience and other illegal acts, one of the things conservatives have a hard time comprehending is that it doesn't work when what they're fighting for is inequity and injustice.
Which, in turn, is why conservatives are losing this one. They've pushed this routine as far as they can, and now it's finally breaking. Legally and logically, they have exactly no case, because what they're fighting for is actual, real supremacism. And, like you, they might try to elevate themselves to some noble analogy while denouncing the other side, but it's a hard case to make when they have exactly no facts or logic on their side.
Think of it this way: One way, we all get our rights; the other way, only some get their rights. Now, the some try to reverse this formula by claiming to be oppressed and treated unfairly, but that complaint doesn't work because what they want is open supremacism.
One of the problems with this wide-eyed questioning is that it makes clear from the outset that the advocate, in this case, you, is arguing without a clue.
Seems rather irrelevant; you're arguing a conservative position, according to well-known conservative rhetorical sleights.
Your arrogance is not well served by your ignorance. The point is that it's pretty stupid of you to come in here and recycle yet again another well-thrashed, easily and repeatedly disposed conservative template argument. Hell, you're not even prepared enough to provide some basic details so people can know what you're on about.
Do you actually understand the U.S. Constitution? Are you capable of comprehending the framework in which the American Gay Fray is taking place? Thus far you've shown exactly no such faculty.
The problem with answering your questions is that they are meaningless.
Actually, it's possible to be both. That you are unable to connect those points is suggestive of your condition, as well. Like I said, we're accustomed to this form of argument, and it really is rather stupid to think you can pull it off at all. The problem with the form of argument that you're attempting is that it dismisses history from the outset, and, as we've seen yet again in your case, pushes away all facts. It makes few, if any, definitive statements, and relies on an unreal pretense that fails to recognize history and reality. Again, do you actually understand the U.S. Constitution? Starting with a square-one assertion of rights versus rights ignores history, and evades the constitutional framework in which the larger dispute occurs.
You're evading the central issue.
And you couldn't come up with a single real example?
Okay.
And yet you can't come up with a single example?
And apparently without a clue as to what you were talking about, since you can't come up with a single example.
Stuart said:
Huh?
Which Christian supremacist?
Ah, I see.
So, here's the thing: If you are going to keep ignoring function, then we will be stuck going around in this circle. And this is one of those things I refer to as people not being able to tell the difference. In this case, it's the same petulant excrement we've been hearing from bigots for decades. Please explain to me how a minister fulfilling people's right to marry is supremacist. She's already been sentenced for the trespassing, though we might wonder, after this contempt issue is settled, how long Kim Davis should serve in prison for civil rights violations under color of law.
What the judge said: You can't have your constitutional rights because they violate my right to prevent you from having them!
What the minister said: Oh, you have a marriage license? I can perform that ceremony.
Your attempt to redefine supremacism lacks substance, to say the least. I mean, really: You can't tell the difference?
You speak of useless factors when trying to equivocate between different actions by ignoring the details that establish the difference. And, really, some sort of substantial example of the "illegal actions" you inquire about would have saved us a hell of a lot of this back and forth.
I would also note that statements like, "you have not established that one side is fighting for equality", don't really mean much coming from someone who can't tell the difference.
Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "equal protection under the law"? It is an obligation of government personnel; it is Kim Davis' obligation, and she has refused. It is Judge Booth's obligation, and he refused.
Let us try it this way: If a particular book offends me, does that mean you should be prohibited from reading it?
Remember that the arc of the Gay Fray that brings us to this moment started with a library book: Our Christian right to free religion is violated as long as Lesléa Newman's right to free speech is intact! And that's how Measure 9 came to be in Oregon. Indeed, Measure 9 failed, but Colorado Amendment 2 passed, and was promptly gutted by the courts; this is the Romer decision we hear so many conservatives complain about. And there again we see the same device; they are upset because they cannot use the ballot box to take away people's rights for the sake of religious aesthetics: Our Christian right to free religion is violated as long as we cannot take away the constitutional rights of people we don't like!
And we've been going through this over and over again.
And this is where we're at; Judge Booth, like Kim Davis, would assert a constitutional right to refuse other people equal protection under the law for the sake of allegedly Christian conscience: Their Christian rights to free religion are violated as long as they cannot take away the constitutional rights of people they don't like.
This is the device you are so desperate to wipe off the table. This is the fundamental distinction. In terms of civil disobedience and other illegal acts, one of the things conservatives have a hard time comprehending is that it doesn't work when what they're fighting for is inequity and injustice.
Which, in turn, is why conservatives are losing this one. They've pushed this routine as far as they can, and now it's finally breaking. Legally and logically, they have exactly no case, because what they're fighting for is actual, real supremacism. And, like you, they might try to elevate themselves to some noble analogy while denouncing the other side, but it's a hard case to make when they have exactly no facts or logic on their side.
Think of it this way: One way, we all get our rights; the other way, only some get their rights. Now, the some try to reverse this formula by claiming to be oppressed and treated unfairly, but that complaint doesn't work because what they want is open supremacism.
One of the problems with this wide-eyed questioning is that it makes clear from the outset that the advocate, in this case, you, is arguing without a clue.
Seems rather irrelevant; you're arguing a conservative position, according to well-known conservative rhetorical sleights.
Your arrogance is not well served by your ignorance. The point is that it's pretty stupid of you to come in here and recycle yet again another well-thrashed, easily and repeatedly disposed conservative template argument. Hell, you're not even prepared enough to provide some basic details so people can know what you're on about.
Do you actually understand the U.S. Constitution? Are you capable of comprehending the framework in which the American Gay Fray is taking place? Thus far you've shown exactly no such faculty.
The problem with answering your questions is that they are meaningless.
Actually, it's possible to be both. That you are unable to connect those points is suggestive of your condition, as well. Like I said, we're accustomed to this form of argument, and it really is rather stupid to think you can pull it off at all. The problem with the form of argument that you're attempting is that it dismisses history from the outset, and, as we've seen yet again in your case, pushes away all facts. It makes few, if any, definitive statements, and relies on an unreal pretense that fails to recognize history and reality. Again, do you actually understand the U.S. Constitution? Starting with a square-one assertion of rights versus rights ignores history, and evades the constitutional framework in which the larger dispute occurs.
You're evading the central issue.
And you couldn't come up with a single real example?
Okay.
And yet you can't come up with a single example?
And apparently without a clue as to what you were talking about, since you can't come up with a single example.
I may be back later and attempt to start another conversation. Until then, you might consider the way you compartmentalize ideas, giving you the inability to make the connections between seemingly divergent topics and you might consider that reality is not contingent on the one symbolizing it through words, but stands alone by itself.
God Save Kim Davis ... from Mat Staver
The question arises: Now that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has been released from jail, just how long will she remain free?
Remember that Staver is running in circles↑.
So here's the thing: On 31 August, Mat Staver said, "The stay request offers several options such as removing Davis's name from the marriage license, thus removing the personal nature of the authorization". Indeed, on 28 August, her attorneys filed an application for stay in which they argued:
And as Reuters↱ reported on 4 September:
I mean, we get how he's trying to argue both ways, right?
So what, then, is the simple fix? The simple accommodation?
Nothing more than the right to force other county clerks to disobey the law.
____________________
Notes:
Bittenbender, Steve. "Kentucky clerk's office ends ban on same-sex marriage licenses". Reuters. 4 September 2015. Reuters.com. 8 September 2015. http://reut.rs/1g39vu2
Margolin, Emma. "Kentucky clerk Kim Davis released from jail". msnbc. 8 September 2015. msnbc.com. 8 September 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1OaNRSr
Mihet, Horatio G. and Jonathan D. Christman. “Emergency Application to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal”. Davis v. Miller et al. Supreme Court of the United States. 28 August 2015. LC.org. 8 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1PVbrRD
The question arises: Now that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has been released from jail, just how long will she remain free?
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis walked out of a Kentucky detention center to massive applause Tuesday after spending five days behind bars for defying a federal order that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But her attorney said that Davis would continue to abide by her conscience, which cannot condone same-sex nuptials, and that all licenses issued since her incarceration were not valid.
The defiant stand seems likely to land Davis right back in jail, from where she emerged Tuesday afternoon alongside her attorney, Mat Staver, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who was hosting a rally in her honor. Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, told reporters outside the detention center he'd be willing to go to jail in her place should a federal judge find she's violated the conditions of her release.
The defiant stand seems likely to land Davis right back in jail, from where she emerged Tuesday afternoon alongside her attorney, Mat Staver, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who was hosting a rally in her honor. Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, told reporters outside the detention center he'd be willing to go to jail in her place should a federal judge find she's violated the conditions of her release.
‡
[U.S. District Judge David] Bunning said in his order Tuesday that Davis "shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples." But Staver suggested such interference was likely.
"She cannot allow a license authorizing same-sex marriage to go under her authority or name," Staver said in an interview with NBC News' Gabe Gutierrez, ahead of Davis' release. "That's been her position from the beginning and that will be her position, I assume, on any subsequent occasion. She's asking for a simple fix, a simple accommodation."
"We're back to square one," he added. "She's been released. But there has been no resolution."
(Margolin↱)
"She cannot allow a license authorizing same-sex marriage to go under her authority or name," Staver said in an interview with NBC News' Gabe Gutierrez, ahead of Davis' release. "That's been her position from the beginning and that will be her position, I assume, on any subsequent occasion. She's asking for a simple fix, a simple accommodation."
"We're back to square one," he added. "She's been released. But there has been no resolution."
(Margolin↱)
Remember that Staver is running in circles↑.
So here's the thing: On 31 August, Mat Staver said, "The stay request offers several options such as removing Davis's name from the marriage license, thus removing the personal nature of the authorization". Indeed, on 28 August, her attorneys filed an application for stay in which they argued:
Importantly, Davis is not claiming a substantial burden on her religious freedom or free speech rights if someone else authorizes and approves a SSM license devoid of her name.
(Mihet and Christman, 18↱)
(Mihet and Christman, 18↱)
And as Reuters↱ reported on 4 September:
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel which represents Davis, said he believes Friday's licenses are invalid because they were not issued with her approval. Davis' name does not appear on the licenses.
"They are not worth the paper they are printed on," Staver said, standing in front of the Grayson, Kentucky, detention center where Davis is being held. He added she had no intention of resigning as clerk.
"They are not worth the paper they are printed on," Staver said, standing in front of the Grayson, Kentucky, detention center where Davis is being held. He added she had no intention of resigning as clerk.
I mean, we get how he's trying to argue both ways, right?
So what, then, is the simple fix? The simple accommodation?
Nothing more than the right to force other county clerks to disobey the law.
____________________
Notes:
Bittenbender, Steve. "Kentucky clerk's office ends ban on same-sex marriage licenses". Reuters. 4 September 2015. Reuters.com. 8 September 2015. http://reut.rs/1g39vu2
Margolin, Emma. "Kentucky clerk Kim Davis released from jail". msnbc. 8 September 2015. msnbc.com. 8 September 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1OaNRSr
Mihet, Horatio G. and Jonathan D. Christman. “Emergency Application to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal”. Davis v. Miller et al. Supreme Court of the United States. 28 August 2015. LC.org. 8 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1PVbrRD
Something About "The Difference" Goes Here
There is this line I drop now and then, seemingly more frequently of late, about conservatives not being able to tell the difference. It has to do with simplistic arguments and analogies, such as the difference between the functions of promoting equality or supremacism. For once I get to raise the point in order to note a Republican who can tell the difference, at least in this case and this issue, but, to start, we need to check in with Sahil Kapur and Greg Stohr↱ of Bloomberg Politics:
This is not inaccurate; it's more a question of the Republican candidates. For strategists and analysts, the Obergefell decision was an opportunity for the GOP to simply move on. The New York Times↱ in June covered the split between strategists like David Frum and Carl Forti, who see general election dangers in continuing the hardline push, and hardliners like activist Tony Perkins of American Family Association or candidates like Mike Huckabee and Sen. Ted Cruz.
Kapur and Stohr, though, note John Feehery, a Republican strategist disdained by hardliners° who cut his teeth working for congressional Republicans, including former House Minority Leader Bob Michel; former House Minority Whip Tom DeLay; as a lobbyist with former congressman and current Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie, and former Poppy Bush aide Ed Rogers; and eventually former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Of late, he served as an executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America. A true establishment Republican, Feehery manages to draw praise from political journalists, analysts, and scholars. It is not hard to discern, though, why hardliners don't like him:
To the one, it is exactly what hardliners don't want to hear. To the other, Mr. Feehery has explained the point exactly. Then again, this isn't exactly a year for logic among conservative voters, preferring "principles" over "electability"↱ at a time when those principles include exactly the mess Mr. Feehery is referring to.
And this is the problem.
Conservatives have seen traditional privilege erode dramatically in recent decades; there is a reason Christian supremacists are panicking. But in many cases it seems almost like they are mocking what they do not understand. Indeed, this often manifests in some form of a victim complex. Consider, as an example in the marriage equality dispute, the conservative tendendcy to wrongly compare Kim Davis to Rosa Parks↱; it's a lot easier to make a civil rights argument when you're actually advocating civil rights instead of the "religious freedom" to suspend or refuse the civil rights of others. Mr. Feehery, at the very least, understands this basic difference. Conservatives can try to call Ms. Davis' intransigence "civil disobedience", but for the time being it seems the rest of society isn't buying in.
And there's a reason for that.
And it is this basic, observable difference that is as obvious as the sun in the sky: Supremacy ≠ Equality.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Republican voters discount electability (for now)". msnbc. 4 August 2015. msnbc.com. 9 September 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1UkClFF
Kapur, Sahil and Greg Stohr. "Same-Sex Marriage Returns As 2016 Issue, Worrying Some Republicans". Bloomberg Politics. 9 September 2015. Bloomberg.com. 9 September 2015. http://bloom.bg/1LkermZ
Martin, Jonathan. "As Left Wins Culture Battles, G.O.P. Gains Opportunity to Pivot for 2016". The New York Times. 27 June 2015. NYTimes.com. 9 September 2015. http://nyti.ms/1ix5jVc
Wright, C. Edmund. "Meet John Feehery, Perhaps the Worst GOP Establishment Consultant Ever". American Thinker. 22 September 2014. AmericanThinker.com. 9 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1NiiiFz
There is this line I drop now and then, seemingly more frequently of late, about conservatives not being able to tell the difference. It has to do with simplistic arguments and analogies, such as the difference between the functions of promoting equality or supremacism. For once I get to raise the point in order to note a Republican who can tell the difference, at least in this case and this issue, but, to start, we need to check in with Sahil Kapur and Greg Stohr↱ of Bloomberg Politics:
Just when they thought they were out, Kim Davis pulled them back in.
Republican strategists are worried that the return of same-sex marriage as a presidential campaign piñata could hurt the party in the 2016 general election, putting it on the wrong side of a growing majority of Americans that believes gay couples should have the right to marry. National Republicans operatives hoped the issue was settled in June when the Supreme Court ruled to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.
But Davis upended that.
Republican strategists are worried that the return of same-sex marriage as a presidential campaign piñata could hurt the party in the 2016 general election, putting it on the wrong side of a growing majority of Americans that believes gay couples should have the right to marry. National Republicans operatives hoped the issue was settled in June when the Supreme Court ruled to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.
But Davis upended that.
This is not inaccurate; it's more a question of the Republican candidates. For strategists and analysts, the Obergefell decision was an opportunity for the GOP to simply move on. The New York Times↱ in June covered the split between strategists like David Frum and Carl Forti, who see general election dangers in continuing the hardline push, and hardliners like activist Tony Perkins of American Family Association or candidates like Mike Huckabee and Sen. Ted Cruz.
Kapur and Stohr, though, note John Feehery, a Republican strategist disdained by hardliners° who cut his teeth working for congressional Republicans, including former House Minority Leader Bob Michel; former House Minority Whip Tom DeLay; as a lobbyist with former congressman and current Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie, and former Poppy Bush aide Ed Rogers; and eventually former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Of late, he served as an executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America. A true establishment Republican, Feehery manages to draw praise from political journalists, analysts, and scholars. It is not hard to discern, though, why hardliners don't like him:
"I think the longer this lingers, the worse it is for the Republican Party and for the conservative movement," said John Feehery, a longtime Republican strategist and lobbyist. "Civil disobedience never works well for conservatives. And in this case, it smacks of bigotry."
To the one, it is exactly what hardliners don't want to hear. To the other, Mr. Feehery has explained the point exactly. Then again, this isn't exactly a year for logic among conservative voters, preferring "principles" over "electability"↱ at a time when those principles include exactly the mess Mr. Feehery is referring to.
And this is the problem.
Conservatives have seen traditional privilege erode dramatically in recent decades; there is a reason Christian supremacists are panicking. But in many cases it seems almost like they are mocking what they do not understand. Indeed, this often manifests in some form of a victim complex. Consider, as an example in the marriage equality dispute, the conservative tendendcy to wrongly compare Kim Davis to Rosa Parks↱; it's a lot easier to make a civil rights argument when you're actually advocating civil rights instead of the "religious freedom" to suspend or refuse the civil rights of others. Mr. Feehery, at the very least, understands this basic difference. Conservatives can try to call Ms. Davis' intransigence "civil disobedience", but for the time being it seems the rest of society isn't buying in.
And there's a reason for that.
And it is this basic, observable difference that is as obvious as the sun in the sky: Supremacy ≠ Equality.
____________________
Notes:
° Including C. Edmund Wright↱ who, writing last year for American Thinker, denounced Feehery as "perhaps the worst GOP establishment consultant ever", "utterly tone deaf", and "a serial loser". Wright also blasts Feehery for backing Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio, yet even Whit Ayres a pollster for the Florida junior's presidential campaign sees the problem, telling NYT in June, "There will always be side issues, but none of that will compete with people’s primary concerns, which are the economy and who is going to be able to keep the country safe", attempting a pivot from an electoral danger to alleged Republican foreign policy strength; the only problems with that are recent GOP history regarding foreign policy issues, and, more specifically, Sen. Rubio's foreign policy ineptitude↱. Still, though, even Rubio's campaign knows the danger, which circles back to Feehery in its own way, because Feehery is the one who absolutely nailed the problem in terms Republicans should be able to comprehend.
Benen, Steve. "Republican voters discount electability (for now)". msnbc. 4 August 2015. msnbc.com. 9 September 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1UkClFF
Kapur, Sahil and Greg Stohr. "Same-Sex Marriage Returns As 2016 Issue, Worrying Some Republicans". Bloomberg Politics. 9 September 2015. Bloomberg.com. 9 September 2015. http://bloom.bg/1LkermZ
Martin, Jonathan. "As Left Wins Culture Battles, G.O.P. Gains Opportunity to Pivot for 2016". The New York Times. 27 June 2015. NYTimes.com. 9 September 2015. http://nyti.ms/1ix5jVc
Wright, C. Edmund. "Meet John Feehery, Perhaps the Worst GOP Establishment Consultant Ever". American Thinker. 22 September 2014. AmericanThinker.com. 9 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1NiiiFz
Bells
Staff member
Yes.
Because it is pure and utter bullshit.
No doubt Davis is a comical figure whose self-righteousness is only equaled by her ignorance both of the text of the Bible she clings to and what it means to have a job as a government employee. But she’s being used by her legal team and other religious right leaders to spread the idea that religious conservatives are entitled to ignore -- or even overthrow -- democracy and seize power just because they feel like it.
Some supporters, like Ryan Anderson of the New York Times, are claiming that Davis wants an “accommodation” for her religious beliefs. This is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Davis was offered just such an accommodation and told that she doesn’t have to personally issue the licenses so long as her deputies were allowed to do so. She declined that compromise, insisting that she be able to actually prevent same-sex couples from getting licenses in her county altogether.
What Davis is asking for is not an accommodation at all, but for the right to declare, by fiat, that Rowan County, Kentucky, is a mini-theocracy not beholden to the laws of the land, but by the whims of Kim Davis. Her legal team wants you to see her as a sweet but faithful woman, but in fact she’s trying to pull a coup here, claiming that “God’s authority” -- read Kim Davis’s authority -- trumps our entire democratic system.
It’s not just her, either. Rena Lindevaldsen, who works for the Liberty Counsel that is handling Davis’s case, has taken to boldly arguing that Christians have the right to overthrow the democratically elected government and simply impose their will by fiat. “Whether it's zoning or taxes or marriage or abortion, in those issues, government doesn't have authority to say that these things are appropriate because they're contrary to Scripture,” Lindevaldsen recently argued in front of Liberty University. Which is to say that even though the government has declared abortion legal, if you decide you don’t want your neighbors getting abortions, you should be able to declare yourself a God-appointed authority and simply shut it down. If you don’t want to pay taxes, declare yourself a “sovereign citizen.”
Some supporters, like Ryan Anderson of the New York Times, are claiming that Davis wants an “accommodation” for her religious beliefs. This is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Davis was offered just such an accommodation and told that she doesn’t have to personally issue the licenses so long as her deputies were allowed to do so. She declined that compromise, insisting that she be able to actually prevent same-sex couples from getting licenses in her county altogether.
What Davis is asking for is not an accommodation at all, but for the right to declare, by fiat, that Rowan County, Kentucky, is a mini-theocracy not beholden to the laws of the land, but by the whims of Kim Davis. Her legal team wants you to see her as a sweet but faithful woman, but in fact she’s trying to pull a coup here, claiming that “God’s authority” -- read Kim Davis’s authority -- trumps our entire democratic system.
It’s not just her, either. Rena Lindevaldsen, who works for the Liberty Counsel that is handling Davis’s case, has taken to boldly arguing that Christians have the right to overthrow the democratically elected government and simply impose their will by fiat. “Whether it's zoning or taxes or marriage or abortion, in those issues, government doesn't have authority to say that these things are appropriate because they're contrary to Scripture,” Lindevaldsen recently argued in front of Liberty University. Which is to say that even though the government has declared abortion legal, if you decide you don’t want your neighbors getting abortions, you should be able to declare yourself a God-appointed authority and simply shut it down. If you don’t want to pay taxes, declare yourself a “sovereign citizen.”
It is absolute lunacy.
And the Conservative Christian right actually believe this. Hell, they are even teaching this bullshit to the next generation.
Recently, Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University Law School's interim dean, delivered an address to students on the question "Do Government Officials Have Authority to Impose Their Morals on Others?"
Lindevaldsen's answer was a resounding "yes," provided that the morals being imposed are Christian ones. But if the morals being imposed are not Christian ones, then the answer is obviously "no."
As she explained, "civil government only has the authority that God has established" and so "civil government, if it's acting rightfully within its authority, should be acting consistent with Scripture."
"Government's only just authority [is] derived from God and it's purpose is to protect those inalienable rights that we have been given, not to infringe them as we're seeing take place a lot in society today," Lindevaldsen said. "Whether it's zoning or taxes or marriage or abortion, in those issues, government doesn't have authority to say that these things are appropriate because they're contrary to Scripture."
Lindevaldsen's answer was a resounding "yes," provided that the morals being imposed are Christian ones. But if the morals being imposed are not Christian ones, then the answer is obviously "no."
As she explained, "civil government only has the authority that God has established" and so "civil government, if it's acting rightfully within its authority, should be acting consistent with Scripture."
"Government's only just authority [is] derived from God and it's purpose is to protect those inalienable rights that we have been given, not to infringe them as we're seeing take place a lot in society today," Lindevaldsen said. "Whether it's zoning or taxes or marriage or abortion, in those issues, government doesn't have authority to say that these things are appropriate because they're contrary to Scripture."
Welcome to Iran..
Oh wait no. Welcome to America as the Conservative Christian right sees it.
Organizing Withdrawal
An organized strategic withdrawal is one thing, but nobody's certain quite what Mat Staver has Kim Davis believing this week:
It is an intersting shift, and most definitely carefully calculated. Mat Staver has a history of verging up against the edge of professionalism, appearing to advise clients to break the law in order to serve Liberty Counsel's larger political mission. As we've recently considered, Kim Davis might actually be a victim in all this, too↑.
The calculation is easy enough to see: Ms. Davis wishes to keep pushing, but does not wish to return to her jail cell. So instead she won't interfere so much as sit back and just be vicious and cruel. In the end, it amounts to the same thing, a demonstration of piety for the sake of being seen by others, and she already has her reward.
It is worth noting that Mr. Staver and his sacrificial lamb, Kim Davis, are the only ones left arguing that the marriage licenses issued in her absence are not valid. So while the county attorney and state attorney general, as well as the governor's office, all recognize the same sex marriage licenses as valid, Mr. Staver hopes to run interference for his client by filing yet another motion.
Which pretty much leaves these zealots pitching a fit in order to screw with other people's lives. As public faces of Christian faith in America, Staver and Davis are certainly appalling, but we should not be shocked. For years, the Christian label has shown itself more influential in our public discourse if it pulls this earthsick stunt.
Kim Davis can't win legally, and has exactly no genuine faith in God. All that is left for her now is this reward, the admiration of bigots for whom she feels compelled to pander with demonstrations of her piety, and they see her, and now she has her best reward.
The sad thing is I think she really does believe in all this God and redemption stuff, yet here she is pissing herself straight to the fires. Long after this chapter has passed, Kim Davis' name will remain a testament unto the quality and character of American Christian faith. Talk about a disaster.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press and Huffington Post. "Kim Davis Says She Won't Authorize Licenses For Gay Couples Issued By Deputies". The Huffington Post. 14 September 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 14 September 2015. http://huff.to/1gmly5N
An organized strategic withdrawal is one thing, but nobody's certain quite what Mat Staver has Kim Davis believing this week:
A defiant Kentucky clerk said Monday she will not interfere with her deputies if they keep issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but she declared they will not be authorized by her and questioned their validity.
It was Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' first day back in the office after a stint in jail for five days for defying a federal judge. Reading a hand-written statement outside the courthouse upon her return, Davis said gay marriage licenses issued by her office would be "unauthorized."
"I want the whole world to know ... If any [deputy clerk] feels that they must issue an unauthorized license to avoid being thrown in jail, I understand their tough choice, and I will take no action against them," she said. "However, any unauthorized license that they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it. Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order."
Davis said that she's being forced to disobey God since her name is on the gay marriage certificates issued by her office, whether or not she actually signs them.
"I don't want to have this conflict. I don't want to be in the spotlight. And I certainly don't want to be a whipping post," Davis added. "I am no hero. I'm just a person that's been transformed by the grace of God, who wants to work, be with my family. I just want to serve my neighbors quietly without violating my conscience."
(AP/Huffington Post↱)
It was Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' first day back in the office after a stint in jail for five days for defying a federal judge. Reading a hand-written statement outside the courthouse upon her return, Davis said gay marriage licenses issued by her office would be "unauthorized."
"I want the whole world to know ... If any [deputy clerk] feels that they must issue an unauthorized license to avoid being thrown in jail, I understand their tough choice, and I will take no action against them," she said. "However, any unauthorized license that they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it. Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order."
Davis said that she's being forced to disobey God since her name is on the gay marriage certificates issued by her office, whether or not she actually signs them.
"I don't want to have this conflict. I don't want to be in the spotlight. And I certainly don't want to be a whipping post," Davis added. "I am no hero. I'm just a person that's been transformed by the grace of God, who wants to work, be with my family. I just want to serve my neighbors quietly without violating my conscience."
(AP/Huffington Post↱)
It is an intersting shift, and most definitely carefully calculated. Mat Staver has a history of verging up against the edge of professionalism, appearing to advise clients to break the law in order to serve Liberty Counsel's larger political mission. As we've recently considered, Kim Davis might actually be a victim in all this, too↑.
The calculation is easy enough to see: Ms. Davis wishes to keep pushing, but does not wish to return to her jail cell. So instead she won't interfere so much as sit back and just be vicious and cruel. In the end, it amounts to the same thing, a demonstration of piety for the sake of being seen by others, and she already has her reward.
It is worth noting that Mr. Staver and his sacrificial lamb, Kim Davis, are the only ones left arguing that the marriage licenses issued in her absence are not valid. So while the county attorney and state attorney general, as well as the governor's office, all recognize the same sex marriage licenses as valid, Mr. Staver hopes to run interference for his client by filing yet another motion.
In their motion to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, her attorneys argued that all the same-sex couples who sued Davis for a license received one from her deputies while she was in jail. Therefore, they said, her office should not be required to issue them to any more couples once she returns to work.
Bunning wrote that his mandate to issue licenses applied to all couples, not only those who filed suit. But Davis' lawyers allege that order was issued improperly, and again have asked for a delay.
Bunning wrote that his mandate to issue licenses applied to all couples, not only those who filed suit. But Davis' lawyers allege that order was issued improperly, and again have asked for a delay.
Which pretty much leaves these zealots pitching a fit in order to screw with other people's lives. As public faces of Christian faith in America, Staver and Davis are certainly appalling, but we should not be shocked. For years, the Christian label has shown itself more influential in our public discourse if it pulls this earthsick stunt.
Kim Davis can't win legally, and has exactly no genuine faith in God. All that is left for her now is this reward, the admiration of bigots for whom she feels compelled to pander with demonstrations of her piety, and they see her, and now she has her best reward.
The sad thing is I think she really does believe in all this God and redemption stuff, yet here she is pissing herself straight to the fires. Long after this chapter has passed, Kim Davis' name will remain a testament unto the quality and character of American Christian faith. Talk about a disaster.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press and Huffington Post. "Kim Davis Says She Won't Authorize Licenses For Gay Couples Issued By Deputies". The Huffington Post. 14 September 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 14 September 2015. http://huff.to/1gmly5N
Necessary Exploitation
The tragic lede:
Brian Short, founder of AllNurses.com, allegedly went from room to room, slaying his family with shotgun blasts to the head: Karen Short, 48, his wife, and their children, Cole, 17, Madison, 15, and Brooklyn, 14, were all found in their bedrooms.
Mr. Short apparently turned the gun on himself, next; his body was found in the eight-car garage at the family home. Hennepin County investigators have yet to establish a motive.
Many will point to guns, and all the obvious stats about the damage firearms do. Some will point to mental health, a societal problem that only exacerbates that toll. But there is another factor to consider, here.
Yet another traditional heterosexually-oriented family has been destroyed.
In the decades since the New Deal, homophobia has shared conservative blame for everything that is wrong in society; indeed, amid the infamous McCarthy Red Scare was a lesser-known Lavender Scare, by which homosexuals were presumed morally and psychologically weak and therefore dangerous.
Yet for all the domestic and intimate violence among heterosexuals, and the rape epidemic constantly burning our society, we never turn such scrutiny to heterosexuals.
And in the twenty-first century we have seen heterosexuals accomplish incredible and terrifying damage to families and society alike. While many Christians continue to recite their hatred↱ about mental health and queerness, it seems ever more pressing that we take some time to consider seriously the question of why heterosexuality is so unhealthy as to drive people like Mr. Short to mass familial murder.
Or does that proposition offend you?
Perhaps it should.
So, you know, please remember that the next time you hear a traditionalist bigot ranting about queers and mental health.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Father Went From Room To Room Killing His Family, Then Himself". The Huffington Post. 12 September 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 15 September 2015. http://huff.to/1OWqMBp
The tragic lede:
The founder of a social networking service for nurses used a shotgun to kill his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself, police said Saturday after the release of autopsy reports.
(Associated Press↱)
(Associated Press↱)
Brian Short, founder of AllNurses.com, allegedly went from room to room, slaying his family with shotgun blasts to the head: Karen Short, 48, his wife, and their children, Cole, 17, Madison, 15, and Brooklyn, 14, were all found in their bedrooms.
Mr. Short apparently turned the gun on himself, next; his body was found in the eight-car garage at the family home. Hennepin County investigators have yet to establish a motive.
Many will point to guns, and all the obvious stats about the damage firearms do. Some will point to mental health, a societal problem that only exacerbates that toll. But there is another factor to consider, here.
Yet another traditional heterosexually-oriented family has been destroyed.
In the decades since the New Deal, homophobia has shared conservative blame for everything that is wrong in society; indeed, amid the infamous McCarthy Red Scare was a lesser-known Lavender Scare, by which homosexuals were presumed morally and psychologically weak and therefore dangerous.
Yet for all the domestic and intimate violence among heterosexuals, and the rape epidemic constantly burning our society, we never turn such scrutiny to heterosexuals.
And in the twenty-first century we have seen heterosexuals accomplish incredible and terrifying damage to families and society alike. While many Christians continue to recite their hatred↱ about mental health and queerness, it seems ever more pressing that we take some time to consider seriously the question of why heterosexuality is so unhealthy as to drive people like Mr. Short to mass familial murder.
Or does that proposition offend you?
Perhaps it should.
So, you know, please remember that the next time you hear a traditionalist bigot ranting about queers and mental health.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Father Went From Room To Room Killing His Family, Then Himself". The Huffington Post. 12 September 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 15 September 2015. http://huff.to/1OWqMBp
(guffaw!)
The lede, via Associated Press↱:
Two comedians, Simon Gardenfors and Frej Larson, have apparently erected a "makeshift shack" intended to invoke the infamous Blue Oyster bar from the film Police Academy.
One wonders if the world's most recognizable closet case, Vladimir Putin, will care enough to take some sort of action himself, or just leave it to the murderous "hunters" he refused to prosecute in order to shine his doorknob.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Comedians Erect 'Police Academy' Gay Bar On Russian Land In Finland". The Huffington Post. 17 September 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 17 September 2015. http://huff.to/1MeMnod
The lede, via Associated Press↱:
Two Swedish comedians say they built a reconstruction of the "Police Academy" gay bar on Russia-owned land in Finland to protest a Russian law that bans the spreading of "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" to minors.]
Two comedians, Simon Gardenfors and Frej Larson, have apparently erected a "makeshift shack" intended to invoke the infamous Blue Oyster bar from the film Police Academy.
One wonders if the world's most recognizable closet case, Vladimir Putin, will care enough to take some sort of action himself, or just leave it to the murderous "hunters" he refused to prosecute in order to shine his doorknob.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Comedians Erect 'Police Academy' Gay Bar On Russian Land In Finland". The Huffington Post. 17 September 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 17 September 2015. http://huff.to/1MeMnod
Above the Law ....
Last week, FRC Action, the lobbying PAC for the infamous Family Research Council, convened its Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. And while many probably saw the headlines about the inaugural "Cost of Discipleship Award"↱ given to infamous Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, and, we might admit, fewer probably noticed the bit about her attorney Mat Davis, of Liberty Counsel↱ getting caught in a truly insane lie told at the Omni Shoreham soirée, it should also be noted that the gathered Christians also fêted lawbreaking hopefuls Aaron and Melissa Klein, of the infamous Sweetcakes bakery. It would seem that the Kleins hope to follow in Kim Davis' footsteps in asserting their religion puts them above the law:
We should also note Aaron Klein's authoritative explanation of his own logic; his wife, Rachel, "has a God-given talent to create a work of art to celebrate a union between two people. And to use that in a manner, that would be in the face of what the Bible says it should be, I just couldn't in good conscience agree to do it."
I shan't question God's ways; after all, He has His reasons for devoting His efforts to creating and giving such a specific talent, and it really isn't any of my business why He couldn't just give her the usual version, like He gives other bakers, to create works of art for diverse occasions, you know, instead of just one.
But as a legal argument it doesn't do much good.
So they will face a lien on property and assets.
I wonder if they'll hire Mat Staver?
____________________
Notes:
Jaquiss, Nigel. "Sweet Cakes by Melissa Owners Defying Order to Pay $135,000 to Lesbian Couple Who Wanted a Wedding Cake". Willammette Week. 29 September 2015. WWeek.com. 1 October 2015. http://bit.ly/1L87eKL
Last week, FRC Action, the lobbying PAC for the infamous Family Research Council, convened its Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. And while many probably saw the headlines about the inaugural "Cost of Discipleship Award"↱ given to infamous Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, and, we might admit, fewer probably noticed the bit about her attorney Mat Davis, of Liberty Counsel↱ getting caught in a truly insane lie told at the Omni Shoreham soirée, it should also be noted that the gathered Christians also fêted lawbreaking hopefuls Aaron and Melissa Klein, of the infamous Sweetcakes bakery. It would seem that the Kleins hope to follow in Kim Davis' footsteps in asserting their religion puts them above the law:
It looks like Aaron and Melissa Klein, the former proprietors of Gresham bakery Sweetcakes by Melissa, are following the government-defying example of Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Ky., court clerk recently jailed for refusing to marry same-sex couples.
On July 2, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, for whom Aaron Klein refused to bake a wedding cake and then posted their home address online.
The Kleins, records show, have for nearly three months defied BOLI's order to pay.
Their attorney twice requested a stay while the Oregon Court of Appeals considers the Klein's case, asserting payment would lead to "financial ruin."
BOLI Commissioner Brad Avakian rejected those requests—noting that the Kleins raised nearly $500,000 from crowd-funding sites and the money will be held in escrow during appeal.
We should also note Aaron Klein's authoritative explanation of his own logic; his wife, Rachel, "has a God-given talent to create a work of art to celebrate a union between two people. And to use that in a manner, that would be in the face of what the Bible says it should be, I just couldn't in good conscience agree to do it."
I shan't question God's ways; after all, He has His reasons for devoting His efforts to creating and giving such a specific talent, and it really isn't any of my business why He couldn't just give her the usual version, like He gives other bakers, to create works of art for diverse occasions, you know, instead of just one.
But as a legal argument it doesn't do much good.
So they will face a lien on property and assets.
I wonder if they'll hire Mat Staver?
____________________
Notes:
Jaquiss, Nigel. "Sweet Cakes by Melissa Owners Defying Order to Pay $135,000 to Lesbian Couple Who Wanted a Wedding Cake". Willammette Week. 29 September 2015. WWeek.com. 1 October 2015. http://bit.ly/1L87eKL
Her Name Was Kiesha Jenkins
Kiesha Jenkins is the nineteenth transgender female known to be murdered in 2015.
Kiesha Jenkins was twenty-two years old.
It took four men a thrashing and two bullets to put her down.
The man who has confessed has an arrest record, for robbery targeting a transgender victim.
One hundred forty-six percent.
First week of October.
6 October 2015.
Just another day in America.
Please, #SayHerName.
____________________
Notes:
Action News. "1 charged, 3 more sought in murder of Kiesha Jenkins". WPVI. 12 October 2015. 6ABC.com. 13 October 2015. http://6abc.cm/1L8StpT
Kiesha Jenkins is the nineteenth transgender female known to be murdered in 2015.
Police say Pedro Redding, 22, of Hunting Park is under arrest for robbery and murder are closing in on his three alleged cohorts.
The charges stem from the robbery and killing of 22-year-old Kiesha Jenkins described by police as a transgender prostitute who was murdered last Tuesday at 13th and Wingohocking in the Hunting Park section.
Redding has told police he engaged in beating Jenkins, but someone else, he claims, shot her twice in the head during a struggle.
“The suspect gave a full statement to detectives that himself and three of his friends attempted to rob Kiesha and, during this robbery, one of the males pulled out a gun shooting and killing her,” Philadelphia Police Captain James Clark said.
Police say there is no evidence at this point that Jenkins was targeted because she was transgender, but rather because she was a known prostitute in that 13th and Wingohocking area and widely believed to be carrying plenty of cash.
“Our information is Pedro Redding and his associates live in the area and they know what goes on in that area. There are a lot of transgender individuals that frequent that area, so yes, they did know,” Clark said.
(WPVI↱)
The charges stem from the robbery and killing of 22-year-old Kiesha Jenkins described by police as a transgender prostitute who was murdered last Tuesday at 13th and Wingohocking in the Hunting Park section.
Redding has told police he engaged in beating Jenkins, but someone else, he claims, shot her twice in the head during a struggle.
“The suspect gave a full statement to detectives that himself and three of his friends attempted to rob Kiesha and, during this robbery, one of the males pulled out a gun shooting and killing her,” Philadelphia Police Captain James Clark said.
Police say there is no evidence at this point that Jenkins was targeted because she was transgender, but rather because she was a known prostitute in that 13th and Wingohocking area and widely believed to be carrying plenty of cash.
“Our information is Pedro Redding and his associates live in the area and they know what goes on in that area. There are a lot of transgender individuals that frequent that area, so yes, they did know,” Clark said.
(WPVI↱)
Kiesha Jenkins was twenty-two years old.
It took four men a thrashing and two bullets to put her down.
The man who has confessed has an arrest record, for robbery targeting a transgender victim.
One hundred forty-six percent.
First week of October.
6 October 2015.
Just another day in America.
Please, #SayHerName.
____________________
Notes:
Action News. "1 charged, 3 more sought in murder of Kiesha Jenkins". WPVI. 12 October 2015. 6ABC.com. 13 October 2015. http://6abc.cm/1L8StpT
Bells
Staff member
Feminist turned angry harpy, also known as Germaine Greer, has offended again...
Her ire, this time (again), transgender women.
Well, not just this time. Greer has had issues with trans women for a while now. To Greer, they are not real women and cannot be real women. Her disgust towards transgender women became well known when she opposed and tried to destroy a fellow Australian's fellowship at Newnham College. That woman was Rachael Padman. A transgender and an absolutely brilliant woman who had deserved that position. Greer, opposed and went on a rampage in the process, because she declared Padman was a man and thus, should not be given the position. Thankfully, she was ignored and Padman rightfully earned her fellowship.
Over the years, she has made her opinion well known. Because you know, coming across like a raving bigot the first time was not enough.
In 2009, she wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian, that outed her bigotry once more, this time in an article about Caster Semenya, the female athlete people were convinced was male.
The level of Greer's misogyny truly knows no bounds. In the case of Semenya, however, Greer was offended that she could be penalised for being a male in a female's body. Apparently for Greer, women who become men are not a problem. The problem for her is transgender women, she sees a male becoming a female as being a theft of a woman's identity. On the situation with Semenya, Greer said this:
Smell the hypocrisy. Then again, Greer has always been a hypocrite.
At a speech at Cambridge University, which was boycotted and protested, Greer whined then too about her perceived treatment and her views on trans women:
She has consistently whined at being protested at and uninvited to speaking events because of her bigoted misogyny. Ignoring that she is arguing from a position of power and privilege, she is offended that she cannot be a bigot and have others accept it.
As one feminist blogger noted on this point:
Greer's latest foray in proving herself to be the bigot she is won't be the last.
On Caitlyn Jenner's transition, Greer accused Jenner of becoming a woman to steal the limelight from the female members of the family. Her latest offensive comments that trans women are not real women is just normal as far as her bigotry goes. As it stands, she has advised she will not be speaking at Cardiff University, after students and faculty started a petition to have the University rescind her invitation. The reason is simple. Greer is a bigot and a misogynist.
Frankly, she should have crashed and burned long ago and she should never have been given further venues or right to spew forth her bigotry.
And so I say.. crash and burn you repulsive harpy. Crash and burn!
Her ire, this time (again), transgender women.
“I just don’t think that surgery turns a man into a woman. A perfectly permissible view. I mean, an un-man is not necessarily a woman. We don’t really know what women are and I think that a lot of women are female impersonators, because our notion of who we are is not authentic, and so I am not surprised men are better at impersonating women than women are. Not a surprise, but it’s not something I welcome.”
Well, not just this time. Greer has had issues with trans women for a while now. To Greer, they are not real women and cannot be real women. Her disgust towards transgender women became well known when she opposed and tried to destroy a fellow Australian's fellowship at Newnham College. That woman was Rachael Padman. A transgender and an absolutely brilliant woman who had deserved that position. Greer, opposed and went on a rampage in the process, because she declared Padman was a man and thus, should not be given the position. Thankfully, she was ignored and Padman rightfully earned her fellowship.
Over the years, she has made her opinion well known. Because you know, coming across like a raving bigot the first time was not enough.
In 2009, she wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian, that outed her bigotry once more, this time in an article about Caster Semenya, the female athlete people were convinced was male.
Nowadays we are all likely to meet people who think they are women, have women's names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody, though it isn't polite to say so. We pretend that all the people passing for female really are. Other delusions may be challenged, but not a man's delusion that he is female.
The level of Greer's misogyny truly knows no bounds. In the case of Semenya, however, Greer was offended that she could be penalised for being a male in a female's body. Apparently for Greer, women who become men are not a problem. The problem for her is transgender women, she sees a male becoming a female as being a theft of a woman's identity. On the situation with Semenya, Greer said this:
And then Caster Semenya appeared. Big, blokish and bloody fast, could she really be a girl? No simple chromosomal test will decide. Establishing her sex will require the services of an endocrinologist, a gynaecologist, an expert on gender and a psychologist. For those of us who have never been allowed to doubt that we were female, the process seems bizarre. We don't know if we think like women or not. We just think. Is there a reputable psychologist out there who would dare to distinguish a female thought process from a male one?
Supposing that the verdict of the sex police is that Semenya is mentally female and physically male, what would it mean for other women athletes if she was allowed to compete with such an unfair biological advantage? People who don't ovulate or menstruate will probably always physically outperform people who do. But then, doesn't all competitive sport canonise and glamorise the exploitation of genetic advantage? Who said life was fair?
Supposing that the verdict of the sex police is that Semenya is mentally female and physically male, what would it mean for other women athletes if she was allowed to compete with such an unfair biological advantage? People who don't ovulate or menstruate will probably always physically outperform people who do. But then, doesn't all competitive sport canonise and glamorise the exploitation of genetic advantage? Who said life was fair?
Smell the hypocrisy. Then again, Greer has always been a hypocrite.
At a speech at Cambridge University, which was boycotted and protested, Greer whined then too about her perceived treatment and her views on trans women:
The feminist figure has previously sparked outcry over her views on trans women, claiming “they seem to us ghastly parodies” – and claimed being trans was a “delusion”.
She faced protests this week when she spoke at the Cambridge University Students’ Union, with members of the LGBT+ society encouraging a boycott of the event.
According to the Cambridge Student, when asked about her previous comments, she said: “I didn’t know there was such a thing [as transphobia]. Arachnaphobia, yes. Transphobia, no.”
She also suggested that trans women do not know what it is like “to have a big, hairy, smelly vagina”.
She faced protests this week when she spoke at the Cambridge University Students’ Union, with members of the LGBT+ society encouraging a boycott of the event.
According to the Cambridge Student, when asked about her previous comments, she said: “I didn’t know there was such a thing [as transphobia]. Arachnaphobia, yes. Transphobia, no.”
She also suggested that trans women do not know what it is like “to have a big, hairy, smelly vagina”.
She has consistently whined at being protested at and uninvited to speaking events because of her bigoted misogyny. Ignoring that she is arguing from a position of power and privilege, she is offended that she cannot be a bigot and have others accept it.
As one feminist blogger noted on this point:
The real kick of it is that Greer can whine about how she’s not allowed to say these things precisely because it’s so acceptable for her to say them. She can pretend that we live in a world where trans people’s gender identities are actually respected and not mocked and devalued on an everyday basis and then moan about how awful that is for her, because the vast majority of heads will be willing to nod along to this delusion with her. She can conjure up the image of “a man in a dress (and lots and lots of lipstick),” because most people still think of trans women that way, and fail to see it for what it really is — misogynistic as well as transphobic. She can “defiantly” say that a trans woman cannot make other people accept her as a woman because she knows there will be a loud and angry chorus of “yeah!” And she can pretend that it’s cis women whose gender identities are under attack because, as is always the case, there’s nothing a dominant group loves more than to pretend that they’re the ones who are really oppressed by minorities demanding their rights.
Greer's latest foray in proving herself to be the bigot she is won't be the last.
On Caitlyn Jenner's transition, Greer accused Jenner of becoming a woman to steal the limelight from the female members of the family. Her latest offensive comments that trans women are not real women is just normal as far as her bigotry goes. As it stands, she has advised she will not be speaking at Cardiff University, after students and faculty started a petition to have the University rescind her invitation. The reason is simple. Greer is a bigot and a misogynist.
Frankly, she should have crashed and burned long ago and she should never have been given further venues or right to spew forth her bigotry.
And so I say.. crash and burn you repulsive harpy. Crash and burn!
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I can understand the muddle over transgender athletes in professional or even amateur and collegiate sports--as opposed to folks getting together on a Saturday to play, say, softball, which in organized corporate or neighborhood leagues allows men and women to play on the same team.
But I don't begrudge people their quandary over whether Caitlin Jenner should be playing on the men's team or the women's' team. That's not discrimination. It's simply acknowledging the observation that in most professional, amateur or collegiate sports, men, on the average, are likely to be at least slightly superior to women.
But I don't begrudge people their quandary over whether Caitlin Jenner should be playing on the men's team or the women's' team. That's not discrimination. It's simply acknowledging the observation that in most professional, amateur or collegiate sports, men, on the average, are likely to be at least slightly superior to women.
When Justice Comes
Texas Thirteenth District Court of Appeals upholds Araguz marriage
It is a curious, sad celebration following a long, stupid↱ legal battle:
How do we say congratulations?
I guess we just say, Thank you.
____________________
Notes:
Araguz Loyd, Nikki. "Victory Announced as Texas Judge Ordered By Superior Courts to Reinstate Transgender Widow's Marriage to Fallen Firefighter". The Huffington Post. 30 October 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 1 November 2015. http://huff.to/1RGzlRJ
Texas Thirteenth District Court of Appeals upholds Araguz marriage
It is a curious, sad celebration following a long, stupid↱ legal battle:
Friday, October 23 2015, Texas' 13th District Court Of Appeals ordered Judge Clapp to reverse his 2011 ruling following the Independence day 2010 death of my husband, firefighter Capt. Thomas Araguz that left me, his wife, fighting for our marriage to be recognized and my entitlement to the spousal death benefits.
(Araguz Loyd↱)
(Araguz Loyd↱)
How do we say congratulations?
I guess we just say, Thank you.
____________________
Notes:
Araguz Loyd, Nikki. "Victory Announced as Texas Judge Ordered By Superior Courts to Reinstate Transgender Widow's Marriage to Fallen Firefighter". The Huffington Post. 30 October 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 1 November 2015. http://huff.to/1RGzlRJ
I generally don't comment on this thread because I don't want to disturb your corner of the internet. However, this is an interesting post since the marriage equality question often revolves around "Who gets the money?" For all I care, the guy could have given his death benefits to his dog. I just get the impression that, for some, marriage is more a financial institution than it is a lifelong commitment.
Bowser said:
Yeah, that's an ugly question that comes up whenever a dead man's family decides to try to seize his estate from his wife.
I remember once in the nineties, when the whole thing crystallized. A family that had literally thrown a kid out thirty years ago seized his estate from his gay partner who he could not marry, and the judge could only say, "I'm sorry, sir, but this is the law". And that was here, in Washington state, in the last twenty years.
And there was one in Califonia several years ago in which the county essentially stole an estate because they wanted it.
If someone asserted themself to take away the estate because your spouse died, would you let them? I mean, really, man, are you just about, "Who gets the money"?
Or, perhaps, is there something more to it?
Thomas Araguz married Nikki Loyd. Thomas Araguz died. Mr. Araguz's family hired a lawyer who had previously represented Loyd; he outed her as transgender, apparently violating his obligations to his former client, and helped the family sue to block the natural transfer of assets.
Apparently, it's this "family values" crowd that's all about "Who gets the money".
I get your point, man, but look who's inserting the question into the discussion.
If you don't blindly go along with a collective delusion does that make you a bigot ?
The child in the fable of the emperors new clothes, could not see the invisible clothes of the emperor because he had not yet been conditioned to lie to himself, to get along, avoid criticism and appear hip and smart.
Say I thought and I felt, from the time of my youth, that I had been born a bird in a human body. As a child I dressed up as a bird and like to pretend to fly. This will be considered odd but acceptable because children have active imaginations and are expected to grow out of this. But if this behavior continued into adulthood, what would be your reaction? Most people would think problems, because something is not right inside that person. Their imagination is no longer that of an adult; tempered with common sense.
Transgender is no different from bird man, since both imagine something that is out of touch with their natural cause and effect. The only difference between bird man and a transgender are liberal adults will continue treat the delusional transgender adult as a child; nanny state mentality.
The bird man can't help this, but those who accept his/her delusion collectively, are sacrificing their common sense so they can collective buy into the prestige offered by accepting the pathology. This exercise is useful if the goal is an army of self deluding adults, who will accept anything irrational if there is a reward pellet coming down the chute. And/or there is a shield to avoid the stick from hitting you.
The child in the fable of the emperors new clothes, could not see the invisible clothes of the emperor because he had not yet been conditioned to lie to himself, to get along, avoid criticism and appear hip and smart.
Say I thought and I felt, from the time of my youth, that I had been born a bird in a human body. As a child I dressed up as a bird and like to pretend to fly. This will be considered odd but acceptable because children have active imaginations and are expected to grow out of this. But if this behavior continued into adulthood, what would be your reaction? Most people would think problems, because something is not right inside that person. Their imagination is no longer that of an adult; tempered with common sense.
Transgender is no different from bird man, since both imagine something that is out of touch with their natural cause and effect. The only difference between bird man and a transgender are liberal adults will continue treat the delusional transgender adult as a child; nanny state mentality.
The bird man can't help this, but those who accept his/her delusion collectively, are sacrificing their common sense so they can collective buy into the prestige offered by accepting the pathology. This exercise is useful if the goal is an army of self deluding adults, who will accept anything irrational if there is a reward pellet coming down the chute. And/or there is a shield to avoid the stick from hitting you.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
People don't think they are birds. This one of your dumbest posts ever. And they are mostly dumb.
Your right, a sane person will see themselves for who they are based form and function. But if enough adults encourage bird man to follow their fantasy and believe he is a bird, he will play bird for them. The rational censor has to leave to become bird man.
The bird man is a pawn. This exercise is more for training the collective so they will accept and then peer pressure, that which is also not real. If I can get you to encourage the bird man either by playing to your vanity; cutting edge progressive, or by threatening with a stick; labelled as a bigot, batman training will come easier the next time.
Notice is took many decades to get people to collectively accept homosexuals, while transgender took a few years after that, even though this needs all types of artificial; add wings to bird man. The collective delusion training is working.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
...gender identity disorder is a real thing. It doesn't matter if people are encouraged or not, they are not insane.
This is a great example of social conservatives letting emotion prevail over science.
This is a great example of social conservatives letting emotion prevail over science.
Last edited: