Sex with Sandwiches and Other Choice Bits of Discourse

As an Nth tier candidate for President, Senator Brownback has to do something to separate himself out from the pack. Why not attack established scientific theory in favor of a Bible-based approach? Of course this sends more conservative blogs into a tizzy of support. Joe of Yet Another Lame Blog tears apart Brownback’s arguments:

Brownback:

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

Here Brownback uses a great rhetorical tactic. First he discusses the fact that there are legitimate scientific disputes about how evolution occurs, but then (seemingly without a breath) he mentions the creationists problem with evolution: “like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations” as if these were comparable debates. There is no debate on the latter among those that actually understand the theory of evolution.

At the same time in the above quote he reduces evolution to “merely the chance product of random mutations” thus showing is own ignorance of the subject by completely ignoring the most important aspect of evolution: natural selection. (Remember, natural selection was Darwin’s breakthrough.)

Sisyphus finishes his own congratulatory post on Brownback with a very interesting statement:

The 2008 election is about more than freedom, democracy, or security from terror, or even the end of American infanticide. It is about truth. We have it, the Democrats want to pretend they have it, and next year the American people will decide they prefer the real thing to the alternative.

The 2008 election is increasingly going to be about truth. The Democrats have an unusually strong advantage in this regard. When it comes to matters like the lies leading up to the war, the conduct of the administration regarding wiretapping, the US Attorney firings, or efforts to aggressively propagandize US citizens, Dems hold the cards. But on two issues near and dear to the fundamentalists, they are exquisitely prepared. The first is the “debate” over evolution. The problem with pretending to have a clear case against is it is fundamentalists wear their motivation so obviously on their sleeve that they cannot fake any hint of the intellectual impartiality real science requires. No matter what scientists prove or argue, fundamentalists will find a way to twist a paltry few facts to support their idea of creation. It is the same line of thought the Catholic Church once pursued with zeal. Identify some rhetorical (not substantial) holes in a competing cosmology, and stuff your beliefs into them furiously. The stars are fixed in a sphere? Oh, then heaven must exist just outside of that sphere. The fundamentalists are playing that same tired rhetorical game.

Gay marriage is another weak point, and in the comments section of the post Sisyphus gives us pure comedic gold:

“It is a simple step to go from man-on-man sex to man-on-sandwich sex. That’s the real agenda of the “gay” rights movement. If we’re not careful, before you know it we’ll have a race of mutant gay sandwich creatures on our hands, all under the control of Hillary and demanding special treatment.”

This sounds plausible to me, except that I’m not sure men and sandwiches can breed. But the act of letting people have sex with sandwiches in public is definitely a part of the homosexual agenda. The treefrogs want to have sex with everyone and everything in public- sandwiches, lamp posts, mailboxes, trees, dogs. You name it, and the Democrats want to let you have sex with it. I don’t think that’s right.

Again, this is a worn-out tactic. But it is also a very revealing one. There simply is no rational argument for restricting marriage to straight couples. It comes right down to “the Bible says so”, and that is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State.

The fundamentalist right, left without rational arguments to make their case for a Bible based America, have to resort to lame attempts to shovel nonsense into a pile resembling a compelling case.

I don’t think there is any danger of Brownback getting the nod, but a vote for Brownback and his vision for America is a vote for the Dark Ages.

The UMass Community Stood Against Card

And they stood tall.  During the graduate commencement students, faculty, and friends and family in the audience protested Andrew Card’s recognition by the University leadership:

AMHERST, Mass. —Hundreds of students and faculty erupted in a chorus of boos Friday when President Bush’s former chief of staff Andrew Card rose to accept his honorary doctorate in public service at the University of Massachusetts, blaming him in part for the Iraq war.

It was more than just hundreds.  Check out the video (courtesy Mirth):

The anti card signs absolutely cover the faculty, students and audience.  As Logan Murphy wonders over at Crook and Liars:

Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why UMass would even entertain the thought of awarding Card an honorary degree, especially after hearing the recent testimony of Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey detailing his disturbing and highly unethical bedside hackery meeting in John Ashcroft’s hospital room in 2004 with then White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales.

This really hurt the University’s credibility, as the Boston Globe article goes on to note:

The controversy over Card’s degree comes a month after students at the UMass-Boston campus began pushing for the school to revoke an honorary degree given to Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe.

While he was hailed as a humane revolutionary when he received the degree in 1986, Mugabe has since come under international criticism for running a corrupt and oppressive government.

Sigrid Schmalzer hit it right on the nose:

Sigrid Schmalzer, an assistant professor of history, said she believes Card was honored because he’s well-connected and UMass thought he could somehow help the school.

“For the university to so cynically disregard the question of intellectual integrity when it becomes convenient to pursue money and power is the wrong message to send,” she said.

Fortunately professors like Ms. Schmalzer and like-principled students, family and friends rallied against Card.  Watching such a strong response issue forth from the UMass community makes me damn proud to be an alumnus.

Rape Allowed in San Jose

The D.A. for San Jose has elected not to prosecute a gang rape case due to lack of evidence:

In an editorial published Sunday in the San Jose Mercury News Dolores Carr said while the players’ behavior was quote “abhorrent to us all” — It did not “provide a sufficient basis for a criminal prosecution”.

The baseball players themselves certainly didn’t act at all guilty:

“One of the guys who was in the room said ‘This is her fault. She got drunk and she did this to herself.'”

She apologized for being raped:

That she apologized for doing nothing but being an easy target…..yeah. I’m sorry, too.

But I just keep coming back to the words of that guy in the room: “This is her fault. She got drunk and she did this to herself.”. JackGoff had this to say in the comments for Amanda’s post:

She got drunk and she did this to herself.

So, the 17 year old bought the beer, eh?

You know, I really can’t find the words.

She also ignored the warning label on the booze: “Ingestion = Consent”.

“What we saw was rape. It was a crime,” says Grolle. “It was assault against a 17 year girl. I will forever know in my heart that is what happened.”

“It makes us think that no girl is ever going to want to come forward and say they were violated as this girl was, because they’re going to think it doesn’t even matter,” says Chief Elk. “But it does.”

Grolle and Chief Elk’s actions are helping it matter. Spread their word.

Corporations and People: Content and Control

Corporations don’t get people. There is a fundamental problem with tailoring one’s message for more than one specific audience: Conflicts.

Slashdot has the catch:

bill jackson writes “A couple of former Yahoo execs are trying to create the next MySpace by aggregating fanfiction on a website called FanLib. But the fanfic writers recognized that exploitation was written all over the idea and they’ve refused to participate. ‘Instead of creating the Myspace of fanfic since the launch two weeks ago, FanLib.com sparked a white-hot Internet firestorm.The meltdown is a hard lesson in how not to conduct business on the Internet.But it’s a firestorm of FanLib’s own making because, in spite of the Yahoo pedigree (or maybe because of it), they plowed in like china shop bulls.'”

Mary’s post on multichannel goes into more depth:

Worse, a marketing pdf., posted prominently on the Web site of parent company my2centences, seemed far more exploitative than the happy, happy we’re here-to-serve Fanlib (now chipped) veneer.

The pdf. was first outed on Lis Riba’s blog, in the post Chump Change from My2centences and discussion ensued on Making Light.

Finally, Chris Williams distanced Fanlib from the marketing materials, saying they have “NOTHING to do with fan fiction submitted on the FanLib.com site.

Fair enough but…same name, same people.

But the verbiage below lifted directly from the pdf. is still enough to give anyone – not to mention the freewheeling fanfic culture – pause about the players involved in Fanlib.com.

“MANAGED & MODERATED TO THE MAX …As with a coloring book, players must stay within the lines..”

Lines? Coloring books? Moderated to the max?

It is this schism between audiences I want to discuss in more detail. Riba Rambles:

And how about Page 4, describing how their site is “MANAGED & MODERATED TO THE MAX,” including the following:

 

• As with a coloring book, players must “stay within the lines”
• Restrictive player’s terms-of-service protects your rights and property
• Moderated “scene missions” keep the story under your control
• Full monitoring & management of submissions & players

Part of the appeal of fanfiction, of any user created content, is control. It is you, not some corporation with a bottom line, who decides whether or not Luke’s wookie godfather has an epic shouting match with yoda over hebrew national franks. That is the crux of the problem here. Not that corporations do not understand their audience. They do, and aside from mistakes regarding ads for the site, the site itself focuses purely on creating and sharing stories. The problem is that their internal audience is geared towards the bread and butter of corporate America: profit and control. So much so that every aspect of the site has been framed and painted to play along. People do not like being told what to do, and we certainly don’t like being told how to make money for other people when all we get is condescension:

Business Week touted the project last March. “The genius of FanLib is realizing that fans can be happy just being recognized.”

Contrast this with Youtube:

YouTube founder Chad Hurley confirmed to the BBC that his team was working on a revenue-sharing mechanism that would “reward creativity”.

Part of the appeal of viral marketing and user generated content is that companies can make money off of other people’s work. You invest in the infrastructure, but labor costs are zero. Its an executive’s heaven! The fear that goes right alongside this is the lack of control. What if the users “damage your brand”? Or post content that leaves you in some way liable? Hence the control. Corporate control is always about the fear that accompanies greed.

The coverage will range over the problems of misunderstanding and miscommunication this venture represents. However. This debacle provides a valuable insight into the methods and motivations of corporations approaching user driven content. They understood their audiences perfectly. The problem was not in their delivery: they were crystal clear. The problem was in their content.

The Democrats, Bush, and Strength

The Democrats in office do not appear to have a good grasp on strength. They have failed us. Sometimes a compromise really is failure. We’ve become the Pussy Party. And it is driving us to have it neither way at once:

Welcome to the learned helplessness of the Democratic Party. They’ve been spanked on national security for so long that they literally cannot conceive of pulling out a win merely because their position commands overwhelming public support. At best, the reprisal will be delayed a few years, until the Right convinces a fickle populace that the Reid-led withdrawal lost the war for us.

The Dems will be attacked on national security and the war no matter what, and still managed to avoid actually taking a stand. They’ve lost whatever semblance of practicality and principle they were striving to balance.

They’ve also lost credibility:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said that was his goal, adding that Democrats would not give the White House “a blank check.” Bush “has to deal with us,” he said.

The check they handed the President was not blank because they already wrote the amount on it. But they didn’t sign it for him, so is that still a win in their eyes?

Voting against the supplemental was no more substantial than the crocodile votes against Samuel Alito.

I just heard that both Clinton and Obama voted against the supplemental. So, despite it being a grave disappointment that it passed without timetables (or anything useful)

…

This is clean. And it happens to be the right thing to do too, so good for them.

They sacrificed the timetable, and executive accountability. This wasn’t clean. Not at all.

The Democrats gave in, pure and simple.

As royally pissed as I am, and I am pissed, Kos has outstanding words for us all: Keep Fighting:

Unless you care more about George W.’s ego than the safety and welfare of our troops, you are pissed right now. But there is productive pissed, and destructive pissed. The productive stuff has us redoubling our efforts to clean house in Congress, clearing out the dead weight, the corporatists, and the Republicans. There’s the taking over our local parties, bringing new blood and a cohesive sense of purpose to often moribund organizations.

And there’s nothing that the DLC/Third War wing of the party would love more, than to see use take our ball and go home.

We won’t. We are getting back on our feet and getting ready for a group body check. We have the opinion of the American people at our back, and we will not stop until we bring our troops home safely and end this war.

We know strength, and we will win.

UPDATE:  Contact info for the Democratic leadership from Liberally Mirth.

Losing Our Rights

When an Amnesty International report applies to your own country, it is hard to find the right words (via Ten Percent):

Powerful governments and armed groups are deliberately fomenting fear to erode human rights and to create an increasingly polarised and dangerous world, said Amnesty International today as it launched ‘Amnesty International Report 2007′, its annual assessment of human rights worldwide.

Secretary General of Amnesty International Irene Khan said,”The politics of fear are fuelling a downward spiral of human rights abuse in which no right is sacrosanct and no person safe.”

This is beyond searing.  There is no doubt we’ve lost a lot in America under George’s reign.  More than that, we have lost our revolutionary spirit.  That sense of bravery FDR instilled.  We need that back if we are ever going to take back our rights.

Why is Bush Grabbing Power When His Term Is Almost Over?

Bush is nabbing some hefty powers for himself in the event of an emergency (hat tip Pam).

But why bother if he only has a few more years in office?  Is he that unconcerned with the prospect of a Democratic Presidency having those powers?  Is he that confident a Republican will win?  Is he planning a term extension of sorts?

The last possibility seems quite outlandish, but that second one has me worried.  Bush’s administration has been perhaps the most power hungry in our nation’s history.  Republicans have in the past made less centralized government power a cornerstone of their platform.  Surely a Democrat having all that power is somewhat worrying.  So why full steam ahead?

UMass is Going to Honor Andrew Card

This is going to happen.

What we need to do is show our strong dissent, and combat efforts to whitewash Card’s record, and by extension, the administration’s.  If you are going to be in the Amherst area tomorrow afternoon, join in the protest.

Also, it appears chancellor Lombardihas been sacked, so emails or letters to him will not be so effective.

Written letters to the Board of Trustees will be.

Here are names and contact info:

UMass Board of Trustees
225 Franklin St., 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
617 287-7005

Write in to your local paper and on your blog, and help the voice of dissent come out swinging on this one.  It is the post honorary degree coverage we need to worry about now.  The damage to the reputation of the University and its community has already been done.  However we can help reverse it.

Check BlueMassGroup and the Graduate Student Senate’s anti-Card site for updates.  The current University President and the Board are not building a future University that adheres to its land-grant mission.  A no confidence vote from the faculty senate is no small matter.  Add your voice to theirs.

The Cost of Misguided War

This should hammer the cost of the war with finality.

The war in Iraq is helping the terrorists financially (LA Times via Hullabaloo):

Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda’s core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles.

“Iraq is a big moneymaker for them,” said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official.

Every right wing and “moderate” blow hard who advocated this war, or helped fabricate a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda helped get us into this mess.  Those leftwing “surrender monkeys” who wanted to prosecute a focused response to the criminals who attacked us were right.  Period.

The Earth is an Immoral Heathen Slut!

The problem with using the Bible to make a political argument is you then open it to critique.

Sisyphus at blogs for Brownback has given us an unfortunate glimpse into the lines of thought Brownback supporters are doing:

However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don’t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There’s also the Word of the Lord:

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

There is so much gold here!  Let’s move past the brilliant “we’d feel the earth moving” argument, and skip the biblical quotes which do not support his thesis.  About Psalm 104:5… do earthquakes count?  Where is the foundation of the earth?  The rest of the quotes simply suggest the earth is “fixed”.  Which of course translates directly to “center of the universe”.

There’s more though.  Let’s take a look at Job:

 5 He moves mountains without their knowing it
and overturns them in his anger.

 6 He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.

7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.

So apparently the earth is on pillars.  Neat.  Maybe Sisyphus can organize some NASA funding to find them.  But in the meantime there is a bit of a problem.  How can God have made the earth “immovable” and “so that it can never be shaken”, if he “shakes the earth from its place”?  Can God make an earth that can never be shaken or moved, and then move and shake it?  Apparently.  God has super anti-logic powers!

But this is the diamond in the rough: “However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move.”.

Moral reasons?  You may be thinking “what the hell is he on about?”, but bear with me.  You see, there is a direct correlation between earthquakes and immoral godless behavior.  And if it turns out the earth revolved around the sun, people might suspect we created God, and not the other way around.  That’s right kids, science leads directly to atheism!

I can’t wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.

The ether is a relic from Greek mythology, a conception of “upper sky”.  Space dear Sisyphus, space!

Here is a promise, America will not be fooled into becoming a theocracy where cowards keep children locked way from a real education.  America is the land of the free, not a Christian nation where we stick our heads in the ground and recite scripture.  Heliocentrism is not an atheist doctrine.  It is a theory, a theory with mountains of solid empirical evidence to support it.  You see, science doesn’t have doctrine.  We don’t need to say “believe this or else”.  We can prove our points.   And those of us who believe in God, such as myself, don’t need to attack knowledge of the world and how it works to strengthen our worldview.

Fundamentalism will not take root in our country without a fight!

Tackling Patent Abuse

A new lawsuit is taking on Netflix’s patents (specifically, the one’s used to target Blockbuster).

Via slashdot (emphasis mine):

An anonymous reader writes “Techdirt has a story about a new class action lawsuit against Netflix, claiming that the patents the company is using to sue Blockbuster were obtained fraudulently. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Netflix was well aware of prior art, but did not include it in its patent filing, as required by law. The lawsuit also claims that Netflix then used these fraudulently obtained patents to scare others out of the market, in violation of antitrust law. ‘Certainly, it makes for an interesting argument. Patents grant a government-backed monopoly — which should get you around any antitrust violations. However, if that patent is obtained fraudulently, then I can see a pretty compelling claim that you’ve abused antitrust law. It would be interesting if other such cases start popping up (and, indeed, the lawyer who sent it to us said his firm is looking for additional patents to go after in this manner).‘”

Large corporations spend money patenting the strangest and most obvious things:

theodp writes “Faced with a duly unimpressed USPTO examiner who rejected its new 1-Click patent claims as ‘obvious’ and ‘old and well known,’ Amazon has taken the unusual step of requesting an Oral Appeal to plead its case. And in what might be interpreted by some as an old-fashioned stalling tactic, the e-tailer has also canceled and refiled its 1-Click claims in a continuation application. As it touted the novelty of 1-Click to Congress last spring, Amazon kept the examiner’s rejection under its hat, insisting that ‘still no [1-Click] prior art has surfaced.’ The Judiciary Committee hearing this testimony included Rick Boucher (VA) and Howard Berman (CA), both recipients of campaign contributions from a PAC funded by 1-Click inventor Jeff Bezos, other Amazon execs, and their families.”

Attempts to fight back against patent abuse are heartily welcomed.  Perhaps seeing such suits featured more prominently in the public eye will invite legislators to introduce meaningful patent reform.

UMass and Andrew Card

The University of Massachusetts at Amherst is making a damaging and lasting mistake.  As an alumn, I feel a special responsibility to speak out against this regretful decision.

UMass is going to give Mr. Card an honorary degree.  Thankfully, students and faculty are doing the right thing and protesting.  The language UMass officials are using is problematic (From the Boston Globe article):

“The award is going to be presented to Mr. Card,” said Bill Wright, a spokesman for UMass president Jack Wilson. “He has performed distinguished public service.”

This glosses over his complicity in the run up to Iraq, and in every scandal he’s assisted the Bush administration in perpetrating.  His role in the wiretapping scandal, for instance, has recently been making news.

Just like their apparent idealogical heros, the university administration is refusing to change course:

Last week members of the campus community met with Stephen P. Toco, the Chairman of the UMASS Trustees, and voiced their displeasure.  He refuses to rescind the invitation.

In response, students and faculty have begun to hold and organize protests against Card’s degree.

If you are present employee of UMASS, a student, or alum, please sign this petition expressing your disagreement with the UMASS administration’s choice.

The University is being stubborn about an issue that will affect the value of my degree, the university’s moral standing, and its relationship to future, current, and past students.

Card’s laughable attempts at smoothing this all over has met with a measured response from faculty (emphasis mine):

Card suggested we should have called him first to ask him about his “side of the story” before dragging his name through the mud. We appreciated his willingness to talk to a couple of UMass professors, but this is the same man who is currently refusing to testify in front of the Congressional House Government and Oversight Committee about his knowledge of the leak in the Valerie Plame case.

This is also the same man who played a central role in an administration that has acknowledged violating domestic and international law and fundamentally misrepresenting the truth for political gain.

It takes astonishing rhetorical magic to transform the very definition of a political act – falsifying evidence to “market” an ideologically driven war deemed illegal by the international community – into a personal matter. Honoring a public servant most recognized for his role in misleading the public about the war in Iraq is a deeply political decision and, unfortunately for Mr. Card, the UMass community is not buying his magic marketing tricks this time.

The degree is more than an acknowledgment of the man, it is an acceptance of his actions.  To give Mr. Card an honorary degree is to leave honor and morality far behind, and to trample over the opinions of the community that makes UMass a viable institution of higher education.  It is an abuse of the power entrusted to the university administration and trustees.

No degree for Card.  Sign the petition, join the facebook group for updates, and if you are in the area near graduation day, protest!

Dear Chuck Norris: Christianity is not Bigotry

We want to tear down America by following the constitution and keeping your religion out of our lives. Riiiight.

You have an odd idea of what it means to be a Christian, Chuck (via Autumn):

Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president, 55 percent would support a homosexual candidate and 72 percent would support a Mormon candidate.

Such a survey is a clear indication that most Americans are simply confused about what it means to be Christian. It also shows that the secularization of society is alive and well, especially when almost half would endorse an atheist president.

I don’t think you understand what it means to be an American. Apparently you think being a Christian means only voting for straight “acceptable” Christians.

You certainly aren’t up to snuff on the constitution (Jesus’s General):

I am a little worried, however, that you didn’t make a stronger argument in favor of a religious test being applied to those seeking office or employment by the government. While the letter from John Jay to Jedidiah Morse you cite makes a compelling case for requiring government officials to be Christian, I don’t think it carries quite as much weight as Article VI, Section III of the Constitution which states in part: “…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I’m afraid you’re going to have to do a lot better than a letter to overcome a Constitutional clause. I know that’s not easy for you. Logic and reasoned argument aren’t your strong suits.

No, they certainly aren’t. For example, in siding with the Rev Henry Jackson on hate crime legislation, you said:

I agree with Rev. Henry Jackson, who said the [“The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act”] would “mandate unequal protection under the law and will pave the way for criminalization of thoughts and religious beliefs contrary to politically correct ideas.”

Hate-crime laws are not only a violation of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, but a violation of the 10th Amendment’s limitations on the power of federal government.

The hate crime legislation you disagree with explicitly protects first amendment rights. What is so damn alluring about being able to commit hate crimes? And why is it an integral part of your identity as a Christian?

You title your article “How to outlaw Christianity (part 1)”. Why is your idea of Christianity one which requires others to acknowledge and bow to your faith and beliefs? Why must Christianity be enshrined within our political system, rather than a personal path towards God?

You call something as insignificant as removing the words “In God We Trust” from some coins “a flagrant defiance against theism”. Did you mean to say against theocracy? Because any act against the unification of church and state does nothing to harm theism, and much to help protect one’s religious beliefs from being infringed upon.

I urge you to write the president and your representatives today to encourage the overturning of this ungodly, religiously restricting and unconstitutional piece of legislation, erroneously titled by the misnomer, “Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”

The ignorance in your closing deserves sharp comment. There is nothing unconstitutional about a bill with this clause:

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

What is ungodly about stopping hate and violence?

Chuck Norris, Christianity is not Bigotry. It is one of many paths towards God, towards love and understanding. It will not be hurt by the hate crime legislation. It will be strengthened by it. So will we.

One Issue Voters and Weak Candidates

I was thinking about politicians who seem to set their stance based on the preferences of a few bigots, and started wondering how many of these “desirable” voters are actually out there.  I’m talking about voters who care so much about gay marriage they will disregard every other issue out there to ensure it is never legal.  Voters who find homophobia infinitely more compelling than national security, health care, the economy, or education.  How many of those jackasses are out there, and why do any candidates shift and tailor their positions to cater to them?

Is Marriage Sacred?

One of the arguments against gay marriage is that it threatens the sanctity of marriage.  Is marriage a sacred or a legal bond?

If it is a sacred bond, then government cannot play a role in its regulation without violating the separation of church and state.

If government regulated marriage is simply a legal state between individuals, sanctity doesn’t enter into the discussion at all.

So when an anti-gay rights proponent starts talking about protecting the sanctity of marriage, they are attempting to blur the distinction between church and state.  Don’t let them.