Lets Go Girl

May 17, 2008 by Kingston

You have probably heard that Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are getting hitched, since the California Supreme Court decided this week there are enough marriage licenses to go around:



I am sure my invitation is in the mail. However, it will be conditional. It is conditional because some people are attempting to stay the California Supreme Court's decision to open Pandora's Box of Hell. These are the same people who know that even though Ellen is America's sweetheart, Jesus would slit her throat if he was on the scene.

They want it stayed until there is a vote on a measure attempting to amend the California constitution to prohibit this godless practice. But, as I mentioned yesterday, that ship has sailed.

I know there are some folks that are genuinely and sincerely concerned. But, by and large, most people are just tired of the gay baiting. And even if it doesn't sit quite right with them— this year most people have a lot bigger worries—like being able to pay their bills.

There are also some who claim not to be against same sex marriage—but think it should be up to the people. They do not seem to realize that the whole purpose of the third branch of our government is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Fortunately, since the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of slaves and their descendants—all courts, except some of the gomers in the Deep South of the day, knew it was impossible for a state to amend its constitution so that it specifically kept colored people in their place.

If not for the Constitution and the courts, who knows how long it would have taken America to grow up.

However, the Fourteenth Amendment (and the state versions of it) does not specially mention African-Americans— it gives every single person the right to be treated equally under the law. And actually that is implied in the constitution as originally drafted.

Whenever something of significant value is at stake, the government must have a “compelling state interest” in order to treat citizens differently. The California Supreme Court agreed with the “family values” people that marriage and family are fundamental values—and then said they could not find any compelling state interest that would justify treating same sex couples and families any different than anyone else.

It has been necessary for the courts. which have ruled against same sex marriage, to get quite creative. They claim the government has a compelling state interest in promoting and licensing propagation. That is, of course, just a pretend reason—no license is required to procreate—and almost half of children are born out of wedlock. And no one has suggested that childless marriages be automatically annulled.

The California and Massachusetts Courts have actually been quite rational and traditional in their application of Constitutional Law. The other courts have been “activist” in using a novel legal theory to reach the result they want.

Anyway, the genie is out of the bottle, and though there will be much wringing of hands, it will slowly subside when the sky does not come tumbling down.

Eventually everyone will discover there is nothing more fun than a lesbian wedding.

In the meantime here is a sappy rom noir video scrapbook dedicated to Ellen and Portia:




“De” girls will make nice brides.

And I do hope the California ballot proposal, which would prohibit anyone named Anne Heche from getting married, is approved.



P.S.--John McCain has been busy trying to clear up some ethical issues, and hasn't had time to weigh in on the initiative to amend the California constitution and end all this nonsense.

But, I am more interested in how everyone's boy wonder, Barack Obama, is going to deal with it. Obama has painted himself into a corner on the issue, not knowing that the Justices of the California Supreme Court would jump out and say “Boo.”

What makes it interesting, is that the case really only decided if there is anything in a name. California already had a domestic registry, which conferred all of the same legal benefits upon same sex couples if they filled out the proper forms.

The Supreme Court said that , in this case, a name matters.

Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is against gay marriage and in favor of civil unions. So on this one he really should be with the Catholic League and the Forum on the Family folks, who are attempting to amend the California constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It will not effect the statutory domestic registry.

So this will make the cool candidate sweat.

Will he be consistent and try to win favor with some of the “bitter people” by throwing gays and lesbians under the bus—with the position that it would be fine if the masses nullified a landmark civil rights decision?

Or will he do a flip flop?

So far we have this from the campaign:

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

If I wasn't so wishy washy I think I'd run for public office.

But the gay press is not going to be satisfied with that answer—and this will irritate Obama.

Will he continue his long, self-imposed moratorium on talking with the gay press?

And some of you lawyers or constitutional scholars might be interested in helping me out on this one. I am wondering whether the initiative, if passed, will stick.

In 1964 the California Supreme Court found a housing scheme to be unconstitutionally racially discriminatory. The bigots got together and passed an initiative seeking to amend the Constitution to get discrimination back in the Constitution. Both the California and the US. Supreme Courts ruled that the state and federal constitutions prohibit that kind of crap.

Let me know what you think.

~Becky
Posted in Barack Obama, Californa, California Supreme Court, Ellen DeGeneres, GLBT, LGBT, Portia de Rossi, constitution, constitutional law, gay marriage, gay rights, lesbians, marriage, same sex marriage  | Comments (1)

April 30, 2008 by Kingston

So you think Americans file the most idiotic lawsuits—think again.

Two residents of the Greek Island of Lesbos (a/k/a Lesvos), along with professional homophobe Dimitris Lambrou, have filed a lawsuit against an LGBT group asking that they be enjoined from using the term “lesbian.”

They allege that the straight residents of Lesbos have suffered irreparable "psychological and moral rape" because the term has been hijacked by carpet munchers.

Maybe they have an extremely small point. I suppose Okies wouldn't think it cool if the poet Sappho had heralded from Oklahoma, and the generally accepted term for female homosexuality was "Sooners." Wait—that wouldn't really be very descriptive of female affection and sexuality.

Anyway, the Isle of Lesbos is a real place and has a long history.

Perhaps, you were unfortunate enough to see the oil and leather sizzler 300, a movie much admired by red blooded guys who apparently didn't mind that it was primarily about buffed oily Spartans, outfitted in leather speedos, fighting Persians who did not appear to have any body hair, and had suspiciously orange tans (and not surprisingly all the Persian women were lesbians).

However, you might have missed the portion about the epic battle of the Lesbians against the 300 Persian invaders:



But the most famous resident of Lesbos, was the poet Sappho, born in 620 BC. Much of her writing has been destroyed by various fundie groups throughout history (they are nothing new). But, it is clear from the remaining poems and love letters, that Sappho was always jonesing after other girls.

Alas, there is nothing left of Sappho but the hill where she had her famous school--and a lot of lesbians.

Despite the claims in the lawsuit, boys being boys, most of the guys of Lesbos seem quite excited about the large influx of lesbians that spend their big fat Greek holiday on the island.

There are some women only resorts, and the village of Eressos (Sappho's birthplace) is an International Lesbian Mecca. Lesbians mill around everywhere, along with the ubiquitous clusters of older Greek men sitting in the taverns talking politics. But, the groups get along harmoniously, even though there is a permanent contingent of dykes who seem to run the town.

I am sure it comes as no shock to learn that cats are everywhere. In every cafe you will be pestered by cats begging for a treat.

There are beautiful beaches on the deliciously warm clear Aegean Sea, hanging octopus drying in the sun, plenty of lesbian shenanigans as well as drama, and of course, way too many awful poetry readings.

And you will never see the crankypants.

They are too busy sitting in their dark holes plotting frivolous lawsuits.


Posted in Eressos, GLBT, Greece, LGBT, Lesvos, frivilous lawsuits, gay, girls, homophobia, lawsuits, lesbian vacations, lesbians, sappho, women  | Comments (0)

April 25, 2008 by Kingston

George Bush should go ahead and let the victims and survivors of Chinese labor camps sue, even if China does threaten to quit shipping their tainted blood thinner.

Between 1999 and 2004 big shot Chinese Politburo member, and former Trade Minister, Bo Xilai ,was operating some forced labor camps in the Liaoning province, where adherents of the outlawed Falun Gong religious movement, along with a handful of Catholic priests and Protestants, were subjected to various forms of torture.

The camps were able to turn a tidy profit by harvesting the organs of those religious prisoners who were a match with their international transplant customers.

Although none of this has yet been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a United States Court, it has been established to the satisfaction of the State Department and the United Nations.

Nonetheless the Bush administration has asked Judge Richard J. Leon to dismiss the case, filed by some camp survivors under federal statutes which permit victims of foreign torture to sue.

They fear the lawsuit will have “a chilling effect on U.S.-China relations.”

In court pleadings submitted by the administration it was argued if the lawsuit went forward it would create a “diplomatically undesirable inquiry” into Bo Xilai's “responsibility for alleged torture and extrajudicial killing,”

Indeed China’s Foreign Affairs Minister Li Zhaoxing warned Condi Rice of dire financial consequences if the case went forward.

Even though the Chinese have become the new Muslims, and it is not socially acceptable to utter a discouraging word about them, and the sad truth is the People's Republic could bring the American economy to its knees if it so desired, we really should take a timid stand, despite the possibility of causing economic disruption to Walmart.

The United States thinks economic sanctions work so well in getting bad guys to knuckle under, despite our experience with Cuba and Iran, only because we are such hopeless wimps.

There is a law on the books that provides victims of International thugs some legal redress in America. But, our comically deluded president only thinks it should be available when the brutality occurred in a two bit country that doesn't matter.

The administration was quite willing to sucker punch a third rate Mesopotamian bully in the name of liberation, but those who have been beaten, suffocated, submerged in sewage, raped, or had their liver plucked out by the government of our favorite payday lender, can't even bring a lawsuit.

Land of the meek, and home of the morally bankrupt.



P.S.—

Today, April 25, another human rights issue will be getting some attention. It is the Day of Silence in schools across America:






~Becky
Posted in Bo Xilai, China, Day of Silence, Falun Gong, GLBT, George Bush, LGBT, gay, homophobia, human rights, labor camps, lesbians, organ harvesting, persecution, torture  | Comments (0)

April 20, 2008 by Kingston

I am a big admirer of the current Pope, am glad he came to America, and hope he had a good time.

Nonetheless, it really is about time for a papal proclamation announcing that God is a bi gender twister. But since that is not going to happen anytime soon, it would be good if he just turned down the gay bashing a bit.

However, I tend to pay him no mind on this stuff. When the Pope preaches the sin of queerness, it carries the same theological weight as the edict against birth control—who cares? Not most Catholics.

When dealing with any of these patriarchal religions, there is gonna be plenty of bullshit—it really has nothing to do with what God has to say on the matter, but what a bunch of old coots with dirty, misogynistic minds have thought up.

Jesus talked about a lot of stuff, most of which people don't follow. But he never bothered to mention homosexuality one time. And in the Bible there are only four or five passages on the subject, and the bulk of those are stuck back there with the dietary laws, which also address the necessity of griding your loins and wearing ash sack cloth on certain holidays. As far as specifically condemning dykedom-- there is one ambiguous obscure passage.

I am one of Benedict's biggest fans. He is a great thinker, and a great defender of the cause of reason and rationality, against the modern onslaught of moral relativism, and moral despotism in the world. But sometimes, people with great minds are able to construct seemingly rational explanations as a cover for their irrational prejudices and impressions.

The Pope admits, as he must, that a homosexual impulse is not a sin. It is only when the inclination is acted upon that there is a so-called sin. If that is as far as he went, I might disagree, but could accept it as a legitimate position.

But Benedict has turned the inclination into a "disorder" that requires constant pastoral monitoring to insure that it does not devolve into an immoral lifestyle:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living-out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

In other words, gays and lesbians are hopelessly flawed creations. God messed up.

Although this is already getting to be pretty unchristian, it is even worse when canon law is changed to affirmatively discriminate against persons who were born with this "disorder", even if it is checked.

That is what the new Vatican edict forbidding non-practicing homosexuals from entering a seminary does. Should a non-drinking person be excluded from the priesthood simply because he may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism?

Actually, I can appreciate why this might have been an understandable overreaction to the monumental sex abuse crisis.

Prior to the scandal, it was quite obvious, except to the most blind rosary bead bangers, that an unhealthy closeted gay subculture had developed in the priesthood, and this was bound to lead to the kind of problems that rocked the Church.

This is not because most gay guys are pedophiles, it is because most pedophiles are men. In society, as a whole, most sex offenders are heterosexual men. If you don't believe me, or the studies, go down some day and look at the criminal docket in your local court.

The "studies" that have managed to crunch the statistics differently, are simply playing the pedophile card.

But with a disproportionate number of gay men in the priesthood, living an active undercover twisted gay lifestyle, it was inevitable there would be a high number of altar boy molesters. And of course, pedophiles seek out positions where they can get access to and gain the trust of children. The priesthood was ideal for men who wished to diddle little boys.

The whole creepy all male “celibate” priesthood needs to be junked. But if the Church is not ready to go there, then the reaction should have been to put the screws on priests acting on their homosexual impulses, just as they would heterosexual priests. Suspected pedophiles should have been unceremoniously dismissed. And active pedophiles turned over to the civil authorities.

The Church abysmally failed children, and the Pope can not offer enough apologies, nor make enough amends.

However, it does not seem that the seminary edict was just an understandable over reaction to the sex abuse crisis, though it certainly precipitated it.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope many times made the argument that people who had homosexual inclinations were flawed individuals, deserving of Christian pity, charity and compassion, but who are forever morally crippled, and unequal.

And as both the head honcho of what was formerly known as the Office of the Inquisition, and as Pope, he has led an internal Inquisition against ideas different than his on homosexuality, and purged theologians who dare bring them up.

The man has thought too hard. He has taken a monumentally insignificant part of God's word, and ratcheted it up into a teaching justifying monumental discrimination.

Now I do not see the Catholic Church offering same sex marriages during my lifetime, if ever. And I think that is fine. Gay activists should not try to push religions to redefine their theological construct of marriage—it is none of their business.

Likewise, the Pope and his bishops should keep their nose out of the issue of civil unions and secular marital laws in the United States. It is none of their business. Besides the Church doesn't think civil marriages are real marriages anyway.

It is too bad that Pope Benedict, one of the world's greatest and most impressive advocates of human rights, when it comes to this issue, is crippled by the same type of blind eye, which he has so eloquently exposed in Islam, and Western moral relativism.


Posted in Benedict XVI, Catholic, Catholicism, Christianity, GLBT, LGBT, Pope, Pope Benedict, child abuse, gay, gay marriage, homophobia, homosexualtiy, lesbian, pedophilia, sex offenders, sexual abuse  | Comments (0)

April 18, 2008 by Kingston

What is an upright decent gay Muslim to do when parental nagging becomes unbearable, and all your friends are beginning to suspect the unthinkable?

Why marry a lesbian, of course. It is not necessary that the dude take an uppity, rabble rousing, lipstick dyke like Irshad Manji.

There are some traditional, but gay, girls who would be happy to live and let live behind the cloak of a loveless marriage:



What a great sanctuary this would be for the bride. I can not imagine a more socially ostracized and lonely person than a Muslim woman who also happens to be gay. And it could only be more perfect if Wife No. 2 happened to be the girlfriend.

Although there are some outright Islamic groups, and even a Muslim lesbian rights movement, the subterfuge of the marriage veil is more practical in a society that has to deal with an awful lot of institutionalized discrimination before they will ever get around to gay folks.

Not that the Prophet had a lot to say about sapphic love. Like the Bible, the Quran only contains one extremely ambiguous passage about "unnatural" female behavior:

"If any of your women commit fornication, call in four witnesses from among yourselves against them; if they testify to their guilt confine them to their houses till death overtakes them or till Allah finds another way for them. "

Nonetheless there is a great deal of enthusiastic persecution of both gays and lesbians behind the Islamic Curtain. First time lesbian deviants can usually get away with a hundred lashes

However, repeat offenders are stoned or hung in Iran. Saudi Arabia lops off heads, and, except for those enlightened nations which impose a couple decades of prison, the hapless lesbian is, by whatever means, dispatched into an afterlife, which the clerics fervently hope is not inhabited by seventy-two vestal virgins.

And lets face it, being gay and Muslim is not exactly a recipe for success in the West either.

So it is, that across the planet, gay and lesbian Muslims have started to pursue this type of queer marriage of convenience.

Although romantics frown on sham marriages, this arrangement is not all that bad. It is certainly preferable to the situation where a woman wonders for years what happened to their sex life, and only gets the answer when the cops bust hubby doing a tap dance in an airport bathroom stall.

For queer Muslims, who consider themselves devout, it seems less hypocritical than the Misyar marriage-- a casual, generally temporary, marriage of convenience used by horny men who are traveling, and wish to relieve their groinal needs in a religiously sanctioned way.

And it can not help but undermine Sharia, and soften the heart of Islam.


Posted in Arabs, GLBT, Iran, Islam, LGBT, Muslims, Saudi Arabia, Sharia law, gay, homophobia, homosexuals, lesbians, loveless marriage, marriage, marriage of convenience, women  | Comments (0)