To the murderer of Dr. George Tiller,
It is evident that you are taking lessons from the good book, what with all of the murder and slavery and what not.
Oh, and I sincerely hope that you saved a gay, pro-choice, atheist fetus. The right to reproduce with my uterus is mine. Mine, all mine.
Proposition 8 was upheld today by the California Supreme Court, keeping gay marriage banned. However, the court did allow the marriages that took place during the hiatus where the court previously allowed gay marriage and the passage of Prop 8 (about 18,000) to stand. Prop 8 was apparently not intended to be retroactive, so the court held that it was not. That slight mitigation has done nothing to quell the protests.
The apparent argument against Prop 8 was that it was such a drastic change to California’s constitution that it should have first been approved by the state legislature. The court, 6-1, disagreed.
Only one Justice, Carlos Moreno, dissented.
That’s another of my 2009 predictions in the bag (well, the first half of it, so far):
8. California courts will hold that all marriages that were held during the “gays are okay” window will maintain validity, despite the Prop 8 law against gay marriage. Complainants will lose their battle to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court because that Court will claim a lack of jurisdiction over a state matter (marriage). Gay marriage advocates will push to overturn Prop 8, and that movement will fail.
News articles with this story:
Keith Olbermann had as a guest Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff, Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who expressed his criticism of Dick Cheney’s current anti-Obama rhetoric. It’s an interesting segment, but one quote stuck out as a perfect sound byte.
Regarding the question of whether the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp should be closed, and Cheney’s justification of enhanced interrogation techniques (“torture”), Col. Wilkerson cited Cheney’s ambiguous catch phrases, such as “recklessness cloaked in righteousness.”
That’s a perfect description of the Church of Cheney. Where Cheney’s our Lord and Savior, and Rush Limbaugh’s his First Disciple. This is the Church of Darkness. So, he’s frightened and he’s trying these very Orwellian tactics of using his own techniques and his own results and accusing his opponents of having perpetrated these techniques and results. It’s insanity.
Insanity, indeed. Here’s the full clip:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
As predicted by Marion Barry, the first volley of attacks has occurred in the DC battle over gay marriage.
The attack comes in the form of a bill with 30 initial co-sponsors, notably including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.), that directly opposes the DC Council decision earlier this month to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. The “DC Defense of Marriage Act” states that for all legal purposes, “marriage” means the union of one man and one woman. If it passes, it will undo the DC Council’s decision as well as preempt any DC marriage equality bill.
Conservative opponents of gay marriage in the District continue to claim that the majority of DC residents oppose gay marriage. Religious and other leaders plan to petition the Council for a citywide referendum. Again, the suggestion is made that a black-majority, traditionally made up of notably religious Democrats, opposes gay marriage and any attempt to recognize same-sex marriage from other jurisdictions. Until the referendum shows otherwise, that appears to be the type of hype and speculation that keeps naysayers like Bishop Harry Jackson of Lanham’s Hope Christian Church in the media spotlight.
Not only is this a gay rights battle, but it is also an example of the states rights conflict that sets DC apart from every other jurisdiction because, despite having a council, it lacks its own legislative representation. In other words, regardless of a decision made by DC local rules, the federal Congress can intrude with its own agenda.
Put succinctly by Jeffrey Richardson, president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, a group that represents gay residents of the District:
The disappointing thing is that here we are fighting to govern and pass our own laws in the District of Columbia, and Bishop Jackson chooses to run to Capitol Hill to stand with congressmen to impose their will upon the residents of the District of Columbia.1
Of course, none of this will matter if Mr. Broun of Georgia, and company, get their way… (yes, unlikely in this Democrat-heavy Congress, but why again are we paying the salaries of people who waste time trying to pass such amendments when the economy is still tanking, people are still dying in distant and pointless wars, and so many other problems in this nation exist?)
May 7, 2009… Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. TIAHRT, and Mr. ROGERS of Alabama) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article–
`Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.
`Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.
Forces nationwide on alert for mom, son who are on the run.
(Image is ubiquitous, represents but does not depict child in question)
Health and faith clashed in the courtroom, with police on the lookout for a Minnesota mother who fled with her obese 13-year-old son rather than consent to a diet and exercise program.
A court-ordered BMI examination on Monday showed that Danny Hoosier is severely obese, with a score of 43, and that he would likely die from the symptoms of obesity if he did not receive physical and diet therapy.
Before she fled, Caileen Hoosier, a Roman Catholic, told a judge that she wished to treat her son’s obesity with spiritual healing methods advocated by an American Spaniard religious group known as the Nameless Band.
Danny has severe childhood obesity, a highly curable form of obesity when treated with a regimen of diet and exercise. But the teen and his parents rejected the regimen after a single workout session followed by having to eat broccoli. The boy’s mother said that exercise and putting healthy substances in the body violates the family’s religious convictions.
Authorities are alerting the public to report the mother and son’s whereabouts, if seen, and that they have frequently been sighted at McDonald’s drive-thrus. 1
—
Seems silly, no matter how you look at it, eh?2
—
Isn’t this mother’s action equivalent to post-partum abortion, or should parents be allowed to “care for” their children in whatever manner they feel appropriate? What do the Libertarians say about this?
In addition, isn’t it curious how it seems that religion gets a free pass in many aspects of law and society (e.g., tax breaks, requiring monotheistic belief for public office, hate crimes based on religion, general inability to criticize religion, lighter sentences), but when society doesn’t agree with someone’s specific actions, it condemns those actions, even if they were motivated by sincere religious conviction?
Broken down, here’s what it means: Religion does not give you a free pass. Accepted religion does. That means someone’s dancing a jig on the grave marked “R.I.P. First Amendment.”
Speaking of the First Amendment, does this case threaten to violate it in the reverse respect? In other words, by not allowing someone to practice their religion as they see fit (no matter how kooky we perceive it), isn’t that “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? Heck, perhaps the First Amendment does need an overhaul. It obviously doesn’t take into account all the wacky religions out there, and all the wacky people who do crazy things in the name of their religion. What the Supreme Court and others say is, “Oh, the founders didn’t mean absolutely no prohibitions! There has to be some reasonable guideline to keep the kooks from doing really crazy stuff.” Hmm, I wonder who establishes those guidelines. Could it be… mainstream Christians?
Either we need to eliminate reading between the First Amendment’s lines, risking religious justification for all sorts of heinous acts, or we need to eliminate religion as a justification for any action. In other words, if an act is harmful, it’s harmful. If it’s not, it’s not. Religious conviction should not be able to adjust that fact.
—
UPDATE:
Believe it or not, my satire has manifested in reality.
From CNN:
Authorities arrest mom for medical neglect of 555-pound teen
South Carolina authorities have located a 555-pound teenager and his mother, who faces a charge of violating a custody order, police said Thursday.
Alexander Deundray Draper, 14, “is possibly at a stage of critical health risk,” social services said.Alexander Deundray Draper, 14, of Travelers Rest, South Carolina, and his mother, Jerri Althea Gray, were located at about 4:30 p.m. near a laundromat in Baltimore, Maryland, by the Baltimore County Sheriff’s Office, said Matt Armstrong, a spokesman for the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office in Greenville, South Carolina.
…
“The understanding was that the individual was of the weight where it was decided by medical authorities that he needed treatment that was not being provided for by his mother,” Armstrong said.
Earlier in the day officials said the boy “is possibly at a stage of critical health risk.”
Gray was supposed to appear in family court Tuesday with her son and failed to do so, the sheriff’s office said. During the family court hearing, the boy was ordered into state custody because of medical neglect, as well as his mother’s failure to appear. The Department of Social Services then contacted the sheriff’s office, authorities said.
The warrant said Gray was served with papers Monday and told to report to court for a hearing in which the department would seek state custody of Draper. “The defendant has avoided the custody proceeding and has concealed the child,” the warrant says.
Wow. Or is this more satire? How can anyone be sure?
