The tea party is all about small government, and honoring the constitution, right?
Well, I might not understand what their definition of that is then. Take gubernatorial candidate NY Carl Paladino. He’s backed by the tea party. He advocates smaller government. How does he show it? His official position is that the day he takes office, he’s going to use eminent domain to prevent the legal and rightful owners and developers of the property from exercising their Constitutional rights to practice their religion, free of government interference.
Am I the only one that sees a tiny little bit of hypocrisy in that? I'm pretty sure that a small government that has private industry and the public's rights in mind does NOT use eminent domain. Once again, the tea party (and those who stand with them) have made it clear that they stand for the rights of their own, but anybody who’s not like them doesn’t deserve rights.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
The Constitution
Dr. Laura uses the n word several times in a radio broadcast. She was obviously criticized heavily for it. And while reports of the incident took her use of the word completely out of context and didn’t focus on the racially horrid message that she actual gave to her caller, what happened later is even more sad and frightening. Dr. Laura quit her show (that’s not the sad part) to try and “regain her First Amendment rights” (that’s the sad part). Which first amendment right was taken away from her? Was she prosecuted for what she said? Was she jailed? Did the government intervene? No. She was criticized, yes. Her dim witted supporters (Sarah Palin – I’m looking at you!) raced to her defense with such nuggets of logic as “Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence ‘isn't American,not fair’)” and “Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!".
I understand that I’m not a constitutional scholar. But I’ve read it a few times, and I think I get the gist of it. I want to know exactly what first amendment right “ceased 2 exist.” Surely Dr. Laura and Sarah Palin aren’t suggesting that included in a person’s first amendment rights to free speech is something that protects them from criticism of what they’ve said. Because, see, that would be a violation of the critics first amendment rights. Is that ok? Is Dr. Laura’s first amendment right to spew racially charged, rude and hurtful statements more important than the rights of the people that would stand up and tell her that what she said was over the top and she shouldn’t say crazy offensive sh*t like that? I hope not, because that would be hypocrisy.
And on the subject of hypocrisy and Ms. Palin, why is ok for Dr. Laura to say a bunch of offensive stuff with intent on her public radio show and she should “reload”, while Rahm Emanuel chose some stupid and offensive words and called some liberals “f*cking retarded” at a private meeting and Ms. Palin calls for his immediate resignation? How is that fair, Ms. Palin?
One more thought on the right’s total misunderstanding of the constitution is Tony Perkins’ (of the “Family Research Council”) views on religious freedoms in this country. Perkins has rallied against the recent ruling to overturn Proposition 8 in California (the proposition that banned same sex marriage), saying that allowing same sex marriage diminished the legal rights of religious people opposed to gay marriage. Says Perkins, "If (the ruling) stands, in one generation we will have gone from banning the Bible in public schools to banning religious beliefs in society." Tell me, Mr. Perkins. How does somebody else’s civil right to marriage, which you think is counter to your religion, affect your ability to practice your religion in your life? Your first amendment right to practice your religion doesn’t allow you to impose your religious beliefs on others. That violates my first amendment rights to NOT practice your religion. Again, the constitution works both ways – it protects you and your religion as much as it protects me from your religion. Thanks for playing, but please find a better argument for your cause, and until you do, have a seat.
I understand that I’m not a constitutional scholar. But I’ve read it a few times, and I think I get the gist of it. I want to know exactly what first amendment right “ceased 2 exist.” Surely Dr. Laura and Sarah Palin aren’t suggesting that included in a person’s first amendment rights to free speech is something that protects them from criticism of what they’ve said. Because, see, that would be a violation of the critics first amendment rights. Is that ok? Is Dr. Laura’s first amendment right to spew racially charged, rude and hurtful statements more important than the rights of the people that would stand up and tell her that what she said was over the top and she shouldn’t say crazy offensive sh*t like that? I hope not, because that would be hypocrisy.
And on the subject of hypocrisy and Ms. Palin, why is ok for Dr. Laura to say a bunch of offensive stuff with intent on her public radio show and she should “reload”, while Rahm Emanuel chose some stupid and offensive words and called some liberals “f*cking retarded” at a private meeting and Ms. Palin calls for his immediate resignation? How is that fair, Ms. Palin?
One more thought on the right’s total misunderstanding of the constitution is Tony Perkins’ (of the “Family Research Council”) views on religious freedoms in this country. Perkins has rallied against the recent ruling to overturn Proposition 8 in California (the proposition that banned same sex marriage), saying that allowing same sex marriage diminished the legal rights of religious people opposed to gay marriage. Says Perkins, "If (the ruling) stands, in one generation we will have gone from banning the Bible in public schools to banning religious beliefs in society." Tell me, Mr. Perkins. How does somebody else’s civil right to marriage, which you think is counter to your religion, affect your ability to practice your religion in your life? Your first amendment right to practice your religion doesn’t allow you to impose your religious beliefs on others. That violates my first amendment rights to NOT practice your religion. Again, the constitution works both ways – it protects you and your religion as much as it protects me from your religion. Thanks for playing, but please find a better argument for your cause, and until you do, have a seat.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
i have no morals...
...and I need to be jailed.
So says the Texas Republican Committee:
Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
This is the official position of the Republican Party in Texas. It goes on to say that the Supreme Court decision that made certain acts of intimacy between concenting audults should be ignored, and those acts should be re-criminalized. And anyone who issues a marriage license to a same sex couple should be charged with a felony (despite the fact that it's already not allowed in the state of Texas, as well as most other states in this great country).
I'm just curious exactly how I'm tearing at the fabric of society? How do my morals differ from theirs. I'm a good person. I give to charity. I volunteer in my community. I pay my taxes. I'm a productive member of society. I wake up in the morning, I go to work, I come home, make dinner for my family, walk the dogs, and then I go to bed. I've never killed anyone, I've never molested a child, I've never been involved in a gay sex scandal (unlike many GOPers), I don't lie, cheat or steal. I'm a good consumer, I support my local economy. I'm really pretty indistinguishable from most of the people I know.
There's one minor difference, of course. When I go to sleep at night, there's a man laying next to me instead of a woman. That's it. That's the extent of the difference in my "lifestyle".
I've read and heard a lot about this choice I've made and how it cannot be tolerated. Those who don't know anything about gay people think that I chose to be gay. Or they've read about ex-gay programs and think that I can just will it away. Why would I have chosen this lifestyle? Why would I want to become the target of hate from so many people? Why would I have chosen to become the target of a hate crime? Why would have have chosen to be legally discriminated against in employment in states such as Texas? Why would I have chosen to to not be able to marry the person I love, file joint taxes, benefit from hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the thousands of other rights that come along with marriage? Why would anybody in their right mind choose that?
Let me tell you something about choice. Growing up, I wanted nothing but to be like everybody else. I dated girls because I was supposed to. I started to realize, especially towards the second half of high school, that dating girls wasn't really interesting to me anymore. I went to college. I tried again, and after a week with this girl, it was over. It was at that moment that I made a choice. I decided that I was going to spend the rest of my life, alone, closeted, forever. Grim. I realized very quickly how horrible that was going to be. Then, all of a sudden, I met Clark, things progressed, and I eventually came out. I made the choice to be the person I was made to be. The choice was to either be a miserable closet case, or live the way I was made. I made the only choice possible. (The choice to be a miserable closet case has been made time and time again, and not only is it unfair to the women that are married to gay men and the families they have, but it has been shown to end it gay sex scandals in many cases. The ex-gay or choose to not be gay thing doesn't really work, but that's a totally different topic of conversation).
The GOP of Texas position goes on to resent that people who are intolerant of homosexual people are referred to by some as bigots. Well, I'm sorry, but what's the definition of a bigot? "One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Sorry, but after the intolerance spewed forth by the Texas GOP, doesn't that definition fit?
But back to the question of morals, and why somebody else's morals are better than mine... The GOP position is laced with religion. Marriage is God-ordained. Homosexuality is against the truths that have been ordained by God. I don't believe in your God. So why does your God dictate policy regarding my life? Is this a theocracy? I don't for a second want to prevent you from practicing your religion, or living your life according to your beliefs. Please allow me the same courtesy. Your rights to religion are your rights, but your rights to your religion don't include the right to impose your religious beliefs on me. The basic protections afforded other minority groups (which homosexuals are) like protection from employment discrimination and respect for monogamous relationships (aka marriage) are CIVIL concepts. I've said this before - atheists can get married outside of a church, and a church marriage isn't legal until the proper paperwork is filed with the government agency, thus it is a civil right. Your religious beliefs need to stay out of my civil rights.
I applaud you, the reader, for making it this far. I have lots of friends in Texas. I enjoy visiting Texas, my parents still live there. I've hinted at this before, but politicians are supposedly there to represent you. There are just about three kinds of people - those who support a platform, those who don't support a platform, and those who don't really care. In my experience, with issues relating to homosexuality, the people who oppose it are VERY vocal to their representatives. Those who are on the fence and those supportive of homosexuals aren't nearly as vocal, except some of the people who actually are homosexual (only some), and some staunch supporters. If those who read the GOPs position on homosexuality and find it over the top in its demeaning of good people, productive American citizens who just happen to be a little different, please, for the love of all that is good, tell someone. Write your state representatives. Write your US representatives and senators. Write the people leading the Republican Party in your state and tell them that you are a conservative, and that you stand for the values of conservatives, but you don't agree with the marginalization of gay people. Tell them that you think gay people should have the protected right to have a job. They should have the protections to form a family, even though their family isn't the same as your family. Tell them how you feel. This is how a democracy works. Tell them how you feel, tell them that they are supposed to take your feelings into consideration. And if you don't like the fact that they ignore your feelings, vote them out.
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/06/texas-gop-platform-criminalize-gay-sex-and-imprison-anyone-who-issues-a-marriage-license-to-a-gay-co.html
So says the Texas Republican Committee:
Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
This is the official position of the Republican Party in Texas. It goes on to say that the Supreme Court decision that made certain acts of intimacy between concenting audults should be ignored, and those acts should be re-criminalized. And anyone who issues a marriage license to a same sex couple should be charged with a felony (despite the fact that it's already not allowed in the state of Texas, as well as most other states in this great country).
I'm just curious exactly how I'm tearing at the fabric of society? How do my morals differ from theirs. I'm a good person. I give to charity. I volunteer in my community. I pay my taxes. I'm a productive member of society. I wake up in the morning, I go to work, I come home, make dinner for my family, walk the dogs, and then I go to bed. I've never killed anyone, I've never molested a child, I've never been involved in a gay sex scandal (unlike many GOPers), I don't lie, cheat or steal. I'm a good consumer, I support my local economy. I'm really pretty indistinguishable from most of the people I know.
There's one minor difference, of course. When I go to sleep at night, there's a man laying next to me instead of a woman. That's it. That's the extent of the difference in my "lifestyle".
I've read and heard a lot about this choice I've made and how it cannot be tolerated. Those who don't know anything about gay people think that I chose to be gay. Or they've read about ex-gay programs and think that I can just will it away. Why would I have chosen this lifestyle? Why would I want to become the target of hate from so many people? Why would I have chosen to become the target of a hate crime? Why would have have chosen to be legally discriminated against in employment in states such as Texas? Why would I have chosen to to not be able to marry the person I love, file joint taxes, benefit from hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the thousands of other rights that come along with marriage? Why would anybody in their right mind choose that?
Let me tell you something about choice. Growing up, I wanted nothing but to be like everybody else. I dated girls because I was supposed to. I started to realize, especially towards the second half of high school, that dating girls wasn't really interesting to me anymore. I went to college. I tried again, and after a week with this girl, it was over. It was at that moment that I made a choice. I decided that I was going to spend the rest of my life, alone, closeted, forever. Grim. I realized very quickly how horrible that was going to be. Then, all of a sudden, I met Clark, things progressed, and I eventually came out. I made the choice to be the person I was made to be. The choice was to either be a miserable closet case, or live the way I was made. I made the only choice possible. (The choice to be a miserable closet case has been made time and time again, and not only is it unfair to the women that are married to gay men and the families they have, but it has been shown to end it gay sex scandals in many cases. The ex-gay or choose to not be gay thing doesn't really work, but that's a totally different topic of conversation).
The GOP of Texas position goes on to resent that people who are intolerant of homosexual people are referred to by some as bigots. Well, I'm sorry, but what's the definition of a bigot? "One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Sorry, but after the intolerance spewed forth by the Texas GOP, doesn't that definition fit?
But back to the question of morals, and why somebody else's morals are better than mine... The GOP position is laced with religion. Marriage is God-ordained. Homosexuality is against the truths that have been ordained by God. I don't believe in your God. So why does your God dictate policy regarding my life? Is this a theocracy? I don't for a second want to prevent you from practicing your religion, or living your life according to your beliefs. Please allow me the same courtesy. Your rights to religion are your rights, but your rights to your religion don't include the right to impose your religious beliefs on me. The basic protections afforded other minority groups (which homosexuals are) like protection from employment discrimination and respect for monogamous relationships (aka marriage) are CIVIL concepts. I've said this before - atheists can get married outside of a church, and a church marriage isn't legal until the proper paperwork is filed with the government agency, thus it is a civil right. Your religious beliefs need to stay out of my civil rights.
I applaud you, the reader, for making it this far. I have lots of friends in Texas. I enjoy visiting Texas, my parents still live there. I've hinted at this before, but politicians are supposedly there to represent you. There are just about three kinds of people - those who support a platform, those who don't support a platform, and those who don't really care. In my experience, with issues relating to homosexuality, the people who oppose it are VERY vocal to their representatives. Those who are on the fence and those supportive of homosexuals aren't nearly as vocal, except some of the people who actually are homosexual (only some), and some staunch supporters. If those who read the GOPs position on homosexuality and find it over the top in its demeaning of good people, productive American citizens who just happen to be a little different, please, for the love of all that is good, tell someone. Write your state representatives. Write your US representatives and senators. Write the people leading the Republican Party in your state and tell them that you are a conservative, and that you stand for the values of conservatives, but you don't agree with the marginalization of gay people. Tell them that you think gay people should have the protected right to have a job. They should have the protections to form a family, even though their family isn't the same as your family. Tell them how you feel. This is how a democracy works. Tell them how you feel, tell them that they are supposed to take your feelings into consideration. And if you don't like the fact that they ignore your feelings, vote them out.
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/06/texas-gop-platform-criminalize-gay-sex-and-imprison-anyone-who-issues-a-marriage-license-to-a-gay-co.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
