Friday, October 19, 2012

"Minnesota Punter Puts His Foot in Maryland Solon's Azz"

“They Won’t Magically Turn You Into A Lustful Cockmonster”: Chris Kluwe Explains Gay Marriage To The Politician Who Is Offended By An NFL Player Supporting It

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.
Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,
I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):
1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.
2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").
3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?
In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.
Chris Kluwe
P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

"Why I Oppose Gay Marriage"

The Washington Post published an op-ed piece on the topic of the Maryland Same Sex Law that is now on the ballot through a grassroots initiative. I think this comment on the article is one of the most eloquent that I have seen , and so I am reposting it here for your review. (Note the title of this blog is from the Washington Post opinion and is not my position. I support the commenter below). WP: "Why I Oppose Gay Marriage" Please weigh in with your comments:

from the Washington Post: "Why I Oppose Gay Marriage":

"SDK wrote:
10/2/2012 3:34 PM EDT
It's hard to understand people like this writer, other than to simply say that they are outside the mainstream of gay life. Gay people in settled relationships with children, like myself, both need and want marriage, not some new structure that is itself unproven. We are not breaking new ground. We are not different from straight people. My gayness does not define my life -- my toddler does.

I am fighting for marriage (and not some weird civil term) because I believe that marriage is the right container for my family. Maybe you spend your weekends at the bars -- maybe marriage seems foreign to you. I spend my weekends with my kids and they deserve a stable family -- a married family.

When the gay rights movement first started, gay sexuality was illegal in most states and homosexuals could lose their jobs, their children, even their freedom for the simple act of loving another adult human being. In that context, it is understandable that the first freedom we sought was sexual freedom.

But now that we are free to do as we will in a hotel room, we seek a deeper, more meaningful and more lasting freedom. This is not the freedom *from* constraints, *from* morality, but rather the freedom *to* create a stable family life and to be recognized as equal citizens when we do so.

Most gay people have realized that we are no longer teenagers. We want adult responsiblities and adult rights. Marriage is one of those rights. You may not want it for yourself -- but that's just not true for me and for most gay people. We want exactly the same rights AND the same rules that guide married life.

Marriage is hard. Raising children is hard. Balancing work and family and adult responsibilities is hard. We need more than an obscure legal term to pull us in. We need support and recognition, we need common words for common struggles. We need a loving community to pull us through. Even if civil unions were legal, I would seek marriage because I need *exactly* what you disparage -- the tradition and the permanancy it invokes. I do not need something new. I need something old.

What is new is that I claim it for my own. In that, I am no different from the first woman to attend medical school, the first African American lawyer, the first Catholic president. The fact that it is not tradition does not mean that you cannot "mess with it". It means that you have to work harder to claim your place.

This equality train is not stopping. Win or lose -- we are going to keep fighting for our families. We are a moral force, just like the moral force opposing us. You don't have to get on the train -- marriage is a personal choice. But the train isn't stopping -- so I suggest that you get out of its way."

Monday, September 17, 2012

U.S. asks Supreme Court to consider two more gay marriage cases

(Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday (September 11, 2012) asked the Supreme Court to consider two additional legal challenges to a federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, after submitting similar cases for review in July.
The two petitions filed by the department urge the high court to consider at least one gay marriage case in the near future to determine whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates legally married same-sex couples' rights by treating them differently than heterosexual couples.

Here is my response:

Judaic-Christian (or any other religion) precepts have no place in American Jurisprudence. Marriage between two consenting adults is an issue of fairness. If it is legal for the majority, then it is protected by the 14th amendment for the minority. "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The language is plain and unequivocal. Attempts to introduce gender with the words of "one man, one woman" is inherently unconstitutional. Strict constructionist have to gyrate through Mosaic laws to find otherwise. It is a slippery slope when one starts to inject religion into the secular world of laws. Defense of Marriage Act was pushed through as a Congressional statute to provide political cover for politicians and pander to religious fundamentalists. Let's find statutory refuge in the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or some other theology. Get out of the business of limited government and create 50 smaller theocracies. Hmmm. Which states get to be Catholic, which Jewish, and don't forget to give Utah to the Mormons.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

DADT and Amendment 10-A

Today is a unique day in the United States military. As of today, same gender loving (sgl) individuals may serve openly without the fear of losing their career, their benefits and their ability to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary for the defense of their country. The Don't Ask; Don't Tell was a devil's bargain struck during the Clinton administration as a political compromise on a campaign promise by the then presidential nominee to gain the votes of the GLBT community. I say devil's bargain because men and women continued to suffer the effects of discrimination that should have ended in the 1970's rather than masquerading as a "kinder, gentler" form of discrimination.

Likewise, it is a unique day in the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta as local presbyterians seek a compromise policy that will allow congregations opposed to the change in the national constitution to allow the ordinations of openly gay and practicing gays and lesbians for service to the church. Once again, this body is coming to grips with change following an ecclesiastical compromise by the reuniting northern and southern churches that had called for ordination standard to include requirements of fidelity within marriage and chastity without. Those noble and lofty spiritual arrows were aimed specifically at same gender loving Presbyterians.

The military has taken from December 2010 to September 2011 to prepare soldiers to perform their duties in this changed environment. You would think that heterosexual soldiers had never been in combat or served with homosexual soldiers and thus a whole new culture is required to integrated SGL soldiers into the service. Likewise, the Presbyterian church is struggling to create a spiritual climate that avoids schism and everybody can "just get along."

Well, here is my take on it all. The United States Armed Forces did not collapse when President Truman issued an executive order that integrated our military. And Presbyterians have always gotten mad, created new Presbyterian denominations (there are currently 9 PC denominations in the U.S. alone), and continued to discern the will of God on earth.

So, the sun will rise tomorrow. Same gender loving soldiers will go to their jobs and yield outstanding service while preparing to "give the last full measure of their devotion" for the cause, and Presbyterian churches will open their doors on Sunday with heterosexual and homosexual parishioners singing from the same hymnbooks.

Grace and peace and Semper FI to you all.


Friday, January 21, 2011

Court rejects appeal over DC gay marriage law

I have not seen much in the press on this Supreme Court decision which has a major impact in the gay community. Yahoo news published it but did not permit comments. I am posting it for comment. It is definitely a major step and especially for a conservative leaning Supreme Court for the moment. Other cases to watch include the California Prop 8 challenge which has been sent by the Ninth Circuit back to the California Supreme Court to determine whether the challengers to the District Court ruling have legal standing to bring the case before the courts. Meanwhile, how do you feel about the U. S. Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal to overturn same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.
The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.
Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and in 2009, it began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Same Sex Marriage - Proposition 8 in California

The following comment was posted by RP in response to the federal court decision in California invalidating Proposition 8 which defined marriage as between a man and woman only.

"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Boarding a plane isn't a constitutional right, neither is employment, but to deny people those things based on race or sexuality is an infringement on the individuals civil rights and fundamental freedom it is contrary to The Equal Protection Clause, of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled the following in its decision, ending laws which banned marriage between "whites" and "colors" in the case:
Loving v. Virginia- "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Why is it so important to call it marriage?"
Because the same but different isn't equal. Just as taps for blacks and taps for whites where not equal neither is a civil union equal to marriage. Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic. It is not owned by your church it predates them all.
"decide on an issue not expressly included in the Constitution?
You seem to have confused the role of the constitution in this, no one is arguing that marriage is a constitutional right rather that there is a constitutional right to equal access to and protections of the law for what is a basic civil right and fundamental freedom. If the law recognizes marriage of straight couples it MUST recognize the marriage of same sex couples!
If your confusion lies in the belief that the church owns marriage, that is not the case the US government or State government thereof provides both the license to get married and the marriage certificate which forms the official record of such.

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal. It makes no exception for gay people or bi people or transgender people rather it says ALL PEOPLE are to be treated equal giving the same protections of the law!
The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot through the initiative process. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.
If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right."

I think his points are sound and valid.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Having My Say

One morning I had the opportunity to watch BET's "Meet the Faith." To set the stage for this discussion, here is the description from BET's website:"This heated and eye-opening conversation among guests Bishop E. Bernard Jordon, founder of Zoe Ministries; actress Sheryl Lee Ralph; and host of BETJ’s “My Two Cents,” Keith Boykin, will examine Black homosexuality -- its myths, realities and why it seems Blacks are more homophobic than other groups. The topic of has been heating up pulpits in Black churches across America for a few years now. And anti-gay sentiments are not only causing distrust in the Black church, they’re dividing the larger Black community. While some Black clergy and other Christian believers consider homosexuality a “mental disorder,” others say it is an abomination against God. Still others say that being gay is not a choice nor does it preclude one from being a child of God."The conversation that follows on the discussion board is sad. The large number of voices comes from the black religious right. It is filled with they usual condemnations, bible verses taken out of context, and venom. I hope that 1. more individuals of same sex desires will post comments, and 2. the discourse remain civil. Whether the gay rights movement should be compared to the civil rights movement is not as critical as whether the black community should be torn apart by homophobia.Even as I write this, there are men and women, teens struggling to survive after being separated from the family units that should be there to support them. One young man that I know of has critical health issues that could happen to any of us without regards to sexuality, but is cut off from the family that should be there for him now because of his homosexuality. The ability to love one another as Christ has loved us in lost in the uproar over how we live the lives that God has given us. The Bible has been and continues to be used to justify much wrong. But in the end, even those abuses will be wiped away as the real truth unadulterated by the tampering of men through the centuries is finally revealed. We need to be careful of how our community is being divided and what motivations are behind other groups who are using the faith of black people to win political elections and destroy unity.Appropriately, the day before the broadcast at a convention of the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama rightly cautioned that some right wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division. He says, "somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart." He goes on to add that "faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called Christian Right, all to eager to exploit what divides us." We need to reclaim our real moral center that truly motivates us that "ye love one another, as I [Christ] have loved you" - John 15:12. The Word of God for the people of God. I could not agree more wholeheartedly. Just having my say. Hotep.