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.