Thursday, July 22, 2004

The Horse Got Back Up

The previously mentioned H.R. 3313 (aka the Marriage Protection Act) has passed through the House of Representatives. Sadly, my own representative THADEUS MCCOTTER (R-MI)(whom I will not be voting for next year) has elected to vote in favor of the bill. Here's an article on it:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
365gay.com article:

(Washington) The US House of Representatives Thursday afternoon passed the Marriage Protection Act tying the hands of federal judges from ordering states to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by other states.

The measure passed the Republican controlled House by a 233-194 vote.

Federal judges ``must not be allowed to rewrite marriage policy for the states,'' Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., said.

"Marriage is under attack,'' said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., referring to the Massachusetts state court decision allowing same-sex marriages. The legislation is needed, Sensenbrenner said, to prevent Massachusetts law from being applied nationwide.

Democrats called the bill an election-year distraction that is nothing more than an unconstitutional attack on gays in America and the federal judiciary. They said it would set a precedent that Congress could use to shield any future legislation from federal judicial review.

"They couldn't amend the Constitution last week so they're trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week,'' Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said.

Republicans are ``undermining our Constitution today to get more votes in November,'' Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the House's lone declared lesbian made an impassioned plea to reject the bill..

``We face no less than a sign on the courthouse door: 'You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court. You may not see equal protection here,''' she said. ``Today, the 'you' is gay and lesbian citizens. But who would be next?''

The legislation faces long odds in the closely divided Senate and gay rights advocates vowed a fight.

"We will work to ensure that this measure is soundly rejected in the Senate," said Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques.

"Like the Federal Marriage Amendment, this bill attempts to undermine our constitutional system for political gain,"

Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal, said his group will challenge the law in court if if should pass the Senate and be signed into law.

"In attacking both gay people and the historic role of the courts, this bill clearly violates our Constitution and will never be allowed to stand.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that laws cannot single out gay people and treat us as second-class citizens, which is exactly what this bill tries to do. The right wing's efforts to rewrite the Constitution failed earlier this month, so now they're trying to undermine our government's system of checks and balances and disenfranchise gay couples who aren't a threat to anyone else."

"After failing in their attempt to amend the Constitution to deny same-sex couples the guarantee of equal protection, anti-equality politicians and ultra right wing organizations are attempting to strip from the courts their right to review DOMA," said Equality California Executive Director Geoffrey Kors. "This bill is a direct attack on our entire system of government.”

©365Gay.com® 2004

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Donating Support

So, I think I'm going to touch on an extremely touchy subject in America: Israel. I really hate to preface what I write, but I know the knee-jerk reactions of Americans, so I am going to preface this by stating I AM NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE. In fact, if I was totally against Israel and Zionism, I would still not be anti-Semetic because there are numerous reasons for being against Israel as protection against the Jews who live in Israel. And, in fact, there are many webpages which have been created by Jews who are anti-Zionist. I have also been coming in hard and heavy from the anti-Israel side on a different webpage, which taught me how to research the topic more thoroughly, as well as gave me a bit of the financial facts and the Palestinian side, needed to back this up. On with the post.

I love Israel. I love Israel so much I want to see them secede from the Gaza strip. I love Israel so much I want them to secede so far away from the Gaza strip that they won't be in harm's way. I want Israel to relocate to New Jersey. Yes, you heard me right, I am willing to donate land from the United States to create a safer Israel for the Jews.

Now, some of you may already be asking, "Why New Jersey?" Why not? It already has a decent Jewish population (358,000), and its relatively small. It is only 7,184 square miles, which is a bit smaller than Israel, but we all have to make sacrifices. Actually a good second place would be New Hampshire, because I really don't want to give up Boston or New York (call me selfish, but I love those places, but if thats what the Israelis want, I'll give them so long as I could visit). After all, it is only one tiny country, right?

Why move Israel at all? Well, the Jews need a homeland. They need to live in peace and protection. They need to live without being killed or threatened every day. So, let's get them out of the Middle East/Palestine where they are being killed every day, and take them to an area where there aren't any suicide bombers or terrorists (outside of the occasional wacko who comes from Michigan [the Unibomber went to UofM, Terry Nichols is from Michigan], thus we can't give up this shit state). It takes away a reason that the Palestinians can use against the Americans, and it puts the Atlantic Ocean between the two currently warring cultures. It makes all three sides happy, because alot of Americans believe that the Jews need a homeland and an area that they can call their own.

In fact, it makes so much sense, I highly believe that anybody who doesn't support the moving of Israel to New Jersey is anti-Semetic. After all, it is about the safety of the Jewish people, isn't it? It really isn't about some silly religious monuments nor about some God-Given right to be there, is it? If it is, then America is funding religion, and we can't have that with the separation of church and state, but we can protect a people. And, that's why I'm saying we should embrace Israeli Jews with open arms, and give up New jersey or New Hampshire (actually I'd probably prefer New Hampshire because they voted for Bush).

Friday, July 16, 2004

But the Horse Isn't So Dead

While everybody was looking at and breathing easily over the retardedness of the FMA over in the Senate, the House has been up to some suspicious works.

Could everybody turn their heads and look at exhibit a: H.R. 3313:


A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.'.

(b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.


Note, Section 7 of title 1 is the section from DOMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as well as it defines spouse as somebody of the opposite sex, be it man or woman.

While this does not put anything into the constitution, which should be held with utmost regard, even moreso than the US Code, it does restrict the hands of the Courts.

This, in effect, prevents the repeal of DOMA. Period. It would need to be repealed by an act of congress, because the supreme court could not even determine the un-constitutionality of it, if it gets challenged.

For, you see, its all about those "activist" judges who want to change and pervert the idea of marriage, not the 5-time divorced senators who reap all of the medical and tax benefits allotted to them and their spouses.

Write to your Representatives, and express your opinion on how the power is again attempted to be taken away from the Judiciary branch, and the state branch, and put into the federal government.

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Flogging a Dead Horse

Yesterday, the Senate blocked the Federal Marriage Amendment from going to a vote (with its much repeated vote not even getting a majority). The Federal Marriage Amendment is an amendment designed to take power away from the states, and also to block same-sex marriages and civil unions. However, the victory at a federal level is not necessarily a victory at all. As Dianne Feinstein pointed out on Monday, many states have marriage limitations already on the books. Many more states also have state constitutional amendments limiting the definition of marriage on this November's ballot, including Michigan.

This brings us to ask why are the activist senators trying to put a restrictive amendment on the ballot? Well, as resident slimeball Sen. Rick Santorum was stateing, countries where homosexual marriage has been legalized, such as Denmark and The Netherlands, out-of-wedlock births have gone up. Actually, I can conquor that with some facts that aren't being revealed. he rates of heterosexual marriage has not gone down since the legalization of homosexual marriage. However, I learned from a Dane that marriage is best reserved for deathbed results. Why? Because in Denmark, it is more expensive to live as two separate people, instead of one married couple. The taxes are cheaper that way. This on top of a nationalized health care system which doesn't need marriage for health benefits, unlike America.

Apparently (barring some research), America had the same thing going on sometime in the 70s. They had taken away tax benefits for married couples, so couples would divorce in December, before they had to file, then use their tax return money to take a vacation and get married again! How convienent. The marriage tax benefits went back into place fairly quickly.

The only question I have is with the marriage recognition stuff. If your marriage is not recognized by the state which you live in, will the federal government still grant you the tax breaks which you would get in another state?

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Protestation Imagery

Like I promised, I am sharing the roll of pictures that I took over in Barcelona at the protest (with some commentary).


The people who are protesting, also put up a bunch of posters which protested the creation of the European Union. Unfortunately, I cannot read Spanish, so there is no translation available from me.


Here we see a table of anti-war gear mixed in with the communist gear, and gear supporting Che Guevera.


Here we see Bush getting compared to Nazis, side by side with the Cubans.


We seem to start losing the point of the protests here.


Again, lots of Cuban flags.


This needs some translation.


The images made famous around the world.


It reads: Next Stop...Lahaya.


One of the major communist groups.


If I remember right, this is the prime minister of Spain, or something.


Bush as a criminal, and Cuba.


Yay ANARCHY. High school or younger, but surpisingly not goth.


Check out the terrorist shirt.


Anti-capitalist shirt


Peace flags are rainbow in Europe


His stickers celebrate the intifada as well as denouncing war.


Here's a nice image representation from war. Its from the communists.


The whole group.


A cutie in a Superman shirt.

Monday, July 12, 2004

Television Alery

Today at 1:00pm EST (10:00 PST), on C-SPAN2, they will be televising the debate on the federal marriage amendment, better known as "Just say no to Gays." The original writing which I criticized months ago is the one currently on the table.

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.

Simultaneously, Michigan voters support a state-wide, if not national, ban on gay marriage, and a more than necessary percentage support bans on civil unions as well. The Free Press ran a story today discussing how the bill got involved.

Michigan's amendment language reads:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

The language of both can be taken to mean both marriage and civil unions, thus outlawing both. Write to your senators and congressmen about your opinions, whether it be distaste, or support, on these constitutional amendments.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

Fahrenheit Moore

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
dir: Michael "Pompous Ass" Moore

I know that I am not one of the people for whom the movie was made. This was a movie made for the mass public who barely know what is going on in politics. They don't have the time nor the gumption to read every little thing that happens, and quite frankly...not many people do. I don't have my nose in complete politics, but I know an asshole when I see it.

Michael Moore is a name which liberals tend to revere and despise simultaneously. Which is a good thing, I think. Unlike the conservatives and their pompous asses (Limbaugh, etc), liberals tend to judge their loudmouths with criticism. The problem is, the movie isn't aimed at them either...and Moore knows this.

Moore is normally a fascinating movie maker. His four movies all reflect the style and subject matter contained within. Roger and Me was shoestring; the camera work and the editing were almost subpar. The Big One -- Moore's on-the-book tour documentary documenting closed factories -- was hurried and choppy. Bowling for Columbine, Moore's timliest movie, was slick and well timed. Fahrenheit 9/11, a work solely of it's time, is a rough, choppy, and urgent work. It seems that production on it was rushed to get it in on time.

The movie, as a movie, is rather lacking. The pacing is substandard, the editing is rough, the humor is cheap, and the perp is obvious. Some of the movie's ideologies are mentally retarded (note: I'm not commenting on the movie's message against George Bush yet), and there are moments of cheap voyeurism throughout. This all begs the question: Why would a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11, a substandard movie inferior to the directors previous ouvre, win the coveted Palme D'Or at Cannes?

The movie is political, and heavily against George Bush. Actually, I will admit that the movie isn't inferior in every way, its editing is very manipulative in ways unseen since Leni Reifenstahl made movies for Hitler...or for sure since Spielberg's last movie (you know I had to say it. :-P) As my friend said, as we walked out of the theater, "You came to see a Michael Moore movie, what did you expect?"

Well, honestly, you can't expect much from a man like Michael Moore. With Bowling for Columbine being so unabashedly contradictory that you don't even know what the hell the point was, you come to see a bunch of facts, some misconstrued, that give you a firm basis for when you should go next for your worldview understandings.

Part of the glory and problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it is so recent that it can't keep up with itself. And, sometimes it even ignores facts brought up by itself. It criticized Bush's ignoring of the August 6 memo, Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States, but the memo had been declassified days after Condi Rice's nervous testimony, and she was indeed correct: it was a historical memo.

This moment comes early on in the film, as do a bunch of cheap shots against the republican party. It should inform the viewer that, yes, this movie will be biased, paranoid, unfair, on top of, misconstrued, and almost erroneous.

So, then he makes a bunch of well-made points linking th Saudis, Bin Ladens, and Bushes through companies and oil. I won't say that I knew much of the stories, but next time I see the movie I will be taking notes to do my own fact-checking and contextual placements. (Though, for a well written retort, check out Christopher Hitchens's Unfahrenheit 9/11: The Lies of Michael Moore)

The finale to the movie is pap and crap. It puts the punch in the movie full of spite aimed at Bush, except it is only a reactionary punch. He makes a point that only the poor and uneducated are the ones being recruited. Well...duh. And, money combined with boredom leads to teenage drug use. Oh, and people die in war. Did you know that one? They die in graphic gruesome ways. Really, do tell. Bombs may not be so accurate, and hit civilian targets. (actually that is news to the moron republicans *roll eyes*)

All in all, Moore gets a slightly passing grade for having a semi-solid-on-first-viewing first act, maybe even a moderately strong second act, but failing miserably in the third.

B-

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com
Search Popdex: