Allison Bricker

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – During a town hall held at the Ward African Methodist Episcopal Church this past Thursday, California Congressional Representative Diane Watson (CA) continued the standard rebuttal to critics of President Obama’s health care overhaul, charging them as “racist”. At the onset of the Congressional recess and the now infamous town hall meetings, Supporters of government intervention into health care originally attempted to dismiss opposition as a staged grassroots effort funded by lobbyists and Political Action Committees (PAC’s) from the insurance industry.

Consequently, after support for President Obama’s plan continued to erode with news of a secret $80 Billion deal brokered by President Obama and top pharmaceutical lobbyist, Bill Tauzin, Congressional supporters of the President’s plan such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA) changed strategies and began an attempt to label opponents to government health care as Nazis and “brownshirts”.

Representative Diane Watson however, opted to avoid any references to the Third Reich and instead sought to sum up opposition wholly based on skin color stating:

“So remember they [opponents] are spreading fear and trying to see that the first president who looks like me, fails; don’t misunderstand what is at the bottom line [racism].”

Representative Diane E. Watson
33rd Congressional District, California

Continuing, she then offered her praise for both the communist Cuban socialized medical system and Dictator, Fidel Castro; calling on her constituents to disregard what they may had heard in the past about the Communist dictator, and referred to him as one of the brightest leaders she has ever met.

Whether painting opponents to the President’s plan as racist will stem the dwindling support for a public government run option remains yet to be determined. Perhaps the biggest liability to a government run option may prove to be the cost and projected National Deficit of $17.27 Trillion by 2019 as opposed to the inferences made on opponents’ racial sentiments.

The Smoking Argus

In their never ending attempt to obtain a government love license, the homosexual movement has apparently found a loophole. The government must immediately seek to close this glaring omission of the law and stop the notion that love can be obtained without government’s consent. In a post 9/11 world, love must be reserved for those who are capable of providing the government with subsequent generations of offspring in order to ensure the proper repayment of debt. If we allow just anyone to love, then how will the bankers government continue to keep us safe, strong  and free from the evil spooky gays terrorists.

(much [unlicensed] love to Young Americans for Liberty for posting this video.)

Source(s): The Onion News Network

Allison Bricker

During the remaining weeks of 2008 amidst the front page news about the worsening economic situation and the ever growing line of companies looking to stick their faux-Capitalist hands into the T.A.R.P. money, what seemed to be a sudden rash of violent crimes perpetrated against the queer community, commonly abbreviated as LGBT, began to make headlines.

• In San Francisco on December 12th, a woman was brutally gang raped by four men and left naked in the street. News reports stated, that the two adults and two teens began approaching her shouting anti-gay epithets after spotting the rainbow flag sticker on her car.¹




• In Memphis on December 23rd, a transsexual prostitute was shot at point bank range in the face and critically wounded as she attempted to exit the vehicle of her john. She is currently in critical condition.²




• In Indianapolis on December 26th, a transwoman and her partner were shot to death in their home while they slept. Police reports indicate that after several internet chats with the suspect in custody, he was invited over to the couple’s home for an as of yet undisclosed reason.³




• In New Orleans on December 29th, two men and a transgendered individual all originally from Mississippi were gunned down in their 7th Ward home by several suspects which police have thus far been unable to apprehend.⁴

The aforementioned crimes are each horrific for the utter disregard for human life and liberty. Moreover, these perpetrators all need to be held accountable for their crimes, and thus brought to justice by law enforcement. However, adding insult to injury of these horrific crimes, are those charlatans, hacks, and shills who claim to be LGBT activists and allies solely seeking to push their political agenda and their own self-aggrandizing interest by calling for additional “Hate” crime legislation.

It has been ten years since Matthew Shepard was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die in rural Wyoming. Since then thirty-two states have added penalties for crimes motivated by sexual orientation and eleven of the thirty-two have also added criminal penalties for crimes motivated by a person’s gender-identity. Yet in California alone which has had a statute regarding crimes motivated by a sexual-orientation since 1989, crimes against homosexuals have increased 680% over the last ten years.⁵

It is obvious, that these legislatively granted protections do little to nothing in keeping us safer from those biased against us anymore so than the death penalty has prevented murder in general. Furthermore, as a lesbian, can someone please tell me how the gang rape of of a straight woman would be somehow less traumatic to her simply due to her sexuality not being a factor? It is a brutal crime regardless of motivation as are all crimes committed against another person.

Additionally, words on paper offer absolutely no protection to the victim during the actual commission of the crime. While concurrently, our over worked and underpaid law enforcement officers more often show up after the fact to begin the investigation, take statements, and pursue the suspect or suspects.

This violence is indeed a hateful act, but it is a hateful act regardless of motivation. Victims of crimes are individuals, they have a name, a family, a life. The crime is committed against them, not the loose collective of which they share some character trait. Furthermore, and most importantly, Americans already have the best defense against becoming a victim of a violent crime. This ability is not granted by law, it is ours from the moment we are born; our inherent right to self-defense. There is an immutable truth to the statement, “Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed”. Moreover, armed individuals don’t get bashed.

Yet socialists and the media have done their best to make us fear guns and to label self-defense as an untenable option, again solely for their political agenda. A study conducted by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy subsequently published in the New York Times⁶, showed that higher gun ownership in European countries equated to far lower rates of violent crimes. Secondly, ask yourself this, when was the last time you heard of someone attempting to shoot up a gun show. Fact is random mass shootings are always perpetrated against populations known to be completely disarmed such as in a school.

It baffles my mind, why those of us who do indeed find kinship within the LGBT community would turn to the state for our protection? The state; the same entity with such a long history of egregious crimes against us that after years of beatings, imprisonment, harassment, and draconian confinement in mental institutions led to the community rising up in the Stonewall⁷ and Compton Cafeteria Riots⁸. Yet now we turn to this same entity and beg like chattle for protection from their snake-oil pens and empty promises?

Source(s): ¹Daily News “Arrests made in gang rape of San Francisco lesbian” • ² ABC News 27 – Memphis “Transgendered Woman Shot in the Face” • ³ Bilerico “Transwoman and Her Boyfriend Murdered in Indianapolis” • ⁴ Out In New Orleans “Three Black Gay Men Murdered in New Orleans, Police Hunt for Suspects” • ⁵ Hate Crimes in California – 2007 • ⁶ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Police/New York Times “Murder and Guns” • ⁷ Stonewall and Byond: Lesbian and Gay Culture • ⁸ Screaming Queens – The Riot at Compton’s Cafeteria

Joseph Marohl

“When asked by Chris Wallace [on Fox News Sunday] what ‘conservative solutions’ the GOP would bring to their current minority-party status, [Rep. Mike] Pence said social issues like ‘the sanctity of marriage’ will remain the backbone of the Republican platform.” (1)

…

Sanctity “1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness. 2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability. 3. Something considered sacred.” (2)

…

Sacred “1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity. 2. Worthy of religious veneration … 3. Made or declared holy … 4. Dedicated or deveoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person … 5. Worthy of respect; venerable. 6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.” (3)

…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (4)

…

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” (5)

…

“Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means. No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably discriminatory or arbitrary…. The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one’s child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, ‘We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.’ (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.” (6)

…

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” (7)

***

(1) “GOP Leader: Rebuild Party Around Sanctity of Marriage.” 9 Nov. 2008. The Huffington Post.

(2) “Sanctity.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. 2000.

(3) “Sacred.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. 2000.

(4) First Amendment. U.S. Constitution.

(5) United States. House of Representatives. Defense of Marriage Act. H.R. 3396 (7 May 1996). 104th Cong., 2nd sess.

(6) California. Supreme Court. Perez v Sharp (1948).

(7) Proposition 8 (“Eliminated Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry”). Amendment to the Constitution of the State of California, 2008.

***

* I am aware of the difference between an “amendment” and a “law.” However, even amendments, on the federal or state level, are obliged to operate in the interests of protecting the rights of citizens and not cavalierly to interfere in either individual citizens’ rights or the operations of individual religious organizations to pronounce what is or is not sacred, holy, and consecrated within the doctrines and rituals supported in those organizations.

Joseph Marohl

Me, I’m elated by Barack Obama’s win. I wasn’t one to be dazzled by every aspect of the man’s style and certainly not all his stances, but in the last months I came to feel he has the makings to be the best President this country has ever seen—and the nadir George Bush reached in the last eight years makes Obama’s promise shine all the brighter.

The Bush Administration have brought the country low—bankrupt, globally despised, torn between two wars, baselessly arrogant, fearful (no, terrorized … and by its own government!), stripped of essential civil liberties, and contemptuous of the poor, the aged, and the ill.

Whether I’m right or wrong about Obama right now, he needs to be great just to offset the mess we’re all in. More to the point, it is the American people, as a whole, who need to exhibit greatness, for no elected official, however novel or charismatic, can do the work of rebuilding the nation’s character.

My hopes, such as they are, are wrapped on the new President’s being everything I think he can be.

Still, for me, though, the great disappointment—in the midst of my current high—is that California appears to have passed Proposition 8, negating the court’s decision earlier this year permitting lesbians and gay men to marry whom they please. Arizona and Florida have passed similar measures, either banning or reinforcing an existing law banning same-sex marriage. Arkansas voters decided to ban gays from being able to adopt children.

As speaker after speaker recalls Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream at what one hopes can be the dawn of a better America this morning, we must face the truth that electing a mixed-race President is a gigantic step forward, indeed, but pushing others back down at the same moment reveals that America has yet preserved its ugly side—in its homophobia and religious fear and bigotry.

Mandy Hyndman

Today I find myself wondering if the American people have suddenly taken leave of their ability to comprehend symbolism. I suppose I could find my answer by simply looking into the public education system and taking note of the number of art, music, and other creative programs being pared away to make room for Math, Science (insert derisive laughter here), and Army recruitment periods.

Perhaps I could dip into the glorious world of religion and take a poll to find out how many people think the Bible is an instruction manual for life that is to be taken literally word for word.

Maybe I have “Joe the Plumber” to blame. Is he just a plumber or is he the face of a political party ready to break up the nasty hairball of the economy and plunge the clogging turd of the war in Iraq? Is “Joe six-pack” really an allusion to Tom Cruise’s sexy body in Top Gun? Hey…Maverick! I finally understand! I simply need to buy more things from Wal-Mart and everything will be alright.

I really only need to look so far as West Hollywood, CA to prove my point, though. West Hollywood resident Chad Morrissette decided to exercise his first amendment muscle by hanging Sarah Palin in effigy (GASP!). Apparently, unlike Senator Obama whose likeness has been hanged all over the country, the spunky and adorable pit-bull…er hockey mom from Alaska is off limits for the kind of age-old message a hanging or burning effigy sends, i.e.: We are appalled and offended by your political leanings, be gone with you!

It wasn’t long before enraged protesters marched onto the scene and declared the effigy an act of hate and violence. The reaction was so impassioned that Chad decided it would be best to remove the dummy.

Well you know what protesters? I declare the effigy an act of symbolism much like burning a flag or lighting dog-poopy on a mean neighbor’s doorstep. It may be unpleasant, but it sure does get the point across, and I’ll be damned if Chad Morrissette of West Hollywood, CA doesn’t have the right to do it. I would venture to say that he is more patriotic than most Americans for having the guts to. I only wish that he had not allowed the angry taunts of an ignorant group of protesters to deter him from continuing to display his message–but it does speak volumes about the lack of individualism infecting our nation today.

Kelly

Proposition 8, for those of you not acquainted, is the California ballot initiative that will appear on the voting ballot of millions of Californians this November 4th in order to give the voters of the state a say in matters of civil rights. In this case, I’m speaking of the fundamental civil right for same-sex couples to be granted the benefits of a marriage contract, just as hetero-couples have done for centuries. A “yes” vote is intended to stifle the California Supreme Court’s ruling and ban same-sex marriage, while a “no” vote is intended to keep things as they have been since the court’s decision this past May.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental “right to marry” that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.¹

However, before the ink was even dry, opponents of the ruling were up in arms to say the least, and determined to push through the ballot measure now known as Proposition 8. If the supporters of Prop 8 have things their way on Election day, the California Constitution will eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, providing that only marriage between a ‘man’ and ‘woman’ be valid in the state of California.

Now, I could go on to list the theological and political arguments of both sides of this issue. I could rail on and on about the Christian zealots of the Family Research Council, Dr. Dobson and Co., and the Catholic Pope. I could trash their viewpoints and shoot holes through their theories, but that will not alter these views or theories in any way. Open dialogue and education I’ve always believed could work wonders, but I’m less and less convinced of this, especially when dealing with people hiding behind a religion. Not that those in support of same-sex marriage are interested in listening to other side either, they are not. Neither side is coming to the table any time soon in hopes of hammering this all out to reach a compromise of some sort. And why should they? I’m not saying that they should. But something is wrong, in my opinion, when a concerted effort by proponents of both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ vote can raise 60 million dollars to be spent mainly on advertisements in hopes of persuading the California voters.

At least 64,000 people from all 50 states and more than 20 other countries have given money to support or oppose a ban on same-sex marriage in California, reflecting broad interest in a race that some consider second in national importance only to the presidential election.

That would be a record nationally for a ballot initiative based on a social rather than economic issue, campaign finance experts say. It also eclipses the combined total of $33 million spent in the 24 states where similar measures have been put to voters since 2004.

Ten days before the vote on Proposition 8, campaign finance records showed that total contributions for and against the measure had surpassed $60 million, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.²

I do not mean to dumb down the importance of civil rights, because marriage is as fundamental and pertinent and sacred to the the millions of families headed by gay parents as it is to those headed by straight parents. But, I find it sickening that amidst all the clamoring, people would collectively come up with 60 million dollars that will not feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, research cures for you name the disease, teach people how to read and write, or any number of things that could make a positive difference. Private contributions are amazing. People who donate and lend a helping hand make miracles happen for families all over this country on a daily basis, a million fold over what the government will ever do. And though the 60 million that has gone to funding both sides of Proposition 8 is a drop in the bucket when compared to the ridiculous amounts of money raised and spent in our thank-god -it’s-almost-over Presidential election, it still makes me wince.

SOURCE(S): ¹L.A. Times, “California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban”, By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff,May 16, 2008 • ² Associated Press: “Same-sex marriage ban nets big bucks;
Donations for and against Proposition 8 surpass $60 million” By: Lisa Leff, Article Last Updated: 10/27/2008 06:26:00 AM MDT