DADT One Year Later: The Sky Hasn’t Fallen


Dan Savage nails it:

The bigots weren’t in the Armed Forces. The bigots were in the GOP and sitting in front of computers in the offices of anti-gay “Christian” organizations fap-fap-fapping about all the awful things that might happen in the showersand haven’t happened—once DADT was repealed.

The exact same bigots who predicted that the sky would fall if DADT was repealed make the exact same claims about marriage equality. The media shouldn’t just repeat their lies. Anti-gay bigots have earned a credibility problem. Reporters should challenge the bigots: They were 100% wrong about the “danger” of repealing DADT—why should anyone believe them when they warn about the “danger” of repealing DOMA? Their doom-and-gloom warnings on ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military were completely unfounded. Why should anyone take their doom-and-gloom warnings about ending the ban on same-sex marriage seriously?

And, man, I’d like to see Rick Perry tell that platoon leader—and his men—that he’s not fit to serve because he’s gay.

For some reason WordPress makes me go through vodpod to post this MSNBC link below:

No incidents reported since DADT repealed, posted with vodpod

Love is the Measure


WHY? Why would ANYone stand in the way of that? And if your god tells you to do so, don’t you get, just from that, that that god is no God worthy of you? A god who stands opposed to love? How can that be? There must be some misunderstanding.

People aren’t made for the law: remember? The law is made for people.

And a human who opposes Love; who recognizes it, but still opposes it: how can that be?

Be kind. Don’t resist joy when you find it in yourself or others. Celebrate with those who have found that rare thing: another human being who knows them, loves them, and will stick with them.

You know this: if you apply any rule to love, and find it doesn’t measure up – the problem is with the rule, not with love. Love measures all things, and is not measurable by anything. You know this.

Life is hard. Love is the thing best suited to help us cope with it, to learn to love life rather than merely to endure it. How can someone, for religious or any other reasons, claim to have any grounds for refusing to someone the best comfort we can have? How, seeing someone in love, could you bear to see it taken away, much less insist that it be taken away, and the lovers descend to a state of loss and grief?

When someone is hungry, do you deny them food? When they are thirsty, drink? When they are cold, does your god tell you to deny them clothing and shelter? Then how could it be that god or human would deny love to any human being? How could anyone, religious or not, deny love to another and not think themselves monstrous for doing so?

Love offers us the opportunity to be bigger than we are. If you have learned, or long believed, that the love between two people of the same sex is wrong, consider this. Through the ages, people have changed their minds about love. We now accept love between people of different races, classes, nationalities, ages, and even faiths. All of those things were forbidden before. In each case, the fact of the love between two people was seen, first, to break the law, and then to rewrite it.

Any law against love is illegitimate. Love is the higher law.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: The Republican Plan To Nullify The Courts and Establish Christian Theocracy


Whoever gets the Republican nomination in 2012, you can be sure of one thing: they plan to end our Democracy.

At the Iowa “Thanksgiving Family Forum” there were dire warnings against Sharia law. But there was a whole lotta love for a Theocracy, as long as it’s a Christian one. In fact, only one candidate even mentioned freedom of choice; the only problem is, he hasn’t a chance in hell (you’ll pardon the expression) of winning the nomination (via Slate):

There was [only] one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges, Paul stood alone. Protecting America is too important to let the Constitution get in the way.

The rest, meh… Jesus is Lord, and we have to make our country ready for his return. Here are the lowlights of your current Republican hopefuls, every one waiting to get their godly, self-righteous finger on the nuclear button:

1. Religious Americans must fight back against nonbelievers. To quote Herman Cain:

What we are seeing is a wider gap between people of faith and people of nonfaith. … Those of us that are people of faith and strong faith have allowed the nonfaith element to intimidate us into not fighting back. I believe we’ve been too passive. We have maybe pushed back, but as people of faith, we have not fought back.
2. The religious values we must fight for are Judeo-Christian. Rick Perry warned:

Somebody’s values are going to decide what the Congress votes on or what the president of the United States is going to deal with. And the question is: Whose values? And let me tell you, it needs to be our values—values and virtues that this country was based upon in Judeo-Christian founding fathers.

3. Our laws and our national identity are Judeo-Christian. Michele Bachmann explained:

American exceptionalism is grounded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is really based upon the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were the foundation for our law. That’s what Blackstone said—the English jurist—and our founders looked to Blackstone for the foundation of our law. That’s our law.

4. No religion but Christianity will suffice. Perry declared, “In every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. God created our government. Bachmann told the audience: I have a biblical worldview. And I think, going back to the Declaration of Independence, the fact that it’s God who created us—if He created us, He created government. And the government is on His shoulders, as the book of Isaiah says.

6. U.S. law should follow God’s law. As Rick Santorum put it:

Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law.

7. Anything that’s immoral by religious standards should be outlawed. Santorum again:

God gave us rights, but He also gave us laws upon which to exercise those rights, and that’s what you ought to do. And, by the way, the law should comport—the laws of this country should comport with that moral vision. Why? Because the law is a teacher. If something is illegal in this country because it is immoral and it is wrong and it is harmful to society, saying that it is illegal and putting a law in place teaches. It’s not just—laws cannot be neutral. There is no neutral, Ron. There is only moral and immoral. And the law has to reflect what is right and good and just for our society.

 8. The federal government should impose this morality on the states. Santorum once more:
The idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong. Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, the states do not have the right to do wrong. … As a president, I will get involved, because the states do not have the right to undermine the basic, fundamental values that hold this country together.

9. Congress should erase the judiciary’s power to review moral laws. Newt Gingrich suggested:

I am intrigued with something which Robby George at Princeton has come up with, which is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which it says that Congress shall define personhood. That’s very clearly in the 14th Amendment. And part of what I would like to explore is whether or not you could get the Congress to pass a law which simply says: Personhood begins at conception. And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for. You would therefore not have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Congress would have exercised its authority under the 14th Amendment to define life, and to therefore undo all of Roe vs. Wade, for the entire country, in one legislative action.

Gingrich said the same strategy could secure the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and protects the right of states to disregard same-sex marriages performed in other states. In his words, “You could repass DOMA and make it not appealable to the court, period.”

10. Courts that get in the way should be abolished. Gingrich again:

The simplest first step which I would take is to propose—and I hope this will be a significant part of the campaign next year—I have proposed to abolish the court of Judge Biery in San Antonio, who on June 1 issued an order that said, not only could students not pray at their graduation, they couldn’t use the word benediction, the could not say the word prayer, they could not say the word God, they could not ask people to stand for a moment of silence, they couldn’t use the word invocation, and if he broke any of those, he would put their superintendent in jail. I regard that as such a ruthless anti-American statement that he should not be on the court, and I would move to literally abolish his court, so that he could go back to private practice, as a signal to the courts.

Biery’s order was an overreach. In fact, it was overturned two days later by an appeals court. But he’s only the first target of the anti-judicial purge. The next words after Gingrich’s threat came from Santorum, who said: “I agree with a lot of what has just been said here. I would go farther—one step farther, Newt. I would abolish the entire Ninth Circuit.”

11. The purge of judges should be based on public opinion. Gingrich  once more:

Part of the purpose of singling out Judge Biery and eliminating his job is to communicate the standard that the two elected branches have the power and the authority to educate the judiciary when it deviates too far from the American people. And I think you would probably take that approach.

12. Freedom means obeying morality. Santorum concluded, “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”

So there you have it. The only hope for actual freedom of religion, and any voice for atheists, is Ron Paul. Who believes in hell, he just doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in it.

via Christian theocracy: How Newt Gingrich and the GOP would abolish courts and legislate morality. – Slate Magazine.

Slow but sure: DOMA Repeal Moves Forward In Senate Judiciary Committee (HuffPo)


And we need to keep the pressure on so the  Dems don’t figure out a way to fuck this up.

Rea the whole story here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 636 other followers

%d bloggers like this: