Friday, June 27, 2008

Why They're Wrong, Part 5

This guy gets really creative:

No judge, no court, and no civil law can give same-sex couples the two elements of a legal marriage — life and legitimacy. Only through the union of a man and a woman can life be created and only through the sanctity of marriage can legitimacy be established.

Since same-sex union cannot create life, it is the legitimacy — the principle of hereditary right — they seek in the courts and cannot obtain because legitimacy is a birthright. Even innocent children born outside of marriage will always be denied legitimacy. Wars have been fought for hereditary rights for kingdoms and empires.

Most of this is just made up. Of course judges, courts and civil laws can give same-sex couples legal marriage, they already have. Marriage is a human-created thing and it can be anything we define it to be. And we certainly don't define marriage based on hereditary right or birthright. In fact, any person can decide to completely ignore birthright and transfer their wealth upon death to any person -- or cat, apparently -- they want to. It's not only legal to do this, it's a right to do it.

We live in the year 2008, all children are legitimate. The old-fashion "bastard" concept has long gone by the wayside both societally and legally. And while it is true that wars have been fought over hereditary rights, it isn't true that this has been done by any modern, civilized society like the one we live in.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

We Can Do It

The latest Q-Poll shows the Hate Amendment currently failing -- at 58% (it needs 60%) -- so we can definitely kill this thing. Don't be complacent though, similar polls before the January vote on the tax cut amendment showed it failing in the same basic territory -- and it passed. If we work hard, though, we can knock off some of that 58%.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Amendment 2 Proponets Tell Supporters To Break the Law

I'm loathe to include the video or the link, lest we give them more traffic, but this video seems to be a direct request by religious right nutjob Mat Staver to Floridians to break the law:

Staver actually wrote Amendment 2 and is pushing the for people to sign petitionsnot just once, but twice:

2:19: "even if someone has already signed it, it doesn't matter. They can sign it again."

He explains that they can go ahead and sign the petition again, even if they've already done so and that the government will sort them out. Forget that this is the direct encouragement of waste in government, it is also illegal:

A person who knowingly signs a petition or petitions for a candidate, a minor political party, or an issue more than one time commits a misdemeanor of the first degree...

Showing once again, that nothing to do with this Amendment has anything to do with right or wrong, Staver is telling his followers to break the law in an attempt to add hate to the Florida Constitution.

These people are trying to win at all costs for political reasons...

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Fun With Site Visitors (a.k.a Fun With Hatemongers)

A post I put up a while back on Amendment 2 brought out a thorough response that I have to respond to. Here are some of the choice quotes/arguments and my response:

He has listed 15 reasons Amendment 2 is wrong, none of them make any sense at all.

Keep this line in mind, it'll come back later when he says that he's not "bashing" me.

What morals are you referring to fellah? Morals for 99.9% of the world come from religious teachings and convictions and do not embrace your chosen lifestyle. I actually don't think anyone cares what you do in your home. But marriage is a religious ceremony, leave it alone. And what "human rights" are you referring to? Are you pulling the old liberal trick of confusing yourself by mistaking rights with privileges?

This number is completely made up. In addition to the 10% or so of the population that is non-religious (in the U.S. alone, the amount is much higher elsewhere), there are many religious people who have no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage. In more modernized countries, it's common that the majority of the population doesn't have a problem with gay marriage. The scientific evidence is very clear that sexuality is not a "chosen" lifestyle. Lots of people care what people do in their own homes, that's why they pass laws preventing sodomy, sexual toys, pornography, marijuana, etc. Marriage is not a religious ceremony by definition. It can be. It can also be non-religious. Like the couples who are married by notaries public or justices of the peace -- ceremonies that, in Florida, explicitly are forbidden from including any specific religious content. Marriage is a human right. So says the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so says 100% of the history of U.S. constitutional law. You've been listening to too many Liberty University law graduates. You parrot their exact lines, which have been rejected by our system of law for 100% of American history.

Where in the Constitution does it say that you have a right to lay with some one of the same sex?

In the same place it says that you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Or that you have the right to own private property. Or that you have the right to vote. The framers of the Constitution were 100% clear that all rights are protected, not just those explicitly stated in the Constitution. This is the whole point of the Ninth Amendment. It explicitly says this. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any law only applies to straight people.

The Constitution is what it is, it isn't something to be altered every time some dick head wants a footnote added. Again you have tricked yourself with the liberal lie that the Constitution is a "living document."

This ignores 100%, again, of constitutional history. We know that the Constitution is vague. We know that it explicitly says that things not stated in the Constitution are still protected. We know that the Supreme Court was designed to interpret that vague language. And we know that it has always operated in such a manner. Conservatives have always hated this, so they made up a story that it's not true. But the Constitution and the writings of the framers explictly reject that concept, as they do with most other conservative concepts.

There is absolutely no right in our Constitution granting a right for two people of the same gender to marry. I think if you and your crew tried calling it a contract or civil union people might have an easier time accepting it. Instead you insist on hijacking something that is holy and sacred to the vast majority of society.

Sure there is. Under the penumbras of the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the explicit allowance of nonspecified rights to be protected under the Ninth Amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution clearly says that "citizens" have rights, not "straight citizens." Setting up gay marraiges as "contracts" or "civil unions" makes them separate. By definition, separate is unequal and unconstitutional. See Brown v. Board of Education. Marriage is NOT holy and sacred to hardly anybody, much less, the "vast majority." That's why we have a 49% divorce rate. That's why people like Michael Jackson and Britney Spears can do pretty much anything they want to and call it marriage. That's why people like John McCain and Newt Gingrinch dump their ill wives for younger, prettier wives. That's why married pastors like Ted Haggard cheat on their wives with gay prostitutes. It's not sacred unless the people in it make it sacred. Most don't.

At the federal level, we only tried to take away rights via the Constitution one time -- prohibition -- and it was an unmitigated disaster, leading to the Great Depression and the rise of organized crime in America. Is that the type of history we want to repeat? Sooo, if we don't legitimize gay marriage, Capone is going to come back from the dead and bankrupt America? Now your just being stupid, liberalism is what will bankrupt America....

No, that would be a really dumb interpretation of what I said. I said taking rights away via the Constitution leads to negative results. Similarly, the "liberalism will bankrupt America" canard ignores history. The greatest economy in world history was under a liberal Democrat, FDR. The worst economy in our history was under Republicans. Almost 100% of our world-record national debt (you know, the thing that might actually bankrupt us) was run up by cut taxes/increase spending Republicans.

It's unnecessary. Gay marriage is already illegal in Florida. Then what are you worried for?

Because Amendment 2 bans more than gay marriage.

How do you equate this to teaching hate to children? Don't you understand that the huge majority of society does not want their children exposed forcefully to homosexuality?

Teaching children that homosexuals aren't equal before the law, teaches children that homosexuals are lesser beings. That is the root of almost all hate throughout world history. You can't avoid exposing people to the real world. No matter what you do about gay marriage, gay people exist. They'll always exist. Children will always see them. Nothing bad will ever happen because of children learning about gay people.

Do what you want, but leave the rest of us out of it.

Aim this one at yourself. You are the one trying to impose your beliefs on others. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. If you get an invitation to a gay wedding, don't go to it. You are the one putting yourself in the middle of things, not the other way around.

No one is stopping you from doing what you want.

Well, not me personally, since I'm straight, but people like you are certainly stopping gay people from getting married. And in places like Florida, stopping gay people from adopting children. And in some places, the law allows people to be fired simply because gay. So, you're actually full of crap.

What about the 99% of the population that doesn't want anything to do with the gay lifestyle? They aren't "harmed?"

No. The gay "lifestyle" (there's actually no such thing, gay people are individuals who have different lifestyles) harms nobody.

What about the warped sense of self and gender the children of gay couples are subject to and the teasing form peers? They aren't "harmed?" I saw some footage of Rosie O'Donnell's kids, I pray for them.... it's sad actually that they will never know normal functioning parent role models.

Ahhh, I get it. You're actually a hatemonger. You hate gay people. You believe made-up nonsensical, illogical stereotypes about gay people. The evidence is clear, that children who grow up in gay homes have a better sense of self and gender than those who grow up in straight homes. All children are subject to teasing from peers. It is those peers doing the teasing that should be punished, not the children who have gay parents. Rosie's kids clearly already know a more normal and better-functioning parental role model than you could ever possibly be. I wouldn't let you within a mile of my kids, you would try to make them into hatemongers like yourself.

Ask your lawyer and employer if there is some sort of trust, living will or contracts you can draw up between you and your partner, I am sure you will find something that suits those needs perfectly, but that's not your real agenda is it?

See, you don't even remotely believe in equality for gay people. Straight married couples don't have to do those extra contracts and pay those extra lawyers fees. You want to force gay people to have to do extra work and pay extra money. That is morally wrong. Equality.

Your agenda is imposing a liberal lifestyle on the rest of society who doesn't want it... And you silly little person, children are not taught hate, they are taught traditional morals. Try to spin it anyway you like, the natural order of things is for men to mate with women, plain and simple... and is your idea of "civilized" those parades we see in San Fransicko? No thank you please....

Letting gay people marry doesn't impose anything on anyone. Gay people already get married in Massachusetts. It has had no effect on the straight people there. The same is true in multiple other countries with legal marriage. The world will get more liberal no matter what you do to stop it. It always has, it always will. Children are taught hate all the time. Racism, sexism, hatred of foreigners, hatred of gay people are all things that are taught. Nobody is born a hatemonger. People learn it. The evidence on this is foolproof. Some traditional morals include hate. Like the traditional moral we had in this country for hundreds of years that said it was okay to own black people. Hating gay people and denying them rights is traditional in the U.S. And it is hate. And we always, eventually, end hate-filled traditions. We'll end this one, too. The natural order includes homosexuality. That's why homosexuals exist. Few people would choose to be gay in a society that includes hatemongers like you. But we have millions of gay people born here anyway. That's because it's not a choice, it's part of nature. It's in many other species of mammal, as well. And once again, you show your hate by picking out a stereotype about gay people and generalizing from it falsely. People are free to do what they want. Even in a parade. And you are free to not attend. You actually aren't welcome at places like that, largely because you are aligned with the forces of hate and evil.

Again, a lawyer can create all the contracts you want, please stop trying to call it marriage. Why don't you get that?

One, because that's not what the law says. Two, because it's immoral to agree with you. Three, because you don't get to decide what happens and doesn't happen. Which is good for everyone.

This Amendment would provide cover for Domestic abusers who live in situations where they aren't married. Don't believe me? A judge ruled exactly this in another state where a law with this same language passed. Now your just sounding insane... what are you talking about?

This actually happened in a court case in Ohio based on almost the exact same language in the Florida proposal.

"Hatred, discrimination and violence against gay people"... My friend, aside from isolated incident's from some nut bags, this comes from the gay community trying to force itself, via the courts, on the 99% of the population that doesn't want anything to do with it. Dude I'm not bashing, I just don't know how you don't get that...

This, is just dumb on so many levels and it not only is bashing, it is an attempt to justify beating people up because of their sexuality. That's immoral. Beating people up because of who they are is wrong in every religious tradition and every system of morality. And the law. And it doesn't matter why people are being beaten up, it's wrong. Always.

The role of the government is not to meddle in the lives of its citizens big guy....

Total nonsense, once again. Nowhere in our laws does it say that the role of government is "not to meddle" in people's lives. In fact, almost every law that has passed by every government, everywhere, throughout all of history meddled in someone's life. You are the one trying to meddle in someone's life. Gay marriage doesn't affect you and it has nothing to do with you, but you not only want to meddle in it, you want the government to do so. You aren't just a hatemonger, you're a lying hypocritical hatemonger.

We are a representative republic, this democracy thing is something conjured up by the left. Why does it make sense to you for a very small minority to impose its will on the majority via law suits? Why is that okay?

No, the democracy thing is conjured up by the dictionary. Representative republic and representative democracy are synonyms. They mean the same thing. Either way, the majority has no say over civil rights. And gay marriage doesn't impose anything on the majority. It has no affect on anyone outside of the marriage. The only way it would impose upon you, is if it said you had to marry a gay person. And we can change laws via lawsuits, because that's the way our system was set up. That's why we have courts.

You've stopped making any sense again fellah, I'm not a christian and the only ones obsessing about gay people are liberals like you. Most people could care less what you do in your home, but when you bring it into our schools, our work place and in our society in general and force people to accommodate a lifestyle they don't agree with, then you've got a problem buddy...

You apparently have no idea what you are talking about on any topic. A basic web search would show the conservative religious obsession about gay people is one of the most prominent aspects of their belief system. You don't have to accomodate anything. In fact, you wouldn't even know about it unless you pried into someone else's personal life. That's the real problem. People like you invading the privacy of others.

I hope you at least consider this view, if you call it bashing then you really haven't listened and I have wasted my time... cheers!

No. I will never consider the view of hatemongers. Especially those that say they aren't "bashing" and then repeatedly insult me (silly little person), talk down to me (big guy) and call for government-sponsored hate. Of course that's bashing. Of course I listened. I just think that the things you say are ridiculous and I know you are almost wholly ignorant about our system of law, something that I teach in my day job because I'm an expert on it. Yes, you wasted your time. Any time you try to convince others to support hate, you are not only wasting your time, you are engaging in evil.

The Next President of the United States Opposes Amendment 2

Barack Obama says he doesn't favor Florida's Amendment 2.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Two More Amendment Opponents

On Sunday's radio show state house candidate Ron Rice declared he was against Amendment 2.

Similarly, CFO Alex Sink said she opposes the hate amendment as well, according to several sources today...

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Why They're Wrong, Pt. 4

Our "liberal" media is at work again. This column in Hernando Today, is about as wrong as possible. Not surprising coming from such a conservative paper. Here are some key points:

Judges should interpret laws, not make them.

That's not what the Constitution or our history says.

But that's what happened in California recently when the state's Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay and lesbian marriage.

Not true. The ruling just enforced already-existing constitutional law. Such law doesn't say anything about straight people.

The justices rejected both a 30-year-old "defense of marriage" law plus a 2000 referendum in which more than 60 percent of California voters reaffirmed that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only kind of "marriage" their state should accept.

It matters little how old a unconstitutional law is or how many people support it, it's still unconstitutional. People's rights aren't up to majority rule.

Massachusetts courts had approved gay and lesbian marriage a year earlier. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, is a Massachusetts senator (then and now) who probably spent too much campaign time explaining away his state's action.

Complete nonsense. Gay marriage had nothing to do with Kerry's loss. The war, 9/11, terrorism and the Swift Boat Veterans killed Kerry.

According to veteran political observers (including me!), the Massachusetts action most likely prompted a larger-than-anticipated turnout of conservative Florida voters to protest same-sex marriage.

But there's no evidence there was a larger-than-anticipated turnout of conservative voters.

Obviously, the appointed California judges are out of touch with the will of a large majority of the electorate.

They aren't supposed to be in touch with the will of the people, they're supposed to be in touch with the meaning of the law.

But I object to having their marriage issues shoved down my throat whenever I turn on the TV.

This is hateful nonsense. Nobody has a right to avoid seeing something on television. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. Beyond that, gay marriage is rare on television.

One in particular: Ellen DeGeneres lost viewers and sponsors on her previous TV show when she "came out." You'd think she had learned. No way; her response to the California justices was to announce her "marriage" to her long-time girlfriend on the show.

None of this is true. Ellen is more popular than ever and the show where she came out was one of the highest-watched television shows ever. Her show was canceled because ABC didn't support her.

Who cares? That decision should have been hers and her partner's to share, without bothering the viewers.

Apparently here viewers -- all of whom know she's gay -- care quite a lot. I haven't heard of even one voter complaint about the announcement.

There's a reasonable way to skirt judicial end runs around gay and lesbian marriage, be it in a referendum or in a constitutional amendment.

Trying to enshrine hate in the law is never reasonable.

In connection with an inevitable next round of simplifications of our tax codes, treat everyone, even conventionally-marrieds, as individuals — with the same benefits to all, regardless of partnership status. Maybe that's too ideal.

This sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. Maybe he's saying that everyone should get the same benefits, regardless of who they love. That I agree with, let's call it gay marriage.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Round 2 Voting Now Open

Okay, several categories are close enough that we need you to vote in them one more time. We've dropped off the lower vote-getters and just narrowed it down to the top three in each category. The vote totals are currently reset at zero for each of these categories and this is the last vote. From now until Sunday, June 8 at midnight, votes will be taken in the following categories. Go here to vote:

Best National Blog: Blogs written by Floridians that cover primarily national politics.
*Bark Bark Woof Woof,
*Ranger Against War,

Best Party Website: Best Florida-wide website associated with a political party or political party unit (such as a caucus or coalition).
*Empty Chair Charlie,
*Florida Democrats,
*Florida Young Democrats,

Best Local Party Website: This one is for Florida DECs, clubs or local chapters of statewide caucuses or coalitions. *
*East Hillsborough Democratic Club,

Best Interest Group Website (Professional) : Any Florida-based nonparty activist, charitable or grassroots group with an annual budget over $100,000 is eligible for this one.
*Equality Florida,
*Florida Red & Blue,

Netroots Activist of the Year: The individual who has done the most to advance the goals and activities of the progressive Netroots in the state of Florida.
*Alison Berke Morano, Pasco DEC, DCCA, Florida Progressive Coalition
*Phil Perry, Florida Democratic Party
*Ray Seaman, Florida Progressive Coalition, Progress Florida

Best Post: The best-written post since last year's awards.
*One Way Out for Florida Democrats -- Dan Gelber,
*Brooding At Breakfast With Al Gore -- J.F. McCullers at Conniption Fit,
*It's Not Called the Hate Amendment for Nothing -- Kenneth Quinnell at Florida Progressive Coalition,

Best Ongoing Series: The best regular feature that incorporates at least five posts since last year's awards.
*Eye on Miami, the Miami-Dade Urban Development Boundary
*FLA Politics, Florida Political News and Commentary
*Florida Progressive Coalition, Stories to Read

Best Online Radio Show: Goes to the best Netroots-created online radio show from Florida.
*Blast Off! Radio with Sinfonian,
*The Big Show with Alison Berke Morano and Kenneth Quinnell,
*The Countdown with Susan S and Kenneth Quinnell,

Go here to vote...

In the other categories, here are the top three finalists -- keep in mind, there were enough votes to determine the winners in these categories. We would like to invite the finalists in these categories to appear (as well as those above that are still open for voting), to attend the Netroots Conference on June 14. The event will be in Hollywood at the Jefferson-Jackson fundraiser. The Netroots Conference starts at 12 noon and the awards will be given away beginning at 2:30 p.m. Please join us to accept your award or to congratulate the other winners. Except for the Hall of Fame inductees -- NO ACCEPTANCE SPEECHES! Here are the finalists in the other categories:

Best State Blog: Blogs about statewide politics in Florida.
*Florida Netroots,
*Smashed Frog,
*Florida Progressive Coalition,

Best Local Blog: Blogs about city/county/regional politics in the state of Florida.
*Eye on Miami,
*Talk to Me,

Best Media Blog: Blogs written by professional journalists at Florida publications.
*The Fort Report,
*Naked Politics,
*Political Whore,

Best Professional Blog: Blogs written by state or local political parties, candidates or party operatives in Florida.
*Joe Garcia,
*The Gelber Blog,
*Grassroots Brevard,

Best Candidate Website: Anyone running for statewide or local office in Florida can win this one.
*Kevin Beckner,
*Dan Gelber,
*Robert Wexler,

Best Interest Group Website (Amateur): Any Florida-based nonparty activist, charitable or grassroots group with an annual budget under $100,000 is eligible for this one.
*Florida Citizens for Science,
*Miami for Peace,
*Progressive Democrats of Florida,

Best Writer: Anyone whose writings is published at any of the above websites is eligible for this one. Winners should have one or more of the following qualities: good grammar and presentation, provides original reporting, has a good sense of humor, shows creativity, has a strong personal touch, or has an affect on the real world because of their writing
*Dan Gelber, The Gelber Blog
*Mustang Bobby, Bark Bark Woof Woof
*Ken Quinnell, Florida Progressive Coalition

Netroots Candidate of the Year : The Florida candidate at any level who has best incorporated the Netroots into her/his campaign and done the best job of treating Netroots activists as valid constituents and not just another group of people to exploit.
*Alan Brock, County Commission
*Dan Gelber, Legislature
*Robert Wexler, Congress

Netroots Organization of the Year : The organization that has done the most to advance the goals and activities of the progressive Netroots in the state of Florida.
*DFA Miami,
*Florida Citizens for Science,
*Florida Netroots,

Best New Blogger: This one should go to the best blogger who has been blogging about Florida politics for no more than a year and a half.
*Dan Gelber,
*J.F. McCullers,
*Chris Petley,

Best Online Campaign: This is an award for the best use of the web and related technologies to achieve some kind of goal, such as fundraising, fighting legislation or other activism.
*Draft Joe Garcia,
*Say No on 2,
*Wexler Wants Hearings Campaign,

Florida Progressive Coalition Progressive Hall of Fame: FPC is sponsoring a virtual "Progressive Hall of Fame" that should be awarded as sort of a lifetime achievement award to a person or organization (amateur or professional) that has made a significant contribution towards making Florida a bluer, more progressive state. This award may have more than one recipient.
*You'll have to wait until the awards ceremony to find out about this one.