Coastline of United States Sharply Altered in Post-Election Cataclysm

November 7th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Politics | Religion | Sex and Gender | State and Local - (2 Comments)

The morning after the 2012 elections saw a starkly changed American landscape, changed in a very literal sense as large sections of the North American landmass collapsed into the ocean.

As the dawn rose over the United States of America, it quickly became apparent that the entire states of Maine (where voters approved same-sex marriage by a margin of 53%-47%), Maryland (where voters approved same-sex marriage by 52%-48% margin) and Washington State (where voters approved same-sex marriage by a 52%-48% margin) had disappeared under the waves. NSAT-5 and NSAT-7 satellite imagery quickly pieced together by the Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration of Very, Very Straight but Clergy revealed a new composite image of the American coastline:

Coastline of the United States Dramatically Altered in Cataclysm After Votes on Same-Sex Marriage in Maryland, Maine and Washington State

Reaction was swift from conservative quarters. “By their actions, the voters of three states invited God’s judgment on our nation,” opined theogeologist and chicken-frying magnate Dan Cathy. Fellow theogeologist Rabbi Yehuda Levin agreed with Cathy’s assessment:

The way this works is very simple: God warns us. God warns in the Bible as early as Noah that this kind of misbehavior can lead to floods. It can lead to disasters. It can lead to buildings falling and earthquakes.

So that is our tradition. It is written in our Talmud, two thousand years ago, that because of the sin of homosexuality and the, organized homosexuality, societal homosexuality is, cause, brings about earthquakes.

Innocent people then get destroyed with the guilty people, just like when a bus driver drives a bus and goes over a ravine, innocent people are killed. We don’t hold this against God. These are the regulations.

“Yes, millions of people are dead, but some ladies were planning to kiss one another. God had no choice,” added Rabbi Levin’s longtime personal assistant and groomsman, who refused to be named for this article. “God’s justice demands that we sort out our genitals hygenically.”

Update, 7:50 AM EST: Officials at the Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration of Very, Very Straight Clergy have released a statement clarifying that the states of Maine, Maryland and Washington have actually not collapsed into the ocean after all. “One of our technicians misinterpreted the image on our lab computers. The map is just our screen saver,” explained the Very, Very Straight Reverend Frederick Updike. “We regret the error.” “Check back in tomorrow, though,” added VVSR Updike’s longtime personal groomsman.

, , , , , , , , ,

The Honest Answer Against Same-Sex Marriage Appears

November 3rd, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Election 2012 | Moral Values | Politics | Republicans | Sex and Gender - (3 Comments)

Why exactly are you so worked up about same-sex marriage?

The people opposed to same-sex marriage here in Maine have run out of answers to that question.

First, they said same-sex marriage would destroy other marriages. But other states legalized same-sex marriage and the divorce rate hasn’t shot up in those states.

Then, they said that same-sex marriage would hurt children. But there’s been no evidence of increased harm to children in the states where same-sex marriage is legal. Indeed, its in the states where children appear to be most valued that same-sex marriage has been legalized.

What’s left? The truth. Finally, the campaigners against same-sex marriage are being honest about their motivations. I spotted this campaign sign along Maine’s Route 17 yesterday:

Maine sign on same-sex marriage found on Route 17: No On 1: GOD Defined Marriage. Don't Defy HIM.

Do what my God says, or else.

That’s all the campaigners against same-sex marriage have left. It’s no wonder that a number of states are poised next Tuesday to jump away from this magical spear-sharpening approach and finally make equality legal.

, , , , , , ,

Significant Step Forward: Democratic Party including Marriage Equality as a Platform Plank

July 31st, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Democrats | Election 2012 | Liberty | Politics | Sex and Gender - (2 Comments)

If the Democratic Party took steps like this every day, I might consider joining it.

The Democratic National Committee has confirmed reports that marriage equality will be incorporated into the Democratic Party’s national platform for 2012:

After a unanimous decision on Sunday, the drafting committee for the Democratic National Convention embraced marriage equality as part of our platform for the 2012 Convention.

The next step will be for the full platform committee to vote on it, after which it will be presented to the delegates at the Convention in Charlotte for a final vote. Make no mistake: This is a historic step toward fairness for all.

Indeed, this is a major step forward in a significant area of policy. There are those who sideline marriage equality as a “social issue,” but every issue that affects human worth, including economic issues, is a “social issue.” The particular issue of ending government-mandated discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people matters for every kid who’s been beaten up in school, every couple who has been chased out of a neighborhood or told they cannot adopt a child, everyone who has been denied the right to sit by the side of a dying spouse. If human dignity and equality is a major issue, then this is a major step.

Although there are many reasons why I don’t support the Democratic Party hierarchy, today the Democratic Party is worthy of a hearty congratulation.

, , , , , , , , ,

Beloved Defender of the Constitution Ron Paul Just Voted Against the Constitution Again

May 23rd, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Legislation | Politics | Republicans | Sex and Gender - (7 Comments)

On May 9 of 2012, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Amendment 1096 to H.R. 5326, shortly before H.R. 5326 itself passed the House. Amendment 1096, introduced by Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, forbids the President from directing the Department of Justice to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act in court. A vote for House Amendment 1096 is a vote to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act.

The problem is that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Federal courts have ruled DOMA unconstitutional. It’s unconstitutional on more than one count.

  1. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution mandates that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” But under DOMA, this clause is directly contradicted, declaring that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State…”. This gives same-sex marriages and different-sex marriages are given separate and unequal status. The marriages of different-sex couples must be recognized at the federal level in all 50 states, no matter in what state they were married. The marriages of same-sex couples are denied that recognition. That brings us to…

  2. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution has an equal protection clause making it unconstitutional for any state to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Under DOMA, Indiana is required to acknowledge the marriage of straight couples in Massachusetts, but is allowed to reject the validity the marriage of same-sex couples in Massachusetts. That is unequal protection under law. I’m not just saying that. Federal Judge Jeffrey White made that ruling in February of this year.

People talk about how much Ron Paul loves the Constitution and supports the Constitution and defends the Constitution. But in supporting the Defense of Marriage Act over and over again, in forbidding the Justice Department to take a stance against the Act, Ron Paul subverts the very same Constitution that he frequently waves in the air and claims to value so deeply.

Mr. Constitution, my foot.

, , , , , , ,

Map It: Hurricanes and Same-Sex Marriage in the United States

February 19th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Politics | Religion | Sex and Gender | State and Local - (0 Comments)

“All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens…. I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment.”

– Fundamentalist Christian Pastor John Hagee

Counties in the U.S. with Presidentially-Declared Hurricane Related Disasters, 2006-2011

Same-Sex Marriage Laws in the United States as of the end of 2011. Thanks, Greg Stoll.

, , , , , , , , ,

Americans Elect Mischaracterizes Bernie Sanders on Priorities and on Same-Sex Marriage

December 15th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Americans Elect | Election 2012 | Politics - (3 Comments)

Americans Elect doesn’t call it a ratings system or a “National Match” anymore, but the information that constituted its ratings for hundreds of possible presidential candidates is still there. That rating information is still being used to characterize presidential candidates as the initial vote to pick its presidential nominee creeps ever closer, now just 124 days away. And that information is still plagued with error:

  • A new “priorities” ranking of presidential contenders flatly contradicts its old “ratings” ranking on various subjects.
  • Despite placing lower than Gary Johnson in its own ratings system, Jon Huntsman received a preferred ranked spot on Americans Elect’s primary ranking page, while Johnson was placed off that primary page.
  • The issue ratings of Barack Obama incorrectly score his positions on the economy, education and the environment, resulting in a lower ranking score than he would otherwise have achieved.
  • The issue ratings of Buddy Roemer bizarrely assign him “Education” as his highest-priority issue, when Education is the issue Roemer has been least likely to discuss as a presidential candidate. Follow Americans Elect links to supposed documentation of Roemer’s other positions and you’ll find that they actually don’t document those positions.

To add to the list of factual and ranking errors in the Americans Elect system, this morning I ran across the Americans Elect page that is used to characterize the record and positions of Senator Bernard Sanders (he prefers to be called “Bernie”).

What you’ll notice first on that page is that Bernie Sanders is reported to hold “Social Issues” as his “Highest Priority”:

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is listed by Americans Elect as having his Highest Priority be Social Issues

But a listing of Bernie Sanders’ 85 newsroom items since September 1 of this year reveals only 1 that has to do with “Social Issues,” that being a discussion of AIDS. Look at the topics there: clearly, Bernie Sanders’ top three priorities in his communications as a Senator have been the economy, government reform and the environment. Social Issues just don’t come close.

Let’s not stop there. Let’s look at the bills Bernie Sanders has introduced in the 112th Congress. There are 40 bills, resolutions and amendments as of today, 26 of which have text allowing the bills to be characterized. They break down as follows:

1 Agriculture
1 Budget
1 Constitution
6 Education
4 Environment
3 Health Care
1 Military
1 Postal Services
1 “Social Issues” (1 HIV)
3 Social Security
1 Veterans

You could say that education is a “Social Issue,” but actually “Education” is coded as a separate category in the Americans Elect priorities system. Social Issues are not Bernie Sanders’ legislative priority in legislation or communication. It’s just not an accurate characterization of Bernie Sanders.

But if we’re going to harp on “Social Issues,” let’s consider what Americans Elect says Bernie Sanders’ position is on “Social Issues:

Americans Elect says Bernie Sanders doesn't support same-sex marriage, but rather civil unions. Bollocks!

What’s the basis for Americans Elect to say that Bernie Sanders thinks “Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions, but not to marry in the traditional sense”? Let’s click through on that link to see the “explanation by ‘On the Issues’”, the group Americans Elect contracted with to generate the rating of Bernie Sanders:

On The Issues explanation for its assignation of an position to Bernie Sanders on behalf of Americans Elect, which makes no sense

Read those items supposedly documenting Sanders’ position. You should notice that 4 out of 5 of them have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. One is on employment discrimination, one is on discrimination in the military, one is on discrimination in the schools, and one is adoption by gay couples. Only 1 of the 5 items has to do with same-sex marriage, and in that item Bernie Sanders is voting against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. That’s an action in support of same-sex marriage, not an action opposing it or trying to put civil unions in same-sex marriage’s place. There’s not one documented item to support Americans Elect’s declaration that Bernie Sanders is a civil-unions-not-same-sex-marriage kind of politician.

By the way, if you click through on that final item you’ll finally see that the vote in question occurred in 2004, a full 7 years ago. That’s pretty darned dated, and needlessly so. Bernie Sanders is very open in his current position, a full-throated support for same-sex marriage rights. There’s two years ago, when Amy Goodman asked Sanders point-blank “Do you support same-sex marriage?” and Sanders replied with one word: “Yes.” Or, even more recently, you could look up the current list of cosponsors for S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 which repeals the Defense of Marriage Act and enables federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Senator Bernie Sanders is a cosponsor.

On his priorities and on his position regarding same-sex marriage, Americans Elect gets Bernie Sanders wrong. Keep this in mind as this corporation tells you it’s got all the details ready to run the nation’s first all-online privatized presidential nomination.

, , , , , , , ,

God Punishes Sodomite NY Marriage with an end to Killer Heat Wave and Drought

July 26th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Religion | Sex and Gender | State and Local - (4 Comments)

Heat Wave: high temperatures in New York City, July 11 through 21New York same-sex marriages began this Monday, July 25, a day after local clerks in New York State started issuing same-sex marriage licenses. How did God punish New York? With weather, of course. Christian conservatives have declared over and over that God will punish societies that endorse gay and lesbian relationships with nasty weather disasters.

What was the weather disaster of Monday, July 25? There was an end to a heat wave of high temperatures peaking above a hundred degrees Fahrenheit; Monday’s high temperature in New York City was a comfortable 82 degrees. There was also an end to a crop-threatening drought. It hadn’t rained for 17 days in New York City, but on Monday the Big Apple got nearly half an inch.

I’m still trying to figure out the “disaster” part of this weather development, but it must be there, since it is undeniably true that God abhors gay love. If I just twist my brain around a little bit more, the disaster will surely appear.

(Source: Weather.com temperature and precipitation records)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Did Ron Paul Support Marriage Freedom in the May 5 Presidential Debate?

May 6th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Election 2012 | Liberty | Politics | Republicans | Sex and Gender - (19 Comments)

In the presidential debate of May 5 2011, did congressman and 2012 contender Ron Paul make a stand in support of marriage freedom in America or against marriage freedom?

Ron Paul speaking on the issue of same-sex marriage during the presidential debate of May 5, 2011The answer depends on whether you’re looking at Ron Paul’s rhetorical flourishes or his stance on policy.

A transcript of the Republican’s remarks in an exchange with FOX News correspondent Shannon Bream:

Shannon Bream: Are you advocating legalizing gay marriage in this country?

Ron Paul: Well, as a matter of fact I spent a whole chapter in a new book I’ve written on marriage, and I think that it’s very important, seeing that I’ve been married for 53, 54 years now. But I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument — who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards, but I shouldn’t impose my standards on others. Others have standards, and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me. I just don’t like it.

That sounds pretty clear, doesn’t it? Ron Paul thinks that marriage should be a private matter out of the hands of government regulation. But wait: Ron Paul continued…

But if we want to have something to say about marriage, it should be at the state level, not at the federal government. Just get the government out of it. It’s one area where it’s totally unnecessary and will cause more trouble than necessary.

Bream: All right. Given that answer, I have to ask you about your defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Even just weeks ago, you criticized this administration for its decision to no longer defend it against legal challenges.

Paul: And the main reason there is the Defense of Marriage Act, and I’ve been quoted as I voted for it. I supported it, but I wasn’t there. Because that bill actually protects the states. I do recognize that the federal government shouldn’t tell the states what to do, and the Defense of Marriage Act was really designed to make sure that the, ah, that, ah, the states have the privilege of dealing with it, and the federal government can’t impose their standards on them.

The text of the Defense of Marriage Act is not long:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act’.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:
`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.’.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

`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.’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’.’.

The Defense of Marriage Act has two effects:

1. It allows any state to disregard any “public act, record, or judicial proceeding” of another state if such an act, record or proceeding creates a same-sex marriage.

Ron Paul is a presidential candidate who claims to adore the Constitution. But what about Article IV and the 14th Amendment?This clause stands in clear violation of the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution mandates that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” Right down to the particulars of vocabulary, DOMA usurps Article IV. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution declares that “No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Under DOMA, Indiana IS required to acknowledge the marriage of straight couples in Massachusetts, but is not required to acknowledge the marriage of same-sex couples in Massachusetts. That is unequal protection under law. In supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, Ron Paul is subverting the rule of law under the Constitution that he frequently waves and claims to value so deeply. He prioritizes discrimination against gay and lesbian people over adherence to the Constitution.

2. It creates, for the first time in U.S. history, a federal definition of marriage, one limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Ron Paul may make abstract declarations in a debate that “I think the government should just be out of it,” that “we shouldn’t have this argument — who’s married and who isn’t married,” and that “I have my standards, but I shouldn’t impose my standards on others,” but he supports a law putting government in the business of defining who’s married and who isn’t married and allowing the imposition of that standard on others. Ron Paul might say all sorts of things, but in practice he supports an unconstitutional law used to discriminate against gay and lesbian people and to police people’s marriages.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,