Thursday, April 28, 2005

Hooter-Speak, and Those Who Fall For It

Wow.

I must say, I am impressed. Really.

These guys are good.

Now that the "Nukular Option" phrase is testing badly for the Hootervillains, not only are they Luntzing it into the "Constitutional Option", but they are now claiming that "Nukular Option" is what the Democrats call it!

That's what I call stones.

And the so-called "Liberal Media" are obediently going along with it.

Heck, who needs Fox News anymore?

Friday, April 22, 2005

The "King George Version" Bible

In honor of that upcoming free-for-all fetid festering festival of faux-faith, "Justice Sunday" (another particularly Hootervillian name), or, better yet, "Just, My Ass Sunday", I figured it was a good time to bust out the Good Book. Imagine my surprise when I saw that it was the updated 'King George Version'.

It was a good deal, well, smaller than I remembered. As I leafed through the pages, I couldn't help but notice that entire sections had been ripped out and replaced with hastily-scribbled pages. Here are some of the passages that I thought I was familiar with, but have been revised in the new 'KGV':

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Blessed are the poor: for they deserve it, the lazy bastards.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall have plenty to mourn about.

Blessed are the meek: for we shall shove our agenda down their throats without a peep out of them.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be S.O.L.

Blessed are the merciful: for they are suckers.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall have no idea how bad we're screwing them.

Blessed are the warmongers: for they shall be called the freedom fighters.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for there shall be no pesky ethics committee to impede them.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for there is a vast left-wing conspiracy against you.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to take away their funding.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till the activist judges are removed.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called a Majority Leader.

For more enlightenment, check here and here and here...
See you on Sunday!

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

This Is Why...

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Some pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions that they find morally objectionable. A year ago, this would have sounded like the crazy religious fringe. But, given the events of the last few months, it's not surprising.

Why does it sound even worth discussing? A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions that are written by a licensed physician. If a pharmacist chooses not to facilitate a doctor's order, he (or she) is in effect making a medical decision for the patient - i.e. impersonating a doctor. That is against the law. For instance, I have a friend who takes the Pill for reasons entirely unrelated to birth control. Is her pharmacist going to decide for her that she has to suffer with severe cramping because he (or she) objects to the Pill on 'principle'? Since when does a pharmacist get to decide what's medically necessary for anyone? Since when does a pharmacist get to overrule a doctor? Since when does a pharmacist get to tell me I can't use a contraceptive ordered by my doctor? Suppose a pregnancy would endanger my health or kill me? Suppose I just feel like having sex without getting pregnant?

Look - if you're a vegan, don't work at McDonald's. If you object to drinking, don't tend bar at the Dew Drop Inn. If you are not prepared to carry out the duties of a pharmacist - filling prescriptions written by licensed physicians - find some other line of work.

This is all part of the larger picture, though. The point of what's happening here is the separation of church and state. And though it seems silly and picayune and radical-ACLU to fuss about prayer in school or the Ten Commandments - how could something so innocuous and positive hurt anybody - this is where it begins leading to. The Hootervillains (not a typo) have come right out and said that they are actively working toward a religious state. In fact, my beloved Tommi, in speaking of Dubya's 'faith-based initiative' in 2001 at an invitation-only luncheon gathering for congressional staff organized by TV preacher D. James Kennedy's Center for Christian Statesmanship said, "I don't believe there is a separation of church and state."

Civil rights are being systematically dismantled and the Constitution is being flagrantly spat upon, and nobody seems to see anything alarming about this.

All aboard! The Hooterville Cannonball is now leaving the station, headed straight for Shari'a Town...

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Morals - Rigid vs. Relative

One thing you hear constantly as a liberal is, "Well, you have no moral standards - everything's 'relative' so there is no right or wrong!" Apparently allowing people to make their own moral choices is somehow the same as having no morals. It is not enough to be moral oneself; one can only command the high ground by condemning those who do not choose your exact path.

I have a really, really hard time with that Hootervillian 'logic'. There are so many denominations with so many differing standards of 'righteousness' and what constitutes right living and right beliefs that everyone falls short somewhere. Many 'fundamentalist Christians' believe that Catholics are going to Hell. Some churches object to alcohol consumption. Others, such as the Latter-Day Saints, believe that caffeine, as well, is incompatible with Godliness. Some churches, like Church of Christ, do not allow dancing. Seventh-Day Adventists are asked to avoid alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, meat, and jewelry. The Shakers believed that sex of any kind was unholy (which accounted for its eventual demise). So does it follow that the more restrictive a church is, the 'holier' or closer to God they are?

Trying to impose 'Biblical' principles upon Americans via the government is impossible because every denomination interprets the Bible differently. This, of course, takes no notice of the very clear "separation of church and state" that is one of the bedrock principles upon which this nation was founded, and has been reiterated and reaffirmed throughout U.S. history. And just because I don't shove my beliefs and principles down your throat does not mean I don't have them and adhere to them.

I do have them, and I prefer to walk rather than talk. I believe that behavior and example are more persuasive than proselytizing. But it seems that the opposite is true for the Hootervillians. The louder they denounce something, the more likely it seems to be that they are doing it.

Monday, April 04, 2005

God's Gift To The Democrats - Tom DeLay!

You know, in the wake of all this religious fervor, I have had a revelation - an epiphany - a change of heart. Pay no attention to my earlier posts on Mr. DeLay (or, Tommi, as I think I'll call him from now on, since I feel so close to him). God has spoken to me, and He has informed me that Tommi is His gift to the Democratic Party. He has been sent to us to elevate the visibility of what's going on in America.

Go, Tommi, go!

Friday, April 01, 2005

The 'Defense' Rests

I received my first marriage proposal at the age of eighteen. My fiancé, a year older than I, was a real catch. A Tom Hanks look-alike, he was tall and lanky, with curly brown hair and a sweet, slightly loopy smile. Kenny was smart, funny, athletic, a gifted actor and a talented saxophone player who helped me get a full-tuition music scholarship at the community college he attended a year ahead of me. His mom had been my first piano teacher, and we had been friends ever since I was in the eighth grade. We bonded in high school, both of us being theater geeks, band nerds - not terribly popular but cool with being 'on the fringe'. Music and drama helped us both to find our own place in the spinning vortex that is high school.

Kenny was a college sophomore and I was a freshman when he proposed. We were both music majors, and both had jobs as well - I was playing keyboards in local bands at night, and he was the night manager of a convenience store. Unlike most of my other male friends, Kenny was already planning for a home and family. Hard-working and thrifty, he was putting away money for a down payment on a house. I adored him. We had so much in common - including the fact that we both liked guys.

Yep, Kenny was gay. It was not a 'lifestyle choice'; it was not a 'sexual preference', like drinking tea instead of coffee. Believe me, Kenny did not just wake up one fine morning and say, "I think I'll alienate my family, exclude myself from the social mainstream, jeopardize my ability to choose where I live and what I do, and lay myself open to rejection, discrimination, violence, hate, and fear." Folks, I'm afraid he was born that way. Take it from someone who grew up with him.

As close as we were in high school, we never talked about it. He had a 'girlfriend', a sax player at another high school, and we both pretended that he was in love with her long enough for him to have a prom date. It wasn't until after I graduated in the late '70s and disco was king that Kenny opened up to me about being gay. He introduced me to the gay subculture in our town, and I went with him to the gay bars and the all-night discos. He would have crushes on guy after guy, always so sure that this one was 'the one', but somehow it never seemed to work out. Although finally free to 'be himself' with other people who felt the way he did, the long-term relationship and stability that he wanted so much was at odds with the hedonistic excesses of the era, and there was no social framework in place to support him.

This was where I came in. As we saw it, our getting married could solve a lot of difficulties (I plead the ignorance of eighteen). Kenny's mom knew me and liked me; she would be forever grateful that I would give Kenny social validity; Kenny could have the home and family he wanted - well, at least the home and the appearance of a family. I could have my cake and eat it, too - a partner who would be there for me financially and emotionally without asking for sexual fidelity, who would give me a home and not care what time I came back to it!

Well, it turned out we didn't get married after all; there was that pesky detail of 'being in love' that we knew, as young and nutty as we were, was the real reason for getting married. As much as we loved each other as friends, there would never be a marriage in our hearts. We went our separate ways; I went on the road and he stayed in our home town, still working, still saving, still waiting and hoping for the dream to come true. We still kept in touch, and when I came home to visit my family, we'd get together and catch up on each others' lives. Kenny eventually got the home, but the life partner to share it with never happened.

After a few years, I moved to California and my visits were spaced farther and farther apart. Sometimes I saw him, sometimes I didn't, but there was always 'next time'. I got married (for real) and after the birth of my first child, I flew back home with my husband and new son, eager to introduce them to my family and friends. I couldn't catch up with Kenny; I left messages on his machine, but in the whirlwind of activity surrounding the new baby, I put Kenny on my 'next time' list.

Two weeks after I went back to California, my sister called me to tell me that Kenny had died of AIDS.

When I hear people talking about the "Defense of Marriage", it just makes me want to spit. I believe that if Kenny had been allowed to marry, if there had been a social structure in place at that time that encouraged and rewarded commitment in gay people as well as straight, that Kenny would most likely be alive today.

Just who are they 'defending' marriage from? Is there some straight woman that won't be able to find a mate because the gay boys 'got' all the men? The arguments that the staunch 'Knights of Matrimony' throw out don't hold water to me.

point: A child should have a mother and a father.

counterpoint: First off, I think it pretty much goes without saying that in today's society, reproduction is not the only reason to be married. I don't remember the 'Fertility Test' when my husband and I were applying for our marriage license. There are straight couples who (gasp!) choose not to have children! And how about the couples who just can't and decide to live with it? Should their licenses be revoked? What about parents who have lost a partner to divorce or death? Should their children be taken away from them?

Then, of course, there are the straight couples who have absolutely no business having children, and have them any old way? Abusive parents, neglectful parents, parents who, in their heart of hearts, don't want children but have them because of outside pressure? Am I to believe that a loving, committed gay couple would be worse for the emotional health of a kid than parents like these? Apparently so. That's right along with the "Murphy Brown" school of condemnation - those awful, selfish women who want a child so badly that they choose to have one without being married. Selfish? Most single (by choice or not) moms (and dads) I know have very little 'self' at all - they're too busy trying to raise their kids right in a two-income society. They're always at the bottom of the list. But I digress. Maybe we could force them to marry a gay man or woman. One of the opposite gender, naturally. Serve them all right.

No doubt about it, mothers and fathers are great. Optimal, even. I am not suggesting that the mom-and-pop deal is just another family model choice. It's not. It is the dominant one, and, all other things being even is the situation that our society set up to best suit a family. But all things are not always even, and just as no one in their right mind today would force a woman to stay with an abusive man 'for the sake of the children', the idea that any two heterosexuals (no matter how sick and dysfunctional) are better parent material than any two homosexuals (no matter how emotionally healthy and loving) is not an idea that I am prepared to accept. I am sure that there are bad gay parents out there. But I know there are bad straight parents, lots and lots of them, and no one is suggesting we abolish marriage for straight people because of that. I might even posit that, as a group, gay parents might have a higher percentage of good parenting because they often have to go to extraordinary lengths to have children, and in the face of strong opposition. It doesn't just 'happen', and I suspect the process would tend to weed out the less-motivated.

Gender role modeling? Maybe. But the overwhelming majority of gay people have (drum roll, please)… straight parents! What happened there with the 'gender modeling'? Good parents of any kind make sure their kids have positive models around them.

And then there's always the trump card - IMMORALITY! Who sez? God sez! Whose God? My God! Oh, my God. I'm not even going to bother to discuss the Bible quotes in Leviticus that are trotted out on a regular basis - smarter people than I have refuted the 'cherry-picking' of Levitical laws employed by those who feel that God Hates Fags. To these people, I say, "Fine. You're absolutely right. No one should force you to marry a gay person." Like any self-respecting queer would want to. Our country was founded by people who left their homeland and traveled thousands and thousands of miles to be free to worship as they pleased. And,ß yes, they were Christians. But the whole idea (and a radical one it was) was to build a country where EVERYONE was free to worship as they pleased - not just Christian Puritans. Freedom of religion. Freedom NOT to worship if so inclined. Again, I'll leave the debating of the Constitution to my betters, but unless I'm way off the mark here, the United States of America is not a theocracy. Isn't that exactly what we're trying to avoid setting up in that other place…what's it called again?…oh, yes - Iraq!

Well, folks, I'd better get out while the getting's good - I can see I'm heading into deep water here. But I'm still not convinced that there is any sort of justice in the fact that a mass murderer can marry and have children, if he or she chooses a partner of the opposite sex, but a law-abiding, upstanding member of society - if gay - cannot. To my mind, the 'Defense' doesn't have a leg to stand on.