The Gaytheist Agenda

You heard me right. Kmart is now selling Abstinence Pants. I don’t know if they’re trying to steal some of Wal-Mart’s RRRW customer base or what, but it’s pretty freaky. here’s a sample of their selection.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against people who choose to wait until marriage. But does anybody believe that a pair of sweatpants with True Love Waits written across the backside is going to inspire abstinence? (While the photo is of the front, the back has the same slogan.) Furthermore, why is it that, as always, these things are only made for women?

Secrets, a new lingerie store that also sells adult toys, opened today in Vacaville (CA) despite objections and a protest.

Despite objections from city officials, a controversial lingerie store opened this weekend in Vacaville, bringing out protesters who want it shut down.

Residents set up video cameras near the entrance of Secrets Boutique, an adult store that sells adult toys along with lingerie, and one protester was holding a sign that read, “Smile! You’re on YouTube.”

“I’m not trying to embarrass anyone,” said Jeremy White. “We’re going to put some, if not all, of the film on YouTube and try and act as a deterrent to people who, you know, would come here in some sort of shady way.”

Secrets is open for business despite a community outcry that included city leaders passing an emergency moratorium against it. The catch? They made the decision an hour after the official opening.

“We weren’t rushed,” said Lorriane Lopez, who works at Secrets. “You can tell, we’re already set up.”

Now, city leaders are trying to shut it down for good. “We’re crafting a letter to the owners of this business requesting that they close,” said city spokesman Mark Mazzafero.

Vacaville city officials said the boutique does not have the permits required to run an adult store. “What you represented in your business license application does not match what you’re carrying,” Mazzafero said.

“There are some adult elements to it, but we are a lingerie store,” Lopez said.

City rules do not allow sex shops near schools or churches, and some are concerned that Secrets is exactly that. Officials said they didn’t look into it because they expected something different, and are now trying to pull the plug.

Until then, the community members are planning to keep videotaping.

“We’ve had at least probably 15 cars who drive through, look, and drive away,” said another protester.

If only I were in the Vacaville area I’d go to Secrets myself. I don’t give a damn about being on YouTube for buying lingerie or whatever. If there are bold people close enough to Secrets who want to show-up the wingnuts I invite you to do so. I’m sure the store would love the business, particularly to replace what they’re losing thanks to the protesters.

 

With many thanks to Ebon, frequent commenter to the Gaytheist Agenda, who provided this wonderful cheat sheet.

When the Cali ruling was handed down, I created a quick cheat-sheet for dealing with those who would argue against it. Since I noticed at least one person using one of the arguments I dealt with, I thought you might like a copy of it:

“The judges overturned the will of the people” ~ It is not the job of the judicial branch to uphold the wishes of the majority. There is a very good reason why very few states and virtually no civilised nations elect judges and that is because it would open them to the same pressures as politicians face. Judges are deliberately
insulated from the political process to ensure that they don’t have to follow “the will of the people”. The judges were asked to rule on whether the state’s ban on same-sex marriage conflicted with the state constitution’s ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. They decided it did. making that decision was their only responsibility. Not enforcing the will of the people, not following the prevailing political winds, simply stating the law as they understood it. If the judiciary’s only function was to rubber-stamp “the will of the people”, there would be little point having them. The judicial branch is independent to guard against the tyranny of the majority, not to enable it.

“Activist judges / legislating from the bench” ~ The phrase “activist judges” has only ever meant “a decision I disagree with”. Of the seven judges who made this decision, six were appointed by Republicans and California currently has a Republican governor, not the kind of people normally slandered with cries of judicial activism. As anyone who has ever studied law knows, it is utterly impossible for a judge to avoid legislating from the bench. In any case at all (except Bush V. Gore), the decision establishes a legal precedent. By the principle of stare decisis (roughly “the court stands on it’s previous decisions”), that precedent then has the force of law to all lower courts unless and until it is overturned, thus establishing law and thus, legislating from the bench. That is how the legal process is supposed to work. It is, in a very real sense, the essence of what judges do. Further, the cry of activism can only ever have any weight (beyond the previously mentioned “decision I dislike”) if a decision is made without firm legal reasoning. In this case, the legal reasoning was entirely sound. The wording of both the State Constitution and the marriage act were exceedingly clear and the court also drew on the decision made in Loving which established the right to marriage as a fundamental right. That is a well-reasoned, well-thought out judicial opinion.

I’ve noticed that it’s only the RWers who bemoan Activist Judges/Legislating from the Bench. I’ve never heard that come from anybody on the Left. You know the one time I didn’t hear it? Bush vs. Gore. Nobody on the Right was whining about Activist Judges then.

“Now people will be able to marry children/dogs/box turtles” ~ First off, there is no evidence whatsoever that gay people abuse children any more frequently than hetero people and a certain amount of evidence suggesting exactly the opposite. Secondly and more importantly, marriage is (shorn of the religious connotations) a state-sanctioned contract. Children cannot consent to a contract, nor to sexual intercourse so when one is asked “where do we draw the line?”, the appropriate answer would probably be “at people who are able to give consent”. While we’re on the subject, animals are also judged unable to give consent so leave that one at home too.

Rational people like you and I know that, as do people who have basic knowledge of logic. But the RW likes to prey upon those who don’t and use the time-honored slippery slope fallacy. Of course it’s very effective on its target audience.

“They’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex, like anyone else so same-sex marriage is a special right” ~ There is a reason the phrase “one size fits all” appears in no known constitution or bill of laws anywhere. If you wish to apply that argument, one can as easily shut down every church except the Satanists, not our fault if you choose to be something different or we could enforce vegetarianism, not our fault if you like a steak. Quite apart from the absurdity of the argument, it becomes rather more sinister when you flip it around: If the government can say I only have the right to marry a woman, why can it not say I only have the right to marry some women? Or this woman? Or this aardvark? A reasonable argument can be made for limiting marriage to two people out of sheer practicality and the need to maintain a tax base but beyond that, allowing the state to decide which people can marry sets a dangerous precedent.

They’re always going on about these “special rights” that we want. Funny how we ask for exactly what they have, yet we’re asking for “special rights”. If they aren’t special for them, how are they suddenly special when we want them? It’s like when they have protection from hate crimes based on their religion, but when we ask for protection based on our sexual orientation or gender identity suddenly they start claiming that’s a “special right” or that it will discriminate against them. What the…?

“Marriage has always been between a man and a woman” ~ So was child labour, so was miscegenation, so was slavery. Everything is “always” until we decide it’s something else. The satirist Terry Pratchett once described tradition as “the name we give to something daft we’ve been doing a long time”. His point was not that tradition is inherently a bad thing but that holding a tradition simply because it had always been a tradition was absurd. Until quite (shamefully) recently, it had “always” been legal to force sex upon one’s wife. And then the world grew up and realised that was foul and changed it. Humanity is not static, what was done does not have to continue to be done. If humanity had stuck with what it had “always” done, we would be eating our meat raw and living in a tree. Respect the last by all means but don’t be a slave to it and, when necessary, be willing to learn from it’s mistakes.

Very good point. But they’re wrong about marriage having always been “between a man and a woman”, and they’re hoping everybody is as ignorant as they are. Historically marriage has included polygamy, polyandry and even–yes–same sex marriage. So it definitely has not always been “between a man and a woman”.

“God says it’s immoral” ~ Got God’s fax number? Willing to share it? Then it’s just your opinion. You may have an elderly book that says your god feels this way but I have a book which says otherwise and since neither of us can prove our case or disprove the others, let’s just leave everyone’s gods out of the equation. Or, to quote Sir Francis Walsingham: “Is your god such a worldly god that he must play at politics?”.

God says a lot of things are immoral, sinful, abominations, etc. Of course any time they’re brought up they have excuses as to why those things are no longer applicable, only apply to Jews, are taken out of context, were eradicated by Jesus (though if you try to use that they say he fulfilled the law rather than eradicating it) or whatever. The excuses are endless. But of course the verses that they use against gay people are etched in stone because “God’s word is forever”. I swear their brains are like pretzels because the logic they use is so incredibly convoluted it couldn’t be any other way.

“It’s unnatural” ~ So is wearing clothes, driving cars, modern medicine, corporations and American Idol. The life of man in a state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. The entirety of human existence has been a flight away from nature, a drive to modify nature to our own ends. That is what has made us the dominant species on the planet and, because we never know when to stop, is killing the planet. Homosexuality has been observed in at least a hundred species (last time I checked, it may be even more now). If animals in the state of nature do it, it is natural by definition.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in about 1,500 animal species to date. It’s definitely a natural occurrence.

“It will encourage homosexuality” ~ You can’t encourage an inborn trait. All the
evidence, while not entirely conclusive yet, indicates that homosexuality is almost certainly innate. More to the point, what do you think is going to happen? Are otherwise hetero kids going to notice two guys getting married and think “I’m cured, I want the boys!”. If gay people have been being gay and living as gay and coming out as gay despite the ban on same-sex marriage and despite the phenomenal pressures to be straight and conform and despite the (decreasing but still very prevalent)threat of physical violence, we can safely assume that suppressing gay people hasn’t worked.

Just like their hateful “ex-gay” reparative therapy doesn’t work. It doesn’t stop them from hawking it though.

“It will destroy the sanctity of marriage” ~ OK, first off, let’s talk about that sanctity. Last time I checked, the divorce rate was around fifty percent and around eighty percent of married people (men and women) will cheat at some point in their married life so marriage doesn’t currently seem to be very sanctified anyway. Secondly, do you honestly believe that gay people getting married will have any effect on hetero marriages (beyond the minuscule effect on tax revenues)? Straight people are not going to stop getting married purely because marriage is no longer exclusive to them, the human mind doesn’t work that way.

If Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage didn’t destroy the “sanctity of marriage” then nothing will.

Ebon, I can’t thank you enough for this wonderful resource. I’m sure it will come in handy time and time again.

 

Governor Schwarzenegger is conducting a phone poll to gather opinions about the recent Supreme Court decision about same-sex marriage. You can help by calling to let him know that you support it, and it’s very simple. I did it myself and it took less than a minute.

To respond in support of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision on gay marriage:

1. Call 1-916-445-2841

2. Press 1, 5, 1, 1

Now you know how to do it, please pick up the phone and make that call!

We LGBTs are always accused of having an agenda no matter how many times we tell people we have none. Some people claim that by denying we have an agenda we’re only proving the fact that we have an agenda. It seems that certain factions simply insist on believing there is some vast agenda, and now one has given us a detailed graphical analysis of that agenda. Thanks to the Box Turtle Bulletin I now have the official Homosexual Agenda and the suspiciously similar Heterosexual Agenda, which BTB managed to discover. While you’re at it be sure to check out BTB’s Heterosexual Agenda, Exposing the Myths, a detailed analysis of the vast Heterosexual Agenda.

 
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; there is no Homosexual Agenda, for seeking equal rights and protections under the law is not, despite what some believe and insist, an agenda. If it were then every group across history who sought, in any way, rights and protections under the law was guilty of an agenda. The Civil Rights Movement would have been an agenda, as would be feminism, unionization of employees, migrant farm workers, and so on.

 
Furthermore the fact that this nation was founded on Freedom of Religion could have been called agenda in and of itself under some peoples’ definition. Imagine, people going to a whole new continent so they could escape the religious laws and regulations they didn’t like! Then when they get there they determine that people can worship as they choose rather than how the government tells them too. Not to mention that whole Separation of Church and State thing. How radical. Sadly some are now attempting to claim that we were set up as a “Christian Nation”, and that the government should be run by the Bible. In other words, just what the original settlers came here to escape.

 
So again, there is no agenda. We want equal rights and protections under the law, and to be left alone to live our lives in peace. Isn’t that pretty much what everyone wants when it comes down to it?

 

Yesterday’s amazing news was that we finally have marriage equality here in California, though it doesn’t become effective until next month. My fiancee and I will be among the first in line to get married on or shortly after June 15th. We already have our engagement rings (below, from Love and Pride ) and are going to be shopping for our wedding bands soon.

Today I got a great new job that I’d been hoping for. Now I’ve got two very good reasons for a celebratory dinner this weekend.

Finally, this afternoon I got the first issue of my new Scientific American subscription. New reading material is always something to be happy about. Now off to enjoy it.

 

It has been by no means been an easy battle. There have been pleas, petitions and seemingly endless hours of waiting (not to mention hassling with the bigots). But we won–the Supreme Court of California just declared same-sex marriage legal!

The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage Thursday, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The court in a 4-3 ruling issued the long-awaited decision on its Web site, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ron George, invalidated state laws requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s direction.

Gay-rights organizations like Equality California called it a historical decision by the court.

The court ruled the state’s one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.

With Thursday’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, California would become the second state after Massachusetts where gays and lesbians can legally wed.

So now my lovely fiancee and I will be getting married instead of “domestic partnered”. It’s amazing how much nicer that sounds (never mind all of the extra rights and privileges that come with it). Hooray for marriage equality!

 

Addendum. Several comments have arrived. The first is from Kim:

Hooray for marriage equality Indeed! This is such wonderful news. I am a new fan of your site and did not know that you were engaged. Congratulations on your pending marriage!

Thank you very much. I’ve been engaged for a few months and we’ve been waiting for the decision so we could see if we’d be getting a DP or a real marriage. Now that we know we’re going to tie the knot!

Next up is Ebon:

You and I both know how the right is going to react to this but now is not the time for such things, that battle can wait.
For now, congratulations and may you and your bride live long and in good health.

Thank you! They’re already vacillating between wringing their hands over how oppressed they are by the evil liberals and conniving to overturn it with their November ballot measure. Nonetheless even if they do get it on the ballot and the voters overturn it, anybody who gets married before then (and I’ll be in that group) is still legally married under the law. They can’t change that!

Next up is cognitive dissident:

Congratulations on the victory, and on your impending marriage!

Thank you! Of course now I realize we have to select our wedding bands. We’ve been anxiously awaiting the decision and never got around to doing that. Off to Love and Pride!

 

Seitan has gone through the mail bag again. As always he enjoys reading everybody’s comments and has asked for readers to keep sending them in. The first message is from Ezekiel regarding Holocaust Remembrance Day:

I was shocked to learn recently from the play: “The Re-Education of George W. Bush” (by Peterson Toscano) that when U.S. troops liberated many of the camps, when they found out what the pink triangles (and presumably black patches, though I don’t know on that count) meant, they actually put many of the gay survivors back into prison, believing this to be an instance where the Nazis seemed to be on the right track.
Chilling, from a country that seems to have an obsession with having been “the good guys” in this and every other war.

I’d like to say that surprises me but it doesn’t. There are people who would do that even today if they could get away with it. Where they get the idea that imprisoning, threatening, or torturing LGBT people is going to change anything I don’t know. It hasn’t changed anything since the beginning of time so why would it work now? Gay people exist, and all of the efforts to repress us simply hasn’t changed anything. Sadly some notions refuse to die and I can’t help but wonder if people centuries from now will be having the same arguments as we are now thanks to personal bigotries and an ancient book known as The Bible.

Next up is this from VickiLynne who commented about Specialist Jeremy Hall:

What ashame a soldier goes to fight for freedom which includes religious freedom for others but doesn’t have any of their own.

It is indeed sad. Unfortunately the breed of people who believe religious freedom extends only to their religion have taken over the military as well as much of the government and it’s going to take some real effort to set things right. Fortunately the tide seems to be turning and the RRRW appears to be losing ground, though I’m not yet ready to throw my victory party.

Also regarding Spc. Hall, this comes from Ebon:

I’ve been hearing about Spc. Hall and similar situations for some time now, including at least one body devoted to converting the military.

For anyone who has some knowledge of history, the idea of the USA’s collosal military might presided over by religious fanatics (of any religion) is, frankly, positively terrifying.

Agreed. Anybody who believes that they must impose their way on everyone else–one way or another–very much disturbs me.

This last piece comes from Joe G. regarding Gay Panic Defense for Lawrence King’s Killer.

You’re right! The killer was unable to see any other way? What, he didn’t know about counselors or administrators or social workers at 14 years of age? Give me a break. I know kids half his age that could have made a better choice than this 14 year old did. The lawyer needs to work on getting this kid help (at the very least) and not getting him free of any responsibility for purposely killing another human being.

Any rational person knows that, as you and I do. But the assumption behind the “gay panic defense” is that it is normal for a person to flip out when a person of the same gender shows an interest in them, thus perpetuating the notion that gay people are dangerous predators. What ever happened to simply saying “I’m not interested” or “No thank you”?

Quest maintains that “this was a confluence of tragic events that could have been stopped”. I agree with that, though not with his assessment of how. Homophobia is the problem, and the cures are education and tolerance.

The mailbag is empty again and Seitan has gone off for a nap. Until later, dear readers!

The detainee abuse at Guantánamo has been in the news for years. Amnesty International will be bringing it to Americans in a way that makes it more real than any photos or video ever could.

Amnesty International is bringing a life-size model of a maximum security cell at Guantánamo to cities across the USA. The tour is a way to enable people in the United States to get a glimpse of the harsh realities of illegal detention and prolonged isolation.

Most of the detainees at Guantánamo are held in isolation, many of them with virtually no access to natural light or contact with other human beings, for up to 24 hours a day. Compounding their suffering is the fact that they have no indication of when or if they will be freed from Guantánamo.
…..
Starting in Miami on 8 May, the tour will make a stop in Washington D.C. on 26 June, to mark International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

Visitors to the cell are encouraged to enter and to experience the conditions of isolation and then share their experience in a video message. Watch a panoramic photo from inside the model cell to get an idea. And before leaving, they can also take action to end illegal US detentions at Guantánamo and elsewhere.

 


 
The tour has gone to Miami, and plans to visit Philadelphia, Portland (ME), New York, Washington DC and Los Angeles. For more information see the Amnesty International site.

 

I really couldn’t be more disgusted by the way the lawyer is simultaneously blaming the school, which was doing nothing more than upholding the rights of the victim, and the dead boy, for the actions of his client. But this is nothing new really, so I’m not surprised. I just can’t believe people still try to get away with this nonsense.

The lawyer of Brandon McInerney, the 14-year-old boy who killed gay teenager Lawrence King at a high school in Oxnard, CA, in February, claims school officials’ gay positive attitude is to blame for King’s murder.
…..
By allowing King to come to school wearing feminine makeup and accessories, school officials were so intent on nurturing King as he explored his sexuality that they downplayed the turmoil his behavior was causing on campus, Quest said.

Quest claimed McInerney shot King in the back of the head with a handgun as first-period classes were beginning because he was unable to see another way to solve his problem.

“Brandon is not some crazed lunatic,” Quest said. “This was a confluence of tragic events that could have been stopped. If there is partial blame in other places, let’s not throw away Brandon for the rest of his life.”
…..

School Supt. Jerry Dannenberg strongly disagreed with such allegations. “School officials definitely were aware of what was going on, and they were dealing with it appropriately,” Dannenberg said Wednesday. King was constitutionally entitled to wear makeup, earrings and high-heeled boots under long-established case law, Dannenberg said.

Shooting a person in the back of the head is a perfectly rational response to them flirting with you? What parallel universe is this lawyer from?

I hope the judge sees this outrageous defense as the garbage that it is. Quest needs to be thoroughly chastised for having the audacity to even propose it.