Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘gay marriage’

Gay marriage: Yes, it really is all about pissing you off.

Rosie O’Donnell is back in the news in recent weeks, this time explaining in an interview with USA Today that she married her girlfriend Kelli Carpenter just because she wanted to give the president the old “up yours!”

Rosie heard what Dubya said about that "traditional" marriage stuff...and she's PISSED!

Rosie explains:

“There’s something about marrying someone in a commitment with all your friends and family around you. … Kelli and I got married (in San Francisco in 2004) in some ways as an act of civil disobedience as much as anything. We didn’t have our family there, we didn’t have our children there. George Bush held a press conference in the middle of the war and says, ‘You know what the problem in this country is — those gay people in San Francisco.’ And I was so furious. I said, ‘Let’s go.'”

Yeah, there certainly is something about making a commitment to another person. Her commitment to her previous wife was so strong that it lasted three whole years!

But seriously, it wasn’t about the commitment. You can have that without the seal of approval from the state. Rosie and her new girlfriend can have whatever ceremony they want in any state, and they can commit themselves to each other until their hearts are content. That’s not what she wants. And neither do I. I want the power of the state to force other people to recognize my relationship as every bit as worthwhile as other relationships that don’t involve sodomy. And I want to force people to call Michael my “husband”. I want the heavy hand of the state to force people to do things against their will.

Getting married to piss of George W. Bush is really a pretty good reason to get married. I mean it. I’m just so surprised that a marriage based in spite toward another person didn’t last that long.

Rosie O'Donnell got hitched just to piss off this guy. And I think it really hurt his feelings. I'm sure it was part of his intelligence briefing the next day.

As it turns out, Rosie admitted more than a year ago that her marriage to Kelli was based more in hate than in love. Let’s listen to her words of wisdom:

What happened is, one state–California–Gavin Newsome, decided that it was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married, and so, he started marrying people there in the state of California and the city of San Francisco. And that’s when Kelli mommy and I went and flew there and got married.

Okay, just to clear a few things up here. When Rosie says that “one state–California” decided that “it was was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married”, she didn’t really mean California. California decided no such thing. She meant Gavin Newsome, who was, at the time, the mayor of San Francisco. And he decided, on his own whim, that it was unconstitutional and started issuing marriage licenses in defiance of state law. Which is really awesome. Now, if the mayor of one particular city in my state of Massachusetts decided that he was the arbiter of the state constitution, and that it was unconstitutional to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then I would be all up in arms. And I certainly wouldn’t say that “one state–Massachusetts” decided that marriage equality was unconstitutional. I would say that one fascist, law-breaking, rogue mayor had decided as much, but who really cares what the hell he thinks because it’s not his job to determine the constitutionality of jack squat. But I digress.

Rosie continues:

George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married.

Yeah, and he did this IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR! During wartime, we aren’t allowed to talk about anything else except the war. Well, I tell that to people who oppose marriage equality, not those who support it. So basically, during wartime, those evil conservatives have to punt all the other issues to us. They must concentrate only on the war, which we on the other side are actively trying to lose.

Come to think of it, I kind of like this war thing. The one in Afghanistan has been going on for more than a decade, and no one knows how long it will take. Let’s stretch it out for a while. So long as there is a war going on, everybody has to shut up about the social issues. Everybody except the people on my side. And then, if we ever get out of this Afghanistan thing, I’ll say that conservatives have a lot of gall to oppose my agenda in the middle of this awful economy. The point is that I will always find a reason why we just shouldn’t talk about these things, and then I will apply those reasons only to people I don’t like.

I’m going to have to take it on faith that Dubya called an “all stations news conference” to talk about the grave security threat that marriage equality poses to the American way of life. That’s what Rosie said, and I believe her. I don’t remember that particular news conference but I’m sure it happened and he said exactly those things.

Tim Graham over at NewsBusters does not take Rosie at her word. The son-of-a-bitch fact checked her, which is really a mean trick. No fair going back and trying to find confirmation that Rosie’s version of events really happened. Her side of the story is an emotionally driven piece of propaganda, just like everything we fags say.  This is what Graham came up with:

“Okay, first of all, on February 24, 2004 , President Bush didn’t call ‘an all-station news conference.’ He made a rather routine statement (not a press conference) in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. And he didn’t say it was ‘horrible for the safety of America’ that gays would marry. He did say the people had voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage, and some activist judges in Massachusetts and city officials in San Francisco were overturning the will of the people of California.”

You mean there wasn’t a single reference in the entire speech to the safety of America? Damn it, if this guy Graham keeps dragging in those things called “facts”, we might not be able to lie and rewrite history.

Graham actually provided a link to a news story about the speech. Bush went as far as to say:

“We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.”

That’s hate speech! Good will and decency? Well, fuck him. I don’t want a civilized debate on this issue. I want what I want, and I want it NOW! Not only do I reject the idea of civilized debate, I reject the idea of ANY debate. This is not a topic that we will discuss and work out our differences. My policy preference will become law and if you stand in my way, I will hunt you down and punish you. I do not want dialogue, and I do not want dissenting opinions. Those things are downright un-American.

And really, I don’t care if the people of California voted twice to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That’s why I run to a homosexual judge every time I lose in a fair election and ask him to impose our personal agenda and overturn the will of the majority. You’ve got millions of Californians on your side? Tough shit! I’ve got a cock-sucking judge and he wins every time. No bias there. Just because he’s a homosexual doesn’t mean that his rulings are a foregone conclusion.

Besides, the mayor of the fourth largest city in California decided that the people of the entire state were wrong. And then he unilaterally decided to usurp authority that was not his. But Newsome was the mayor of San Francisco, and it’s his job to determine the constitutionality of the state’s marriage laws. And if he finds that they’re not up to muster, he can just defy them.

Gavin Newsome, Lt. Governor of California and former mayor of San Francisco.

Gavin Newsome is a hero! He doesn’t believe in any of that “sanctity of marriage” crap! We know that because he got caught stepping out on his wife. Yeah, he’s an adulterer. I tend to get pissy whenever anyone who opposes marriage equality gets caught cheating, but that’s because they’re HYPOCRITES. Go ahead and be a two-timing dirtbag if you want to, just as long as you don’t talk about marriage being “sacred” or anything like that. Don’t pretend to have any morals and we won’t blame you at all for moral failures.

Back to Rosie. So she got herself all in a huff back in 2004 over some imaginary remarks made at an imaginary news conference and then she ran off to San Francisco and got one of those illegitimate marriage licenses that the rogue mayor was handing out. Funny thing is, the marriage didn’t last and now they’re splitsville. I was shocked. It’s amazing the brash things that people will do when they react to things that exist only in their fevered imaginations.

As I listen to Rosie, I’m reminded of Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the two lesbians who sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for marriage rights and won. (They were represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders–GLAD–an organization that was born in the man-boy love movement. For more on that, see previous post: https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/kiddie-porn-ring-busted-glad-theyll-have-good-lawyers/ ) When arguing their case, the Goodridges pointed out that they had been together for more than twenty years, they had a child together, and they were in love!

Julie and Hillary Goodridge. They're IN LOVE! Well, they were until they achieved their goal of redefining marriage and then they fell out of love. Just like straight people do, m'kay?

And who are you to stop these two from loving each other? Okay, so no one was stopping anyone from loving anyone else. We just made that part up because of the emotional appeal that it has.

The Goodridges were married in 2004, seperated in 2006, and divorced in 2009. So their marriage lasted a little bit longer than Rosie’s. Now, don’t go getting all judgmental. Gay people will divorce just like straight people. Interestingly, we used the high rate of divorce among straight couples as an argument for why marriage isn’t really sacred and why we homos can do better. And now that I think of it, it does seem that they made such a big deal out of the fact that they had been together for twenty years and that they had a daughter together was because they wanted to demonstrate their stability, that they’re the model family. Huh. And then two years later they can’t stand each other and they want a divorce. Weird.

It’s almost as if playing house wasn’t fun any more, not after they’d succeeded in forcing their agenda on everyone else and pissing off the religious right. Ha! Ha! We won! And now, I don’t really want to be married to you until death do us part. I didn’t mean that shit. 

Gays get divorces just like straights, okay? But then again, straight people didn’t spend their whole lives crying about how they aren’t allowed to get married, how they’re just soooooooooo in love and they can’t live one second longer if the state doesn’t recognize that love, how they’re wonderful parents and they have such a stable and loving home. Nope, that was Hillary and Julie. As it turns out, twenty years together as cohabiting mommies was easy, but give them a marriage license and they’ll be divorced in less than the national average.

Marrying your partner just to piss off religious people is always a good way to make a good foundation for a family. I recommend it highly!

Advertisements

Gay military members to discuss deeply personal matter with entire world

As we approach the final demise of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, there is much reason to celebrate. Personally, I wish the policy hadn’t existed when I was a young chap because I was truly compelled out of a strong sense of patriotism to enlist in the United States Navy. Also, I heard about the se(a)men they have and about the pants that zip in the back. But the mean military people wouldn’t let me.

With boys like this, who wouldn't want to join the military? Seriously, though...is it too late?

Well, that’s not exactly true. Actually, I could have joined the military if I had been prepared to simply keep my mouth shut about my sexual activity, but I wasn’t willing to do that. I really wanted to be an “out and proud” in-your-face activist working within the military to further my own personal agenda rather than the mission.  I liked to think of myself as a patriot, but the truth was I wasn’t patriotic enough to do my duty if it meant that I couldn’t also be a “change agent” at the same time. Turned out I was a lot more gay than I was patriotic. After I told my recruiter about my dilemma and complimented him a few times on how his ass looked in that uniform, he told me to get lost.

It was really a sad day for equal rights.

Fortunately, the policy has since been reversed. DADT will officially bite the dust this September 20th. From that day forward, homosexuals can be just as gay as they want to be and nobody better say a word about it or they will be disciplined.

It’s called mutual respect. You know–just the same way we show respect to people of faith when we harass, intimidate, and blacklist them, when we joke about their “magic underwear”, when we tell them that their God hates them and they’re going to hell for being bigots, when we misrepresent their beliefs, when we accuse them of all being a bunch of child molesters, KKK members, and Nazis. Now that’s respect.

I fully expect de facto and de jure special treatment to follow the repeal. It’s only fair–women and minorities get it, and so should pillow-biters. We’re oppressed, and now you owe us.

A new military-themed LGBTQXYZ magazine will appear on PX shelves starting on the very day of the repeal. It’s called “OutServe”. It’s been in existence for several months now, though the military has declined to sell it on base. I bought a copy of it because I want to keep abreast of the challenges that gay military personnel face on a daily basis. Just kidding! I was looking for thinly veiled male prostitute advertisements tucked away in the “personals” section. You know how I like my military boys. (Unfortunately, I didn’t find any.)

OutServe: the new magazine for the LGBTQXYZ military community to sound off about their sexuality as loudly as possible.

The first issue to hit the PX shelves will list the names of over a hundred LGBTQXYZ active duty military members. Rumor has it that ninety-nine of them are  Navy boys and one is a military intelligence analyst who is currently sitting in the brig for betraying his country to a creepy lo0king Australian after having a spat with his drag queen boyfriend.

I’m really glad that gays and lesbians can now be “out”. Because “outness” is what we really wanted. Now, don’t get me wrong–my sexuality is still a very private matter, and that’s what I tell anyone who disapproves of my sodomy.

Mind your own damned business, will you? What does it matter to you what I do in the privacy of my bedroom?

And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense that a personal, private matter like sexuality should be shared with the entire world on the glossy pages of a magazine. I do much the same thing with other private matters.

For example, I had some bad hemorrhoids a few weeks back. Kind of embarassing, certainly a private matter. And the first thing I did was send out a press release to my local newspaper. LOCAL GAY MAN SUFFERS FROM A REALLY BAD CASE OF ‘RHOIDS. Everyone knows that personal matters are always declared as loudly and boldly as possible, preferably in print. After that, I went out and marched in a hemorrhoid pride parade. Yep, they really exist. Even though my hemorrhoids were a private matter, I really felt like walking down Main Street and shouting to everyone I saw that I have hemorrhoids. Then I went out and slapped a bumper sticker on my car that said, ‘I have hemorrhoids and I VOTE’. I delved into the hemorrhoid positive side of the blogosphere.  I have since joined a professional organization for hemorrhoid sufferers. I’m a guidance counselor, so I joined the National Organization of Guidance Counselors Suffering from Hemorrhoids (NOGCSFH).

Okay, so I can’t tell a lie this big with a straight face. The truth is that we homosexuals have never wanted to be left alone, we have never wanted our private lives to remain private. If that’s all we had wanted, we would have been totally satisfied with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. After all, we wouldn’t want anyone to ask us about such a personal matter, and we certainly wouldn’t want to tell anyone about such a personal matter either.

Prior to the 1993 policy change, the military did ask and service members were expected to tell. Right there on the enlistment forms, all recruits were asked if they were homosexuals. I know a guy who joined the Marines prior to DADT and he tells me that when he arrived at Parris Island the D.I.’s asked him over and over again the same question in a hundred different ways–“Are you a peter-puffer? Do you suck dick?”

Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann (R. Lee Ermy): "Are you a peter-puffer? Do you suck dick?" "Sir! No, sir!" "Bullshit! I bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose!"

But after 1993, they stopped asking. And we still weren’t satisfied because keeping our sexuality private was NEVER our goal. To the contrary! Being a loud and proud queer is exactly what we wanted, and we wanted to do it within the United States military. For more on loud and proud queers, just type Lieutenant (sic) Dan Choi  into any search engine.

DADT was simply a stepping stone toward our actual goal. You see, some gay genius came up with a spectacular slogan that has worked like gangbusters to change public opinion on the topic of butt-stabbing. You may have heard it. It goes: “What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is no one else’s business.”

It appealed to the libertarian side of the American center. It happened to be bullshit, but it was highly affective bullshit, so we ran with it. The slogan had the affect of portraying our opponents as the aggressors. We just want to be left alone in the privacy our own bedrooms, but these people want to break down our doors to find out what we’re doing in here.

Despite the fact that we were making aggressive thrusts into their sphere, we made it look as if the opposite were true. And then we repeated this slogan over and over again, whenever gayness was at issue. We cited the old “privacy of their bedroom” argument when talking about gay marriage, as if people get married in their bedrooms. No, a marriage contract is a public recognition of a relationship. We want an official marriage certificate from the state precisely because we want to get the government involved in our amorous relationships. If we wanted them to stay out of it, we’d never want to get married! We’d just shack up and go about our lives.

These two women just want people to butt out what they do as two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom. That's why they're making out in the middle of the street while representing the Navy on their t-shirts. Why people have to pry into their sex lives, I don't know.

And now here we are in 2011. The private bedroom behavior of consenting (military) adults is no longer private. It’s proclaimed boldly in the pages of OutServe. Now that’s what I call progress!

Hey, did you hear that Sergeant Jones takes it in the poopchute? Yeah, I read it in this magazine. Shhh! I don’t think he wants anyone to know. He’s a very private person and besides, it doesn’t even matter.

And thus, it begins. Give it time, and we’ll have gay pride marches and gay bars on military bases, special services for gay veterans, special recruiting materials just to get gays to enlist. We’ll force military personnel to march in gay parades just the same way we’ve already forced firemen in San Diego and Providence to do the same thing. We’ll have gay affirmative action programs like we have here in the Massachusetts state government. We’ll require all of the services to have at least one LGBTQXYZ three star general/admiral by a certain date just the same way we did with women. And then we’ll require chaplains to perform gay marriages against their will. We’ll discipline soldiers of faith for holding opinions we don’t like.

Gayness will be ubiquitous kind of like it is on college campuses. Because anything less than ubiquitous homosexuality constitutes an intrusion into the private bedroom behavior of consenting adults.

We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!

I LOVErmont: The Green Mountain State keeps up the heat on religious bigots

Bigots will find no shelter in the state of Vermont. Nor Roman Catholics, although that’s sort of synonymous with bigots.

The first state in the union to legalize civil unions–due to the legislation of then Governor Dean’s faith–and the first state to pass marriage equality without the judiciary’s gun to its head, Vermont will also become the first state to force Christians against their will to rent out their private property for gay weddings. Vermont is super-progressive and that’s why we like it so much.

The Vermont chapter of the ACLU is now suing a rural Vermont inn on behalf of a lesbian couple that wished to hold its wedding reception there. The lesbian couple nearly committed suicide after finding out that these private citizens did not want to allow their their private property to be used in a celebration of their homosexual relationship.

And you wouldn’t want them to commit suicide…would you?

Of course, the bigots played the religion card, as if religion is offered some kind of special protection in the Constitution or something. John and Mary O’Reilly, owners of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont explained:

 “We do not, however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

When are these people going to learn that free exercise of religion does not mean that you can break the law when it violates your conscience? For example, the government can draft Quakers into the armed forces. Also, Jehovah’s Witnesses are forced to stand and say the pledge of allegiance in schools. It’s permissible to force Orthodox Jews to open their businesses on the (Jewish) Sabbath. Wait…we don’t do any of those things? Well, we should be able to.

When the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, it didn’t mean religions that piss me off. It meant warm, mushy, cotton candy religions that tell homosexuals that God made them just the way they are and God don’t make no mistakes. You know, fake religions.

The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont. Nice place. Hate to see anything bad happen to it.

The idea that these two innkeepers can just decide to pick and choose which customers they take on–as if it were their business!–really makes my blood boil. The entire purpose of marriage equality laws is to force people like the O’Reilly’s to do things against their will. That’s why we need the state to recognize our relationships. Without state sanction, we can’t call on the power of the state to force other people to recognize our relationships and, when we feel like it, to take part in our ceremonies.

You’ll never find us making the libertarian argument that government should have no role in marriage because that would mean that the government can’t shove our morals down other people’s throats. Absolutely we want the government involved in marriage. We want the heavy hand of the state involved at all levels, and we want it to bully people on our behalf. We want our morals enshrined in law.

And let’s be clear–we do want to shove our morals down other people’s throats. John and Mary O’Reilly think that gay marriage is morally wrong. I think their exclusionary policy is morally wrong. John and Mary O’Reilly may not force their morality upon me through the force of law, though I may still force my morality on them.

That’s why it’s okay for former Governor Howard Dean to tell the voters of Iowa that it was his faith that motivated him to sign civil unions into law. But it would not be acceptable for an actual Christian governor–as opposed to Dean, who’s only a Christian when he’s running for president–to veto such a law because of his faith.

See how this works? We legislate our morality, and you just keep yours to your fucking self. I don’t want to see your morality, hear your morality, or even know that it exists. If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t get gay married! And just as long as you participate in my wedding against your will, everything will be fine. I won’t have to call the authorities, who are pretty entirely in the tank for me.

Nice message. It’s important to perpetuate the myth that other people are meddling in our lives, preventing us from loving each other, and getting in our business.

Now, I’m not advising any of my readers to go blabbing about all of this all around town. Yes, the whole purpose of gay marriage is to force people to recognize our relationships who don’t want to. But as always, stealth and deception are necessary. It’s important to keep up the illusion that people are meddling in our lives, telling us whom to love and whom we may sleep with. The emotional weight of that argument is enormous.

It’s bullshit, of course. But that shouldn’t stop us from making the emotional appeal that we really, really love each other. So who are you to stand in the way of our love? Who are you to police my sex life? I loved my husband even before we were married and I slept with him as well. Even if every gay marriage in the whole country was nullified by some federal marriage amendment, I’d still love him and still have sex with him. So it really has nothing to do with love or with bedroom behavior. It has to do with forcing people to do things our way.

When we portray opponents of marriage equality as moral busybodies, we win. They’re running around telling everyone how to live their lives! Which is totally different than what the State of Vermont is doing to the O’Reilly’s, of course. But they’re just Christofascist losers, and they have no rights.
 
This whole ordeal in Vermont really reminds me of what happened to me and Michael when we were first married here on the Cape in 2004. We were one of the first gay couples in the state–in the nation!–to be married legally. We contacted a woman photographer to do our photos, and she told us that she was a Christofascist and that she wasn’t planning on doing any gay weddings because of her “faith”. She referred us to other photographers.
 
Now, there are dozens of good wedding photographers on the Cape, but it didn’t seem right that this woman could just pick and choose her clients. So we told her that she’d better get her ass to the wedding or we’d sue the shit out of her. You see, I wanted to force her to do something against her will. I wanted to make her an unwilling participant in our ceremony, forcing her to look at us through that camera lens of hers, shoving cake in each other’s mouths, kissing at the altar, etc. I know that there were other photographers who would have been glad to have had our business, but I really wanted to knuckle this bitch under. I wanted to make her choose between her Christian faith and her livelihood. I certainly didn’t want a photographer who wanted to be there.
 
In the end, she did the pictures. So much for her “faith” in some wacky “God”. Apparently, paying her bills was more important. 
 
Now, some of you may believe in “live and let live”. I don’t. I believe in live and destroy other people’s livelihoods. If other people have beliefs that conflict with mine, I like to force them to abandon their beliefs or become unemployed. (See previous post of Dr. Frank Turek)
 
I heard that ours was her last wedding ever. It’s too bad because she had had a thriving business before gay marriage became the law in Massachusetts. Last time I saw her, she was a sandwich artist at Subway in Hyannisport. Hope that bitch likes making minimum wage! I bet she’ll remember next time that “this doesn’t affect you”.   
 
 Update: The Wildflower Inn is no longer doing weddings and special events, according to its website. I consider this a partial victory. Can the State of Vermont force them to continue doing so? That would be sweet.

It takes courage to stand up for marriage equality. Bribes help too.

Three cheers for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He’s putting his checkbook where his mouth is, donating the maximum amount allowed under law ($10,300) to four Republican senators who voted “yes” on marriage equality.  Forbes.com lists Michael Bloomberg as the twenty-third richest billionaire in the world with a net worth of $18 billion. He’s only a few places behind the Waltons of the Wal-Mart fortune. Bloomberg could probably scrounge up ten grand from the couch cushions in his mansion.

Without these four senators, the bill would not have passed. The vote turned out 33-29, in favor of marriage equality. If those four senators had been on the other side, the vote would have been 29-33, in favor of discrimination against homosexuals. So it’s nice to know that Michael Bloomberg’s bribes secured our victory.  Just call him Mr. Moneybags.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/07/14/2011-07-14_mike_rewards_4_gop_gaynups_backers.html?r=news/politics

Wait, did I say bribes? Well, let’s not make bribery sound like a bad thing in all situations. While the line between a bribe and a campaign donation is usually a thin one, there is usually a general rule of thumb that can be applied to tell the difference. A bribe is given quid pro quo. You vote the way I want on this bill and I’ll write you a check. You defy me and there will be no money for you. That’s the difference between a campaign donation and a bribe.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg makes the case for marriage equality. And when you can’t persuade with arguments, it helps to just buy people off. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Money has a very persuasive effect. Bloomberg is a good Jew. We like this Jew.

Mayor Bloomberg had to resort to bribery to acheive his ends. So what? Bribery for a good cause is no vice. When you understand that marriage inequality is akin to Jim Crow–again, just to make the ridiculous comparison between myself and black people one more time–bribery doesn’t seem like such a bad thing. What if a really rich New York liberal had written checks to Southern Democrats, in order to get them to switch sides? See, so bribery is okay when you occupy the position of absolute righteousness that we do. In fact, anything goes.

 
“The mayor said he would support Senate Republicans who stood up – and he did,” said top Bloomberg aide Micah Lasher. Bloomberg supported them with a cash donation in exchange for their votes. It was understood by all parties involved that the campaign donations came with one condition. And they all jumped on the deal like the political whores that they are. Good for them!
 

Rabbi Leiter of Jews for Decency walks and talks with Republican Senator James Alesi, one of the Republicans who flip-flopped on the issue after he smelled a campaign donation. Good thing he listened to the Jew with the big checkbook rather than the Jew with the beard and the silly hat. Money talks, bitches!

Senator James Alesi, for example, was against the bill right up until June 13th, fewer than ten days before the vote. He was invited to Manhattan, wooed from every angle, and eventually recanted his previous opposition to marriage equality, offering his apologies for ever being against it. So bribery is pretty effective. Man, it took a lot of courage for Senator Alesi to vote for marriage equality. When I think of people who abandon their values and dance for Mayor Bloomberg’s cash, I think ‘Wow that took balls’. There’s nothing more courageous than selling out for cash.   
 
Money has always been the homosexual lobby’s secret weapon. Not only are gays superrich, so are our straight friends–ie. Michael Bloomberg. We love to brag about the taxes we pay and how we’re owed something because of it. We all know that that’s secret code for, “We got money, we got power”. It’s easier to just buy off politicians than it is to win hearts and minds.
 
We always manage to raise more money for our side, yet lose the vote. At least when the vote is put to the people, which is something we should never do. We must never vote on civil rights. Wait a second, didn’t we vote on civil right in New York last month and weren’t we thrilled? Okay, let me rephrase that. We must never vote on civil rights–not unless we can guarantee the result with a large infusion of cash.
 
The cash gap always favors us. In California, we raised $44.1 million to oppose Prop H8. The H8ers raised $38.7 million. (We later complained that many of their donors were from–gasp!–out of state, but of course our out of state money exceeded theirs). In Maine, our side raised $5.7 million and their side $3.4 million.
 
If only we could have written ten thousand dollar checks to each and every voter in California and Maine. It’s much easier to just bribe four senators. Bribery works wonders in a legislature. It’s much less effective when applied to a ballot question. So let’s make sure that marriage equality never ends up on the ballot, anywhere.
 
Thank goodness for wealthy fags and their big checkbooks.    

Speaking of homophobic Jews…

Coming on the heels of last week’s all-out blitz of Albany by radical homo-hating Jews (see previous post), known homophobe (and Jew!) Benjamin Shapiro takes a mean-spirited swipe at the LGBTQXYZ community.

You may know Shapiro as the  loudmouth, yarmulke-wearing, young  right-wing columnist, activist, and radio host. This moron graduated suma cum laude from UCLA at the age of twenty and then graduated cum laude with a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law at the age of twenty-three.  Actually, I would be totally impressed with his Ivy League credentials if he were on my side, but since he isn’t, then I don’t really care.

Lil' Benny Shapiro posing with his first book, "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth". As if there's something wrong with that. Anyway, this is one, mean, nasty, gay-hating JEW. Being from California, I'd bet he even voted for Prop H8. He'd get along well with Jews for Decency (and/or Fascism)

Shapiro’s one of those abstinence crusaders. He thinks guys should keep their schmeckels in their pants until marriage. Marriage to women, of course. Psht. Somebody ought to tell him that abstinence is the leading cause of AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. That’s what I learned from NPR anyway. But you know he’s a real prude, and probably a repressed homosexual…or so I hope.

In his latest book, “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV”, Shapiro offers weak arguments to the effect that lefty producers in Hollywood are making television programs with lefty messages. What those messages are, or what evidence Shapiro presents, I don’t know because I haven’t read it. I won’t read it either, because I might kill myself. You have to understand that gay people commit suicide at the drop of a hat.

Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV". Haven't read this one either. And I won't. I guess it kind of perturbs me that he makes the Left "taking over" your TV sound like a bad thing.

The whole book is based on deceit. Shapiro actually went around to Hollywood producers, introducing himself–using his real name!–and wearing a Harvard Law baseball cap, which is a school he actually attended. He was trying to pass himself off as some kind of Harvard educated Jew…which he kind of is, I suppose. But it’s really sneaky because he predicts that Hollywood producers will assume that he’s a liberal just like they are and speak freely about their biases. And they did. Isn’t he underhanded?

Shapiro seems upset that the Hollywood producers he talked  go out of their way to make gay characters look good, the old “television promotes homosexuality” argument. Everyone knows that you can’t actually promote homosexuality because it’s an inborn trait. Don’t ask me to show you the gene that causes it because I can’t. Just take it on faith the way that I do.

So, what’s wrong with making gay characters look good? I think that’s a real positive. It doesn’t shake my faith in the gay precept that homosexuals are constantly maligned and abused in our society. Nope. Not one bit. I still consider myself America’s premiere victim group despite the fact that the entertainment industry does nothing but shill for my issues.

Imagine that you’re watching Law and Order or a similar cop show. Let’s say that the detectives are investigating a suspect for a possible homocide. And then they drop the bombshell–the suspect in question is a cocksmuggler! Well then, you know instantly that the homosexual being investigated didn’t commit the crime. He probably has an airtight alibi. He couldn’t have committed the murder because he and his partner were feeding the homeless at the time the crime took place. Or they were rescuing kittens.

If you want to know who really did the deed, turn your suspicion toward the swarmy Catholic priest or evangelical minister. Ha! Yep, you can bet that he was the one who did it, every time. He’s also a pedophile with odd Nazi sympathies.  If the show doesn’t feature any swarmy Catholic priests or evangelical ministers, your next best bet would be the deranged Marine who just got home from Afghanistan. He probably did it. Unless he’s a gay Marine of course, in which case all bets are off.

Homosexuals are always the most loveable, wise, kind, and generous characters in TV Land. The “homo with a heart of gold” is a stock character on every show. There are no gay drug dealers like the real life Matthew Shepard, or gay murderers like the real life Nicholas Gutierrez.  There are only friendly gay neighbors, funny gay husbands, and loveable gay teens.

And that’s the way it should be! Every LGBTQXYZ character is saintly, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I guess that’s my beef with Shapiro. Even the title of his book sounds conspiratorial–how the Left “took over” your TV. Wait, isn’t the TV rightfully ours? Only progressive people like me should be on television. Only people with my values should be writing the scripts. I’ve even heard rumors that there are a few backward people in the Midwest who still think homosexuality is “wrong”. What the hell is the point of televison if not to furtively deliver positive messages about sodomy into their living rooms on a daily basis?

In Shapiro’s latest rant, “Of Television and Same-sex Marriage,” he argues:

“It’s not that tolerance for gays and lesbians is a bad message – precisely the opposite.  But Hollywood’s goal in making homosexuality ubiquitous on television is to create a gay friend and neighbor for everyone, so that they can then make the most effective argument on behalf of gay marriage.”

Um, yeah? So? That’s what television is for–to make stupid people think like Hollywood’s gay elite. Stupid people need that from time to time. Flaming homosexuals need to be on television at every moment. Nothing but gayness on every channel, in every time slot. We need girls kissing on The Family Channel (we achieved that), we need gay weddings on every sitcom (we’ve achieved that), gay dads rasing kids (we’ve achieved that). We need an entire gay channel (we’ve achieved that). We need HIV positive characters on Sesame Street, for crying out loud! (We’ve acheived that too). Everything has to be gay all the time or else I’m oppressed and might take my own life. Okay, so even when the entire network line up is painted rainbow colors, I’m still oppressed. And I still might take my own life.

Shapiro has this weird idea that the overrepresentation of homosexuals on the television screen might have something to do with the fact that most Americans think that gay people are jumping out of the woodwork at them.

This week, a poll of Americans showed something absolutely stunning: a full 35 percent of Americans believe that more than one in four Americans is gay; a majority, 52 percent, think that over 20 percent are gay; and a full 78 percent believe that at least ten percent of Americans are gay.  The real statistic: somewhere around two percent of Americans are gay.  There is only one place in American life that the one in four figure or one in five figure is absolutely accurate: on television, where gay characters pervade virtually every show.  The younger Americans are, the more likely they are to believe that there is an elevated population of gays; the poorer and less educated they are, the more likely they are to believe the skewed statistics.  Not coincidentally, those who are young, poor, and uneducated tend to be the largest consumers of television.

Okay, so poorer and less educated people think that everybody’s gay because all they do is sit on their asses in their double wide trailers and watch the idiot box. And everything on their television is supergay. I think that’s really great. So what if actual proportion of LGBTQXYZ Americans is one in fifty rather than one in four? That just means that television is doing a bang up job of warping their reality in a gay-positive manner.

At one point in the book, Shapiro interviews Marc Cherry, the pillow-biting producer of Desperate Housewives. Mr. Cherry explains why he introduced a gay couple to the show:

“…[It is] it’s own political statement which was ‘see, you can have gay neighbors, they can be perfectly fine, they can fit in with the rest of the folks, and it doesn’t change anything.  And you kind of hope that you are preparing the way, planting little seeds in the minds of people who sometime over the next few years are going to have gay neighbors buy a house on their street.  And for me, that’s the most effective political message is that its not particularly aggressive.”

In Ben Shapiro’s bizarro world, producers who “prepare the way” and “plant little seeds in the minds of people” are engaging in some form of insidious “propaganda”.  It’s almost as if Marc Cherry is trying to slip you an “effective political message” without you even knowing it. Which he is, of course. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

The gay neighbors on Desperate Housewives. "And I don't really talk about their sexuality much," says gay producer Marc Cherry. I can see that. Cherry's "political message" is so effective precisely because it's "not aggressive", as he puts it. This happens to be my favorite DH scene ever. I TiVoed it so I could yank my crank to it over and over.

So, if you’re interested in wasting $24.99 on some wacky, insane, homophobic conspiracy theories from well-known ORTHODOX JEW, feel free to pick up Shapiro’s book. If you’re like me, however, you won’t read it. I don’t read much.

I ♥ NY (The Jews? Not so much.)

As I’m sure you have all already heard, New York has become the sixth state in the union to pass marriage equality.  I was absolutely giddy to hear the news.  Finally, those guys from the Village People can start pairing off together!

Now that we have vanquished our bigoted foes, I think it’s about time we seek to personally destroy anyone who opposed us. Democracy works a lot better when we intimidate, blacklist, harass and persecute our opponents. Wait, did I say democracy? I usually don’t like democracy, not unless it yields the results I want, as it did last night in Albany. Minority rights must never be voted on, unless my side wins and then I get a tear in my eye and I celebrate with champagne. In the future, we must devise a form of democracy that ensures that my side wins every time.

I really like how the homosexuals of California handled their Prop H8 defeat. Blacklisting their (mostly Mormon and Catholic) opponents guarantees that anyone who disagrees with us will think twice in the future about voting, speaking, or donating money. Blacklisting used to be a bad thing, back when the Hollywood studios used it against the Stalinist Left for about fifteen minutes during the McCarthyite 1950’s. I know it was bad because I’ve seen about sixteen movies and four PBS documentaries about it. But those were just utopian visionaries who wanted to bring the oppressive Soviet system to America, so let’s not compare them to the moral monsters who object to redefining marriage.

That’s why I was thrilled to discover a website pop up after Prop H8 called stopthemormons.org. Click on the site on my blog roll. As the bloggers explain in their FAQ, “Stop the Mormons” is not a bigoted, anti-Mormon site because Mormons really do deserve all the hate they get. Personally, I’ve never met a Mormon, but I kind of agree. Hating people who deserve to be hated isn’t hate. Also, the bloggers filled their website with testimony from all sorts of token non-Mormon Mormons that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t hate Mormons. They even have a picture of noted Mormon Harry Reid on their site. And everyone knows that Harry Reid is a super-devout Mormon. He just pretends that he isn’t in public.

Harry Reid, a devout Mormon. See? He's praying! Right there at the podium. Ha! Just kidding. Harry Reid doesn't believe any of that Mormon crap, and if he did we'd kneecap that motherfucker too. Still, it's nice to have guys like him around that provide us cover for our anti-Mormon hate.

As it turns out, there aren’t many Mormons in New York, so they weren’t as much of a force as they were in California.  I’m sure they were still hanging out in their caves in the desert, meddling in the affairs of New York from afar and marrying multiple underage brides.

But from what I saw, the main opponents of New York’s marriage equality bill were THE JEWS! So I immediately ran to my computer and tried to register the domain name “stopthejews.org”. But then I thought to myself, “Wait a second, Patrick. That sounds kind of anti-Semitic”.

But no, it isn’t true! I have lots of Jewish friends. None of them actually practice Judaism, but at least they’ve had their kosher franks circumcised. I know this because I’ve seen all of my friends’ dicks up close.  So I had a little debate with myself, right then and there. I asked myself, if someone had a website called “Stop the blacks” or “Stop the Mexicans”, would I consider that racist? Yes, I would.  If someone had a blog called “Stop the gays”, would I consider that homophobic? Yes, I certainly would. If someone had a blog called “Stop the Muslims”, would I consider that Islamophobic? Yes. And heaven knows that I’m deathly afraid of being called Islamaphobic.

But this is different! I would even go out of my way to find Jews who agree with me and lace the website with quotes from them, thus proving that a website about “stopping the Jews” is not really anti-Jewish. It’s kind of the same thing with the Mormons. I DO NOT hate Mormons. I just hate people who subscribe to the Mormon faith. If, for example, you are a Mormon who doesn’t actually believe any of that Mormon crap, then we’re cool. That way, you can provide cover for me against the charge that I am anti-Mormon. It’s the same with the Jews.

So let me clarify what I mean by “stop the Jews”. I am NOT against Jews. I love secular Hollywood Jews like Steven Spielberg. The well-known director and Eagle Scout even told the Boy Scouts of America to piss off over their no homosexual policy. Which is great, because I really think that the BSA should allow me to take little boys camping. It’s a travesty that they don’t. It’s good to know that when a wholesome youth organization dedicated to building character and helping little old ladies across the street is in a pitched battle with a group of foaming-at-the-mouth homosexuals, Steven Spielberg knows which side he’s on. I REALLY like the secular Hollywood Jews who happen to be gay–David Geffen and Joel Schumacher, for example. They make lots of great propaganda films.

And there are loads of good Jews in politics. Take, for example, Anthony’s Weiner, the recently deposed Congressman from New York. Now there was a nasty, arrogant, loud-mouth, in-your-face Jew that I could have really gotten along with. And since he’s never had the pretense of standing for “family values” (quote-unquote), then what he did was not hypocritical. And so it’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with being a dirtbag so long as you never pretended to have any moral standards in the first place. And really, you gotta like a Congressman who plays dress up in a bra and panties. My husband and I did that last weekend, so it’s kind of neat to know that a congressman does the same thing.

Anthony Weiner in his crazy college days. I thought he was just an arrogant prick. Who knew he had a softer side? He's a good Jew. We like this Jew.

No, the kind of Jews I hate are the ones with the hats and the beards and the lamb chops. Y’know–the churchy Jews. I guess you would call them synagogue-y Jews. Just last week, a group calling itself “Jews for Decency” descended upon the state house in Albany like locusts, doing their best to ambush senators and persuade them to vote “no” on marriage equality. Yeah right, more like “Jews for Fascism”. As I’ve found in the past, “decency” is basically a code word for fascism. Beware of anyone who uses it. Check out their website here:

http://www.jewsfordecency.org

Oh, the Jews and their “decency”. Don’t they know that religious organizations have no say whatsoever in governmental affairs? That’s what we patriotic Americans like to call the “seperation of church and state”. It’s been part of the American legal tradition ever since a KKK member named Justice Hugo Black inserted it into his majority opinion in order to deprive Catholics the use of public facilities. It’s not actually in the Constitution, but that’s good enough for me. Now, if some short, dumpy, bi-curious, genderqueer Methodist minister from some ultra-left wing church in a college town wants to come testify before the New York legislature, that’s okay. It’s okay because everyone knows (s)he doesn’t really believe in God, and thus the seperation of church and state no longer applies.

Rabbi Leiter of Jews for "Decency" walks and talks with Republican Senator James Alesi. Thankfully, Alesi told this Jew-boy to take a hike and voted YES on marriage equality. Good for him. And as for Rabbi Leiter--now I know why your people have been hated down through history. Don't you dare try to twist that as some kind of anti-Semitic remark.

I was thinking to myself that we should handle these Jews just the same way we handled the Mormons. For example, we should boycott Jewish-owned business, just like we boycotted Mormon-owned businesses. We should vandalize their houses of worship just the same way we did to Catholics and Mormons after Prop H8. But then a thought occurred to me–wait a second, if we treated Jews the same way we treated Mormons,  someone might draw a connection between our intimidation campaign and Kristallnacht. And then the Jews would be able to claim “victimhood”.

"Kauft nicht bei Juden!" (Don't buy from Jews!) I was thinking we could mount a campaign like this after last night's marriage equality vote. It seemed to work with the Mormons. But someone might see some historical parallels, so let's not do it. We're going to have to find another way to punish the Jews. I'm open to ideas, just leave a comment.

So let’s recap. I want to find a way to punish the Jews for participating in the democratic process on the other side of an issue about which I feel strongly. That does not mean that I am anti-Jewish, because I don’t hate all Jews. I only hate Jews who practice Judaism and believe that silly book they’ve been lugging around for like five thousand years. I’d like to treat them just like the we treated the Mormons after Proposition 8–unleash so much bile and discrimination against them that they’ll never even dream of opposing us in the future. Not that I’m anti-Mormon. Of course, if I treated the Jews the same way that I treated the Mormons, someone might see shades of Nazism in my actions. And I don’t want that.

Tag Cloud