A Response to those in California who believe that Human Rights are subject to Popular Vote.

Today, in California, arguments are being made before the state supreme court regarding the legality of Proposition 8 (liveblogging here).  Here is my response to those who think that mythology is a good reason to deny human beings their human rights:

The Tactics of Authoritarianism: Fear

They (who) seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order.  It is not new and it is not order.
                   Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Fearing the ‘Other’

I strongly suspect that (((Wife))) and I scare the shit out of many extremely religious people.  I bet dollars to donuts that my best friend does, too.  Why?  We’re boringly normal.  

Lies and the Resistance to Change

One of the commenters who shows up, repeatedly, on any post involving extending human rights to all human beings — including gays, lesbians, transgenders and bisexuals — is a rather frightening homophobe who goes by the name of Reginald Genovese.  He has a bug (of maybe something much, much larger) up his ass concerning the idea that allowing gay marriage is directly related to the downfall of civilizations, cultures, or economies.  In his latest bit of word salad, he wrote (I guess as a form of proof):

What European nation currently has the highest unemployement rate, the lowest standard of living and the shortest life expectancy is Holland the same nation whose embrace of the perversion of those who broke the social compact lead directly to the slaughter of 70,000 innocents in Srebrenicza, Yugoslavia accoriding to the testimony of one of America’s most decorated officers.

Denver Missed the Memo

Since the beginning of the month, there have been three truly remarkable (remarkably disgusting, that is) cases involving the GLBT community.  Two responses:  punish everyone and blame the gays (Catholic Charities in Washington and the Iwatamba school district);  the third (Denver) didn’t get the memo.

Marry a Committed Lover? No. Marry a Stranger? Yes.

As I have said (written?) before, one of my best friends is gay.  He envies the relationship I have with (((Wife))).  He envies the fact that I can be married.  Here in Pennsylvania, he cannot.  Hell, we don’t even have a domestic partnership law — Pennsylvania has gone so far as to ban, by statute, gay marriage. 

Two total strangers (as long as they are of opposite sex) can get married.  An 80-year-old geezer can marry (in most states) a sixteen-year-old girl.  A death row inmate can marry a girl he only met through the mail.  Yet, in most states, gay and lesbian lovers, who may have long term, committed relationships, cannot marry.  Why not?  Religion.

D.C. Council Approves Human Rights; GOP Representative Objects

Back in early December, the Washington D.C. Council decided that human rights really do apply to all humans.   The District will be joining Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut (Maine and California voters (with heavy funding from outside the states) decided that some humans are not eligible for human rights).   

“This is a culmination of the entire gay rights movement,” Richard J. Rosendall, a past president of the Gay and Lesbian Activist Alliance of Washington D.C., said after the vote. “We have spent many, many, years working toward this.” (from the Washington Post)

Unfortunately, Washington D.C. is not a state.  It is a federal district.  Though they do have home rule now (the days of the U.S. congress voting on parking meter increases is long gone), the congress has 30 days to object.  Luckily, there is no sign of opposition.

Oh.  Wait.