Clack

Yet Another Poll

USA Today is running this non-scientifc poll (Should the Constitution be amended to prevent gays from marrying?).

You can see the results so far, Here

Except for Homos

Courtesy of the AJC

Breaking news!!!

This just in from Channel 2 Action News...the vote in the Georgia House of Representatives to present a proposed Georgia state constitutional amendment to the voters of Georgia HAS FAILED TO PASS!. In order to pass the House, 120 votes were needed; 117 votes were gathered.

UPDATE: Here's a link to an Atlanta-Journal Constitution article

The Georgia House of Representatives rejected by three votes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday evening.

Debate on the controversial measure began at 2:50 p.m. and wrapped up at about 6:15 p.m.

The first speaker of the GOP-sponsored measure was a Democrat who urged its passage.

Mike Boggs (D-Waycross) said lawmakers had an opportunity to protect the state against “activist judges” who might try to overturn the state law that bars same-sex marriage.

“Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, we have seldom had an opportunity to stand up for things that are common-sensical, things that stand up for Christian values,” Boggs said.

He was followed by Republican Bill Hembree, of Douglasville, who concurred with Boggs.

“Stand up in the defense of marriage,” said Hembree, after reading the definition of marriage from a dictionary as between “husband and wife.”

Hembree and other supporters repeatedly urged the chamber not to change the bill, and to vote for the bill so “the people can decide.”

Rep. Bob Holmes argued against the bill, saying “activist judges” often issue rulings that are in the public’s best interest. He cited rulings pertaining to the Voting Rights Act, guaranteeing voting rights for African-Americans.

“This goes beyond the notion of preventing same-sex marriage,” Holmes said. “We’re not talking about special privileges … we’re going to constitutionally discriminate against this segment of the population.”

Holmes disputed Republican assertions that a constitutional amendment would provide more protection than the current state law against a ban being overturned by the courts.

Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Decatur) said the amendment would threaten domestic partner benefits many large Georgia companies, such as Coca-Cola and BellSouth, offer members of gay couples.

She also asked if legislators thought the amendment would make gay couples go away.

“If anything, it will make them stronger,” Benfield said.

Rep. Kathy Ashe (D-Atlanta), the 10th speaker on the resolution, said she hoped one day politicians would move past “attacking gay folks for political advantage.”

“Tonight, if we move this resolution forward I will go home and cry. I will cry for the lost hopes and dreams of thousands of my constituents who simply want to live their lives the way so many of us do every day.”

“Nobody can stand here and say that anyone is harmed by two loving individuals pledging their love for one another. … People who are not harming anyone deserve to be left alone. I thought both political parties believed that. Today, that lie is being exposed.”

Rep. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta) said members would live to regret a vote in favor of the ban. Like previous speakers, she invoked the legacy of civil rights legend Martin Luther King Jr.

“Folks, this is the same thing as when legislatures put Jim Crow laws and codified them in their law books. You’re saying that people because of their status are not allowed to have the same rights as us.”

In a passionate speech, Rep. Alisha Thomas-Morgan (D-Austell) chastised Republicans for seeking to interfere with Georgians’ lives and in their bedrooms.

“How is it when you talk about less government, you want to talk about what people can do?” she said.

Thomas-Morgan said she is a Christian and opposes “this hateful bill.” She said she consulted her pastor and he told her to vote her conscience and he would support her.

“I urge you to have some guts,” she told her colleagues. “Have some courage.”

By about 5 p.m., 17 House members had spoken on the resolution in more than two hours of debate. Six had spoken in favor of it, 11 against.

Rep. Larry Walker (D-Perry), who is not running for re-election after 31 years in the legislature, said he supports the resolution but announced he would offer an amendment that he said would strengthen it. The change would drop language saying “no union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.” The language has raised questions about whether companies and local governments would be able to offer health benefits to domestic partners.

Under Walker’s change, the resolution would say only, “the state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.”

A hush fell over the chamber as Rep. Karla Drenner (D-Avondale Estates) took the podium to speak. Drenner is the only openly gay legislator in the General Assembly. She spoke in largely personal terms, telling colleagues she didn’t expect to change minds but wanted them to know more about her.

Drenner noted that she was raised Southern Baptist and is a mother. She wasn’t raised to be gay, and isn’t raising her children to be gay. She said she’s more than just a gay legislator.

“I have a tag line: the only openly lesbian legislator. That’s what I have become as a result of this. I wear that label, but I am more than that label. I represent 45,000 people just like you do,” she said.

Drenner went on to condemn Senate Resolution 595, saying President Bush declared war on gay people when he announced this week that he would support a ban in the U.S. Constitution.

“This amendment does not create more jobs, it does not improve education, nor does it provide access to affordable housing and healthcare,” she said. “It seeks to vilify and persecute an already oppressed minority.”

The bill passed a crucial committee vote this afternoon.

By a 23-6 vote, the House Rules Committee passed Senate Resolution 595 to the House floor for debate. If it passes without change in the full House, where it needs the vote of 120 of 180 members, it would be placed on the November ballot for a vote.

Rep. Calvin Smyre (D-Columbus), chairman of the House Rules Committee, asked for a roll-call vote on the resolution.

The committee’s secretary then read each member’s name. Twenty-three members said “yes” while only six said “no” to the amendment; one member was absent.

“S.R. 595 is voted out of committee and onto the general calendar,” Smyre said after that vote. “Now, for the bill to go on the floor for debate.”

By a voice vote, House Rules members then immediately voted to discuss the bill before the full House, which was to convene at 2 p.m.

The Rules Committee, which had quizzed the Senate sponsor during an early-morning meeting, took only a few minutes to pass the resolution. Rep. Bob Holmes (D-Atlanta) attempted to add an amendment that would strike out part of SR 595, but it failed.

Some people opposed to the resolution contend that it would deny domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples. Republicans have said the resolution would have no effect on such benefits given by private businesses.

Earlier, Smyre also promised changes to the resolution. That would necessitate its reconsideration by the state Senate, which has already passed the ban.

“We will come back and perfect the legislation,” Smyre said.

At this morning’s session of Rules, Democratic House members blasted the proposed constitutional ban as flawed and questioned the sponsor’s motives.

Sen. Mike Crotts (R-Conyers), the resolution’s sponsor, said he was not surprised by the meeting’s tone.

“It went pretty much like I expected it,” Crotts said. “They are under fire on this issue, and the people in the state want to vote on it.”

Committee members took the measure apart, almost line by line.

Rep. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta), said Crotts’ contention that the bill protects the state from “activist judges” who would want to change the current law is weak and that the bill would put the state more at risk of legal action.

“While you claim that you are not prejudiced and you love black people and you go to church with black people, you want to pass a bill saying that some people should be excluded from the Constitution,” Orrock said. “That is not equal protection.”

“Equal protection is what we have,” Crotts shot back. “They want special rights.”

Smyre adjourned the meeting after 50 minutes to allow members of the committee to convene with the full House, which started at 10 a.m. Smyre said the committee meeting will resume later in the day but he was unsure about a vote.

House Majority Leader Jimmy Skipper (D-Americus) said several legislators had called in and were having trouble making it to the Capitol because of the weather. Only three of the 30 members of the Rules Committee were absent, however.

The proposed amendment, which if it passed the Legislature would have to be voted on by the public in November, would define marriage in Georgia as a union strictly between a man and a woman.

Democrats make up 23 of the 30 committee members, but they said they had no unified position on the resolution.

Smyre is chairman of the Rules Committee, which decides which bills make it to the House floor for debate. He did not allow public comment during the committee meeting.

He said his office has received a total of more than 2,000 calls on the issue.

The Rules Committee must take two votes to consider whether SR 595 will make it to the full House for debate. The first positive vote would put it on the general calendar. The second, which leaders said would not come before next week, would put the measure on the Rules calendar, which is the agenda for the full House.

In committee, a simple majority is required for passage of the resolution, which already has passed the GOP-controlled Senate.

But on the House floor, a constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the 180 members, or 120 votes. Democrats control the House 108-71, with one independent.

Democrats might alter the legislation in the Rules Committee and place the legislation’s final fate — assuming it passed the full House — in the hands of a six-member conference committee that could further change or kill the measure.

The Republican resolution passed the GOP-held Senate, where 38 votes were required, 40-14. The party holds a 30-26 majority there.

— Ernie Suggs and Carlos Campos, ajc.com

GA SR-595 bill sponsor is an idiot

For the benefit of my readers that don't live in Georgia and aren't familiar with the political bickering that's going on right now in the state, I need to give all of you a little background before I post an article from Southern Voice (a Southeastern US gay-oriented weekly newspaper), I need to catch you guys (and ladies) up. Bear with me, this does relate to the story of this entry.

On Feb. 10, three federal judges ruled that Georgia's legislative districts violate the one-person, one-vote guarantee of the US Constitution.

from the AJC,

The House and Senate maps, redrawn in 2002 when Democrats controlled both chambers and the governor's office, packed voters into suburban, mostly Republican areas, while creating more mostly Democratic rural and urban Atlanta districts that were underpopulated. "We're trying to send a message that we're trying to work within the framework [set out by] the judges," Smyre said about today's expected committee action. But Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Roswell) said House Democrats did not appear to be trying to meet the deadline. "If that's accurate, that's a real disappointment and abrogation of the responsibility of the House," Price said. "We had a responsibility to draw a map and to work in good faith." Price said: "If the House doesn't act by Monday, they are not acting in good faith. The . . . only option is to . . . ask the court to draw the maps, which I am sure they will do." Last year, 29 Republicans, including some legislators, filed the federal lawsuit. The three federal judges agreed two weeks ago and gave the state until March 1 to come up with acceptable districts. With candidates set to begin qualifying April 26 for the July 20 party primaries, the judges said they would draw interim plans for this year's elections, if the Legislature did not. Lawyers in the case are scheduled to give the judges a status report today.

So, basically, the Democrats cheated on the redistricting in 2002, and the Republicans are pissed off about it and want their turn to cheat in the redistricting too. Now, on with the story....

Georgia State Senator Mike Crotts (R-Conyers) is the lead sponsor of a Georgia constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in Georgia. Senator Crotts has "often said his measure is designed to protect the state from 'judicial activists'".

Quoted from Southern Voice

During Senate debate Monday on the proposed amendment, Democratic opponents of the measure asked Crotts if a recent redistricting ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — a decision that may benefit the state GOP — constituted judicial activism. (See story, page 5) Crotts said the redistricting ruling wasn’t judicial activism, but did not elaborate on how the marriage and redistricting cases are different.

After the Senate voted 40-14 to approve the amendment, Southern Voice reporter Ryan Lee interviewed Crotts about his use of the phrase “judicial activism.”

Southern Voice: You say the recent redistricting ruling didn’t constitute judicial activism because they didn’t redraw the maps — they sent it to the legislators and told them to redraw the maps. Is that correct?
State Sen. Mike Crotts: Well that’s what they did.

SoVo: And that’s why it doesn’t constitute judicial activism?
Crotts: Well, I think they reviewed it. They could’ve ruled on it which would have been activism, or discrimination, whichever the case may be. They ruled the maps were discriminatory because they didn’t represent one person, one vote. But they sent it back to be worked — these other states are not doing that.

SoVo: Now I want to ask you about that, because in Vermont, are you familiar with the Vermont case?
Crotts: Yeah.

SoVo: Do you know what the Vermont Supreme Court said?
Crotts: Well it’s my understanding that Vermont sent it back [to the legislature].

SoVo: So how is that judicial activism?
Crotts: Well, I mean that’s just one state. That’s one state.

SoVo: But that’s the state you’re using as an example of judicial activism.
Crotts: No, I’m using Massachusetts.

SoVo: OK, now what did Massachusetts do?
Crotts: Massachusetts, has, they ruled the judges made a ruling.

SoVo: I’m sorry, when did they make that ruling?
Crotts: The week before last.

SoVo: That was an opinion offered by them in response to a legislator’s question.
Crotts: No, they ruled. I got the opinion down there on my desk where they ruled.

SoVo: In the November ruling, do you know what they did?
Crotts: Yeah, but I’m talking about last week.

SoVo: They sent it back to the legislature.
Crotts: Yeah, that’s right.

SoVo: So how does that constitute judicial activism if they sent it back to the legislature to work out?
Crotts: It will if they finally rule on it to the point that the direction they’re going in, and that’s not right. It ought to be the legislature redoing it based on the opinion of the court, just like with these maps. They sent us these maps back and said, ‘Fix it. If you don’t fix it, we will. But we’re going to give you that chance.’”

SoVo: Isn’t that exactly what the Massachusetts and Vermont [supreme] courts did? Did they not send it back to the legislature?
Crotts: Well they’re marrying people. They’re marrying people in California like crazy.

SoVo: But did they not send it back to the legislature?
Crotts: Ehh, well, yeah, maybe.

SoVo: So how is that judicial activism?
Crotts: Well it is. It is when they rewrite the law.

SoVo: But again, they sent it back to the legislature.
Crotts: But again, you’re talking about one state.

SoVo: No, in both Massachusetts and Vermont, they sent it back to the legislature. How is that judicial activism, when you say that, for redistricting, when they sent back the legislature it’s not judicial activism?
Crotts: When they, when what now?

SoVo: Again, you said the reason why the redistricting ruling was not judicial activism was because they sent it back to the state legislature. In both Vermont and Massachusetts — in the marriage cases — they sent their decisions back to the state legislators. So I’m asking you, how is that judicial activism?
Crotts: I’m saying, if they do that, and they don’t make the law, then that’s OK. But if they do ultimately make the law, and they contradict what the legislative process has done, then that is wrong.

SoVo: And in Vermont, did they do that?
Crotts: No, they did not.

SoVo: So how is that judicial activism?
Crotts: I’m saying it could be. I didn’t say it is, I said it could be.

SoVo: You still haven’t explained to me how it’s judicial activism when they sent it back to the legislatures.
Crotts: Well, in that process it’s not, but it could become that.

SoVo: But in both of those processes that you cite as judicial activism …
Crotts: What about in California? What’d they do in California?

SoVo: Judges have nothing to do with what’s happening in California.
Crotts: Yes they did. What about Texas, what are they doing down there?

SoVo: Are you talking about the sodomy decision, Lawrence vs. Texas?
Crotts: Yeah, yep.

SoVo: That was the U.S. Supreme Court, sir. Are you saying the U.S. Supreme Court [justices] are judicial activists because they overturned sodomy laws?
(Crotts nods)

SoVo: Is that a “yes,” when you nod your head like that?
Crotts: Sure it is. It’s judges making decisions, and it shouldn’t be that way.

So, I leave you to make your own decisions as to whether or not the title of this entry is correct. And, by the way, at least we all now know who those "judicial activists" are...they're the U.S. Supreme Court!

Are you Taunted By Tatas (.com)?

Link via Amorous Propensities (thanks Richard!)

Goliath wants to bind our Boobs

Are you taunted by ta-tas? Haunted by hooters? Confused by canteloupes? Google is. So much so that their lawyers are demanding we take Booble down. They maintain that you will be confused by the difference between BOOBLE and GOOGLE

Dubyah?

from Yahoo!

A carnival float carries a large papier mache figure of U.S. President George W. Bush with a long nose, upon which is written 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,' during the traditional Rose Monday carnival parade, in Duesseldorf February 23, 2004. The annual six-day carnival, which peaks on Rose Monday when millions of people watch processions in major cities, is famous for its tradition of crude political satire, beer-guzzling crowds and symbolic castrations. REUTERS/Ina Fassbender

People For The American Way

Sign the petition:

"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness. We oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."

link via BillandKent

CNN Poll on Gay Marriage

http://www.cnn.com/HLN/

Quickvote is on the left, about center of the page

Bush Officially Endorses Amendment

Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that would ban gay marriage as he seized the initiative in a contentious issue that could energize his conservative base for the November election.

In making the announcement in the White House Roosevelt Room, Bush expressed alarm at events in San Francisco, where marriage licenses have been issued to gays and lesbians, and in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court ruled gay couples have the right to wed.

"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," Bush said.

[...]

Why Gay Marriage in San Francisco is bad (according to Gov. Schwarzenegger)

from KRCA Channel 3

"In San Francisco, it's the license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons. And someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs," he said.

--- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Yankee or Dixie?

A friend of mine at work sent this to me....

Yankee or Dixie quiz

I scored "93% (Dixie). Is General Lee your father?" which isn't necessarily surprising since I AM a Southern Boy

Close to Home

Today's "Close To Home" cartoon by John McPherson

oops!

Another classic example of what happens when you don't think about your domain name (or business name)....oh, the joys of living in Georgia!

http://www.cummingfirst.com/

It's not what you think!

Link via ErosBlog

A Simple Entry

Link via Discount Blogger

I've been doing way too much political ranting and raving about the whole gay marriage issue lately....but, John Kusch gives ALL of us some stuff to think about

ASCII logos and art

Thanks CosmicGoober for this link to automatically generage ASCII art!

This is Clack in Font: isometric1 Reflection: no Adjustment: left Strech: no

      ___           ___       ___           ___           ___     
     /\  \         /\__\     /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /::\  \       /:/  /    /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/  /    
   /:/\:\  \     /:/  /    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/__/     
  /:/  \:\  \   /:/  /    /::\~\:\  \   /:/  \:\  \   /::\__\____ 
 /:/__/ \:\__\ /:/__/    /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/__/ \:\__\ /:/\:::::\__\
 \:\  \  \/__/ \:\  \    \/__\:\/:/  / \:\  \  \/__/ \/_|:|~~|~   
  \:\  \        \:\  \        \::/  /   \:\  \          |:|  |    
   \:\  \        \:\  \       /:/  /     \:\  \         |:|  |    
    \:\__\        \:\__\     /:/  /       \:\__\        |:|  |    
     \/__/         \/__/     \/__/         \/__/         \|__|    

Alabama Fails Sexual Health Test

See, Alabama can be progressive....they've (we've) progressed right to the bottom of the list. Having been born and raised in Alabama, I can verify the backwardness (is that a word?) of the mentality of a good portion of the population there.

From ACLU Fighting the War for Condoms in America

The day after Valentine's Day, a four-person panel spoke to a group of roughly 40 people about the potential dangers of what they depicted as an evangelical campaign in today's political realm to dispute the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The American Civil Liberties Union sponsored the event to expand on the theory espoused by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in his January 2003 article, "The War On Condoms." He describes the push for abstinence-only education and some conservative groups' insistence on the inadequacy of condoms as "downright weird."

Panel speaker Brenda Green, vice president for education of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, described the federal regulations imposed on sex education and condom distribution. She said "an obscene amount of tax dollars" are used to fund abstinence-only education programs, and she referred to several recent Supreme Court appointments of anti-abortion justices, saying that they are also opposed to the family planning her organization sponsors.

Green also described a report card published every three years by a sexual health organization in which each state is graded from A to F based on criteria such as gay rights, sex education and abortion availability. Pennsylvania has never scored higher than a D-minus, and only ranks above the 11 states that failed. She referenced the F-ranked Alabama's policy that made the possession of a vibrator illegal. This policy existed until less than two years ago.

Thanks again to Richard for the link!

It's bent, but it sill works!

Thanks Richard for the link!

A Russian man has been told he will have a bent penis for the rest of his life after trapping it in a padlock.

[...]

Firemen used cold water and grease to try to release the padlock before finally cutting it free with a saw.

The article doesn't say what kind of saw the firemen used, but I'm afraid they'd have to fill me full of some serious drugs before they used a saw of any kind close to that part of my anatomy!

The new motorcycles are in!

I've been a little slow about posting these (since I just K-N-O-W you all are waiting impatiently), but Scott and I have both purchased new motorcycles. We both purchased used "starter" bikes last summer to learn on with the intention of moving up to something a little larger, more expensive, and prettier this year. Well, we did!

Scott sold his Suzuki GZ250 a couple of weeks ago and we picked up his new 2004 Yamaha Vstar Silverado last weekend.

I sold the Honda Rebel 450 last week, and delivered it for the buyer (for a price) yesterday. Last weekend, when Scott bought his Silverado, I put a deposit on mine. I also have a Yamaha Vstar Silverado!

Scott has decided to name his "The Yama-hog", but, I have no idea what to name mine. I've been kidding Scott that I was going to call it the "Vagina Star," but, my creativity seems to be shot. Anybody have any suggestions?

Test Driving Viagra (Hilarity Ensues)

Kottke.org's Remaindered Links points us to Zug for this classic

Now, That's Just Gross!

Boing Boing has a link to a story about Nestle (the candy company) rolling out curry-flavored KitKats.

Original story on This Is London

Willy Wonka had his never-ending gobstopper and Harry Potter is partial to Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans - but the maker of KitKats has proved that truth is stranger than fiction.

As well as the cumin and masala flavour, NestlÈ is considering offering lemon cheesecake, liquorice, saffron and passion fruit.

Lemon cheesecake KitKat is already sold in Germany and Japan, and the group confirmed it may be brought to Britain.

[...]

Sandoval County second community to issue Gay Marriage Licenses

365gay.com say:

(Albuquerque, New Mexico) Sandoval County, a community of about 90,000 people just north of Albuquerque has became the second community in the country to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

A lesbian couple was issued the first license and exchanged vows outside the county courthouse Friday as other same-sex couples lined up for their chance to tie the knot.

County Clerk Victoria Dunlap said she feared a lawsuit if she does not grant the licenses to gay couples.

Sandoval County attorney David Mathews agrees there is potential same-sex couples could sue under New Mexico law if the licenses were refused.

State law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties, but does not mention gender.

When Dunlop made her decision she said she had not been approached by any same-sex couple seeking a license but after reading about the recent court decision in Massachusetts which has similar laws she became concerned that a refusal could end up in a lengthy and expensive court battle which the county would not win.

"This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible,'' said Dunlap.

Shortly after the word was out, gay and lesbian couples began arriving at the cler's office.

A spokesperson for state Attorney General Patricia Madrid, Sam Thompson, said the attorney general’s office never has been asked for an opinion on the issue

Seven Dirty Words? Or Not...

Where can I get a list of the words that the FCC objects to?

Has the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed so much since George Carlin's "seven dirty words"? Does it even have a list of words that can't be used on air? In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the FCC's indecency judgment on Carlin's comedy monologue about seven words you can never say on TV (which he said repeatedly in a radio broadcast of the piece). These days, U2 frontman Bono can say the F-word during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards broadcast, and the FCC rules it as not obscene.

It appears that the FCC doesn't have a list of banned words, and context is everything. Words can be objectionable depending on how they're used and intended. Bono's exclamation used the F-word as an adjective to describe his excitement. The FCC found his use to be "fleeting and isolated."

The FCC prohibits uses of the F-word and similar words "to describe or depict sexual and excretory organs and activities." [...]

San Fran Sues State Over Gay Marriage Ban

From Yahoo! News

SAN FRANCISCO - In what critics call a delay tactic, San Francisco is taking California to court on grounds its ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

The city, which filed the lawsuit late Thursday, has sanctioned more than 2,900 gay unions since it began defying state law last week.

Two judges already are considering challenges from conservative groups seeking to halt the marriage spree, and the city's lawsuit asks that those cases be consolidated.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said he doesn't regret giving out marriage licenses before the city sued the state but added he's glad the question is now in the courts.

"I think what we have done is affirm marriage here in San Francisco," Newsom said. "We affirmed it because we are celebrating people coming together in their unions. I feel affirmed as a married man by what's happened here in San Francisco."

[...]

The city is asking Superior Court Judge James Warren to declare unconstitutional three sections of the California Family Code that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

City officials want the judge to determine if barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution.

On Tuesday, Warren gave the city the choice of ending the same-sex wedding march or returning to court in late March to show why the process has not been halted. The city said it would continue issuing such licenses until forced to stop.

[...]

Stupid Test

The Stupid Test!

OK. Pay close attention.
Here is a very simple little test
comprised of four easy questions
to determine the level of your intellect.

Your replies must be spontaneous and immediate,
with no deliberating or wasting of time.
And no cheating!

On your mark, get set, go...

1: You are competing in a race and overtake the runner in second place. In which position are you now?

Answer: If you answered that you're now in first, you're wrong!
You overtook the second runner and took his place, therefore you are now in second place.

For the next question try not to be so dim.
2: If you overtake the last runner, what position are you now in?

Answer: If you answered second to last, you are wrong once again.
Think about it...
How can you overtake the person who is last? If you're behind them, they can't be last. You would have been last.

It would appear that thinking is not one of your strong points.
Anyway, here's another question to try. Don't take any notes or use a calculator, and remember, your replies must be instantaneous.

3: Take 1000. Add 40. Add another 1000. Add 30. 1000 again. Plus 20. Plus 1000. And plus 10.
What is the total?

Answer: 5000?

Wrong again!
The correct answer is 4100.
Try again with a good calculator.

Today is clearly not your day, although you should manage to get the last question right...
4: Marie's father has five daughters:
   1. Chacha
   2. Cheche
   3. Chichi
   4. Chocho
   5. ????
Question: What is the fifth daughter's name?
Think quickly...you'll find the answer below..

Answer: Chuchu?
WRONG!
It's obviously Marie! Read the question properly. You are clearly the weakest link

So, how did you do?

The Attack of the Gay Agenda!

You gotta see this Flash animation Mark Fiore did! Truthful and honest, humorous and satirical. I love it!

Thanks Dean

Holy Plastic Surgery, Batman!

Link via the great DiscountBlogger:

Farrah Fawcett's had a little work done. OK, she's had a LOT of work done. She looks like she's had almost as much work done as Michael Jackson

Christian Fellatio

With all the talk lately on Clack about "Christians" vs. gay marriage, I thought this entry on ErosBlog (not work safe) was entertaining. Bacchus links to Violet Blue (not work safe) where she rants about "Christians" giving her "Ultimate Guide to Fellatio" book bad reviews....

Why the hell are Christians reading my fellatio book, and even stranger, what unholy ghost possesses them to write bad reviews about it on Amazon? Like, duh -- my book is about a very dirty sex act (the dirtier the better) and the content is... offending them! I can only guess that the book was recommended on some Christian messageboard, the ladies thought, well I spend a lot of time on my knees, why not make Jesus a happy man, and bought the book (I'll take that money, thank you very much. No, no -- don't give it to the Family Values Coalition, give it to the cute girl with glasses who likes to write about sucking cock). Then they read the book and realized that to suck a cock, you need either a) another nice Christian lady with a (preferably huge) black strap-on cock, or b) a real, non-imaginary man (unlike Jesus). But seriously, in the book I don’t judge anyone's preferences about anything -- religion, sexual activity, gender, predisposition to get really wet imagining Mike Ditka throwing that football through the tire swing talking about erections while clutching my fellatio book cleverly camouflaged in a paper bag bookcover with the word "BIBLE" scrawled on the cover and "Jesus is really hot." No, I judge not. Even I think Jesus deserves a really rockin' blowjob. And doesn't he have like a million volunteers for the task?

You're Soaking In It

bob's yer uncle links us to wnbc.com who tells us that Jan Miner (better known as Madge the Manicurist in Palmolive ads) has died.

Miner was 86. Her agent tells the New York Times that she died Sunday at a health care facility in Bethel, Conn.

The actress played other roles on television, but was best known for her Palmolive commercials.

Miner played the character of Madge the manicurist for 27 years. In the commercials, Madge would praise the gentleness of Palmolive dish detergent to a customer surprised to find her hands soaking in it.

Today's Gay Marriage News From Around the Web

First, Bill and Kent point us to a story about a Democratic State Senator from Providence, Rhode Island planning to introduce legislation that would remove gender-specific language from the General Laws (which governs eligibility for marriage) and inserts language that would allow any person to marry any other eligible person, regardless of gender.

And, from a comment in that very same entry, Dan points to an article in the Oregonian that states

Of any state, though, Oregon is perhaps the most likely to recognize gay and lesbian marriages, and extend the myriad health, tax and other benefits that go with them, several observers and scholars agree.

Although Oregon law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, the state is one of 12 that did not adopt a law prohibiting recognition of gay marriages from other states.

And perhaps more significantly, Oregon is just one of three states where the courts have recognized the rights of gays and lesbians to be treated equally.

When people talk about "gay marriage," they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses - available to atheists as well as believers. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category - civil unions, domestic partnerships, civl partnerships, whatever - may alleviate real human needs, but, by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their own families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

madlife.net (The Buzz) sent us over to CNN yesterday to vote in Anderson Cooper's poll. Unfortunately, I didn't get around to linking it on Clack before it went away, but the question was "Which is the bigger threat to the institution of marriage? Same Sex Weddings or Divorce"

The poll is closed and the results have been tallied (and, just in case that page goes away, I'm including it here).

16-year-old Speaks Out Against Proposed Constitutional Amendment

From Jay Croft's AJC Commentary page:

For all the propaganda about anti-gay constitutional amendments being needed to protect children, here's one kid everybody should meet: Gregory Casajuana, a 16-year-old student at Cobb County's Harrison High School.

He was among the speakers Saturday at a rally opposing a bill to make the state Constitution say that gay people can never marry -- and a push to codify the same sentiment in the federal Constitution, which President Bush has suggested he would support. Others at the Capitol included seasoned politicians and activists. But Gregory's moment at the microphone was one of the most rousing.

"I am here because just the other day I was told that I am an abomination to God and this amendment proves it," he told about 600 people gathered in the rain. "I heard this and began to cry. I wondered what has happened to our society to think that because I am gay that I do not deserve to live freely."

He spoke of his hope to be treated fairly. "Do not let the General Assembly take my hope away. Do not let the president take my hope away. And most especially, do not let my Constitution take my hope away."

A few minutes later, I met Gregory, his 14-year-old boyfriend and Edward Gray, the executive director of YouthPride, a support group for gay kids, who was with the boys. They said Gregory has his family's support and his mother had appeared with him at a previous Capitol appearance but had a family emergency that kept her away Saturday. (Lourdes Casajuana confirmed that for me today, saying she is "very proud" of her son.)

I told him how different things are nowadays from when I was his age a generation ago. A gay kid self-aware and brave enough to talk about it publicly? Eloquently? With hundreds of supporters cheering him on? Impossible to imagine.

I asked him why he had come to do this.

"They're making these decisions now and I'm going to have to deal with it sooner or later," he said, calmly, politely, answering other questions with a simple "Yes, Sir" or "No, Sir."

I turned around and looked at the crowd of people hunched under umbrellas, listening to speaker after speaker talk about discrimination, equality and fairness, which are essential parts of this. But I also heard a lot of talk about love and hate -- activists saying that gay relationships are all about love, for instance, and that people who oppose gay marriage rights are motivated by hate.

Emotional concepts like that can be distracting and polarizing. Gay-rights advocates should focus on the practical, tangible benefits that married people get that gay Americans can not, including security for their own children and families. Americans are more likely to stand up for basic fairness than to be made to "respect" or "honor" relationships they might not fully understand.

One man at the rally carried a sign that had a picture of Hitler, which is dangerously overstating the case. Enshrining discrimination into the constitution is a very bad idea, but it's not the Holocaust.

Another sign was more on target: "The Sanctity of Marriage: Britney Spears? Elizabeth Taylor? Michael Bowers?"

Another: "If your marriage needs protecting, you need a therapist, not an amendment."

And, "Preserve marriage: Outlaw divorce."

I saw gay couples there with their children. Straight parents of gay people. A woman with a sign that said, "My Gay Brother Has Rights, Too."

I saw only one person protesting the rally. In one hand he held a sign that said, "Should immorial (sic) rights be given to pimps prostitutes and child molestors (sic) because they love it?" In the other hand: "I am gay-happy because I love God and his laws not a man or sexuality."

Just a few people tried talking with the man, who was soon shouting that half the people there were molested as children and "Y'all love it when a man has sex with another boy."

The commotion caught Gregory Casajuana's attention of the YouthPride speaker, but just briefly.

"It's because of people like this that I speak at these events," he told me when I asked how this made him feel. "It's the problem our government has. They don't want to be accepting."

A man shouting about righteousness and perversion. A kid shaking his head and walking away.

Who needs protection from whom?

Six feet under (Season II)

The release date for Six Feet Under, Season 2 has been announced!!!

According to TVshowsonDVD.com, release date is June 8!

June 8th is the street date for Six Feet Under - The Complete 2nd Season, a 5-DVD set that will release at a list price of $99.99.

The disc-by-disc breakdown for this box set looks like this:

* Disc 1:
o Episode 1. In The Game (Audio commentary)
o Episode 2. Out, Out Brief Candle
* Disc 2:
o Episode 3. The Plan
o Episode 4. Driving Mr.Mossback
o Episode 5. Invisible Woman
* Disc 3:
o Episode 6. In Place of Anger
o Episode 7. Back to the Garden (Audio Commentary)
o Episode 8. It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year
* Disc 4:
o Episode 9. Somenone Else's Eyes
o Episode 10. The Secret (Audio Commentary)
o Episode 11. The Liar and the Whore
* Disc 5:
o Episode 12. I'll Take You (Featurette, Audio Commentary)
o Episode 13. The Last Time (Featurette, Audio Commentary)

Thanks to kottke.org for the link!

for whites only

The AJC is running a story from Bristol, RI that

A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action.

The application for the $250 award requires an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness."

"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the application, issued by the university's College Republicans.

Jason Mattera, 20, who is president of the College Republicans, said the group is parodying minority scholarships.

"We think that if you want to treat someone according to character and how well they achieve academically, then skin color shouldn't really be an option," he said. "Many people think that coming from a white background you're automatically privileged, you're automatically rich and your parents pay full tuition. That's just not the case."

[...]

Parody or not, my personal feeling is that it is in bad taste.

Stumbling around

I've added a few new sites to the BlogRoll over there on the right. The latest addition is "Trusting the Process or Confessions of a Patsy Cline fan"

I've been looking for some time for a grouping or aggregation of blogs of people in and around Atlanta. GeoURL is OK, but most of what it turns up are blogs hosted at deviantART, and aren't exactly what I'm looking for.

So, why am I mentioning this now?

Because Trusting is hosted on a site called atlblogs.com that provides free blogs to the Atlanta locals.

Will I move Clack to atlblogs? probably not. After all, I am a professional Geek, and I derive quite a bit of pleasure from the control I have over every aspect of Clack.

Am I excited that I can read other ATL blogs in one place? You bet your sweet bippy I am!

GA State Senate approve Gay Union Ban

from WSB TV:
There are some other links on that page that are interesting, including video of Jovita Moore's report and a Poll as to whether GA's constitution should ban gay marriages. Please vote!

ATLANTA -- The state Senate on Monday approved a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in Georgia.

The vote, which required a two-thirds majority of the chamber, narrowly passed 40-14 and now goes to the House.

If approved in that chamber, it would be on election ballots in November.

The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Mike Crotts, R-Conyers, calls for changing the state constitution to define marriage as only a union between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Georgia. But supporters of the resolution say adding the same language to the constitution will better protect the state from lawsuits or judges' decisions in other states.

"Based on what's happening all over the country right now, I think it's very likely we would see that," Crotts said.

Massachusetts put itself at the center of the gay-marriage debate when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 in November that gays should be guaranteed the benefits of marriage. Several states began pushing gay marriage bans soon afterward.

Critics say the Georgia resolution is an anti-gay effort by the Senate's Republican majority to pander to conservative voters during an election year.

"This is a bald-faced attempt to put a hateful and divisive issue in front of us just before hitting the campaign trail," said Sen. Mary Squires, D-Norcross. "Passing a law twice does not make it twice as effective; this is a wedge."

Supporters of the change say the amendment would merely codify a longstanding tradition of marriage being between men and women.

"Those who are against this have the same right to marry as you or I do under the current law; they only need to find the right partner," Crotts said in a line that drew laughter and jeers from the Senate gallery.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution also has a story:

With two votes to spare, the Senate voted 40-14 to add to the Georgia Constitution an amendment that would ban gay marriage. The vote came after 2 1/2 hours of debate during which Democrats fighting the resolution tried to kill it by adding adultery to the question that will be put to voters should two-thirds of the House also approve it.

Republicans cast the debate as a moral fight and an effort to protect the state from "activist" judges who might allow homosexuals the same marital privilege now afforded heterosexuals.

Twice the Democrats came within one vote of attaching to the resolution a constitutional prohibition on adultery, which state law also bans. The first vote was 26-26, the second was 27-27. According to Senate rules, a tie means a motion fails.

Earlier Monday, Sen. Mike Crotts (R-Conyers), sponsor of the proposed amendment, spoke in an even tone on the Senate floor as he explained why Georgia needs to change its constitution.

Crotts argued the state law that already bars same-sex marriage isn't specific enough and could be overturned by "activist" judges -- such as those in Massachusetts, he said, that ruled it was unconstitutional to prohibit gays the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.

"They forced it to the surface in Massachusetts. They forced it to the surface in California," Crotts said, in reference to San Francisco officials performing wedding ceremonies for hundreds of gay couples in recent days.

Judges "instead of adjudicating, they are legislating," Crotts said. "We don't need judges legislating. ... Let the people be heard over the voices of the judges."

Crotts defended the role the religious community has played in the debate, saying "morality is built on faith-based initiatives."

With debate raging on the Senate floor, the public viewing gallery in the balcony was standing room only, with some 150 people crowded into the area.

More than two-thirds of the crowd said they oppose the proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage, with about 20 people saying they support the measure and a dozen saying that they had not made a decision.

The crowd listened intently and generally was polite, but opponents of the measure laughed derisively at some of Crotts' comments.

The constitutional amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature before it would go on the Nov. 2 general election ballot.

The debate strayed to discussion of another state law based on morality, the statute that makes adultery illegal.

At one point, Crotts and Sen. Nadine Thomas (D-Ellenwood) were shouting over each other. Thomas was trying to get Crotts to agree to sign off on a resolution to expel from the Legislature any senator who commits adultery. Crotts said he would have to look at her proposal before committing.

"When it comes to sin or immorality, there are no classes," Thomas said. "A sin is a sin."

Democrats proposed adding strict restrictions on marriage between a man and a woman to the amendment.

One would allow only one heterosexual marriage. Any subsequent marriage would be considered adultery, which is illegal in Georgia.

Another, proposed by Sen. Horacena Tate (D-Atlanta), would write into the state constitution a prohibition on adultery. She said she was trying "to raise adultery to the same constitutional level."

The Senate fell silent as Thomas spoke of an abusive marriage she ended years ago. Thomas said she might have been forced to stay in that relationship if conservatives had their way.

"You want to put all your energy into legislating morality," Thomas said. "The men and woman who feel they want to live in a world free of sin, I suggest you find another world."

Thomas said she was disturbed when "I see people come to the Capitol in the name of the Lord God but they don't come here in the name of love. I do have an issue ... that they are for God but come down here with a legislative agenda to take rights from everyone."

Though Thomas said she would not vote to include in the constitution a prohibition of adultery, she urged legislators to adopt the proposed amendments to expel from the Legislature any senator who admits to adultery if they also vote to ban gay marriage.

"I am not going to let mean-spirited men and women ... to go and start dismantling this constitution," Thomas said.

Thomas and other Democrats chastised legislators for ignoring what they considered the important issues of this session -- funding for health care and education and taking care of children -- while putting so much energy into debate over banning marriage between gays.

"There are many issues much more important than ... gay marriage," said Sen. Gloria Butler (D-Clarkston). "Let's get down to real-time issues. Let's get back to what's important to the people of Georgia and I don't believe it's gay marriage."

Sen. Steve Thompson (D-Powder Springs) warned his colleagues against being too moral. "You're trying to out-moralize each other over here and some of you are going to break your necks," Thompson said. "Because that white horse is tall and that fall has a kick."

Thompson then criticized the GOP "attack on same-sex marriage that's already illegal" and other Republican initiatives this season -- including another amendment to the constitution providing protections for hunters and fishermen.

"We've taken up some serious issues," Thompson said sarcastically. "We're trying to out-moral each other so we can go home and say 'Yes, I'm a demagogue and a good one.' "

Cornered Animals

I was talking to my female soul-mate and "favorite lesbian friend" last night (I love you Sherster!!!) and we were discussing the current "state of affairs" surrounding the both politically and socially dividing issue of gay marriages. Sherster and I have known each other for years. She's one of those rare friends that you can talk to in January for an hour on the phone, then not talk to for six weeks, and the next conversation picks up pretty much right where the first one ended. I've always considered Sherster much wiser and wonderful than she'll take credit for, and she said two things last night during our phone conversation that really hit home with me. I'll attempt to paraphrase them here.

1) the overtly religious response to the gay marriage and separation of church and state issues are simply a "cornered animal" response to make sure there are laws in place to protect them and their religion in the future as America becomes more and more a secular culture and moves further and further away from the [selective] literal teachings of fundamental Christianity.

2) It bothers me that the gay marriage issue has become THE political issue in the presidential election. There are more important things to worry about in this country...PEOPLE ARE STARVING! Men and women are DYING in Iraq in support of a war! I don't want to be the dividing line in the political race. What difference does it make if I marry another woman? By marrying another woman, how does that hurt anybody else? Why can't we draw the political lines across issues that actually MATTER to America and to the world?

So, I'll pose the question to my readers. Why is it that gay marriage has become the polictical dividing line that it has? Is it grandstanding by Dubyah? By the media? By the right-wing Christians? Is it really a non-issue that is being blown completely out of proportion? Or does collective America simply not realize that second-class citizenship is a slap in the face of everything this country stands for? At what point do we simply trash the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth in the Declaration of Independence over 200 years ago? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I want need to know why it is that people can't see that the proposed constitutional amendment is a bigoted, spiteful, discriminatory knee-jerk reaction to fall in line with the leaders of their "flock," that flock being either the many supposedly Christian organizations supporting the FMA, or (if you believe our leaders and media) collective America. Why do people believe I want "special" rights? I don't want special rights. I'm not asking for anything that would elevate me above anyone else. I simply want the same rights as everybody else has.

Why does Dubyah belive the "activist judges [are] insist[ing] on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process?" How can judges that are simply saying that constitution of Massachusetts doesn't allow discrimination based on sexual orientation be called "activists?"

Scott (my partner and love of my life) said last night "we're about to have a resolution to the whole gay marriage and gays are second-class citizens debate. I don't think I'm going to like the outcome, but we're about to know the answer to 'are we really equal'."

How true that is. Talk to me listeners, what do you think?

Zell Miller introduces bill to shield God from courts

Again, from the AJC

I'm a proud Southern boy. Born and raised in North Alabama; I'm not ashamed of it. The South has a backwards reputation, but a lot of us have worked our entire lives through the people we meet to change the perception that we're all two-toothed, barefoot hillbillies that expect our wives (if we had them) to be in the trailer-home taking care of the seven young-uns while she's pregnant with the eighth. I know it's hard for some people to believe, but some of us Southerners actually graduated from high school, went to college and got a degree, and actually hold jobs for more than three weeks at a time.

And, some of us even understand that the year is 2004. But the holier-than-thou, religious zealots who are hell-bent pushing their version of religion on me and on keeping this part of the country locked in 1904 irk my ass to no end.

For example, Zell Miller (D-GA) has introduced a bill into the US Senate that would essentially nullify portions of the 1st Ammendment:

Federal courts could not curb state court rulings that allow an "acknowledgment of God" under a measure two senators introduced Thursday as a response to the dispute over a Ten Commandments display in Alabama.

"I think it's a good time to have a debate on it," said Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.), one of the sponsors. "We'll run it up the flagpole and see how many salute."

Miller argued in a speech in the Senate chamber that the framers of the Constitution never intended a separation of church and state. Over the past few years, he said, the United States has undergone a "deficit of decency" and society needs a reinjection of God.

Much work on the bill was done by Roy Moore, ousted as Alabama's chief justice after refusing a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. Miller said he has "great respect and admiration for Moore."

The other Senate sponsor is Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). Rep. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican, is sponsoring the House version. Moore declined to comment until today's news conference.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the proposal is just the latest attempt to punish courts for unfavorable rulings.

"It is itself an unconstitutional end run around the separation of powers," Lynn said. "It tries to subvert the role of the courts in the defense of fundamental civil liberties."

The full text of Zell Miller's speech is on his website in the form of a press release. Yeah, he sent this out as a press release. Some highlights:

[...] The Culture of Far Left America was displayed in a startling way during the Super Bowl's now infamous half-time show. A show brought to us courtesy of Value-Les Moonves and the pagan temple of Viacom-Babylon.

I asked the question yesterday, how many of you have ever run over a skunk with your car? I have many times and I can tell you, the stink stays around for a long time. You can take the car through a car wash and it's still there. So the scent of this event will long linger in the nostrils of America.

I'm not talking just about an exposed mammary gland with a pull-tab attached to it. Really no one should have been too surprised at that. Wouldn't one expect a bumping, humping, trashy routine entitled 'I'm going to get you naked' to end that way.

Does any responsible adult ever listen to the words of this rap-crap? I’d quote you some of it, but the Sergeant of Arms would throw me out of here, as well he should. And then there was that prancing, dancing, strutting, rutting guy evidently suffering from jock itch because he kept yelling and grabbing his crotch. But then, maybe there’s a crotch grabbing culture I’ve unaware of.

But as bad as all this was, the thing that yanked my chain the hardest was seeing that ignoramus with his pointed head stuck up through a hole he had cut in the flag of the United States of America, screaming about having ‘a bottle of scotch and watching lots of crotch.’ Think about that.

This is the same flag that we pledge allegiance to. This is the flag that is draped over coffins of dead young uniformed warriors killed while protecting Kid Crock’s bony butt. He should be tarred and feathered, and ridden out of this country on a rail. Talk about a good reality show, there’s one for you.

I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Senator Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. And S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. And today I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways.

In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder not only with my Senate co-sponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama but, more importantly, with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us in.

Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that’s not so. And I’ll bet you most of them will say ‘Well, sure.’ And some will point out, ‘it’s in the First Amendment.’

Wrong! Read it! It says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Where is the word ‘separate’? Where are the words ‘church’ or ‘state.’

They are not there. Never have been. Never intended to be. Read the Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was Anglican or Catholic or some other.

[...]

Preacher blasts bid to curb political comments

Remember this entry from yesterday about the invited preachers into the Georgia House of Representatives pushing their own morality and political agendas?

Well, there's more:

Rhonda Cook at the Atlanta Journal Constitution tells us that

The "preacher of the day" in the state Senate this morning blasted last week's decision by Rep. Terry Coleman (D-Eastman), the speaker of the House of Representatives, to ask ministers appearing in that chamber to limit their comments to the gospel and to avoid voicing their opinions on issues before lawmakers — such as gay marriage.

"We are compelled to speak the truth about sin," the Rev. Bryant Wright of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church said during the time reserved at the beginning of each legislative day for a religious message.

Wright read the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which guarantees the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech — and said the restrictions suggested by Coleman a week ago were similar to those espoused by Communist Russia in dealing with the church.

"The awesome responsibility of the preachers of the gospel is to preach that gospel and hope people will be receptive," Wright said.

He praised the Senate for allowing guest ministers, rabbis, priests and imams the freedom to speak on any topic and for taking a stand against gay marriages, a proposed constitutional amendment that has passed a Senate committee and is awaiting floor action.

Last Friday, Coleman said he planned to warn guest preachers not to address issues pending before the Georgia House, after a gay lawmaker complained about a recent prayer there.

Richard Walker, senior pastor of Macland Baptist Church in Powder Springs, had told lawmakers they needed to seek guidance from God as they faced legislation that would limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Drenner said if the daily ministers have a "moral agenda, it should be left in their churches for their own congregation."

The Legislature has been opening its day with a prayer since 1861. The "preacher of the day" usually is a constituent invited by individual legislators and usually is a Protestant.

"I'm a lesbian soccer mom and I'm fed up"

from the Op-Ed section of the Atlanta Journal Constitution

Susan Wells is a member of the AJC editorial board and she says:

I'm a lesbian soccer mom and I'm fed up.

If you want to talk family values, I'm one of the most family-oriented people I know -- and one of the strictest parents. I even drive an SUV, for crying out loud.

Yet I'm accused of trying to destroy the very fabric of American life.

"If we have homosexual marriage mainstream, I can't even describe to you what our culture will be like," Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America, one of the leading anti-gay-marriage organizations, told Time magazine.

Do we really have that much clout, to change the whole culture? And if we did, how bad would it be to add more loving families to the American mix?

I don't feel so powerful in the face of the hatred that the right wing of the straight world levels at gay folks. Sometimes I feel afraid.

Fifteen years ago, when I began serious pursuit of becoming a parent, I inten-

ded to adopt. I found, however, that then, as now, it is dehumanizing to adopt if you are gay because you often are forced to lie about the basics of your life, no matter how perfectly suited you are to rear children.

Friends who adopted back then had to eliminate all evidence of their partners from the house and tell the social worker that the right man hadn't come along yet. Adoption is only slightly less difficult today. Witness the families in Florida who bravely challenged that state's law against gay adoption -- and lost.

It turned out to be easier -- though certainly not easy -- to bear my own child. I did that while in a long-term relationship with a partner who parented our daughter just like I did. She walked a screaming, colicky newborn in the middle of the night and escorted a kindergartner to first days of school, just like I did. But she has never had a legally protected relationship with her daughter because we were not allowed to marry and have those rights that every straight family takes for granted. We are no longer together, but she continues to have a close and supportive relationship with our child, unlike many absentee fathers.

I read about men and women who beat their children to death to exorcize the devil, or just because the baby's cries are irritating. I know children whose parents' neglect leaves them open to the temptations of drug abuse and early sex. I see small children wandering the streets late at night in neighborhoods near my house and wonder, who loves them?

Yet I recognize with heartbreaking clarity that if a board were set up to license motherhood, my application would be denied, while these accidental parents can procreate with no more preparation than, "Hey baby, turn over."

My desire to form a family would be considered dangerous and subversive; their lackadaisical and unconscious efforts would engender $1.5 billion in government aid to encourage "healthy" marriage (see President Bush's budget proposal).

If the genders matched the stereotypes, my family might be considered model. My daughter is a lovely, popular, academic overachiever whose most worrisome problem on any given day is whether her favorite jeans are clean enough to wear to school. That and whether she will encounter anyone who wants to mess with her about being the child of gay parents -- a reflection of the hatred being spewed by the president, in Congress, the Georgia Legislature and the media.

Her reaction to such taunts warms my heart. The last schoolmate with such an epithet -- and interestingly, they have been rare -- was met with a withering stare and, "Yes, my mother is a lesbian. If you have a problem with that, I've got a problem with you." Whereupon, her phalanx of chums gathered around her, shielding her from further teasing.

One of my daughter's many adult friends, whom she refers to as "my aunties," once told her she was being reared by a "pack of lesbian wolves." She's fond of telling that story to anyone who will listen. In fact, introductions of the aunties often include, "You know the wolves? She's one of them."

I have taken many cues from heterosexual friends and family whom I consider to be excellent parents -- parents who teach love in their homes. My parenting philosophy has always been that if I'm proud of myself, my child will be proud of me and herself, too. Despite the usual mistakes along the way, it seems to have worked pretty well, even in the face of a society that still maintains open season on people like me.

My daughter is a thoughtful young woman, in large part because she has been brought up with the knowledge that she is beloved and that much is expected of her. She also knows she has a posse of fierce bodyguards on whom she may rely, as well as a large cheering section at her many soccer games.

She has always been told, "Sweetie, the more people who love you, the better off you are." That's our family value.

I would extend and amend that advice to those whose "family values" run to hatred and fear. "Folks, the more people you love, the better off you will be."

My God, it's full of stars lies

Thanks to madlife.net for pointing out this editorial in the NY Times by Paul Krugman.

In it, Krugman gives his take on this years federal budget - "one of the four most dishonest budgets in the nation's history - the other three are the budgets released in 2001, 2002, and 2003."

[...] By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.

It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.

[...]

Operation Flight Suit was only slightly more over the top than other Bush photo-ops, like the carefully staged picture that placed Mr. Bush's head in line with the stone faces on Mount Rushmore. The goal is to suggest that it's unpatriotic to criticize the president, and to use his heroic image to block any substantive discussion of his policies.

In fact, those 27 photos grace one of the four most dishonest budgets in the nation's history — the other three are the budgets released in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Just to give you a taste: remember how last year's budget contained no money for postwar Iraq — and how administration officials waited until after the tax cut had been passed to mention the small matter of $87 billion in extra costs? Well, they've done it again: earlier this week the Army's chief of staff testified that the Iraq funds in the budget would cover expenses only through September.

[...]

Still, we may be on our way to an election in which Mr. Bush is judged on his record, not his legend. And that, of course, is what the White House fears.

another one bites the dust for referral spamming

w_w_w.f*e,m/a_l/e/c/e/l/e/b/r/i/t/y/./n/e/t///n/o/n/n/u/d/e/