2009-02-24

lying liars that lie

There's an old talking point that goes like this: marriage is between a man and a woman. Sure, same-sex couples should have basic legal recognition/protections of some kind, but call it something else. This is the primary argument of moderates opposed to marriage equality, and something many conservatives pay lipservice to. It's bollocks.

Two articles today about Colorado, which has passed a bare-minimum domestic partnership bill, and Wisconsin, which is working on the same. Now, these are two states with bans on same-sex marriage, protecting the sacred institution and all that, right? Here's the article on Colorado's measure:
Republicans attacked the measure, calling it an attempt to circumvent the state constitution which bans same-sex marriage.
And here's the one about Wisconsin:
The conservative Wisconsin Family Action said Tuesday that the proposal would violate the state constitution. In 2006, Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
These are not marriage equivalents we're talking about here, even if we ignore the psychological effect of the word and talk pure law. These are simple, inadequate things, trying to give basic legal recognition and a semblance of dignity to same-sex couples. And yet they are now supposedly covered by the marriage bans, something I fancy few voters knew when they put those bans into place.

I need Al Franken here to shout "LIARS" for me, I think.

Passing this along, while I'm here. I don't think I can make it, but I will be a very visible presence in my classroom that day.

2009-02-02

that'll teach me to watch my tongue

Of course as soon as I comment on how little news there is, I get this: Mormon Church admits it spent 100 times more for Prop 8 than reported. OUCH.

I admit to a certain level of happiness at the knowledge that this is out there, even if it hasn't hit the mainstream press (which AFAIK it hasn't.) They lied; it's good that they are being exposed. On the other hand, it's frustrating because I know that the Mormons are only one religious group that worked on this thing, and even if they lose their tax-exempt status or get fined it won't lessen the power of the bigger power they represent. It will, however, make for excellent material to base further lies on. The homosexual activists are persecuting the poor innocent churches; crop the church's actions that started the whole thing and you've got "proof."

It hooks into the fight over donors' "privacy." That's the thing where there was a brief attempt to prevent information about who contributed to pass measures from being accessible, on the basis that look at how the evil homosexual activists were punishing Prop. 8 supporters by boycotting their businesses or attacking them -- usually verbally. This is, of course, complete bullshit.

Nobody has a right to not be boycotted, FFS. If they did, that would imply that others didn't have the right to spend or not spend their money as they see fit. I'm pretty sure I have a right to not buy things I don't want, and to not go to the horrible local grocery store where everyone's surly. I mean, nobody's told me yet that that's a violation of their freedom of expression because they have a right to be surly.

I think I've already covered that nobody has a right to say whatever they want and not have anyone contradict them, right? So I'll skip the part where I talk about how negative reactions are not something the Constitution protects you from. Let's just say the LDS appear to be about to get a stiff lesson in what freedom of religion and expression don't mean, and I just wish I thought it would take.