Please sign up below to be notified when you can buy my e-book, A Conservative Lesbian Makes the Conservative Case for Gay Equality:
Prop 8 majority rule? No, ‘We do NOT put the Bill of Rights to a vote?’
By arguing that the majority vote in favor of Prop 8 in California should stand despite the decision that it is unconstitutional, Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage have managed to make a large number of social conservatives forget their love of the Constitution — or inadvertently, they have exposed that social conservatives either are unclear on “unalienable rights,” and liberty, or they’ve had it with the separation of church and state and the horse it rode in on. None of those possibilities puts social conservatism in a flattering light.
Ted Olson makes it clear: “We don’t vote on the Bill of Rights.”
The people who are harumphing about majority rule should consider whether they always will be a member of that lucky, more-equal majority that bosses everyone else around and always gets its way. KEEPING THE MAJORITY FROM TRAMPLING MINORITIES IS WHAT THE JUDICIARY IS SUPPOSED TO DO!!! It is NOT judicial activism.
Can’t drag and drop in iTunes
When you can’t drag and drop in iTunes, look at the column headings to see which one you have selected — it will be highlighted. Then select the farthest left column, which has numbers in it — THAT’S the one that allows you to drag and drop songs to play in the order you prefer. What is the logic of this? ONLY the numbered column lets you change the order in which songs will play to your personal preference because dragging and dropping a song when the number column is selected allows you to change the number of the song. All of the other columns will play your list in the sort order that goes with the title of the column: name, artist, composer, album, genre and so on.
Also, make sure you don’t have a playlist set to “Shuffle” or “Random.”
Ah, computers! Making tasks that should take all of five seconds suck down well over an hour.
Fun, how to have
I suppose library card catalogs were replaced by computer databases 10 or 15 years ago, but once upon a time, dear younger gentle readers, you could look for books by subject on 3×5 cards in little drawers and the subject would be first — “Fun” — followed by the sub-category — “how to have.”
I guess you had to be there.
In July of 1984, right after I met Margaret, we went swimming together in a small lake. And the first joke I told her was that I was so serious a person that if I wanted to have fun, the first thing I would have to do is go to the library and look up, “Fun: how to have.”
Well, SHE thought it was funny.
But that might help you understand that my father has been getting physical therapy in the pool for a month and I only just realized on Wednesday that since he likes to sit by the pool for an hour or so after his session, I could do my time on the elliptical machine while he had therapy and then change into my bathing suit and swim while he sat by the pool. In other words, it took me all that time to figure out how to get in on the fun. And I can’t even say I figured it out on my own — Marge, an extremely fit and charming woman from my cardio class, who is 81 — invited me to swim with her after my father’s session today, since she was going to be in the pool then anyway.
I will admit to a bit of a rocky start. I wasn’t aware that the woman next to me in the dressing room accompanied by several young girls also had a boy in her group who was WAY over the age limit for that area. I didn’t know of his presence because when I was trying to get my top on — one of those bra with a blouse things — it rolled up and got stuck around shoulder level. As I struggled with it I heard one girl scold, “You’re not supposed to look,” which he certainly was doing. Anyway, I had to take the top off and try again, while another girl launched into a chorus of — I am not making this up — “Don’t you wish your girlfriend was hot like me.”
Marge and I swam several laps and had a wonderful chat. Then she left and I did several laps using the backstroke so I could look up at the sky and fluffy clouds. When I got out, Dad was still enjoying himself in the shade of an umbrella, so I lay in the sun for awhile because everything about the experience felt so pleasant and nourishing that I just wanted more time to let it soak in.
When we got home, we ate fresh peaches.
Fun: how to have.
Prop 8 overturned, Earth still spins on axis
I’ve been trying to make sense of the outrage on the Right over the decision in federal court by Judge Vaughn Walker announced yesterday overturning California’s Prop 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage. Social conservatives seem to be asserting three non-existent rights that permit them to deny equality to lesbians and gays: a historic right (we’ve always gotten away with this); a divine right (my religion should prevail over yours); and majority rule (we got seven million people to vote for this and while all the rights of heterosexuals are unalienable by majority rule, yours are, nyah-nyah).
There is also fear-mongering to fall back on — “Your religion will be sued and forced to violate its tenets by performing same-sex marriages!”
DrewM at Ace of Spades HQ says his support of gay marriage is lukewarm, as long as it is done in a way that will never, ever happen — democratically, state-by-state — then darkly vows vengeance via amending the Constitution to make gay people count as 3/5 of a human being … oh, wait, I read that wrong … not to count as human at all. Most of the comments are shallow and vulgar, except for the ones that are shallow and vulgar and sexist, but I have enjoyed reading Sally Ann Cavanaugh pwn all comers:
You’ve yet to address what happens when this so-called enlightenment open the flood gates to lawsuits when churches refuse to perform same-sex marriages (Separation of church and state and all)
[Sally Ann:] No such suit would prevail. In such cases the separation of church and state along with the Free Exercise Clause would compel the court to rule that the government cannot force any church to perform any marriage ceremony. The issue is legal marriage, not religious marriage. And legal marriages are easily obtained through civil means.
“Progress” sure smells an awful like social decay and totalitarian rule by unaccountable god-kings. Wonder why that is?
[Sally Ann:] That is what everybody said who has supported an outmoded, antiquated social restriction and saw that restriction give way to freedom. I am not equating your beliefs with theirs, but this is true of those who supported slavery, segregation, anti-miscegenation laws and more. “More” includes dancing in public, wearing a skirt above the ankle and similar harmless practices.
Very good. Now where is the compelling state interest in sanctioning “marriage” amongst knobgobblers and boxchewers?
[Sally Ann:] You don’t understand the law. There must be a compelling state interest to deny these people equal treatment under the law. But if you’re going beyond the law to something more abstract, the compelling interests in recognizing their rights and treating them equally are freedom and liberty. You’re familiar with freedom and liberty, right?
The fundamental rationale social conservatives advance for denying equal treatment to lesbians and gays under the law — including the liberty and freedom to choose sexual partners and spouses on the same bases that straight people use: sexual attraction and love — is that gays are intrinsically evil. Because social conservatives say so. And this is why it is social conservatives who rot the moral fabric of society: the utter depravity of the act of damning a group of people for a being crime, cutting them off from participation in social institutions that promote moral development and prosperity and then denying the value of every deed they do that socons would count as virtuous if done by a heterosexual.
People who are stigmatized as intrinsically evil, whose good and virtuous behavior is dismissed, must have a very strong moral compass indeed to escape the corrupting observation that if nothing they do can ever be good enough, they might as well do as they please and be hanged for a sheep instead of a lamb. The thing is, a strong moral compass does not develop in people who are taught their very being is evil, apart from any of their deeds.
I do predict a benefit for social conservatives in equality for lesbians and gays. To wit, since it is religions that have struck at gays to force us into second-class citizenship, it was logical that gays would try to change the religions with the goal of stopping the persecution over religious differences at its source. Unfortunately, this provided social conservatives with seeming proof that gays would force changes on religions if ever we attained equality. As Sally Ann notes in her comment 287 above, this is impossible legally. However, equality removes the motive for trying.
Plus, gays and lesbians already have a church that will marry us, the Metropolitan Community Church — the church whose founding on Oct. 6, 1968, by gay ordained Baptist minister Troy Perry marks the real beginning of the modern gay rights movement (rather than the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village in June 1969).
The only exception to this is that programs operated by churches and funded with government money, and/or operating on government land or in government buildings, would be barred from discriminating in such things as providing services and hiring. They would continue to be entirely free to discriminate in every program that they fund entirely on their own dime, in their own buildings, on their own land.
One of the reasons that religious leaders promote the lie that equality for gays would force them into changing the tenets of their religions is that equality for gays will be like a radioactive dye exposing the trainloads of government money that have been garnered by various church enterprises founded and operated for the purpose of getting the government to fund their evangelical activities. But, to repeat, they will continue to be entirely free to discriminate in every program that they fund entirely on their own dime, in their own buildings, on their own land.
The bottom line is that equality for lesbians and gays is going to strengthen the moral fabric of society by providing us with the right to the supremely socializing institutions of society: marriage, adoption and service in the military. Of these goals, marriage is the most powerful socializing force because the dream of marriage influences life choices for the better from an early age — such as deciding as a freshman in high school to work hard to get an education or learn a trade in order to be able to provide a better life for the spouse you will marry and the family you will have together.
Since I’ve been writing here pretty much the same things that Judge Walker in the conclusion of his opinion in striking down Prop 8, it’s no surprise that I agree with him:
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Fabulous! An overview of the same-sex marriage debate
Thanks to a tweet I can’t find now, I came across a graphic, “Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate,” which I gather was created by Patrick Farley of Electric Sheep. It strikes me as a perfect summary of the debate over equality for lesbians and gays. Check the larger, legible versions at Electric Sheep or Pharyngula:
Judge rules Prop 8 unconstitutional
Glory hallelujah! Please go read Gabriel Malor — who is gay — at Ace of Spades HQ for the first take on the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger regarding California’s Prop 8, which defined marriage as only being legal between a man and a woman. Gabriel’s summary of the verdict is as follows: “… there is a constitutional right to gay marriage and also a constitutional right for gays not to be discriminated against in a state marriage regime.”
By the way, I see a different guarantee of equality for lesbians and gays under the U.S. Constitution than the ones argued in Perry v. Schwarzenegger — equal protection and due process. I am saving it for my book on the conservative case for lesbian and gay equality.
I want to remind my dear gentle readers who are worried about marriage having a religious definition that the Metropolitan Community Church is fine with same-sex marriages. If we need more religions to marry same-sex couples, we’ll found them.
In addition, each religion already defines marriage differently. The Mormon Church, which has spent the most money and mobilized its followers to fight same-sex equality, has THREE definitions of marriage — including polygamy. Mormons believe only a “celestial” marriage of a heterosexual Mormon couple performed in a Mormon temple has real spiritual value. In addition, the emphasis the Mormon-funded National Organization for Marriage puts on its definition of marriage only being valid if the couple can directly procreate from their sexual union comes completely from Mormon beliefs and requirements, including that its members trace their ancestry back to Adam. Mormons create and exploit controversy over gay equality in order to soften you up for conversion to Mormonism by getting you to agree to core Mormon beliefs without knowing you are doing so.
I’d also like to reassure my dear gentle readers that full equality for lesbians and gays, including marriage equality, is going to promote improved morality and social stability. What has been supremely destructive and corrupting is inequality, especially since its rationale was the religious one that gays are intrinsically evil so no amount of virtue redeems a gay person’s life if they insist on being true to themselves and building a life with a same-sex spouse.
This year I’ve been looking at my heirloom tomatoes and the herbs and flowers I started from seed and realizing how important it is that my plants get the right conditions at the right time to flourish. Equality for lesbians and gays is going to foster moral development, which has to start young and includes dating in high school — and going to the prom. Equality for lesbians and gays — including the right to have the dream of marriage — is going to create a society that is both more moral and more stable.
P.S.
I wonder what frenzy of gay-bashing that this decision will induce from gay-hating, anti-gay misogynist and gay conservative Daniel Blatt over at Gay Patriot, the safest place in the conservative blogosphere to denounce gays — including teen-aged lesbian Constance McMillen, who just wanted to go to the prom with her girlfriend — thanks to Daniel.
Levi Johnston is an IQ test for conservatives and … we’re flunking
THANK GOD unwed mother Bristol Palin broke up again with Levi Johnston, the father of her child. I hope this time she’s had it with him once and for all, although I fear for her because I believe she thinks everyone is honest and that she believes everyone can be redeemed.
I thought Johnston was scamming Bristol when they announced their reconciliation. If this were a novel or soap opera, Democratic operatives would have paid him to string Bristol along for as long as possible and use her to cause as much hurt and chaos in the Palin family he could while keeping himself in a position of credibility to tell any lie about Gov. Palin that served his handlers. But apparently Bristol has more intelligence and self-esteem than Levi remembered, while Levi is too stupid to handle the demands of a long game.
But somehow the headline for this post didn’t just pop into my head in the night, it woke me up to watch a whole train of thought. To wit, bitter and dissatisfied people, especially those who see no way of getting out of their plight, are easy to turn into traitors. This might have started with posts by Ace about the gay serviceman who is the source of the leaks about U.S. forces in Afghanistan — he was bitter about a break-up but is dressing up his treachery as a blow against “don’t ask, don’t tell” — which linked a Harper’s piece from 1941 brought to light by The Anchoress, who says she got it from Bookworm, pondering how to tell, when this was worth knowing, “Who goes Nazi?”
Somehow in my sleep it occurred to me that the Left immediately saw that Levi Johnston was traitor material: under financial pressure, young and naive, conceited, lazy, bitter, hurt, angry and easily led. This is the IQ test that conservatives flunked — when Johnston tore up the golden ticket of being a member of the Palin family, probably because it involved a little too much work and responsibility, conservatives responded by vilifying and shaming him. That was the flunking part. Because it was so easy to neutralize Johnston as a threat by giving him a job that paid enough to solve his financial problems, puff up his vanity and give him a sense of purpose. This young man was not raised to understand delayed gratification or the concept of earning credentials.
Now, I do understand why it might not have occurred to conservatives to do such a thing: they would be derailing Johnston from getting an education or a trade for which he actually was qualified, so they would be destroying his life. That is not the same thing as stepping back from his tantrums and getting out of the way of his destroying himself. I think it is morally repugnant to conservatives to use someone in this way and then throw them under the bus when they are no longer useful, or actively a liability.
By the way, I am NOT suggesting this is something the Palins should have done, or arranged. But it is for damn sure the kind of loose cannon that a competent Republican National Committee chairman would have seen and dealt with.
Meanwhile, I am concerned that Bristol is the Fredo of the Palin family. In 2008, she knew her mother was governor and how babies are made when she decided to have unprotected sex. Recently she blindsided her mother by announcing her reconciliation with Johnston in a magazine before telling her family. The Left knows that Bristol is Fredo. And they are experts at rubbing raw the resentments that turn the Fredo’s of the world against the people to whom they owe the most loyalty.
What we on the Right need to do for conservatism is to have Bristol Palin’s back and make the price for attacking her such a heavy one that the attacks stop. In addition, the people with the power and wealth to do it should see to it — if they haven’t already — that Bristol gets highly-paid work that allows her to complete college and care for her son in comfort and dignity. Then, with more maturity, she’ll have a shot at meeting and marrying a man worthy of being the love of her life, father to her children and support through good times and bad.
THIS is why Jim Rutledge CAN beat Barbara Mikulski
I went to a dessert fundraiser for Jim Rutledge, the candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate that I think can beat Sen. Barbara Mikulski. Here’s a good omen: it was held in the home of a DEMOCRAT who will be changing her voter registration to vote for Jim Rutledge in the primary election on Sept. 14.
What sets Jim Rutledge apart is his grasp of the principles of the Constitution and capitalism that make America the place where people have the freedom to make their dreams come true. First Jim spoke with passion of the Marylanders he’s met as he’s campaigned across the state who are hurting due to the economy-stagnating policies that Obama proposed and Sen. Mikulski supported. THEN he spoke about what wealth is and how it is created by ideas and the motivation of people who are allowed to keep the lion’s share of the wealth they have created. THIS is why Jim Rutledge CAN beat Barbara Mikulski. He understands what wealth is, how it is created and the system it needs to prosper and grow. Jim Rutledge knows how to unleash the creativity of the individual to create the wealth and jobs that will restore Maryland and America to prosperity. If I have good video of Jim making these points, I’ll have it up in a day or two.
Social isolation now shown to be harmful to physical health as well as mental health
Yikes! I’m trying to figure out how long I’ve been socially isolated and it’s in the range of 18-to-25 years. I’ll be 57 in October, so that’s most of my adult life. It’s been for lots of reasons — Margaret’s multiple sclerosis, my undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (because it reduced my energy and earning power), my uppityness about equality for us as a lesbian couple and for Margaret as a wheelchair user — which, I am not making this up, got us run out of the diversity-supportin’ lesbian community by lesbians at the top of the disability rights movement — heck, I’ll even toss in feng shui because of the breathtaking whack our social circle took after we moved into a condo where most of the “helpful people” area was missing.
I just promised in my “Save Stogie from foreclosure” post that I would start discussing my various challenges so that it is possible for my gentle readers to see how what I write matches my life. I wasn’t expecting one of them to be in tonight’s Hot Air Headlines. Social isolation already was known to have a negative effect on mental health. New research shows that social isolation affects physical health, too, across all age groups:
HAVING a poor social network is just as likely to send you to an early grave as smoking or alcohol abuse.
A scientific review of 148 previous studies involving more than 300,000 people found that those with adequate social relationships were 50 per cent more likely to be alive after an average follow-up period of nearly eight years, compared to more socially isolated people.
Being socially disconnected — a loose term usually taken to mean having few good friends or strong family relationships — was said to be equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes per day and to heavy drinking — of six units of alcohol a day — the scientists involved said.
It was also worse for someone’s health than such better-recognised health risks as avoiding exercise, and twice as bad for one’s health as being obese.
Eeek! I’m obese, too — but I do exercise because it helps me think more clearly and get more done. I’ll explain my new diet regime another time, but I’ve lost over 13 pounds in the last 40 days. If that seems modest to you, bear in mind it represents a shift of about 1,000 calories per day. And then you try it.
As for how a social network improves its members health, the scientists speculated there were two mechanisms:
The support of other people may reduce the harmful effects of stress, and the influence of others may also encourage behaviour that contributes to good health.
They also speculated that isolation could reduce immune function.
Julianne Holt-Lunstad, one of Dr. Smith’s colleagues, said: “When someone is connected to a group and feels responsibility for other people, that sense of purpose and meaning translates to taking better care of themselves and taking fewer risks.”
I would not have survived as a blogger without having met my fellow conservative bloggers in person at CPAC in 2009. It also was a big boost to go to CPAC 2010 and make more friends. Blogging, Facebook and Twitter are giving me access to social connections I wouldn’t otherwise have — they are a huge blessing.
I’m amused that Holt-Lunstad’s explanation of how social connectedness makes us healthier is so altruistic, since I gather from watching television that people who take very good care of themselves do so with the intention of improving and expanding their social connections — including, but not limited to, what are the kids calling it these days? is it still “getting laid”?