Letter to my sister

I am really sorry,I had to delete you from my lj,and I don’t think I can really continue reading your posts. I try to keep our friendship but this has got beyond of my beliefs,and simply because I respect you and your beliefs and your life,I think the best is to go separate ways. I try to work it out,I really did,but I simply cannot accept some of your beliefs and before hurting you or fighting or saying what I think,I better back off,I hope you understand.

And so that you know (although you already know),I have no problem with you being in a L relationship,I wish you the best,the part I really,really cannot accept or will never accept and I rather get killed than accept it,is the baby part. If it makes me a bad Christian then,I will be but I really hope you don’t make the mistake and are so selfish to bring a kid to the world into a non traditional family. Really pray (I have to be honest I am so sorry) that you and every other non traditional couple is unable to do that. Conception is sacred,and a baby is not a toy,think of all the harm you will bring to the child,when you aren’t accepted, you are making the child get born in the middle of that? Too selfish human being for me. I am sorry I cannot sit and see that happen. I can’t.

Hope you have a good life.
& Take care.

While I sometimes believe that it’s not worth the effort spent trying to convince bigots of their inherent bigotry,I do enjoy writing.


"Think of all the harm you will bring to the child,when you aren’t accepted, you are making the child get born in the middle of that?"

The argument here being that you raising a child in a society that won’t accept you is bad for the child,and therefore she thinks you are making a mistake. Given that reason,then a society that accepted you would not be harmful to the child. She neglects to point out that she is an active participant in the society that does not accept you. Therefore, she would be harming your child. In fact,she so strongly believes in harming your child that she would "rather get killed than accept it." And she takes part in suppressing an entire social group in stating that "you and every other non traditional couple [should be] unable to do that." In the same breath,she ironically says this is "too selfish [for a] human being for me."


People all over the world look to the United States as an imperfect beacon of Democracy and Freedom – indeed,these are the principles that are touted as the keys to an enlightened civilization. I agree with these principles. People are and should be free. There are other people in the world who do not believe in those principles. They believe in a different set,ones that dictate a righteous,subservient life bound by the rules of religion. These rules do not give equal rights,they do not provide for women as equals as men,they do not believe in freedom for all equally. As she points out, she can never accept your non-traditional beliefs.

You are part of the former. She is part of the latter.

While Christians feel they are especially significant and excepted from these rules,so exactly do the Taliban or militant al Queda Muslims. History clearly lays out the story of what the rules of every religion are twisted and abused into when they are accepted as part of a governmental or tyrranical rule over people. Violence,abuse,corruption. Before she condemns your beliefs on the merits of her tyranny,she must condemn her own by allowing for the freedom for all,whether she believes in it or not.

The real terror she promotes is that she is not passively accepting and respecting your rights as a human being. While she makes one face labeled "respect",she turns the other cheek to promote her own agenda that is decidedly not free nor respectful.

She must ask herself this: Would the world be better off without homosexuals? Would the world be a better place if laws were in place to prevent homosexuals from parenting? Babysitting? Teaching? Is there a List of Exclusions of Freedom for homosexuals? And,ultimately,is she promoting,voting, acting,and working towards this world? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes",then she believes in them all,and does not believe in freedom or equality.

The idea of Freedom can only be based on acceptance and tolerance. There is no other way. While people are free to believe what they will,the idea that those beliefs should be legislated and acted upon no longer indicates any sort of tolerance. It indicates an intentional suppression of freedom. Be it slavery,womens’ rights,or homosexuality – each in its own right faces abuses of civil rights time and time again by people who defend their bigotry through religious and conservative beliefs and legislating them.

I can tell that you’re all itching to point out the pathological extreme of this argument by saying this justifies murder,child pornography,child marriages,etc.,to which I point to the jurisprudence of American civil rights: your rights as a human extend to the fact that you cannot restrict another person’s freedom*. And to do so for homosexuality requires you to prove that homosexuality somehow limits your individual freedom – and by that argument,so would people’s private sexual preference (whether genetic or by choice). Raising a child in a non-traditional home has more than its share of challenges and difficulties,and does not come without a certain amount of possible harm. Neither does raising a child in an Aethiest home,or a single-parent home… But perhaps most especially in a foster home or homeless shelter or in a barrio. But none of these have legislation against poor families,aethiests,single-parents. Because these are private choices,private lives,and Freedom by definition means tolerance of these harmful situations.

She feels that she’d "rather be killed" – a lexical trick to get out of the Christian rule against suicide – than see a child raised in a non-traditional family. Remember when it was abhorrent and non-traditional for a white woman to give birth to a child with an African-American father?

The one truth she’s managed to nail is that she can’t "continue reading your posts." At this point,she’s clearly convinced that Freedom does not trump Christian and conservative principles. As a member of a tyrannical majority,it is far easier to look away from the pain,destruction,and suffering they promote than watch their beliefs in action.

All this late in the year of someone’s foul Lord,two thousand and seven. But then again,this is why Tyler and I created the Lambs of Abortion, the worlds greatest Christian Rock band. Are you a bad Christian? You literally are God-Damned right. Ho ho ho.

* S. v. Kuch 288 FSup. 439 (1968) ("Those who seek constitutional protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must not be permitted the special freedoms that this special sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in anti-social conduct that otherwise stands condemned."

Forgot to post this…

HR 3685 (ENDA),CNN

The House bill would make it illegal for employers to make job decisions based on sexual orientation. Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act came despite protests from some gay rights supporters that the bill does not protect transgender workers. The measure would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring,firing,promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. It would exempt churches and the military. After the 235-184 vote,supporters are expecting a tough fight in the narrowly divided Senate,where Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy plans to introduce a similar version. A veto from President Bush is expected if the proposal does pass the Senate.

"Republicans, meanwhile,said the bill could undermine the rights of people who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons."

It’s hard to think rationally about something that so clearly violates basic reason and justice and tolerance. The history of this Great Nation and the lessons we should be taught seem to conveniently be forgotten. We pay lip service to visionary leaders like Martin Luther King and Ghandi and convince our American egos that we live in the pinnacle of human achievement and the apex of civilization,while the backwards breeding grounds of terrorism in the Middle East represent something abhorrant and inherently evil. Dr. King tried to teach white Americans the Christian virtues of tolerance and equal rights for all people in the apex of the 60’s Civil Rights Movement,while long-time politicians Strom Thurmond and Democratic candidate George Wallace stood in stark contrast: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth,I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny,and I say segregation now,segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Ahh,we look back on those tumultuous days of the History books dreaming of that time when the People and the Youth had so much power and purpose to their lives. They brought something beautiful into the world,to America,the idea of equal rights for Women,for African Americans and minorities. We thank God that we live in a just society with a Government that truly belives in our Bill of Rights and the deeper meaning of phrase And Justice For All. It is easy to pat ourselves on the back,turn on the television,sit back with a beer and relax knowing we are safe and secure thanks to those brave men and women.

Yesterday evening the House passed H.R.3685 Employment Non Discrimination Act at 6:23pm,235 to 184,with 159 Republican ‘nays’. The act makes it an unlawful employment practice for employers to discriminate against an idividual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation,prohibiting any preferential treatment or quotas. News sources today describe the bill as facing a tough battle in a narrowly Democratic Senate.

The Concerned Women for America – a Christian organization focused on the preservation of fundamental conservative values,including the elimination of all pornography and obscenity – take as a matter of fact that "there is a world of difference between skin color and sexual behavior." This belief that homosexuality is a choice easily leads to the idea that it is not and should not be protected by civil rights. The point being you have the freedom of choice,but you are not protected from the consequences – a point Leslie Southwick dictates in his newly appointed fifth circuit appeals court. "ENDA,however,actually imposes a new moral order" says CWA’s website,a moral order that they believe threatens religious freedom as faith-based organizations could be subject to litigation for sexual discrimination. These arguments culminate into CWA’s end-times bullet-point: [ENDA will] lead to further demands by homosexual activists to force others to celebrate abnormal and unhealthy sexual behavior. This is the freedom from abnormality and tolerance that has been placed at our feet,the civil rights movement of our time.

Should we limit the equal rights of sexual preference based upon the fear of lawsuits that might expose rampant discrimination in our Christian majority nation? Or should we take into account sexual orientation to protect a religious notion of immorality? Organizations like CWA point to First Amendment rights to free association and that ENDA would eliminate private religious groups’ rights to prevent homosexuals from taking leadership positions that might undermine the organization’s purpose. They point to that bastion of American Heritage,the Boy Scouts,as one example. This in fact was the purpose for including the religious exlusion to the Act.

In fact,this limitation of freedom of association implies that private contracts are indeed subject to civil rights obligations. The supreme court case Runyan vs. McCrary decided that federal law prohibited private schools from discriminating based on race. While opponents of ENDA point to the consequences in their private organizations as arguments against ENDA,the fact is there are legal consequences now for private contracts and discrimination. So the question of sexual orientation as a basis of discrimination remains. According to the Civil Rights Act and Runyan vs. McCrary, individuals are free to express their discrimination,but are just the same protected from being victims even in private contracts and associations. And the fact remains that faith-based organizations cannot hide behind their beliefs to revoke civil liberties and freedoms for any other American. Land of the free…

There is a widespread belief among Christians that their ideal world is under attack from fierce and evil foes in the guise of acceptance,progressive policies, and civil liberties. So pure and refined is this belief that even the idea of homosexuality represents a threat to their children,and protecting them from such evil themes is the ends to the means of injustice and intolerance. America is not the land of the freedom from being offended and the freedom to protect your ignorance,but the land of the freedom of speech and expression. Time and time again America has proven that the influences of many peoples of many beliefs only strengthens and broadens the American Identity.

The fact that Bush promises to veto the Employment Non Dscrimination Act if it passes the Senate only serves to his ignorance of History and leadership that has defined his presidency since the beginning. In the same way we look back on the heroic acts of Dr. King and the failure of McCarthyism,we will look back on 2007 and the legacy of civil rights as a generational battle,continuously fought against by foes intent on a safe,homogenous world rather than the beauty and variety of our human experience.

This limitation of freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the Civil Rights Act,as weighed against the First Amendment according to the court decision Runyon v. McCrary,427 U.S. 160 (1976). The general rule to be drawn from this is that the First Amendment protects the right to express,including expression of racial discrimination,but people may not practice such ideas even within private associations.

Runyon v. McCrary
Civil Rights Act of 1991

Dartmouth Democratic Debate

On Democratic VP candidates:
Clinton: "We won’t know [about Iran] until we get a president who is committed to diplomacy and will do things like use the great diplomats that have come up through our country use former presidents,use people like Bill Richardson"

On Iran:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton,in 1981,the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. On September 6th,to the best of our information,Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria. If Israel concluded that Iran’s nuclear capability threatened Israel’s security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?
CLINTON: Tim,I think that’s one of those hypotheticals,that is…
RUSSERT: It’s not a hypothetical,Senator.
CLINTON: … better not addressed at this time.
RUSSERT: It’s real life. It’s real…
CLINTON: … because we don’t have as much information as I wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help,both financial and technical and material,the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years,a nuclear facility,and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that. … We don’t have any more information than what I have just described. It is highly classified. It is not being shared. But I don’t want to go a step further and talk about what might or might not happen down the road with Iran. … But I think it is fair to say what happened in Syria,so far as we know,I support.
RUSSERT: My question is: Would the Israelis be justified if they felt their security was being threatened by the presence of a nuclear presence in Iran,and they decided to take military action? Would they be justified?
CLINTON: Well,Tim,I’m not going to answer that,because what I understand is –
KUCINICH: I’ll answer it.

Ah,ho ho ho,Kucinich.

And,finally,on Libertarian issues of Federal government vs. State government:
RUSSERT: The question is: Would you allow these sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?
KUCINICH: You know what? The federal law — there’s a moral law here. And the moral law says that the immigrants are being used and mistreated.
OBAMA: The federal law is not being enforced not because of failures of local communities,because the federal government has not done the job that it needs to do.
CLINTON: Well, in addition to the general points that have been made that I agree with, why do they have sanctuary cities? In large measure because,if local law enforcement begins to act like immigration enforcement officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes,you will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real, direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government,and that’s where it needs to be fixed.

Leslie Southwick

The White House has successfully appointed Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court serving Mississippi,Texas,and good ol’ Luisiana. Leslie’s confirmation hearing dug up a handful of race and civil rights issues by the Human Rights Campaign and the Congressional Black Caucus,stemming from a few cases… but the one that other news sources didn’t mention tasted the best. A custody battle in Mississippi in 2001 granted sole custody of the cihld to the father. Southwick took the mother’s homosexuality into account in determining the case,along with her two sexual partners she had since the separation.

33. I do recognize that any adult may choose any activity in which to engage; however,I also am aware that such person is not thereby relieved of the consequences of his or her choice. As with the present situation,the mother may view her decision to participate in a homosexual relationship as an exertion of her perceived right to do so. However,her choice is of significant consequence,as described before in the discussion of our State’s policies,in that her rights to custody of her child may be significantly impacted.

"We have found no case law tha tstates homosexuality or the sexual behavior of a parent must be ignored" in custody battles…

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called for an up-down vote,casting a yea vote along with a handful of other democrats. Republicans praised Feinstein’s vote with their brand of saccharine syrup:

Republicans showered her with rhetorical roses after the vote,calling her "the heroine," "the lady of the day" and "a profile in courage."

But there you go. The American Elite still finds comfort in the old confines of jurisprudence. Doing the Right Thing is for the young and foolish,not the old and wise. Given the case,I might come to the same conclusion regarding custody. The fact that homosexuality was even considered,and noted so clearly as a reason and given so much creadence is at the heart of the failing Civil Rights Movement in America today. That Movement has grown middle-aged and comfortable and quiet,safe and cozy. It’s the young and wierd that are left to suffer the consequences of these Judges’ poor decisions. And those we elect that keep the quiet conservative status quo.

Fuck the Weak.