Taliban Santorum wants to violate the Constitution

Whenever a hardline conservative claims to be against big government, pro-liberty, and pro-Constitution, throw this one at him/her.

Rick Santorum Says He Will Overturn The Supreme Court If Same-Sex Marriage Is Ruled Legal (VIDEO)

Not content to talk about criminalizing birth control, making rape victims carry the children of their attackers, and flat out screwing over black people, Republican contender Rick Santorum -- ostensibly the only REAL CONSERVATIVE candidate (more on that in a bit) -- has come out swinging at gay-marriage-banning Proposition 8 being struck down as unconstitutional. While he's not going as far as quite a few American conservatives, in flat out calling this a war on liberalism (yes, I've seriously seen that phrase used), he is still vowing that if he is President when the Supreme Court inevitably rules that bans on same-sex marriage are illegal, he will take the Newt Gingrich route and overturn the Supreme Court itself.

Now, in case no one has explained this to you before -- and if you're a Teabagger, chances are no one has -- NO PRESIDENT CAN DO THAT. The Constitution specifically forbids it. That's the entire point of making the judges a separate branch of the government; so they cannot be persuaded or coerced into ruling however the government wants them to.

Of course, the irony should escape no one, that Santorum is one of those firebrand right-wingers, who are convinced that ANY liberal ruling is an example of judicial activism (even when it simply enforces the law of the land).

Now, this is something that seems to have been lost in the last thirty years or so, but it used to be that being politically conservative, genuinely did mean to be against intrusive and wasteful government -- something that I am totally fine with, by the way. How exactly this relates to OPENLY PERSECUTING PEOPLE, SILENCING WELL-INFORMED CRITICS, and FORCING RELIGION DOWN THE THROATS OF THE MASSES, is way beyond the logic of... well, anyone with moderate comprehension skills.

Oh, and at the risk of repeating something that I have said many times about other right-wingers, Santorum's attitude is no less than an open slap in the face, to anyone who fought or was killed by terrorists in the last ten years. The last thing America needs, is its own Ayatollah.

Harper's Foreign Interference

Maine Homophobes II

Is it just me, or is the so-called "Moral Majority" not even trying to look respectable or rational anymore? Just a couple of days after I posted my rant about Maine voting to revoke same-sex marriage, this prick called JarodysCampaign -- who lost an election for city councillor down there -- said to me that the definition of marriage MUST be "one man and one woman", that the gay camp was the only one that made it a rights issue, that being gay is a choice... you know, the usual horseshit. And if you think I'm going to just let this be, you clearly haven't seen the show.

Let's start with this business about the definition of marriage "clearly" being between one man and one woman... well, according to who? Depending on which religion or denomination or culture you ask, marriage can be defined as all sorts of combinations of human, not all of them simply one man and one woman. In fact, in ancient times same-sex marriage was quite common, not that the Christian Right will ever acknowledge it, because it requires them to read a book not endorsed by The 700 Club. Jarody's argument that he's helped restore the "original" form is also very dubious, when you consider that the original form not only forbade marrying outside of your race or religion, but by and large women had no choice in who they were going to marry -- AND more often than not, it was done as little more than a business deal. Not to mention it was not only common but expected, that the husband would keep a mistress -- NOT THAT KIND OF MISTRESS! Thank you... The point is, marrying out of love is a fairly new phenomenon, despite what the so-called family values clan says. If anyone out there doesn't believe me, I suggest that you go to a very special building in your town: it's called a library.

Oh and I'd be neglegent if I didn't point out there are parts of The Bible -- like Deuteronomy 21 -- that say it's totally fine for a man to force a woman to marry him, as a sort of war trophy. I'd also be sloppy if I didn't point out that it was totally normal for marriages to happen at age 12, in those days. Wow, how loving and godly.

Incidentally, this same man also claimed that by criticizing a clearly discriminatory point of view like his, I'm being a Constitutional Revisionist. Really? Does that mean he also thinks that mixed marriage, decriminalized homosexuality, women's rights, desegregation, and even the separation of church and state should all be revoked? What about the partonizingly named "Defense of Marriage Act", which only exists to discriminate against gays? By the way, I just love how a guy like him shuts down critics by saying that he won't talk to people who are intolerant -- that's like a Neo-Nazi slamming people who have issues with swastikas.

He's also one of those who dismisses gays as a whole, by saying that being gay is a choice. Um yeah, do you ever notice how you almost always hear this bullshit from people who have either never had a non-judgemental talk with a homosexual, or never willingly talked to one at all? Now I know that science isn't entirely sure what does cause homosexuality, but there are a couple of things that are certain. One is that since it's found in animals all the time, that pretty much destroys any argument that it is unnatural. The second is that there is NO evidence whatsoever, that people actually choose to be gay.

Furthermore, at the risk of ripping off David Cross, try actually thinking this attitude through a little. Even in this supposedly enlightened part of the world, if anyone even THINKS you're gay, then no matter how young or old you are, you are going to be harrassed, assaulted, singled-out, discriminated against, raped, or murdered solely because of what gender you're supposedly attracted to. Not only that, but you can't count on The Powers That Be to do anything about it -- they may ignore your troubles, or simply say you got what you deserved. This includes many of the supposedly moral and upstanding people in the church. Wow, that really sounds like a life I'd want to live.

By the way, don't even get me started on the arguments that "You support gay marriage, so you must be gay", or "What did the Christian Right take away?" Seriously, do you idiots not hear yourselves talk? Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?

The cold-bloodedness and hypocrisy of the "traditional values" people never ceases to amaze me. They call themselves devout Christians more often than not, but even I know that Jesus said to let what is the government's, belong to the government. Kind of like He also said to judge not, lest ye be judged, to live a non-capitalist life, and to live as a community -- not that the Moral Majority likes to hear any of those things either. And let's not forget, they called the same-sex laws in Maine undemocratic, even though they were voted in freely by the elected senate. It seems really convenient to me, that of all the things they could get nitpicky about in politics, it's things that give rights to people they despise for no good reason. I bet you they'd never go to this much trouble, if the same senate declared that only conservative Christians be allowed to vote. Enough said.

Maine Homophobes

Remember how Maine voted in the senate to legalize same-sex marriage a few months ago? Well, that didn't stick. There was a referendum on it in several states, and just like in California, the Christian Right saw to it that now, gay marriage is once again illegal. Congratulations, you bigoted fucks, you've once again demonstrated that you're not content to simply try to stop equal rights, you're fine with taking them away once they've either been democratically earned, or given by courts that actually understand what the Constitution is for. Never mind that gay marriage never had any effect on so-called traditional marriage, that churches in America were never forced to perform them, and that gay rights do no harm to families whatsoever -- the idea of sodomites having the same rights as straights is always a bad thing to you. Go fuck yourselves.

By the way, I'd be neglegent if I didn't point out two other problems with their tactics -- leaving aside that they can't possibly claim to not be homophobic when they've personally referred to homosexuals as a cancer. You guys say that legalizing same sex marriage is an assault on freedom of religion, but what about the churches that genuinely have no problem with gay marriage? You just violated THEIR freedom of religion, you hypocrites! Second thing, what would you say to other bigots who would be enabled by your movement, to do any of the following: ban interracial marriage, forbid atheists and pagans from marrying, or even make being gay a crime again? After all, there are those who say that that has to be done, to protect Christian American families, too.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for the sort of people who proudly discriminate against total strangers, who've done no harm at all to them, and then have the nerve to say they're protecting family values. The only families that I know of, who teach hate and prejudice, are families in the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood. And conservatives wonder why the rest of the world thinks they're intolerant? Enough said.

Halloween Special II

Gay Pride vs. Facist Ottawa

Last week was definitely not a good one for Emperor Harper and his Neo-Conservative government. Not only did he repeatedly embarrass himself at an international conference -- particularly by getting caught in a lie about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff -- but here at home his cohorts have gotten in a snit over Tourism grants being given to the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. Evidently, some Conservative backbenchers -- who, apart from Saskatchewan's Brad Trost, didn't have the balls to want to be named -- took great offence to Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy not only giving a cheque to the parade's organizers, but being photographed alongside drag queens while doing so. I guess it's official -- the Tories don't care about even trying to look tolerant anymore, they're just going to rule by prejudice.

Now look, I know that Gay Pride Parades are touchy in some places, but leave the family values crap be for a minute and pay attention. The whole point of the Tourism Events Program is to promote annual events that attract major tourism and attention to Canadian cities -- and Toronto's Pride events fit that to a T. Also, spare me the complaints about barely-clothed gays and lesbians strutting through the streets and acting kind of raunchy -- for one thing, given that most of that complaining is brought up by right-wing special interest groups who barely think gays are human, my bet is that they're exaggerating to at least some extent. For another thing, in terms of risque behaviour, you can say the same thing about virtually ANY large party in the summer -- Caribanna being a fairly good example -- yet that doesn't cause an uproar. Neither does any other large event, where -- let's be honest -- there's probably some violence, drug abuse, and sex taking place where people generally aren't looking.

In any case, the Tories have flat out stated that their problem with Ms. Ablonczy was that "The TV shots of her with transvestites inflamed some people." Do these really sound like the sort of people you'd WANT to impress? I sure as hell don't want them in charge of my life and liberty, either. Those who support this decision often cry that some so-called gay agenda is being forced down their throats at these parades -- well, personally, whenever I've done the radical thing and actually talked to gays and lesbians, I've never had any political position even talked about, never mind shoved in my face. In fact, if one is really uncomfortable with gay pride events, there's a very easy solution: don't go to them.

Unfortunately, as the new movie Bruno makes very clear, the reason why these sort of complaints are taken seriously is because putting down gays is one of the last socially accepted bigotries that we have anymore. If there was this same outcry over Black Pride, Women's Pride, Indian Pride, French-Canadian Pride, or any other sort of group, then the Tories would get thrown out of office -- and knowing some of their members, probably arrested too. Then again, if it were White Straight Conservative Christian Pride, I bet you that they would not only be welcomed openly, but that Tourism fund would give them a blank cheque. Let's face it, North America is nowhere near as welcome and tolerant as it pretends to be. You just need to be a visible minority in a big city, or in... shall we say, more rural areas... to find that out. That's it for me.

Breakfast with Scot

More than once, I've attacked the positions of the Canadian Family Values Coalition, and more specifically its director, the so-called Reverend Doctor Charles McVety. In fact, the whole reason I started my YouTube show was because he endorsed an attempt to censor Canadian films based on what he called grossly offensive content. The problem is that in addition to genuinely hateful and pornographic material, he was also offended by a little movie called Breakfast with Scot, about two gay men who foster an 11 year old boy. His problem with it is that supposedly it was indoctrinating children in the gay lifestyle, whatever the hell that means. Having now seen it, I can tell you once and for all, Mr. McVety doesn't know what he's talking about.

Throughout the movie, the gay orientations of the main adult characters are dealt with very subtly; for most scenes they appear to be roommates who like to cuddle from time to time. To be fair, part of the reason for this is that Eric, the lead in the movie, is a sportscaster and former NHL star who's afraid he won't be taken seriously if his private life is made public. He's also very sensitive to the kind of bullying that boys go through if their schoolmates think they're gay.

Which leads me to the good Doctor's prejudiced grievance... If he and his fellow nimrods actually bothered to watch the movie and pay any attention whatsoever, he would have noticed that young Scot's foster family couldn't have indoctrinated him into anything -- the boy was already effeminate long before they met him.

If anything, Eric in particular tries to get him to appear more "normal", at least by mainstream standards, while Sam tries to encourage Scot to be comfortable in his own skin. But I guess that would be a big problem for a man who thinks that gay men shouldn't be able to marry, or adopt children... or a man who frequently acts as if any sexual activity heavier than a cheek kiss will somehow cause Lucifer to erupt from the bowels of Hell.

As I've said before, Mr. McVety's ignorance and power tripping aren't representative of all conservatives, and definitely not of all Christians. However, there are enough people like him out there, who want to keep people's minds and souls closed to the world around them, that when they get on a soapbox it can do a lot of damage. Not only does it jeopardize our liberties on several levels, but to be honest it makes decent and heartfelt Christians look terrible. I've already said that this guy has no right to preach his garbage to the public, but I'll try something more tactful than my previous version: Charles, you're just embarrassing yourself. Enough said.