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.

The Complaint Department (Encore)

Well Season Four of Bored on the Corner is coming to a close, so in the usual tradition I'm taking some parting shots at the issues I touched on in the last couple of months, and in some cases the responses to them.

Former American Vice-President Dick Cheney is still fuming over Barack Obama's wish to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- would someone please explain to this man that giving terrorist suspects a fair trial isn't going to cause the sky to fall, or seas to boil? Honestly, Cheney's rhetoric is such an insult to common sense that it's a wonder that heads haven't exploded over it yet.

After Scottish MP George Galloway was banned from entering Canada, due to his Pro-Palestinian views and actions, he has sued the Canadian government for falsely accusing him of terrorism. I'm all for this, something needs to be done about the appalling double-standard in this country that says it's perfectly fine for Israel to shoot families and blow up hospitals, but donating medicine and diapers to Palestine is somehow siding with mass murderers. Incidentally, I've made an Access to Information Request to the RCMP, asking why they don't seem to be keen on shutting down the Jewish Defence League -- a very well known terrorist group, operating in Canada -- so far, there has been no response.

Evidently my rant about Twitter didn't fare very well -- possibly due to the scene where I jokingly go into a psychotic fit over how much the social networking sites on the internet just rip each other off, or spawn a ton of useless features. Alright, I won't try to be funny anymore, or go after pop culture. Ah who am I kidding, I've got an opinion and I'm sharing it dammit.

When I went after the continuing melodrama from the Christian Right, over gay marriage, I had this response from "IanLowen". He said, "Even if you are not Christian, you still cannot change a definition to fit your convenience." Once again, conservatives do not pay attention to a thing I say. First of all, show me where in the American Constitution, it says that only religious conservatives have rights? Second, open a history book: the definition of marriage has already changed a lot over time; back in the stone age it was defined as a caveman smashing a woman over the head, dragging her to his home, and raping her. More recently, it was just an elaborate business transaction. So stop using this bullshit about gays trying to destroy traditional marriage, unless your idea of picking up women involves carrying a club.

Speaking of gay marriage, I withdraw my sympathy for Carrie Prejean, aka Miss California. I'd previously stood up for her, after she got dragged through the mud by Perez Hilton over her views on same-sex marriage. I originally respected that she supposedly supported the choice, if not the philosophy itself... too bad she later turned around and said on national television that it shouldn't be around at all.

In more recent news, with the recession in such dire shape that Canadians from coast to coast are screaming at Ottawa to fix our pathetic Employment Insurance system -- or do ANYTHING besides waste millions of dollars on pet projects -- all we get from Emperor Stephen Harper are weak excuses, and ads on TV that go after Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for having lived outside of Canada for over thirty years. So let me get this straight: a private citizen spending much of his adult life abroad is somehow a travesty, yet wasting time and public money on things that the people of this country hate and don't need, is good leadership? Get the fuck out of town.

Finally, I got some pretty hostile comments -- all from one person -- when I attacked the Oxford Police's handling of Tori Stafford's abduction and murder. In a nutshell, I was screamed at publicly for having such a strong opinion, and allegedly not doing anything direct to help search for the girl when she was believed to be alive. First of all, I don't recall it ever being said that I have to proclaim myself to be directly involved in a hot-button issue, in order to have a point of view. Canada -- at the moment -- still has Freedom of Speech. Second of all, there wasn't a lot I could have done; Woodstock is a part of the country I have hardly ever been to, I don't have a way to really get there, and even if I did, the Oxford Police were so stupid that they called off all searches mere days after Tori was taken. When the OPP came in to clean up that mess, they already had all the ground covered, so pretty much all I could have done was what I did anyway: keep Tori's name and face in the public eye.

I was also criticized somewhat for saying that the Oxford Police should be punished for their lax attitude towards the whole case -- I concede that my language at the time was more vicious than it needed to be, but the point still stands. The Oxford Police had every reason and oppourtunity to treat Tori's vanishing as a kidnapping, but they didn't. For some reason, a video that they insist shows a stranger walking Tori away from school doesn't constitute an abduction to them, though I suspect a lawyer or judge would disagree. At the very least, this was both stupid and extremely negligent. Therefore, I still maintain that unless Tori died before or just after she was reported missing, then the Oxford Police are partially responsible for her death, by their inexcusable lack of action. They are not only expected to, but paid to protect the public from these sort of crimes, and they dropped the ball for seemingly no good reason. If the officers in question are not willing or able to use some judgement and do their jobs, then they should find another line of work.

The good news about all of this is that I'm not the only one having these thoughts; since I pay attention to the world around me, and the way people think, I know for a fact that thousands -- even millions of people -- are equally pissed off at this bullshit. So to all the stupid and power tripping people out there, consider this a warning: you are being watched, and you are already wearing out your welcome. Push us further at your own risk. Enough said.

Bored on the Corner vs. Perez Hilton

As my regular viewers know, I'm very much in favour of same-sex marriage, for a variety of reasons. However, that doesn't mean that I like some of the more crass tactics of the left wing, any more than I do the right wing. Case in point, the Miss USA pageant was held a week or so ago, and one of the judges was notorious tabloid blogger Perez Hilton (don't ask me why, let's just play along). During the Q&A portion, he asked Miss California -- Carrie Prejean -- what she thought of same-sex marriage. Her answer was simply that while she personally isn't fond of it, she does like that others can choose it if they wish. Maybe not the most enlightened point of view, but a reasonable one all the same. Mr. Hilton, on the other hand, not only eliminated Prejean from the competition over it, but he wasted no time in calling her a "dumb bitch" pretty much everywhere he could.

Not surprisingly, this attracted a lot of attention and criticism, and not just from predictable sources like conservative pundits. Even people who are moderate or liberal have condemned Hilton's antics, because he basically went out of his way to humiliate Prejean over an opinion that Hilton himself asked to hear. Then again, this is typical of Hilton's history, so I won't beat the dead horse of just how appalling and despicable a so-called human being, he is.

I was talking about this with my friend the other night, and while we were discussing much of the same points I just presented here, it suddenly dawned on me: who the hell cares about Miss California's politics? It's a BEAUTY PAGENT, for fuck's sake, and one that most people don't even notice! I can't remember at all, the last time I even heard of Miss America creating a law, or holding a real office, can you? If Carrie Prejean ever runs for Governor, then we can talk, but until then I can think of about sixty-eight other things I'd rather worry about.

What more can I say? All that Perez Hilton did, was make himself look like an obnoxious and classless asshole, which to him is a full-time job anyway, not to mention do a lot of damage to those of us who really are interested in tolerance and equality. Sometimes I wonder if sooner or later, the real Paris Hilton will wake up to this jerk and say "I've REALLY got to get my name back from this idiot". That's it for me.

Gay Marriage in Iowa and Vermont

Gay marriage is once again in the news, with Iowa and Vermont being the most recent states to legalize it. To be honest I'm a little sick of defending it by now, but it is worth mentioning that a conservative Christian group in the U.S. is taking some pretty heavy measures to attack it.

A few days ago, a group called the "National Organization for Marriage" put an ad on TV and YouTube, claiming to be supportive of gays and lesbians, yet threatening that homosexuals have a vague plan to force heterosexuals to change their lives. Fortunately, good sense is prevailing, and not only is no one agreeing with it, but most think that it's completely ridiculous.

Frankly, pretty much all of the anti-gay marriage arguments are so stupid that it's a wonder that anyone has ever taken them seriously. The National Organization alone is claiming that in Vermont the legislature has taken away religious liberties. First of all, no proposal to legalize same-sex marriage has ever forced a church to conduct one of these ceremonies -- it simply means that the state government has to recognize it, whether the couples chooses to marry through a judge or a clergyman who actually reads those parts of scripture that demand compassion. Second of all, I can't help but notice that this group is unable to be pleased by attempts to satisfy its own criticisms -- the anti-marriage crowd has always said that the courts shouldn't create the law -- even though, strictly speaking, they are just troubleshooting existing laws, which is exactly what they're supposed to do on behalf of the people. Yet, when Vermont legalizes gay marriage with a free vote in the State Senate, the religious right are still up in arms. Finally, the stories concocted by this group are very one-sided and dishonest: for instance, the people who claim they were persecuted over their beliefs, were actually nurses or city groups refusing to serve gays and lesbians -- which is in itself against the law.

So, to anyone paying attention, it's pretty clear that they don't really care about religious freedom, they care about gays not having the same rights as straight people. It's rather like Bush's Defense of Marriage Act -- it doesn't forbid partners from cheating on each other, or getting married just to get rich and famous, so it's not really a Defense of Marriage -- it's an Attack on Gays.

Which leads me to one last point: at the risk of making a strawman argument, it's hardly a secret that -- being socially conservative -- the same sort of people condemning gay marriage have never taken the whole "equal rights" thing very seriously. After all, fifty years ago they used God to keep blacks and whites from being in mixed company, or treated as equals. A hundred years ago, they made sure that women were treated like property rather than people. Two hundred years ago, they encouraged the slave trade. Four hundred years ago, they made sure that so-called witches were murdered by church-run governments. Five hundred years ago, they supported wiping out most of the Indians in this part of the world, and so on. So, for these racist, sexist, homophobic scumbags to cry about the so-called persecution of Christianity in North America, is not only bogus, but it pisses on the graves of literally millions of innocent people. By the way, the irony does not escape me that the directors of the National Organization for Marriage include women and black men; am I the only one who has asked these clowns why gays and lesbians don't deserve their rights too?

If there's anything else that can possibly make the downfall of the so-called Christian Right more entertaining, it's that every so often we hear about one of these conservative ministers getting caught doing something that's not only highly embarassing, but a crime. Embezzlement, drug abuse, prostitution, sexual abuse, you name it they've done it. This leads me to my biggest beef with these goons: leaving aside that in North America, the government is supposed to be secular and respecting everyone's rights, as opposed to just conservative Christians... before you even dare to declare yourself the world's moral police, you had better make damn sure that your own slate is clean. It's pretty dumb when a law-abiding atheist is being talked down to by a "Christian" who not only stirs up anger and hate every chance he can get, but thinks nothing of Jesus' own statement "That which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me." Enough said.