And This Is Why I Will Never Run For Office...

I was having a conversation with my father at lunch yesterday, complaining about politics, and he suggested that if I have such an issue with things, I should myself run for office. I laughed and told him, in the present political climate, I'm absolutely unelectable. I'm an out bisexual pagan who has openly had multiple polyamorous relationships. He continued to encourage me - "You must be the change you wish to see in the world," as Gandhi said - and I even started to consider it.

And then I read something today that reminded me why I was right the first time about my electability potential, or rather, the lack thereof. (via)

One of the Republican primary candidates in the Alabama gubernatorial race has come under fire by his opponents for his religious beliefs...specifically, for not being a Biblical literalist. He was quoted in the Mobile Press-Register as saying he believed "there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not." Get me to a fainting couch and fetch the smelling salts! How could a man who does not believe in the literal, word-for-word truth of the holy book of the One Twue Amurikan Religion possibly think himself fit for public office? He has since claimed that he was misquoted (they all say that, don't they?) and in a recent press conference affirmed "I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it." Wait, what was that about a religious test for public office, again? I could have sworn I remembered hearing about that back in grade school...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

- US Constitution; Article VI, Section 3

Now, this doesn't strictly qualify under that requirement. That refers to a religious test administered by the government, and cannot be held to be binding individual voters from determining their votes based on religion. People can vote for a candidate because they like the color of his socks, if they want, or for any other equally stupid reason as this one. I'm sure we all remember how many teabagger-type conservatives refused to vote for Obama not because he was a Democrat, or any reason of politics, but "because he's a Muslim." (Or a Muslin, depending on the spelling capabilities of the conservadouche in question.)

However, if a candidate for office must not only be a member of the most-populous religion in the country, but also of a particularly narrow subset of literalists of that religion, in order to get the votes needed to gain office...one could infer from that that there is a de facto religious test for office, imposed by the voters. And if a Christian candidate is having to defend himself from accusations that he's not Christian ENOUGH for daring to perceive parts of the Bible as metaphorical...gods know, an outspoken and open Witch is sure as fuck never going to get elected.

The Bizarro-World of Anti-Gay Activists

So Prop H8 finally goes to federal trial this month. And there was the discussion of whether or not to allow the trial to be televised; federal cases usually aren't, but they've begun to allow televising of non-criminal trials recently, and since the Prop H8 case affects the lives of so many, wouldn't televising it be a good thing? Transparency of the courts and all that. Well, we got a partial ok on it; the judge has conditionally allowed proceedings to be filmed and posted online the next day, but not broadcast live.

Of course, there was no question about it not being televised, until the pro-H8 bigots spoke up and asked for cameras to be barred. Their excuse? They fear a backlash against their bigotry from same-sex marriage supporters. Apparently we were so mean to them after the election they're scared to testify if they have to do it publicly. What they really mean is, they don't want their bigotry exposed for what it really is.

But what got me was, they're afraid of us. Let me say that again. Anti-gay bigots, people who actively strive to take away the rights of hundreds of thousands of people (millions if you're counting nationally, not just here) and have us legally designated as second-class citizens in a variety of ways, people who compare gays to pedophiles and donkey-fuckers, whose rhetoric incites hate and violence against our communities here and the world over...THEY'RE afraid of US? Are you fucking kidding me? What kind of bizarro-world do they live in, where the super powerful Ebil Gays are oppressing the poor, righteous Christians for daring merely to speak their hateful beliefs? I bet it's the same world O'Reilly and the War On Christmasers live in, where black is white and up is down and Christians in America are just so, so persecuted.

If they're so convinced they're Doing The Right Thing For Society, they should damn well have pride in their work and be willing to do it in the public view. And yet they're not, instead claiming victimization by the people they're trying to oppress in a pathetic attempt to hide their bigotry from scrutiny. Somehow, that just doesn't add up, does it?

Adventures in Holiday Shopping

All I wanted to do was pick up some cheap holiday lights in peace, but no, Sexism and Racism weren't going to let me alone for that long, especially not in a retail environment.

Exhibit A: White-as-Default, Yet Again

So white people holding a baby is just a "holiday ornament". But a black angel holding a black baby is a "cultural accent"? This is like "I have a black friend" for your holiday decorations; pick up an ornament with PoC on it to accent your collection! >.<

Exhibit B: Boys Will Be Boys and Girls Will Be Girls AND THEY WILL NEVER OVERLAP.

Because gods forbid a boy and a girl might actually like the same toys. Oh noes! If boys and girls play with the same toys, gender roles will not be sufficiently enforced upon their delicate little child-minds, and society as we know it will collapse! Quelle horreur! What do you do if you know a girl-child who likes playing with matchbox cars and toy soldiers (probably what are in this grab bag), or a boy-child who prefers dolls and ponies? Do you get them the bag that matches their gender, or the bag that matches their interest and field objections of "but this says it's for a boy/girl!"? Enforcement of arbitrary gender roles FTL.

(And to think at the advent of camera phones, I scorned them. "What could people ever need that for?" I used to ask. Lol.)

NY Marriage Equality Voted Down; Repubs Blame Dems???

(I know this happened yesterday, but I was having a Why Fucking Bother? day by that time; my teaspooning arm was too tired to move.)

So New York State had an opportunity to legalize same-sex marriage yesterday. Democrats in the state Senate had been fighting to bring the bill to an up-or-down vote, and for awhile it looked like it wasn't going to happen. But then yesterday, it finally came to the floor, and...lost. 24-38. The fun part? All 30 Republicans in the Senate voted against it. So, apparently, did 8 Democrats, who had previously said they would vote for it. Lying fucks.

But the best part comes in a press release from Log Cabin Republicans (via):

"Today we share in the frustration and disappointment that the Senate did not pass the marriage equality bill. We are deeply saddened that the Democratic Conference failed to secure the votes they promised, undermining the possibility of a credible bipartisan vote of conscience on the merits of marriage equality.

Winning marriage equality in New York requires the Democrats to keep their promises, and Log Cabin will continue to work to ensure that Republicans vote their conscience when that finally happens."

Wait...what? The party of NO, who could muster NOT ONE SINGLE VOTE for marriage equality, is going to blame the party that brought the bill to vote (over Republican opposition, mind you) and who got all 24 yes votes? Even if the Dems had "secured the votes they promised", that still leaves NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN voting yes. So who the fuck are the LCRs to lecture on this? "You get every one of your people behind it, and then we might, maybe, stick one or two votes out on this. Maybe. If you're good."

Oh, and for the record? Those Republicans who voted against marriage equality? They WERE voting their consciences. The Republican party is as anti-gay as the pope is Catholic. What makes you think that's going to change?

Nativity or Nothing

It's that time of year again. The air is cold, the carols are incessant, the lights displays are extravagant, and anything that isn't specifically Jesus-oriented is going to be decried by the ever-persecuted Religious Wrong as part of the "War on Christmas". Stores that use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" go on the Naughty List for daring to acknowledge the existence of more than one winter holiday. Towns that have Holiday Parades or Holiday Trees (the shite at that last link deserves a post of its own, frankly) face protests from the vocal minority that demands that THEIR holiday be THE ONLY holiday. And the battles rev up again over where one can place nativity scenes visible to the public.

On the surface, that would seem to be a simple enough issue. Private property is fine, so long as it doesn't violate local size-of-display laws. Public or government-owned property can go one of two ways. The easier way is to not allow religious holiday displays of any kind, so as not to favor any one religion over another in violation of the Establishment Clause. However, if a town wants to display a creche on public land, they can, so long as they also allow displays from other religions so as not to show favoritism. It's an all-or-nothing situation. And honestly, I can respect either choice.

Except in a situation like this one. The city of Chambersburg, PA, recently changed their policy to restrict all holiday displays. Fine, right? Except they only did so when, after 14 years of happily displaying a nativity on their memorial square, a local atheists group asked permission to put up a sign of their own about celebrating Solstice. Immediately the Borough Council unanimously voted to remove and ban all signs from the square in question. So the city in essence admitted, through their abrupt policy change spurred by the terrifying specter of enforced non/religious plurality, that the previous "inclusive" policy was really only intended to allow for Christian displays.

Council member Elaine Swartz argued before the vote that her concern, shared by her fellow members, lay more in the anticipation that groups of all viewpoints would suddenly bombard the square with their own signs and messages if council were to allow an atheist sign.

Oh noes! Quelle horreur! Groups of all viewpoints might want to put up signs if you let the atheists do it! Give a mouse a cookie and Christianity will no longer dominate the landscape, and we can't have that.

The atheist group in question intends to pursue legal action against Chambersburg for their sudden and discriminatory change of policy. I wish them luck. And a great big fuck-you to Christian hegemony as personified in incidents like this; the faster it falls the happier I'll be.

Let the Victim-Blaming Begin!

[trigger warning]

The six defendants in the absolutely horrific gang-rape case in Richmond (where as many as ten men raped a 15-yr-old girl for around two hours at the homecoming dance while as many as 20 people looked on and quietly passed the word around to their friends to come watch too) have entered not guilty pleas today.

The linked story is, for a mercy and a wonder, quite free of the usual shit reporting about rape. The assault is called what it is, not "forced sex" or any of that crap. But they include a quote from one Shyan Mason, a friend of one of the defendants, that literally made me cry.

"As far as with the girl, I'm not saying she is a bad person, but I feel that there had to be something that attracted them if they did it"

I'm sorry. WHAT? What. The. Fuck??? "Something that attracted them"? So you're not saying she's a bad person, of course, just that she brought it on herself somehow and so it's totez her fault that she was brutally gang raped for hours. She attracted them, that temptress; they couldn't help their poor widdle selves. Right.

How about we try something new for a change? BLAME THE FUCKING RAPISTS. Instead of blaming the victim of a crime, let's just go ahead and blame the perpetrator instead. Novel concept, I know.

And you know what? Even if there was "something that attracted them," that does not give them a green light to rape her! Her attractiveness is not her consent. You are not entitled to her body just because she attracts you. How is this a difficult idea to grasp?

Excuse me; I need to go watch videos of adorable kittehs to restore my faith in the world now.

...And Suddenly, It's Personal

So it seems that Courageless Campaign has backed out of the 2010 Prop H8 repeal effort. (via) That leaves Love Honor Cherish as the only major organization still working on the 2010 repeal effort. Right off the bat EQCA ignored public sentiment and opted to wait for 2012; Courageless Campaign, however, said they would go forth with a repeal effort in 2010, following the will of their constituency. They asked their members and the community at large, and an overwhelming percent - I don't remember the exact numbers anymore - said do it NOW. Waiting is not acceptable.

But now they've folded. The analysts say chances aren't good, so they're turning tail and running to wait on the sidelines with the other big kids - EQCA and Lambda Legal - for 2012 to roll around. To hell with what the community wants, to hell with the people who want their goddamn rights back already. Just wait. The numbers don't look good for this year. So sit tight with your thumb up your ass just like we are, and put up with being second-class citizens for two more years. It's not that hard, right?

And this time it's personal for me, in a way it wasn't before. I mentioned in my last post that I'm engaged. I also mentioned that I refuse to take advantage of the institution while it remains a heterosexual privilege. So this? It means I have less chance of getting married soon, too. Where before I would have just been pissed off, this time I read the news and started to cry. This doesn't guarantee defeat, no...but without ANY of the state's major organizations on board, things are looking pretty dismal. Thanks a whole fucking lot, Courageless Campaign. I stopped working with and donating to EQCA when they chose to wait; guess this means I'm going to quit giving my time and money to you, too.

But I will not stop working toward the repeal of that hateful law. My teaspoon will not stop. I am all. fucking. in. With or without the big kids on my side.

Wednesday WTF: Lessons in Gaming While Female

Over the past few days, I've introduced Fiance (a gamer, like most of my friends and Others) to the hilarity that is Zero Punctuation. ZP is a video game review series, in videos where the narrator - Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw - talks reallyreallyfastasiftheresnopunctuation ("punctuation" apparently including spaces between words), illustrated by cartoons and little black monsters. ZP is known for heavy snark, sarcasm, ridicule, and general misanthropy. We watched reviews on Tomb Raider (good gods, the boob jokes!), Mirror's Edge, Sonic Unleashed, the GTA series, Prototype, and a few more. Now, ZP isn't perfect for a progressive to watch by any means. "Lame" gets used a fair bit, and Yahtzee is fond of gay jokes. But today we decided to look up his review of Sims 3...and wow, did all misogynistic hell break loose.



Transcript (punctuation added back for readability and irrelevant bits omitted in ...s):

Well, fuck. I really didn't want to end up in this position. The only reason I bought The Sims 3 - after dark and while no one was watching, obviously - was as an emergency fallback for when the summer games drought kicked in. I was hoping to have Ghostbusters by now, but I guess time makes fools of us all. Australian release times, to be precise.

...

I have to admit, I'm surprised that The Sims 3 even exists, considering that EA's usual policy of releasing a new fraction of a game every time the cocaine bucket runs dry seemed to be serving them perfectly well. [black monster with a bow on its head, denoting "female", sits in front of a computer with a bottle in hand] But I guess even Sims fans occasionally demand something more every now and again, when they're not drinking Bacardi Breezers and having periods. [blood shoots out from beneath the desk]

I know what you're thinking: "Yahtzee, you inappropriate menstruation joke, why the reluctance? The Sims is more popular than a chocolate cunnilingus machine [a row of monsters-with-bows carrying a lump of chocolate with a tongue marches by], and afterwards doesn't make you feel fat and ashamed! [one bloated-looking monster-with-bow lays next to the tongue, chocolate smeared around, seeming to cry] It's introduced millions of people to gaming and has made enough money to buy a lapdance for every depressive in the Western world!" [monster-with-bow wags its "ass" toward a cartoon emo dude] But this exercise assumed that you are the president of The Sims Fan Club.

Well, I could say that the majority of its audience are casual gamers, [a monster-with-bow standing next to a Bejeweled game screen pops up] pronouncing "casual gamers" the same way I pronounce the word "tapeworms", [a picture of a tapeworm pops up next to the m-w-b and Bejeweled screen] but that argument's a bit "no true Scotsman." Truly, my objection comes because what I am is a critic of games, not a critic of computer programs that you just fuck around in.

Ok, let's try to be professional about this. [in a mocking, girlish voice] "Oh, boy, The Sims 3! It's like The Sims 2 but plus another 1!"

...

I couldn't find any snooker tables or jacuzzis for my planned entertainment lounge, and there's very little variety of hairdos! Yes, my new vagina is growing quite nicely, thank you for asking.

...

But the most evil thing is the player. [arrow points to a monster-with-bow sitting in front of a computer, then shows a monster-with-bow dropping a cage over two tiny Sims] Trapping Sims, Truman-Show-style, to toy with their lives, not even for fun, but to indulge a twisted power fantasy [m-w-b starts boinking the Sims together in a manner to simulate sex] without having to go through all the trouble of birthing children of their own to abuse. [m-w-b runs toward a trio of miniature monsters pushing a lawnmower] So I guess what I'm saying is that all women are evil. Bewitching innocents with their insidious emotions and absorbing our manhoods into their rank, blood-streaked spam sandwiches. Who needs 'em? Incidentally, I'm still not gay.

So from this, we can learn:

1. The Sims is a game one should be ashamed of playing. Okay, fine, a lot of people feel that way. Whatever. Just personal opinion.

2. The Sims is only played by women. Also, the defining characteristics of women are drinking of girly drinks and bleeding! Or, no. Fiance plays Sims, so did my brother for awhile. And I happen to like rum-&-cokes and will do tequila shots with my friends; Ex-Boyfriend liked the "girly" drinks and the only alcohol I've ever seen Fiance drink was Smirnoff Ice (which is more or less the same as a Bacardi Breezer). So this means my ex and my fiance are women, and I'm a man. Right. Extra misogyny points for the contempt positively dripping from Yahtzee's voice as he refers to these Bacardi-Breezer-drinking-crotch-bleeding people.

3. Women love chocolate and cunnilingus, but it makes them fat and ashamed, as they well should be! Many women do like chocolate. Many women also like cunnilingus. However, chocolate doesn't make one fat, and there's no shame in eating it or in receiving oral sex. Besides, plenty of men like chocolate and oral sex, and you don't hear "fat and ashamed" jokes being made about that.

4. "Casual gamer" is code for "woman who thinks she's a gamer", and also those "casual gamers" are equivalent to tapeworms. If A=B and B=C, then women gamers are about as worthy of respect as tapeworms! Wow...just...fuck a whole bunch of that shit. I guess all I do as a woman gamer is play Bejeweled and The Sims, and that makes me as deserving of contempt as a tapeworm.

5. The Sims is not a game. It is just something to fuck around with. Therefore playing it is not a Gamer Activity. 'Scuse me, Mr. High Horse, can you come down and talk? Cause I'm reasonably certain that all your precious video games are also "just" programs to fuck around with. What makes The Sims less worthwhile than your fucking-around-programs? Oh, that's right. Because it's played by WOMEN. Who, remember, are like tapeworms. Of course you don't have to respect it.

6. Only women care about things like furnishing a house or hairstyles. Having a vagina is a prerequisite for this. A man loses Manliness Points if he cares about Woman Shit. Ah, gender stereotyping/reinforcement of prescribed gender roles. Always good to see you. Again.

7. Women. Are. Evil. I'm sorry, that last paragraph is just...words fail me. Sims are a substitute for giving birth to children purely to abuse them??? What in the..."blood-streaked spam sandwiches"? This is just the most egregiously gratuitous display of "EW GIRL COOTIES" I've seen in a damn long time.

Fuck you, Yahtzee and ZP. I really did love ZP reviews. Now all I can hear is "I'm a raging misogynist!" over and over again when you talk.

I'm Back!

'Ello again! Personal circumstances took a huge nom out of my life for a couple of months there - three breakups (including the 6-yr relationship with Boyfriend), one new relationship, an ex getting nasty about the new one, moving into a new place, getting engaged...oh, and I wouldn't even be alive save by the grace of whatever gods sent me Fiance, who with my mom's help kept me alive through the worst suicidal period I've ever had and nursed me back to sanity afterwards - but I am back to the blogosphere and ready to dive in once again.

Look for tomorrow's Wednesday WTF! It ruined my evening, so I'm getting revenge by blogging about it. ;-)

CA Passes Equal ID Act!

So it turns out California can still do SOME things right. (via) Our Legislature passed the Equal ID Act yesterday, providing a means for California-born transpeople (living in state or elsewhere) to use a court order gotten in the county of their birth to have their CA birth certificate reissued to reflect their gender accurately. With a 22-14 vote in the CA Senate, the bill now moves on to the Governator's desk. After his repeated vetoing of bills that would have legalized same-sex marriage that made it to his desk (Congratulations Vermont for being the first to do it the right way, but I'll always be bitter; it should have been us. Thanks for nothing, Governator.) I'm wary of trusting Schwarzefucker to do the right thing for our community. But we shall see.

But while we're at it, why don't we lean hard on the 14 "no" votes? Just because it passed, doesn't mean we should be complacent. Teaspoons ahoy! If you're a California voter, go here and click on "Your Senator" in the sidebar to go to an interactive district-finder.

Sam Aaenestad
Roy Ashburn
John J. Benoit
Dave Cogdill
Dave Cox
Jeff Denham
Robert D. Dutton
Tom Harman
Dennis Hollingsworth
Bob Huff
Abel Maldonado
Tony Strickland
Mimi Walters
Mark Wyland