| I'm such a geek |
[Oct. 24th, 2006|08:25 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | pwned | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Sound effects | ] |
I carved a pumpkin for Halloween. Why World of Warcraft? Because I've wasted so much time playing it recently.
|
|
|
| Summer review |
[Apr. 10th, 2005|02:11 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  optimistic | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Peter Gabriel "Here Comes the Flood" | ] |
Get ready for a whole group of pro-gay legal decisions coming this summer:
Washington's gay rights bill is polling six-to-one by the public. So why is the bill two votes shorts of a majority in their senate?
California is on hold, but their anti-gay ban was struck down as unconstitutional. The issue progresses at a snail's pace through their legal system, and will have to go through a homophobic public vote.
New York is leaning towards supporting gay rights, however thin. Meanwhile, the issue is stalled in the courts.
Connecticut might approve civil unions... not quite gay marriage, but this is the first state to do so at the bidding of the legislature - without being ordered by the courts.
Oregon was supposed to legalize gay marriage this week, after a 90 day deadline, but that ruling seems to be ignored.
Maine has a gay rights bill now.
Canada will legalize gay marriage sometime before June.
What does all of this add up to? The unthinkable ten years ago - domestic partner benefits - seem to be the only safe and legal option the right wing has to avoid full-fledged marriage rights for homosexuals. Is that enough for the gay community? Of course not, and personally I'll keep fighting until we have equal protection under the law. But it's interesting to see the cracks in the wall... gay marriage is inevitable, and is only being held up by christian politics and hate. |
|
|
| But wait, there's more... |
[Dec. 9th, 2004|11:37 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | In pain | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "Hurt" Nine Inch Nails | ] |
Oh, it gets worse. The HRC has now selected slimy lobbyist Michael Berman as a board co-chair.
Now, I don't have a problem with a heterosexual man sitting on the board of directors for a gay and lesbian political organization. In fact the more straight religious and non-profit groups that support our cause the better. But, listen to this and tell me if it sounds like the guy just doesn't understand political gay activism:
"The feeling this weekend in Las Vegas was that we had to get beyond the political and return to the personal. We need to reintroduce ourselves to America with the stories of our lives."
What the hell? The "stories of our lives"? What is this, the damned Lifetime Network? I think that red-state Americans have heard have had ample opportunity to hear the stories of our lives on TV (Will & Grace, Queer As Folk), movies (Philadelphia), and plays (The Laramie Project), but they don't care. They don't want to hear those stories. They want us to go away. Or die. Preferably both.
Berman thinks that the HRC should concentrate to reaching out for Republican support:
“As an active political leader, I know how crucial Republican support is to achieving our goals. We must do a better job of not only reaching out beyond the GLBT community but also to our allies in the Republican Party. There can be no party line in the quest for equal rights.”
Yeah, that's gotten us really far in the past. Just look at the recent failures of the Log Cabin Republicans to even be recognized in their own party. Rev. Jerry Falwell said gay Republicans should just join the Democratic party, and nobody in the party objected. Face it, the Republicans don't like you, and they don't want you in their tent.
Meanwhile, the HRC press release says, "This choice sends a strong message that the fight for equality can unite all fair-minded Americans. As an ally to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, Mike Berman brings a unique and needed perspective to the Human Rights Campaign." Queer Day New's take is, "Funny, we never thought the straight perspective in America was all that unique. It abounds virtually everywhere, doesn't it? And while the whole straight but not narrow thing is cute, the disempowering message that we can't advocate for ourselves isn't."
My friend devldog agrees with me. He says, "I am too through with the whining and whinging of, 'too much, too soon.' It's a little late to sing that sad refrain now. The right to marry is where the so called 'movement' took us this year, and to back away from it now is tantamount to the worst excesses of flip-floppery. How touching. And how very typical of a cringing, bowing and scraping Democrat". So there. There's two of us that agree. How about you? |
|
|
| RIAA -> HRC |
[Dec. 9th, 2004|11:33 am] |
| [ | mood |
| |  pissed off | ] |
| [ | music |
| | MP3s illegally downloaded from Napster | ] |
What the hell is up with the Human Rights Campaign? First they fire the current president Cheryl Jacques in shady back-room dealings, and now they hire an old president's girlfriend to take her place.
If you hadn't heard, Hilary Rosen has been named the interim executive director of the HRC. This sucks because:
1) Hilary is the partner of former president Elizabeth Birch. So, Hilary received this high-paying important position due to cronyism. I bet they didn't even interview anyone else. Is Hilary qualified? We'll never know...
2) Hilary used to run the RIAA. Yeah, *that* Recording Industry Association of America. The one that's been suing ten-year-olds and grandmas for downloading songs. Under Rosen, the RIAA has been a luddite bully, ignoring the rights of artists in pursuit of more money for clueless record executives.
In short, Hilary is a shill, and this is a big black mark on the HRC. Feel free to write them and say you aren't supporting them until they hire a qualified activist board of directors that will suport our civil rights as human beings *now* - instead of playing silly power games and enjoying the priviledges of being Washington power elite. |
|
|
| A Leg To Stand On |
[Nov. 30th, 2004|03:21 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  depressed | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "People Are People" Depressed Mode | ] |
Gay marriage is not a popularity contest.
The issue will be fought in the courts - with several state challenges (pro and con) next year, and possibly a decision on DOMA in 2006.
The religious right wants to fight this battle with a public vote. At the very least, they think they will have more luck with the House and Senate, even though both bodies turned down the anti-gay marriage amendment earlier this year. So why do they think they have a chance now?
The reason is that people who against gay marriage don’t have a legal leg to stand on. When this issue comes before the Supreme Court, the usual experts will be called – constitutional lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, child specialists. And do you know what? They are all on our side.
The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics… hundreds of other organizations throughout America. In short, all major legal or medical professional groups in the United States think that homosexuality is perfectly normal.
So, I can picture the courtroom now. The gay marriage advocates describe their position: modern medicine says that some people are simply born gay, that gay people fall in love, and they should be provided the same legal protections that a straight couple would benefit from. And in the opposite corner?
Religion? Well, besides the fact that we’re talking about civil marriage and nobody is forcing and church to perform a gay marriage, there are hundreds of churches that support gay rights. Keeping in mind that religious schisms aren’t the business of the courts, any effort to frame this issue as a holy one will cause a worthless “my church against theirs” debate.
Another gambit is to try and picture gay marriage as hurting the nation. “We’ve got to protect the children,” was Anita Bryant’s homophobic mating call. Strange references to Scandinavian marriage rates declining after gay marriage was legalized will be offset by statistics saying that Northern Europe if fine after all, thanks. Bigoted think tanks will dredge up false studies saying a child needs a mother and a father, only to be refuted by more studies saying gay parents do a pretty good job. At the time this post was written, gay marriage has been allowed in Massachusetts for over a year, causing society no irreparable harm.
That leaves tradition. Tradition and the specter of “we’ve always done things this way”. Well, a force of habit doesn’t make good law. You have to give a little more cause in your defense. Anti-gay bigots can’t come up with hard numbers, because there aren’t any. They can’t cite authority, because they have none. All they can do is incite the emotional hatred from small-minded people… and that doesn’t support their court case.
It will be a shame if gay activists back off on the effort to legalize marriage for all, and settle for a lukewarm civil union instead. There is a reason homosexuals have won in in courts all over the country, from Hawaii to Texas to Oregon – there just isn’t a good legal case to be made to discriminate against a whole class of people. Unless Bush manages to add hatred into the constitution, the courts will resolve this the only way they can… by standing on expert testimony that homosexuality should be accepted and that gays should be allowed to marry. |
|
|
| I'm right! |
[Oct. 4th, 2004|11:39 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | testy | ] |
| [ | music |
| | The National Anthem | ] |
Glen Reynolds agrees with me on the court stripping thing:
Undermining 'Under God'
The House of Representatives just passed a bill that says: "No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance . . . or its recitation."
The theory, as I understand it, is to keep the federal courts from striking down the words "under God" in the Pledge. The Ninth Circuit federal court of appeals, of course, held in 2002 that the teacher-led recitation of those words in government-run schools violated the Establishment Clause, even when pupils were legally allowed to remain quiet if they preferred. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court set aside that decision, but on procedural grounds, without confronting the legal question.
The trouble is that the proposed law might have the perverse effect of jeopardizing the "under God" rather than preserving it. It's true that Congress probably has the constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts this way. Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution lets Congress limit the Supreme Court's power to hear appeals: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
"And Congress may also strip lower federal courts of jurisdiction because their jurisdiction and even their existence (see Article III, section 2, clause 1, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish") are defined by Congress in most cases. There's some controversy about this -- see this from my brother Sasha -- but my sense is that Congress may indeed strip federal courts of jurisdiction over certain cases.
But does it make sense for Congress to use its power this way? The Constitution is binding on all courts, state as well as federal (see Article VI, section 2). If people are worried that federal courts may hold that "under God" is unconstitutional, they should be equally worried about some state supreme courts doing the same. And even those state supreme courts that might not take this view on their own might feel moved by precedents from other states, since courts throughout the country tend to try to interpret the U.S. Constitution consistently with the decisions of other courts.
What's more, if a state supreme court does hold the "under God" unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, then there'll be no remedy (short of impeaching the state supreme court Justices). Amending the state constitution, which is a remedy for state supreme court decisions based on the state constitution -- such as the Goodridge same-sex marriage decision in the Massachusetts -- will do nothing to change the state court's interpretation of the U.S. constitution. And an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court won't be possible, because this proposed law would have stripped the Court of jurisdiction to hear the case.
True, the jurisdiction-stripping would at least confine the "under God" invalidations to those states where the supreme courts rendered such decisions. But my sense is that supporters of "under God" won't be wild about this result, where "under God" is allowed in some states but not in others -- especially since the alternative might be the Supreme Court's upholding "under God" on a nationwide basis. In fact, most commentators assume, based on the opinions and oral arguments in the earlier Pledge case, that if the Supreme Court faced the issue again (without the procedural problem that caused the Justices to dismiss the earlier case), they would uphold the words, rather than striking them down.
Now of course it's hard to predict what the Supreme Court would do, especially if John Kerry is elected and appoints more liberal Justices. (Liberal Justices are indeed more likely than conservative Justices to hold unconstitutional government references to religion.) But still, it seems to me more likely that the Court would uphold the "under God" rather than holding it unconstitutional. And the proposed law would thus end up protecting state court decisions that strike down the "under God" (which would now no longer be reversible by the U.S. Supreme Court) more than the proposed law would protect the "under God" itself.
Of course, it may well be that the bill's purpose is more to make a political statement, by highlighting the way liberal judges have interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit many kinds of religious references by the government. But voters who support such religious references should realize that, as a purely legal matter, the Bill may undermine "under God" instead of safeguarding it. |
|
|
| Court Stripping |
[Sep. 28th, 2004|03:21 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | petulant | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Blur "Boys & Girls" | ] |
An interesting new GOP strategy is "court stripping" - passing various laws in the legislature that limit the jurisdiction of the federal Supreme Court. September 23rd's "Pledge Protection Act of 2003" (H.R. 2028) bars all federal courts, including the U.S. supreme court, from hearing any cases dealing with the pledge of allegiance. It's perfectly allowable for the house and senate to do it, according to Article II in the constitution.
The pledge legislation has passed the house, but many doubt it will go anywhere in the senate. But similar court stripping has been passed by legislation in response to gay marriage (the "Marriage Protection Act" H.R. 3313 passed by the House on July 14, 2004) and Bush's ability to hold prisoners for an indefinite period of time violating habeas corpus without judicial review. However, there may be strange legal repercussions...
As an example, imagine that the "Marriage Protection Act" becomes law. Massachusetts is currently the *only* state in the US where gay couples can be married legally under the state law (at the moment... note that both grooms have to be Mass residents, and that they only get state and not federal rights - no filing joint taxes, for example). The proponents of H.R. 3313 are pleased that the couple can't bring a court case against the federal anti-gay DOMA legislation, and everything is fine for the right wing.
But as I understand it: enacting H.R. 3313 means that the *Massachusetts* courts get to vote on *federal* law. Surely that can't be right, can it? So, a single ruling in one state changes the way the U.S. Constitution is interpreted. Usually, state courts agree with each other, and since there would be no way to argue the case to the federal courts, gay marriage is eventually enacted nation-wide.
What made religious republicans think that this was a good idea? Likewise, only one state ruling against "In God We Trust" will need to be decided in order to remove the pledge at the federal level. This seems completely backwards to the aims of the court-strippers. Unless I'm reading it wrong, passing H.R. 3313 would be a huge success for gay marriage advocates and atheists. What a strange world the legal system is.
Groups against court stripping:
People for the American Way
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
Justice At Stake
ACLU |
|
|
| Lawyers, Guns, and Money.... |
[Aug. 27th, 2004|10:15 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | Sued | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Warren Zevon | ] |
So, I'm getting sued:
http://www.patrickkellogg.com/richardbowden/lawsuit.htm
By anti-gay "comedian" Richard Bowden. I guess he didn't like my insinuation that he is a closeted self-hating homosexual. It's ok if I criticize his music as being moronic, his humor non-existent, and his overall worth as a human to be "zero". But I can't dredge up hearsay from his friends and family.
Oh well. Again, please feel free to link to my site in order to boost my Yahoo ranking. I'm only doing this internet flame-war to try to spread awareness. Awareness that the guy's a complete homophobic asshole. |
|
|
| The Ballad Of Richard Bowden |
[Aug. 11th, 2004|03:37 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Pissed Off | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Unfunny filk | ] |
I started an on-line feud with unfunny homphobic "filk" singer Richard Bowden. So, in the tried-and-true method of guerrilla HTML coding, I came up with an "anti-fan" page. Check it out at:
http://www.patrickkellogg.com/richardbowden
There's a Photoshopped photo where Richard Bowden looks like an asshole, as well as sample lyrics ("Last night down at the disco my buttplug fell out on the floor" har dee har har) and a couple of ranting essays.
I'm not a fan of censorship, and the guy has a right to say whatever he wants. I just wish he wasn't so *miserable* at comedy. I mean, if he was actually humorous, a lot of his anti-gay stuff would seem clever (for example, see Larry the Cable Guy's early vs. later stuff, or the entire last season of Ellen DeGeneres's show... which forgot to be funny at all). A good joke can be as racist or sexist as it wants to be, if it makes you laugh. But if it's just bad comedy, then it's merely pointless and hateful.
But what Richard Bowden has to realize that if he simply spouts homophobic slurs ("...gays like attention. They have their own parades, they expect extra civil rights and generally like to be talked about in the media") then there is a price to be paid. He can't expect to be immune from the criticism from a web page that points out that he is a self-hating former homosexual. Yes, Richard used to suck dick and now makes fun of those who do. It's sad really...
So me a favor and link to my site from your website. Any reference at all will boost my Yahoo ranking and piss the guy off. And check for updates - the emails that Richard Bowden has sent me are *hilarious*! |
|
|
| Bad Precendent |
[Jul. 22nd, 2004|03:05 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Outraged | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "Hail To The Thief" Radiohead | ] |
"All bad precedents began as justifiable measures"
- Gaius Julius Caesar, quoted in "The Conspiracy of Catiline" by Sallust
House Resolution 3313 the "Marriage Protection Act" passed today with a voted of 233 for, 194 against. This bill would prohibit the Supreme Court from hearing any further issues about gay marriage.
Read that again, and think back to your junior high civics classes. The legislative branch is deciding what the supreme court can or can't discuss. If this measure passes the Senate next month, it sets a very scary precedent. In the extreme case, the House and Senate could limit the courts to hear *any* cases, effectively crippling one of the three branches of government.
Republicans that have any shred of civil libertarianism left should be furious. The rest of us aren't surprised at this Bush-led Republican religious fatwa. Conservative christians will do *anything* to harm homosexuals, including destroying the Constitution. We expect nothing less from them... |
|
|
| The Ballad of Richard Bowden |
[Feb. 25th, 2004|04:48 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Disgusted | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Bowden's "Fat Girl Fart" & "Midget With A Shrinking Problem" | ] |
I've never liked strident gay activists who swear that every homophobe is a closet gay. I think the issue of anti-gay hatred is more complex than thinking that every bigot is a self-loathing cross-dresser. On the other hand, there are some scientific studies that suggest so. And taking a peek at leading gay bashers Gary Bauer or Don Wildmon it's tempting to think that they are either really unfortunately-effeminate-looking straight men, or they have some scary skeletons in the closets they're hiding in.
So, I was willing to give anti-gay "comedian" Richard Bowden the benefit of the doubt and consider him straight. He specializes in "filk singing", switching the words to popular tunes like Weird Al Yankovic does. One of Bowden's songs on his recent CD "Big Bad Johnson" substitutes "Viagra" for "Elvira" in the oldie-moldy Statler Brothers song. ("Giddy up a oom poppa-mow mow, grandma's running away"... sheer comedic genius)
So, the guy's not very funny, unless you thing singing "Ghost Riders In The Sky" as "Fudge Packers In Disguise" is hilarious. Ok that one's slightly clever, if painfully bad rhyming. Other lyrics are pretty offensive to gays, even if they don't measure up to riling the Anti-Defamation League:
I'm tired of the gay life
Don't feel like (beeped out) dick no more
Yes I'm tired of the gay life
Gonna get my knees up off the floor
I got rug burns on my elbows
And my old (beeped out) is getting sore
When I was back in high school
I was on the football team
But I really wanted
Was to be homecoming queen
Then I left for college
But I never went to class
I just spent my weekends drinking
Shoving gerbils up my (beeped out)
Yes I'm tired of the gay life
Let's say I'm locking my back door
'Cause last night down at the disco
My buttplug fell out on the floor
Question to Richard: what's with the beeped words? Were you trying to sell this CD at Wal-Mart? Other tracks have swear words... were you hoping that this lead track would become a hit on redneck country radio stations?
There's a point to all of this. The connection here is that Richard Bowden is my boyfriend's childhood friend. And like most bored Texas youth, they sometimes... um... "played" together, if you know what I mean.
"Oh yeah," said Michael, "Richard was the one who taught me to suck dick." Though it was usually *Richard* doing the sucking. "He had a string of boys that he dated... now he's trying to cover something up."
In the liner notes of his new CD, Richard says, "One might notice that there are several songs contained herein that deal with the subject of gays. You may ask why? It is my understanding that gays like attention. They have their own parades, they expect extra civil rights and generally like to be talked about in the media. I'm trying to fulfill their wishes."
Well, here's some attention back atcha, you fucking self-hating fag. If you do a Google search, you'll see that this lonely entry is the only press your CD has ever gotten. Good luck with the humor thing. |
|
|
| Happy Valentine's Day! |
[Feb. 12th, 2004|04:03 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | hopeful | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Daft Punk "Daft Club" | ] |
I remember a former cow-irker of mine who whined endlessly about the tasks she had to accomplish before her yuppi-wedding, "Ohmigod Patrick! I still have to get someone to sit by the guest book, buy the hors d’oeuvres, and find the *perfect* corsage for my mother!"
I wanted to say back to her, "Well, all I have to do is win a surprise court decision, move to a different state, move *back* to Colorado, challenge the anti-gay laws at the state level, defeat DOMA at the *federal* level, and create a coherent set of laws at the supreme court. Oh, and buy flowers."
Things are moving a little more quickly after 10 years of waiting. Even if the recent anti-gay state constitutional amendment passes the Massachusetts legislature this week, the law wouldn't come into effect until November 2006 at the earliest. Even though the Republican Governor Mitt Romney has admitted he will try to delay certifying marriages on May 17th, I'd like to see him try to tie them up in red tape for two and a half years. By then, I'll be able to rent a sham apartment there and officially establish resindecy - if only for a few months.
Also, there's the funny twist today by the San Francisco courts issuing marriage certificates to gay couples as well as the fact that Marilyn "Manson" Musgrave's hate-filled amendment to the United States Constitution has no way in hell of ever passing three-fourths of the state legislatures, much less two-third of the House and Senate. I'm looking forward to the defeat of that amendment (if it even ever gets off the ground), which will be an embarassing mark on the neo-con movement, which will lead to the downfall of the Republican party in this November's election.
Conservative Christian Complainers (CCCs) state that all they want is for the public to be able to vote on the issue. Well, here's some news - civil rights don't get to be decided by popular opinion. Blacks and women weren't allowed to vote because they had the support of the majority. Massachusetts had several *months* of legal arguments leading up to this decision. I'm sorry if you weren't paying attention in 2002 when the court case was heard, or in 2003 when the decision was put off from March to November in order to allow the state legislature more time to prepare. The Massachusetts legislature had plenty of time to pass laws to rectify the problem, but the fact is, they ignored it. I have a sneaking feeling that they knew that gay marriage is inevitable, so they thought they would put up a meager fight.
The fact is, both sides were allowed to present legal arguments for and against gay marriage, and the Massachusetts supreme court found the anti side lacking. For gay support, we have all major medical and psychiatrical organizations, several churches, the model of gay marriages successfully in other countries, biological, moral, and philosophical arguments, as well as a growing body of law. The anti people have... well... a misreading of the bible. And a personal distaste for homosexuality. Sorry guys, but your bizarre whims and beliefs aren't persuasive enough in court. You lost, now suck it up.
But then again, I just want to get married to my partner of ten years, Michael Kessler. Until then, all we can share legally is a valentine. |
|
|
| I'm Married! (Well, Not *Really*...) |
[Jan. 10th, 2004|12:20 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Wed | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Billy Bragg | ] |
J. Michael Kessler and I got "civil unioned" yesterday. No wait, that sounds strange. Ok, we got "domestic partnered". Hmmm, that sounds just about as dumb. Suffice to say, we certainly didn't get *married*.
If you're interested, $25 in cash (no checks, no credit cards) and applying in person to the City Clerk of Denver will get you a "Certificate of Committed Partnership" that conveys so legal rights or responsibilities whatsoever.
It's a cute certificate. It even says, "We understand... that under the provisions of Ordinance 897, Series of 1999 does not alter the parties' contract or property rights under current Colorado state law and that in order to provide for inheritance and other property rights we will have to execute wills and other documents..."
How romantic.
Mike and I have been together for almost ten years now, so I think it's ok to wait a little while longer so that we can be married legally. You know, like Britney Spears, or the contestants on those Fox TV shows, "Bachelor Rapist" or "Who Wants To Screw My Dad?"
The good news is that Massachusetts has until May 17th 2004 to make marriage legal for all state residents regardless of sexual orientation; followed soon after by numerous legal battles, the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act, the re-election of George W. Bush, and lots of lawyers making lots of money. However, perhaps one day Michael and I can throw a true wedding and invite all of you, and I can become an honest man. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
patrickkellogg's journal