Yeah! for you Brian! Straight people have to stand with Gay people to crush this stupid injustice. But it will happen. It's coming and they "the idiots" can't stop it!
Pardon the language, and please do remove this if it's more offensive than the intolerant bastards it's directed at, but:
FUCK. THIS. SHIT.
You know, California, for having the reputation of being all full of hippies and forward thinking liberals, you don't seem to understand that recycling does not mean shredding the Constitution.
This kind of thing makes me fear for my unborn child. On top of the fear, there is fury. RAGE. Since when do we do this? Who gave anyone the right to treat people this way? We are not supposed to do this! LAND OF THE FREE, MY ACHING ASS.
How in the hell are we supposed to protect our children from bigotry and hate, bias and cultural segregation when it is being woven into our courts, our *justice* system? How can they have done this? No one deserves love or happiness more than anyone else... This cannot stand. Jesus Christ, tell me it won't stand...
Amanda, I would temper your remarks to point out that 48% of voters in California rejected Prop 8 from the get go. While not a majority, that at least is a population well-deserving of exclusion from the anti-California vitriol. That said, feel free to proceed with the fucking of. this. shit.
Ha! Good one...this will come in handy next November when Maine will likely face a referrendum attempting to overturn the gay-marriage law recently passed.
Dear T, and everyone else hung up on the whole "sin vrs sinner" load of ass-crap:
You may dislike any sin you want, but they shouldn't prevent a couple from being married in the eyes of the LAW if not the church of their choosing. Being someones spouse allows you to be at their bedside while they die, even if their parents don't like you. It allows you to have your spouse covered by your healthy insurance, to make medical decisions for you in an emergency, and to decide what is done with your remains. No holy book or holy law gives married couples those basic rights, the state does, and the state should not be allowed to pick and choose who should be considered a "spouse". Period.
And furthermore, every cute, young, hetero couple walking down the aisle these days has committed an "abomination" or two, and will continue to do so. Don't be fooled by that adorable, hetero couple...so young and in love. They are SINNERS. Masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, sodomy, birth control, wacky sexual positions...you think they are only being practiced by "the Gays"? Hah. And that's all before they get to the scallops wrapped in bacon at the reception. I'm just flabbergasted that here in CT gay marriage is legal, but not in CA. Crazy. I'm so proud of my uptighty state right now I could spit.
@Tracey - I'm not throwing *all* Texans under the bus...just the intolerant, judgey ones. ANd certainly not you! I've definitely found good people here; it just takes awhile to find them. Fortunately, the judgey ones tend to give themselves away fairly easily.
@ T - no, actually, you can't love the sinner, but not the sin (at least not this particular "sin"). That's a great fiction that the christian types tell each other so they don't have to recognize their prejudices.
If you truly love me, then you want me to be happy, and you want me to have a productive, positive relationship with someone that I choose. If you truly love me, then you would understand that this cannot be a woman. And expressing this love in a committed, monogamous relationship ("sinning," as you so myopically put it) is a part of that, just as it is in your heterosexual relationship.
So nice try, but you are homophobic or at least heterosexist, whether you choose to believe that or not.
I honestly wonder if the court's hands were tied, legally. As in, "We couldn't strike down _this_ ban, but *hint hint* we had to uphold the ca. 18,000 extant SSMs in CA. Ahem."
That fact has to be a crack in the dam.
And I've read several places that the % of people -- like the 48% of Cali's that Brian mentioned above, who opposed Prop 8 from the get-go -- is an ever-increasing percentage of the general populace.
And seriously. Let's not broad-brush anyone: not Texans, Californians, Christians, atheists, gays, straights, Martians. Labels and commonalities may help you hone an understanding of an individual, but no one fits perfectly into any one mold. And that's kinda the point of any work aimed at promoting equality, to my mind - working to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity to define their own existence.
But if rights are granted, then isn't that sort of like saying we are "agreeing to the sin"? Why do we need to acquiesce to your belief structure when the true definition of tolerance up until recently meant embracing all people, but not all beliefs. If you reject my Christianity, are you not by your own definition being intolerant?
@too-seriously-minded: the problem with that logic is that the same court that in May 2008 recognized marriage as a fundamental right--and that's MARRIAGE, not domestic partnerships--in this case defined Proposition 8 as an amendment and not a revision because even though gays can't marry, they can have domestic partnerships, and that's not that big a deal.
You can't have it both ways. If marriage is a fundamental right as established by the court, then amending the constitution to strip that fundamental right is a revision.
@Vanessa: If that's the case, then why not create and enforce laws against other sins? How about prosecuting adulterers after their sin is used to justify the dissolution of a marriage?
We are not rejecting your Christianity. We are rejecting your right to force your Christian beliefs onto a secular legal framework. You can disagree with my relationships as much as you want--that's your business. But I do care when you tell me that your religion says that I can't have a legally recognized relationship with the consenting adult partner of my choice, and in Texas, that's exactly what's happened.
I hate the word tolerance. It implies there is some defect that needs tolerating. What if we used "respect" instead? Would the conversation sound different?
I also have to say, I am so proud of Iowa. I live in Minnesota, and I have even stopped telling Iowa jokes. I hope we catch up with you soon.
@CJ, agreed, but as far as my rights are concerned, I will settle for tolerance. The other citizens of my state (CA, sigh) don't have to respect me or like me or approve of what I do or agree with my religious views (which, T and Vanessa, are that love is a divine blessing no matter what the gender of the person one loves). They just have to leave me the hell alone.
Oh, and LD, if we succeed in passing the Secret Gay Agenda and can not only marry people of the same gender, but GOD ONLY KNOWS HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE/ANIMALS/INDUSTRIAL MACHINES, I want to marry you. And my cats, of course.
Amy: Brian SO wants to marry our cats. His rants against them are a sign that he can't come to grips with his real love for these cats. I really hadn't seen the larger agenda here.
Amy and I are already married, but after the Secret Gay Agenda is passed and we have TAKEN OVER AMERICA I think we should have a big group wedding -- me and Amy and you and The Dad and all of our cats, and probably our kids, too, because we all know that the Secret Gay Agenda has something to do with marrying children or maybe it's just molesting children. Anyone else want to join our group marriage?
But even after our we're married there's no way I'm babysitting those twins.
Yeah! for you Brian! Straight people have to stand with Gay people to crush this stupid injustice. But it will happen. It's coming and they "the idiots" can't stop it!
Posted by: Amy | May 26, 2009 at 07:26 PM
Pardon the language, and please do remove this if it's more offensive than the intolerant bastards it's directed at, but:
FUCK. THIS. SHIT.
You know, California, for having the reputation of being all full of hippies and forward thinking liberals, you don't seem to understand that recycling does not mean shredding the Constitution.
This kind of thing makes me fear for my unborn child. On top of the fear, there is fury. RAGE. Since when do we do this? Who gave anyone the right to treat people this way? We are not supposed to do this! LAND OF THE FREE, MY ACHING ASS.
How in the hell are we supposed to protect our children from bigotry and hate, bias and cultural segregation when it is being woven into our courts, our *justice* system? How can they have done this? No one deserves love or happiness more than anyone else... This cannot stand. Jesus Christ, tell me it won't stand...
Posted by: Amanda | May 26, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Honestly, we're not all like this in California. Morally bankrupt, that is. (fiscally bankrukpt, well yeah, pretty much).
Posted by: Taxmom | May 26, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Amanda, I would temper your remarks to point out that 48% of voters in California rejected Prop 8 from the get go. While not a majority, that at least is a population well-deserving of exclusion from the anti-California vitriol. That said, feel free to proceed with the fucking of. this. shit.
Posted by: Brian | May 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM
I second Julie's comment about xkcd. I didn't even do it consciously.
But Brian, what about the gay socialists? Isn't that like multiplying negatives, and they become EXTRA acceptable??
Posted by: LiteralDan | May 27, 2009 at 02:55 AM
Ha! Good one...this will come in handy next November when Maine will likely face a referrendum attempting to overturn the gay-marriage law recently passed.
Posted by: Andrea | May 27, 2009 at 09:09 AM
Dear T, and everyone else hung up on the whole "sin vrs sinner" load of ass-crap:
You may dislike any sin you want, but they shouldn't prevent a couple from being married in the eyes of the LAW if not the church of their choosing. Being someones spouse allows you to be at their bedside while they die, even if their parents don't like you. It allows you to have your spouse covered by your healthy insurance, to make medical decisions for you in an emergency, and to decide what is done with your remains. No holy book or holy law gives married couples those basic rights, the state does, and the state should not be allowed to pick and choose who should be considered a "spouse". Period.
And furthermore, every cute, young, hetero couple walking down the aisle these days has committed an "abomination" or two, and will continue to do so. Don't be fooled by that adorable, hetero couple...so young and in love. They are SINNERS. Masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, sodomy, birth control, wacky sexual positions...you think they are only being practiced by "the Gays"? Hah. And that's all before they get to the scallops wrapped in bacon at the reception. I'm just flabbergasted that here in CT gay marriage is legal, but not in CA. Crazy. I'm so proud of my uptighty state right now I could spit.
Posted by: Chickenpig | May 27, 2009 at 09:33 AM
On behalf of comics geeks everywhere - yes, including me - awesome use of Joe Palooka! (That is Joe Palooka, right?)
Posted by: Bonzodog | May 27, 2009 at 09:39 AM
Yep, Bonzodog. Good eye.
Posted by: Brian | May 27, 2009 at 09:44 AM
As a married Catholic, can I just say that I loved @Chickenpig's comment? I think that's as good an explaination for "T" and others of his/her ilk.
Calif. makes me sad. But Iowa is totally stepping up to the plate. I live in the WORST state for this issue: PA. Totally ashamed of it.
I hope we get it right as a country, and soon.
ciao,
rpm
Posted by: red pen mama | May 27, 2009 at 10:22 AM
@Tracey - I'm not throwing *all* Texans under the bus...just the intolerant, judgey ones. ANd certainly not you! I've definitely found good people here; it just takes awhile to find them. Fortunately, the judgey ones tend to give themselves away fairly easily.
Posted by: Katie in MA | May 27, 2009 at 11:25 AM
@ T - no, actually, you can't love the sinner, but not the sin (at least not this particular "sin"). That's a great fiction that the christian types tell each other so they don't have to recognize their prejudices.
If you truly love me, then you want me to be happy, and you want me to have a productive, positive relationship with someone that I choose. If you truly love me, then you would understand that this cannot be a woman. And expressing this love in a committed, monogamous relationship ("sinning," as you so myopically put it) is a part of that, just as it is in your heterosexual relationship.
So nice try, but you are homophobic or at least heterosexist, whether you choose to believe that or not.
Posted by: John | May 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM
I honestly wonder if the court's hands were tied, legally. As in, "We couldn't strike down _this_ ban, but *hint hint* we had to uphold the ca. 18,000 extant SSMs in CA. Ahem."
That fact has to be a crack in the dam.
And I've read several places that the % of people -- like the 48% of Cali's that Brian mentioned above, who opposed Prop 8 from the get-go -- is an ever-increasing percentage of the general populace.
And seriously. Let's not broad-brush anyone: not Texans, Californians, Christians, atheists, gays, straights, Martians. Labels and commonalities may help you hone an understanding of an individual, but no one fits perfectly into any one mold. And that's kinda the point of any work aimed at promoting equality, to my mind - working to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity to define their own existence.
Posted by: too-seriously-minded Na | May 27, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Absolutely dead on. Brilliant as usual.
Posted by: Bennie | May 27, 2009 at 04:24 PM
Oh, how I love this! In a manly but not necessarily gay way, of course.
Posted by: dadwhowrites | May 27, 2009 at 05:29 PM
But if rights are granted, then isn't that sort of like saying we are "agreeing to the sin"? Why do we need to acquiesce to your belief structure when the true definition of tolerance up until recently meant embracing all people, but not all beliefs. If you reject my Christianity, are you not by your own definition being intolerant?
Posted by: Vanessa | May 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM
@too-seriously-minded: the problem with that logic is that the same court that in May 2008 recognized marriage as a fundamental right--and that's MARRIAGE, not domestic partnerships--in this case defined Proposition 8 as an amendment and not a revision because even though gays can't marry, they can have domestic partnerships, and that's not that big a deal.
You can't have it both ways. If marriage is a fundamental right as established by the court, then amending the constitution to strip that fundamental right is a revision.
@Vanessa: If that's the case, then why not create and enforce laws against other sins? How about prosecuting adulterers after their sin is used to justify the dissolution of a marriage?
We are not rejecting your Christianity. We are rejecting your right to force your Christian beliefs onto a secular legal framework. You can disagree with my relationships as much as you want--that's your business. But I do care when you tell me that your religion says that I can't have a legally recognized relationship with the consenting adult partner of my choice, and in Texas, that's exactly what's happened.
Posted by: Stacia | May 27, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Especially the socialists.
Posted by: Sam | May 28, 2009 at 03:32 AM
I hate the word tolerance. It implies there is some defect that needs tolerating. What if we used "respect" instead? Would the conversation sound different?
I also have to say, I am so proud of Iowa. I live in Minnesota, and I have even stopped telling Iowa jokes. I hope we catch up with you soon.
Posted by: CJ | May 28, 2009 at 08:27 AM
Brian, perfect post.
Why should the religious views of some impose restrictions on one's right to marry the person of your choosing?
Posted by: Diane | May 28, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Another grand slam Brian. You certainly do have a way with words.... er, comics.
Posted by: Jen | May 28, 2009 at 12:07 PM
I agree with (almost) everyone else. This is a perfect post. Thank you, Brian, for putting your words where your heart is, again and again!
Posted by: Annz | May 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM
@CJ, agreed, but as far as my rights are concerned, I will settle for tolerance. The other citizens of my state (CA, sigh) don't have to respect me or like me or approve of what I do or agree with my religious views (which, T and Vanessa, are that love is a divine blessing no matter what the gender of the person one loves). They just have to leave me the hell alone.
Oh, and LD, if we succeed in passing the Secret Gay Agenda and can not only marry people of the same gender, but GOD ONLY KNOWS HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE/ANIMALS/INDUSTRIAL MACHINES, I want to marry you. And my cats, of course.
Posted by: Amy | May 28, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Amy: Brian SO wants to marry our cats. His rants against them are a sign that he can't come to grips with his real love for these cats. I really hadn't seen the larger agenda here.
Posted by: The Mom | May 28, 2009 at 03:13 PM
Dear The Mom:
Amy and I are already married, but after the Secret Gay Agenda is passed and we have TAKEN OVER AMERICA I think we should have a big group wedding -- me and Amy and you and The Dad and all of our cats, and probably our kids, too, because we all know that the Secret Gay Agenda has something to do with marrying children or maybe it's just molesting children. Anyone else want to join our group marriage?
But even after our we're married there's no way I'm babysitting those twins.
Posted by: Joy | May 28, 2009 at 03:32 PM