Thinning the Herd

Remember a couple days ago when I celebrated the bigots whose boycotts effectively remove them from the conversation? Well, there may be no god, but somewhere out there is an ultra-powerful Super Atheist who saw that post and deigned to have a piece of pure god-humper gold fall right into my comedy lap. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Trestin Meacham.

I’ve been in contact with Trestin Meacham, at some level or another, since probably 2009.   Trestin was a blogger, and has also run for political office, after his service in the US Military.  He is devout in his faith, and loyal to his country.

Yeah, sure, whatever. Get to the good part.

He contacted me yesterday to let me know that he was beginning a fast in support of traditional marriage.

AAAHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

A fast! A fucking fast! He hates gays so much, he’s boycotting food! Now we have indisputable proof that “devout in faith” really means “self-destructively imbecilic.”

Here is his commentary…After explaining the situation to my family, I have decided to pursue the following course of action. After my dinner tonight, I will begin a fast which will not end until all counties in Utah stop issuing marriage licenses and performing marriages for same sex couples.

Buh bye!

God, would I have loved to be a fly on the wall when he explained this idiocy to his family. “Hey, wife and kids, daddy’s gonna slowly waste away and die, leaving you traumatized and fatherless, in order to preserve traditional marriage. Fuck faggots!”

Due to the rogue judge refusing to issue a stay, this will likely take several days.

Or, it might just never happen. In which case, hey, one less bigot on planet Earth. Seems like a win-win to me.

I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home.

Couple of things:

1.) A hunger strike is doing nothing by definition.

2.) How exactly does this affect your home in any way, shape or form?

Some things in life are worth sacrificing one’s heath and even life if necessary.

Here’s the thing, Trestin. Hunger strikes only really work when anybody gives a shit about whether you live or die. Not just anybody can go on a hunger strike, and you certainly don’t fit the bill. Go ahead and kill yourself, bigot. The only people who will care are those misguided enough to be your friends or unfortunate enough to be your family. The rest of the world’s just gonna keep right on going as if you never fucking existed.

I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Never the less, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore.

Pretty sure they’re perfectly capable of ignoring you. But keep striking that martyr pose and painting yourself as the big fucking hero. That’s what this is all about in the end, isn’t it? Just a way for you to stroke your pathetic ego-cock.

I do not expect anyone to join me in a fast which has no end in sight, but if you wish to join me in a limited fast it would be a big help.

This is also known as the Litmus Test for Stupidity. But, please, bigots, join him! I certainly ain’t gonna stop you.

Trestin is making a stand.  At the very least, we can help him by raising awareness into the issue.   He is standing up to the PC lobby, and those that would silence and references to God’s truth about traditional marriage and morality.

God-humpers tend to be grammatically challenged, don’t they?

 

Sadly, I’m quite certain that Trestin has no intention of actually following through with this and starving himself to death. It’s just a big, ostentatious, self-congratulatory ego trip, and nothing more. He’ll wallow in the temporary infamy he gains from this, then quietly start eating again once everyone forgets about him and no one is watching. Fucking pathetic. And fucking typical.

Advertisements

Don’t let the facts get in your way

As soon as I saw the headline, I knew exactly how the religious right would react.

Utah polygamy ruling criticized

And I bet now that you’ve seen it, you do too. First, let’s look at just what this ruling is…

(CNN) – Some social conservatives are blasting Utah’s ruling striking down part of that state’s law banning polygamy.

The suit was brought by the stars of the television reality series “Sister Wives,” and a federal judge’s ruling Friday throws out the law’s section prohibiting “cohabitation,” saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

Got that? “Cohabitation”. As in living together. The law told consenting adults whom they can and can’t live with. Obviously unconstitutional. It remains illegal in Utah to obtain more than one valid marriage certificate, but the law can’t tell you whom you can live with, regardless of marital status.

Cue the froth.

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum – who a decade ago came under fire for comments indicating polygamy would become legal if courts banned anti-sodomy laws – responded to the ruling over the weekend.

“Sometimes I hate it when what I predict comes true,” the former U.S. senator tweeted Sunday.

Sometimes I hate it when Santorum opens his big fucking mouth. Actually, I hate that all of the time. The man is constitutionally incapable of uttering a single sentence that isn’t demonstrably false and/or idiotic and/or bigoted and/or ignorant and/or frothing.

The ruling didn’t legalize polygamy, idiot. It legalized cohabitation, which is something the government has no business meddling with in the first place. How would you like it if the government told you you couldn’t live with the one you loved?

The Family Research Council, led by prominent social conservative Tony
Perkins, also weighed the Utah statute, warning of “serious consequences
of redefining marriage.”

Tony Perkins is just not a human being. He’s a loosely organized collection of god-humper buzzwords with an automatic hair trigger. Did someone mention marriage in any capacity or context? REDEFINING MARRIAGE!

“Throughout history, marriage has been future-oriented, focused on the
next generation and the best interests of children. The reality is that
society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad,” Perkins said
Monday.

And these kids get a mom and a dad…and a mom and a mom and a mom. Just like in those good old Biblical days you claim to believe in so literally.

“However, redefining marriage to fulfill the desires of same-sex couples
or polygamists only moves society away from this vital public interest
and creates social chaos.”

Five hicks in Utah get to live in the same house. They’re still not legally married. The only thing that’s been redefined here is the meaning of “redefined” whenever Tony Perkins blubbers it out.

In striking down the section of the law Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups used a 2003 Supreme Court landmark gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that anti sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

During that Supreme Court ruling a decade ago, Santorum told the Associated Press that bans on sodomy would open the doors to a “right to polygamy” and other sexual acts.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in 2003.

If there were no right to adultery, then half the Republican Party would be in fucking prison.

But Waddoups’ ruling keeps in place the ban on bigamy “in the literal
sense – the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two
purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into
more than one purportedly legal marriage.”

Fuck off, facts! We’ve got a narrative to shill!

Some religious groups also criticized the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of this sentence? Is anyone OTHER than religious nuts criticizing it?

“This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and
sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother
and a father committed to each other for life,” said Russell Moore, of
the Southern Baptist Convention.

See how he weaseled that word “divorce” into his lie? This is the verbal equivalent of putting the Republican base in a jar and shaking it to make them fight. It’s all about stimulation, not information. Anyone with half a monkey brain knows that having children was never a requirement for people getting married. Childless marriages have never been illegal in this country. And even if that were the issue, it’s fucking irrelevant because the current case hasn’t altered the marriage laws in any way.

“Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated,
again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is
elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”

Sometimes it hurts women and children. If girls are forced into plural marriages against their will, that’s obviously harmful.

But that’s not an issue of polygamy. ONE forced marriage is bad. Multiple forced marriages are just more of the same bad.

Once again, the real issue here is the one thing that god-humpers refuse to acknowledge: CONSENT. The idea of a woman consenting of her own free will to pretty much anything is antithetical to the misogynistic beliefs that god-humpers desperately cling to. Women and girls can’t self determine. They can’t act and choose under their own power. They have to be sheltered and controlled. So protecting them from sexual predators becomes a matter of controlling other people’s private behavior, rather than punishing those who do things to them without their consent (which is the way it SHOULD be done).

Todays lesson: Every god-humper is a liar. And not everyone who claims to protect women and girls is a feminist.

Gay rights = Civil rights

Civil rights movements are always transgressive in their own time. They break social mores, challenge previously unquestioned biases, and root out traditional moral values to replace them with newer, more progressive ideals. This is true of the abolitionist movement to end slavery, the women’s suffrage movement and subsequent feminist/women’s lib movement, and the civil rights movement for African Americans. In their own day, the “right thinking” traditionalists denounced them as unchristian and anti-biblical. But eventually, they become the new status quo, and the new religious right has to find a way to distance themselves from what their intellectual forebears wrought. Despite the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention specifically formed to defend slavery, you won’t hear Baptists today bringing that talking point up very often.

This creates a problem for god-humpers. The most prominent civil rights movement today is the gay rights movement. God-humpers oppose it, because it involves people living their own lives uninfluenced by a 2,000 book of fables that they believe should control everyone and everything. But the gay rights movement is playing out very much like past civil rights movements–civil rights movements which the fundamentalists now pretend they supported all along (they didn’t).  In fact, the arguments for and against gay marriage in particular are extremely similar to the arguments for and against miscegenation in the first half of the 20th century. In both cases, it was argued that god separated the races/sexes because he never meant for them to marry. In both cases marriage between people of different races/same sexes were argued to be “unnatural”. In both cases it was argued that mixed race kids/children of gay parents would somehow suffer from their parents mixed race/same sex relationship. And in both cases these arguments are complete and utter horseshit. The Loving v. Virginia case of 1967 guaranteed the right to marry to all mixed race couples in all 50 states, and the gay marriage issue is progressing in a very similar fashion, except at a much faster rate. It’ll be legal in all 50 states in maybe 5 to 10 years or so, and even the staunchest opponents seem to realize this.

What to do? The god-humpers want to oppose gay marriage, but they also want to pretend that god-humpers never took the wrong side in the very similar fight over interracial marriage. Well, there’s no way to resolve the cognitive dissonance other than to pretend it’s not real at all. Gay rights has nothing in common with black civil rights! Why, because I SAY SO DAMN IT!

Last month, Pennsylvania’s attorney general refused to defend a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Her website argues: “The issue of same-sex marriage is squarely in the tradition of the struggle for civil rights in the U.S.” That comparison has significant implications for how same-sex marriage advocates treat marriage laws that they disagree with. It also deserves more scrutiny.

No, it really doesn’t. The Pennsylvania judge didn’t just pull that comparison out of her ass. It has been noted again and again by numerous observers of the movement, and has strong historical evidence to support it. Like I said, look up the ruling in the Loving case and read it. Replace the racial stuff with sexual orientation stuff, and it’s easy to see that we are having the exact same argument, just about a different minority.

As a grassroots supervisor for California’s Proposition 8, I was surprised to see numerous yard signs stolen, slashed and defaced. Those responsible were likely law-abiding citizens. Why the exception? Undoubtedly, many felt they were in hand-to-hand political combat against discrimination, hatred and bigotry.

“Grassroots”? Bullshit. Michael Erickson, the author of this garbage, got his law degree at Brigham Young University. So he is probably a Mormon. There was nothing grassroots about the Mormon church’s support for Prop. 8 in California. The church itself funded numerous political operations in hopes of influencing the voting public (something non-profit organizations are not supposed to do), and then lied about their involvement repeatedly, even after documents proving their financial involvement surfaced.

I don’t support vandalizing signs, but if the vandals (misguidedly) thought they were helping fight discrimination, hatred and bigotry, they were merely using the wrong methods to target the right group. Anyone who supported Prop. 8 supported discrimination, hatred and bigotry. That includes you, Mr. Erickson.

I will give him credit for at least recognizing that the people who defaced signage are probably otherwise good people, and will extend the same courtesy to him. I have no doubt that Mr. Erickson opposes any form of violence or vandalism against gays or gay rights supporters, which automatically makes him better than the entire Russian government and a healthy chunk of the Russian people on this issue. But the fact that he is humane in one area of human rights does not cancel out his bigotry in others. In the 1960s there were undoubtedly people who thought blacks should be treated equally….except when it comes to marriage. Mr. Erickson has taken a similar position on gays judging by the rest of his op-ed. It’s a lesser bigotry, but lesser bigotry is still bigotry.

It’s no secret that media coverage disproportionately favors same-sex marriage. A candid admission in the Washington Post explains why “(many journalists) see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing.” (What goes unsaid is that the most influential civil-rights leaders, “citing God and the Bible,” opposed discrimination and segregation on religious grounds.)

Actually, what most often goes unsaid is that in almost every civil rights conflict, the Bible is quoted to support BOTH sides of the issue. This is because the Bible is murky, muddled, contradictory, and irrelevant to modern life. It’s primed to be manipulated and read however the reader wants to read it. Every civil rights movement (including the gay movement) has religious people on both sides, quoting the same scripture to say the opposite thing. It’s almost like the Bible is bullshit or something!

Regrettably, some infamous groups spew anti-gay rhetoric that is hateful and indefensible. But far too often the media amplify these voices and conflate all religious opinion with this easily assailable straw man.

Comparing you to the yahoos at Westboro Baptist Church or the American Family Association would indeed be tearing down a straw man. But that doesn’t mean that your views are not hateful or indefensible. Lesser bigotries, as before.

As such, they entirely ignore, as a Deseret News editorial put it, our “morally complex and pluralistic world” (June 30). A world where some religious faiths that only endorse marriage between a man and a woman also support nondiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians. And a world where some gays and lesbians oppose same-sex marriage “citing a belief that children benefit most from opposite-sex parents.”

Those are both minority opinions. Sure they count to some extent, but they don’t represent either group. More importantly, yes, we do live in a morally complex and pluralistic world. But that’s exactly why religion is growing more and more irrelevant every day, and why more and more people are leaving their churches. Religions too often speak in absolutes, in black-and-white morality, in unquestioned divine authority, in faith unsupported by facts and evidence, in the primacy of tradition over a society that adapts to improve the lives of real people instead of please the whims of invisible imaginary people. Religion just doesn’t fit any more, and it is slowly dying as a result.

Unfortunately, the situation is unlikely to change unless this civil-rights comparison is scrutinized. Here are three differences that deserve attention:

Scrutinize it all you want. It will change nothing, because your starting position, the very beliefs you stand on, are what’s really wrong with your argument.

First, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were designed to promote white supremacy. That’s why a unanimous Supreme Court invalidated these laws for having “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination.” In sharp contrast as one gay-marriage advocate acknowledges, “Unlike racial segregation, to which anti-gay laws are often compared, the traditional restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was not designed, in and of itself, to denigrate or harm same-sex couples.”

“One gay marriage advocate said something stupid, so that makes the stupid thing true!”

When North Carolina outlawed gay marriage in 2012, do you think that had any purpose other than to reinforce straight privilege? Straight people get the benefits of marriage, gay people don’t. Therefore, privilege. Straight people get to visit their dying spouses in the hospital, gay people don’t get that privilege. The law was designed specifically to reserve certain privileges to straight couples and deny them to gays. To argue that it serves any other purpose is absurd.

As for “traditional marriage”, there’s no such thing. Racial segregation has a long and storied tradition as well, and not all forms of it were “designed” to reinforce privilege in one race. Many, like marriage, weren’t designed at all, but instead arose organically and only became enshrined in law later on. Regardless of whether opposite-sex marriage was ALWAYS designed to denigrate gays, there’s no questioning that RIGHT NOW it is. And that’s what matters.

Second, the Civil Rights movement, according to noted leader John Lewis, “was built upon deep-seated religious convictions” and, without such faith, “would have been like a bird without wings.” But it’s hard to imagine prominent gay-marriage advocates describing their movement as “built upon deep-seated religious convictions.” Indeed, it has often been hostile to religion.

To be sure, some of that hostility stems from perceived, and sometimes very real, denigration by some religious adherents. Nevertheless, the different roots of these movements appear to manifest sharply contrasting fruits. Compare, for example, the gospel-inspired Civil Rights anthem “We Shall Overcome” to the now popular mantra “Get on the right side of history!” Or compare the Christian perseverance evident in this preacher’s promise, “We will win you with the power of our capacity to endure,” with the conventional pride revealed in this politician’s bluster, “It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

The past civil rights movements also took place in a time when religion had more political strength than it does today. As I already mentioned, our society is going through a slow process of secularization, and religion’s power is waning. It should come as no surprise, then, that religion has less of a role to play in current issues.

This doesn’t change the fact that there are indeed many Christians who support gay rights. As I discussed above, this shouldn’t be surprising to anybody, because the Bible says only what the person quoting it wants it to say.

Third, whereas segregationists fought to preserve their social status and political power, many in the religious coalition for man-woman marriage seek, in the words of President Obama, “to preserve and strengthen families.” Although in favor of same-sex marriage now, even President Obama acknowledges that their “impulse” to strengthen families “is the right one.”

Bullshit. “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” was a constant refrain amongst segregationists. It was alleged, without evidence, that mixed race families would be unstable, that allowing interracial marriage would lead to black men raping white daughters, that mixed race children would not turn out as well as “pure” children. The gay marriage opponents make all the same unsupportable claims, saying children of gay parents will turn out bad, comparing gays to pedophiles, and insisting that only opposite sex marriages can be stable. Nothing has changed except the identity of the minority being denied its rights.

Notwithstanding these differences, discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation should be addressed. Marriage, however, is about more than civil rights for individuals. Marriage has profound implications for a historically vulnerable and underrepresented class of persons — children.

That’s what the opponents of interracial marriage said. They were wrong, and so are you. Their beliefs were based on superstitious misapprehensions of a minority, and so are yours. Because of white privilege, they couldn’t see (or wouldn’t see) how they were harming others. The same goes for you and your straight privilege.

In the fortieth year since Roe v. Wade, public opinion has settled on a middle ground that recognizes the concerns of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates — approving of abortion for threats to a mother’s health, rape, incest, and birth defects, but disapproving for elective birth control, selecting birth traits or avoiding parental responsibility.

If the public discussion on marriage is not prematurely curtailed, public opinion might yet arrive at a common ground that recognizes the dignity of gay and lesbian Americans while also preserving marriage between a man and a woman as the surest foundation for the future of children.

How would you like it if we found a “middle ground” when it comes to YOUR rights? You seem to be fine when the rights of gays and women are on the line, but what if we start curtailing yours because of “the children”? That sound good to you? Would you like it if the people took a vote on your marriage? Would you like it if we declared, based on no evidence, that Mormons make bad parents, and that therefore you can’t get married? Would that be okay with you? Would you feel that we were “respecting” your “dignity” if we prohibited you from visiting a dying spouse in the hospital just because we disagree with your faith/lifestyle, based on such stupid arguments? You can’t respect people’s dignity while denying them certain basic privileges which you reserve to yourself. So long as you insist on doing so, you are a bigot, and you are discriminating.

Oh, and the Mormon church didn’t allow blacks to be ministers until…what? 1975? 1976? Some time around then. But you’d rather we forgot all about that, wouldn’t you, Mr. Civil Rights Man?