ravan: (Blog Against Theocracy - tengrain)
( May. 6th, 2009 01:27 pm)
Vermont, Iowa, DC, now Maine. Why is Californika so backward? Massive political propaganda efforts by the LDS and Catholic churches.

How do I get a ballot prop to shitcan Prop 8 on the ballot in 2010?? Something like:

"SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Equality Act."

SECTION 2. Change Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. All marriages between two consenting adults are equally valid and recognized in California. "

If this won't pass, then remove the word "marriage" from all California state laws and Constitution. If "marriage" is a religious institution to be "protected", then it has no business in US or State law, because of the First Amendment. If it's civil, then religious biases against it are moot.
Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

Of course, the H8ers will mobilize their religious drones and phone trees, and try to pass Prop H8 constitutional amendment there, too. The petty theocrats that prevailed (for now) in California will set their sights on Iowa, and start trying to write discrimination into that state's constitution, too.

The fact that people feel they need to dictate how others live and love still saddens me immensely.
ravan: by icons r us (flamethrower - from icons r us)
( Mar. 27th, 2009 10:52 pm)
An Elephant Disappears

Putting his stated itinerary together, he was at some airport between San Francisco and Toronto. I sincerely hope it wasn't SFO.

He also has some really arrogant, cynical trolls in the comments. The one called "Alexi" is just a real piece of work.
ravan: (451F)
( Mar. 2nd, 2009 09:24 am)
Why we are as screwed as we are:

The GOP has held the White House for 20 of the last 28 years, and hounded and harassed the last Democrat to hold it.
They had control of Congress from 1995 to 2006 - 11 years.

During this time they:
* Deregulated the markets further after the Reagan fantasy "Trickle Down" years (or "Tinkle Down", as I call it, because all those on the bottom get is pissed on.)
* "Reformed" bankruptcy (for individuals, not corporations) according to a credit company wish list (I guess we know who they really represent, huh.)
* Rubber stamped the Bush wars
* Further gutted the HUD and other housing agencies, replacing billions for housing with token millions for "homelessness".
* Hamstrung the EPA
* Cheese-pared NASA, leading to things like the Columbia disaster

Now, the axis of evil - Limbaugh, Coulter and Gingrich - want us to embrace the serpent's kiss again. True believers, they got theirs, and in true pyramid type fashion they tell us we can get ours too, just kill off "big government" (read government that spends its money inside the USA on other than no-bid war contracts).

I personally tend toward small-l libertarianism - that is, have the government a) not regulate private personal behavior, b) regulate fictitious people (corporations) because they have no ethics and too much power, c) spend our tax money on the common good (infrastructure, law enforcement, emergency services, health care), d) refuse to enforce religious crap and protect us from religious crap, e) protect our human rights, and f) mitigate natural disasters.

But the neo-cons and their bloviators would call me a socialist.

From them, I'll take the label, and wear it proudly.

If wanting to hold to account banks, insurance companies, oil companies and the other corporate parasites that have fed unrestricted on our society for the last 30 years is socialist? Fine, I'm socialist.

If believing that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness requires a lack of pain and inescapable debt from health insurance cheese paring, profiteering and inefficiency is socialist? Fine, I'm a socialist.

If wanting to make sure that affordable housing is available to all, including building more and maintaining it with government money, is socialist? Fine, I'm socialist.

If wanting to provide lifetime medical, dental, psychological and retirement benefits to those who have served in our country's military is socialist? Fine, I'm a socialist.

If wanting to enforce all 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights is socialist? Call me a socialist.

If believing that the will of the majority does not trump the basic rights of any minority is socialist? Call me a socialist.

If believing that we need to raise taxes, especially on those who make over $500,000 a year, to pay for the Republican spending spree and bailing out the aftermath of their deregulation and funny money frenzy is socialist? Call me a socialist.

But I prefer to think of it as "Realist" and "Humanitarian".

I make under $100 K a year. I still expect my taxes to go up. They went up under every Republican, because I don't have lobbyists to protect me, and they will go up again to pay for the fuckover the Republicans and their corporate masters have done to our nation.

The Republicans don't believe in small government - they believe in big government that benefits only big corporations and the rich. Small business, the middle class, and the poor are just fodder, slaves, and hosts for their economic parasitism and religious brainwashing. Anything else they say has proven to be lies.

The talking heads of the right are traitors to what makes America a free and desirable place to live.
OK, the economy is in the shitter. We know that. We also know that prison expenses are eating huge holes in the taxpayer pocketbook. Yet the major cause for people to end up in prison? Drug crimes.

Prohibition doesn't work. We learned that with alcohol prohibition. So why are the Republicans and some Democrats so wedded to the idea of (street) Drug Prohibition? Why are they acting like they're going to add tobacco to the list any day now?

Seriously, start legalization. It doesn't cause any more social ills than it does now - but they can be better addressed by tax revenues from the drugs. Penalties for driving under the influence of impairing substances (prescription, OTC, alcoholic or illicit) are already on the books. Tax it, regulate the quality, and take the huge profits away from the drug lords, pushers and gangs. Let them work and buy stock in the companies that produce the stuff safely and cheaply.

"But it's addictive!" the prohibitors whine. So? So is alcohol, cigarettes, painkillers (limbaugh pills) and a lot of other stuff. They're still legal, and addiction is a disease, not a crime. The tax revenues from their legal sale can be used to fund treatment, instead of paying for food, shelter, medical care, and very expensive guards for prisons without a matching revenue stream.

Start with marijuana. Legalizing and taxing it's sale would solve the California budget crisis rapidly, in two ways: 1) reduce incarceration expenses for victimless drug crimes, and 2) tax on the weed sold in this state. It would rapidly become California's biggest cash crop.

Then do any other state growable crops next: opium (the better grades would be available for pharmaceutical use), coca (not refined into cocaine) and unrefined ephedra. Again, addiction treatment would be more available, and concentration of the active ingredient would be kept naturally low so that overdose would be less likely.

After society gets used to the fact that your body is really your own, and what you do to it is fine as long as you don't harm anyone else, add the hard stuff, but make getting it a bit more involved. Want an LSD trip? Check in to a trip center for a week, and trained trip coaches with medical oversight will help you get the most out of your experience - for a price, of course.

Personally, this wouldn't affect me. I am mildly allergic to weed, and don't have time, money or inclination for the other stuff. But a guided LSD trip might be fun - it would be cheaper than flying overseas.

Anything that decriminalizes what people have done for thousands of years (engage in recreational substance ingestion) and brings in tax revenue, I'm all for. Hell, might as well legalize prostitution too - let the working girls and boys get health care and pay income taxes.

It's better than the stupid assed idea that I have heard of charging sales tax on rent!
ravan: (Blog Against Theocracy - tengrain)
( Feb. 6th, 2009 03:12 pm)
... to this post.

Go see, follow links.
How do gay marriages take away the rights of straights?? They don't. They aren't "special", they are equal!

You don't have to approve of someone's marriage to allow it - I certainly have not approved of some of the straight marriages I've seen. It still is none of my business.

The reason that gay people want the same rights as straights is because of the financial and legal advantages of "marriage": hospital visitation, joint tax filing, social security survivor benefits, right to adopt a spouse's children, etc.

The fact that religious institutions have claimed domain over these civil benefits is what makes this whole thing a mess. I would be perfectly happy to have all civil (legal, financial) benefits of "marriage" eliminated for everyone. Then the state would be out of the picture of marriage. All of the former benefits of civil marriage would then transfer to civil unions, for everyone, as those would be civil contracts between two individuals, with no religious involvement.

Separate out the religious and the civil matters, and the problem disappears.

This means, of course, that all marriages would be voided in a civil context. Anyone "married" in a church would need to go down to the courthouse, fill out the civil union paperwork, and have it witnessed and notarized. The tax code would also need to be changed, because giving special tax benefits to people based on a religious ceremony would be against the 1st Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

This "solution" lets everyone who wants the religious definitions of marriage within their creed to stand valid for their creed, but without denying civil benefits to anyone who does not share their creed.

Let "marriage" be religious, and then keep the state/government entirely out of it.
ravan: by icons r us (flamethrower - from icons r us)
( Nov. 5th, 2008 10:12 am)
From another friend:
I cannot see how I could be friends with someone who is interested in removing basic civil rights from a portion of the population that they happen not to like. A similar thing happened in Europe in the 30's and 40's. I don't see it as hypocrisy so much as self-protection.

And really, if any of you feel like you fit that category, please, bail the fuck out now. I'm not in anyway OK with having friends who think that denying people basic human civil rights is ever justified.

Agreed. If you voted for Prop 8, or any of its cousins, to ban gay marriage (or to "define" "marriage" as only between a man and a woman), you can take yourself the fuck off of my friends list.

I am not friends with people who vote to deny rights to other people based on something they can't change, and vote to enshrine bigotry, discrimination and hate in a constitution. While I won't come and troll in your journals, you are not welcome in mine.
1. Funding of campaigns for and against all California ballot initiatives shall be restricted to individuals and entities within California only.

2. Funding and promotion of campaigns for and against California ballot initiatives by religious organizations shall be prohibited, and those religious organizations that violate this shall lose their California tax-exempt status.

3. Amend the California constitution to read "Proposal and/or passage of any retroactive amendment shall not be accepted as part of this constitution."

4. Repeal Prop 8.

5. After all that is done, amend the California constitution to read "Amendment of the California constitution shall require a supermajority of 60% or more of all ballots cast. Amendments to the California constitution shall be presented to the voters twice, each time requiring a supermajority."

EDIT: California Initiative Guide - deep pockets have deep rights, I guess.
ravan: by Ravan (Default)
( Nov. 4th, 2008 11:34 pm)
From the LA Times:
Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.

"Mom, guess what I learned in school today?" a little girl said in one spot. "I learned how a prince married a prince."

As the girl's mother made a horrified face, a voice-over said: "Think it can't happen? It's already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8."

Many voters said they had been swayed by that message.

Amy Mora, a 26-year-old teacher, came with her mother to a polling place in Lynwood on Tuesday morning. She said she believes gay people have the right to marry one another. But she said she voted in favor of Proposition 8 because she does not believe students should be taught that gay marriage is acceptable.

Why?? Why?? If a prop wins on a lie, is it valid??

This bitch believes gays have the right to marry, but doesn't want kids to know it?? Wants kids to be taught instead that it's OK to write discrimination into a constitution by a simple majority vote??? Wants kids to learn that it's OK to deny people rights because they're different??
ravan: (Yes I Did)
( Nov. 4th, 2008 09:03 pm)
Obama will be President!!!

Prop 4 is 50/50 at 9 pm

Prop 8 is 54/46 at 9 pm

Nail biting time
A "No" vote on CA Proposition 8 will annul no marriages.

A "Yes" vote on CA Proposition 8 will annul over 10,000 marriages (many with kids.)

Which vote is REALLY "protecting marriage"?

(NOTE: Each and every single vote WILL count. There is no "electoral college" for referendums.)

By the way, did you know that the Mormon church, by direction of its leadership, is the major backer/funder of the Yes on 8 campaign? How do you feel about a bunch of people from one religion, based in out of state, telling Californians how to vote and live? It would be like the Pope funding laws banning condoms and birth control!

I finally heard a "No on 8" ad on the radio the other day. Finally.

A strict reading on Prop 8 would either a) annul all prior homosexual marriages in CA, or coming into CA, or b) remove recognition of marriage entirely from CA, in order to satisfy both the equality clause and Prop 8. Either is a disaster for a lot of people.
Please, see and read THIS. I don't feel that a vocal religiously motivated minority should take away or remove rights from anyone.

Proposition 8 is a mean-spirited, malicious, bigoted piece of garbage promulgated by people who are so insecure in their own sexuality, marriage or religion that they want to enshrine discrimination into the California Constitution.
ravan: by Ravan (Default)
( Sep. 2nd, 2008 02:42 pm)
So, Sarah Palin advocates teaching abstinence-only sex ed to teens, and apparently is what she taught her kids. It is little wonder, then, that her 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant, and will be marrying the boy and keeping the baby. Considering Mrs Palin's proud history with guns and hunting, I wonder how much choice either kid has in their life nowadays (shotgun wedding, anyone?)

They want this dominionist hypocrite to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, behind a 72 year old zombie.

I don't think so.

PS: check out some of the federal protest suppression around the RNC convention. You won't find it in the maistream news, of course.
Great. McCain's pick for a veep is a rabid anti-choice traitor to her gender. The broad disapproves of abortion even in cases of rape and incest, but is running around doing politics while she has 5 kids at home, one with special needs. She probably doesn't believe in birth control on demand, either.

Yeah, she's pro-gun. I guess that's so pregnant women who don't have any other option in her forced birth universe have a final friend for when they're carrying their father's or their rapist's "love child".

She's the political equivalent of Phyllis Schafly. It's so wrong that it hurts. She is associated with a lot of theocratic, dominionist organizations, too. Fucking wonderful. Her best features? Her features! She's a former "beauty queen"! It's the equivalent of saying "a woman in office must be just attractive window dressing and a compliant breeder." Just a pretty face wing-nut ditto-head!

Want to lose Roe v Wade? Want to move back to barefoot and pregnant or coat hangers? Want more forced and unwanted kids to populate the army or drive the prison industry to being the major employer in our nation? Consider a potential life more important than someone who is already here? Want to bring yet another (semi) stealth dominionist into power? Want the cross inserted into the US flag? Vote Republican.
ravan: (451F)
( Jul. 28th, 2008 09:46 am)
Ever loving canon-mouths like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh who blame "liberals" and liberal causes for ever problem in our society have managed to crank up another demented wingnut to the point of violence.

How long will people who believe in personal freedom and responsibility let the right wimg yammerheads blame "liberals" for stuff that is their doing? I am saddened by the loss of life and glad that it wasn't more. But I'm not surprised.
ravan: by Ravan (Default)
( Jul. 16th, 2008 09:34 am)
The fundamentalist lap-dogs in the Bush administration are at it again!

See this kick ass rant by [livejournal.com profile] naamah_darling for a better explosion of rage about this shit than I can come up with today.

I have a 12 year old niece, just hitting puberty. Her parents are religious reich dittoheads. If she gets raped or what not, or wants birth control, or needs an abortion, I will do anything necessary to see that she has the choice. My niece's life and health are more important than her parents fucked up religion.
ravan: (orange kitten gun)
( Jul. 9th, 2008 01:06 pm)
Equality California

Marriage Equality USA

Equality for All

If you live in California, Vote NO on Prop 8!
Today is the 220th birthday of the United States Constitution.

As we look with discomfort at the inroads that the last few administrations have made against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we all need to take a few minutes and actually *read* the thing - U.S. Constitution


ravan: by Ravan (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags