Proposition 8: I Told You So....

I sorta kinda hate to say it, but I told ya so.

Now that Proposition 8 passed (and Ken Starr of the Whitewater investigation which turned into an investigation into President Clinton's sex life has signed on to argue for upholding Proposition 8), supporters of Proposition 8 have filed a brief with the California court which seeks to have nullified all 18,000 or so same-sex marriages performed while they were legal. Remember what I said in my post about "Valid" marriages and fear? They're doin' it.

According to an Associated Press article titled "Calif. AG urges court to void gay marriage ban" published today:

The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

I seem to remember something about the Yes on 8 Campaign saying they don't want to take away rights. Fucking hypocrites.

Debt and the So-Called "Magic Words"

It's mildly amusing to me that the most popular page by far on this blog is "Kevin Trudeau's Two Magic Words". Soon, it will surpass the page loads of even the main blog page. That's all. It's just amusing to me....

Bryan Loses His Cool

The November 2008 election is over. And I've been declared a second-class citizen in three states not worthy of the same rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities of a straight person. And, in still another state, a less-qualified parent than no parent at all. All simply based on how I was born; I am a gay man.

The Yes on 8 Campaign waged a campaign based on deceit, outright lies, and fear. Even when presented with clear, logical reasons why the proposed "amendment" was badly written and fundamentally flawed, people still said they would vote to eliminate my right to have the same benefits and privileges as a straight person has.

Ironically, now same sex marriage will indeed be taught in schools but not in the health and sex education curriculum which parents have the full right (and, frankly, obligation) to exclude their children from shoudl they not want their children in sex ed. Gay marriage will now be taught in social science and history where they, as far as I know, do NOT have the right to exclude their children. Their oh-so-precious children will now be taught about gay marriage regardless.

In Arkansas, the voters decided that, simply because I am gay, I can not adopt nor be a foster parent to a child. How the FUCK do they think that denying their children a family helps the family? Exactly WHY is being gay such a horrible, awful thing that, "Oh my god! We can't have the children knowing about that!!!" Here's a newsflash; nearly ALL gay people were raised by straight people. And, to top it off, these are children nobody else wants; how does denying people who want to raise them help raise them!?

In Florida, I can't even have a domestic partnership. The voters decided that I should not be allowed even a "separate but equal" government-recognized union. How the HELL are these laws and so-called "amendments" even fucking constitutional!? There is absolutely no logical reason why a government should be denying rights to one group of people simply because of the way they were born.

I am not evil. I do not want to recruit your children. I am not less qualified to be a parent than no parent.

Fuck you, Supporters of these absurd bans!

Proposition 8: The Slippery Slope

I see a lot of the old, ridiculous arguments being brought up in favor of removing the rights of gay couples to marry. "Children need both parents", "It isn't natural", "I think it's gross", "What's next? People marrying their goats?", etc., etc., etc., ad naseum. So, if Proposition 8 passes (I don't think it will), I have a few other constitutional amendments I'd like to propose.

1. Only marriage between a fertile male and a fertile female is valid or recognized in California.
2. Once married, a child must be produced by a married couple within 4 years. Failure to do so results in a non-refundable child-free-fee of $1,500 paid to the State which doubles every 9 months the fertile couple remains childless.
3. Marriage is permanent and can not be revoked, annulled, dissolved, or otherwise canceled by any party at any time for any reason.
4. Eyeglasses are unnatural and shall be destroyed on sight.
   
5. Boogers are gross. It shall be a felony to knowingly or unknowingly display or cause to be displayed any booger at any time in any place for any reason.
   

Look, none of the fears of the Yes on 8 Campaign have come true in California. Not a single, solitary one. No church nor religious leader has been sued (successfully or unsuccessfully) for refusing to perform any marriage--much less a same-sex marriage--that they don't want to. Churches have been free to not marry anybody they so chose; the failure of Proposition 8 to pass will simply not change that.

I welcome your comments, as always.

Proposition 8: The Will of the People

A lot has been made of "The Will of the People" being overturned regarding Proposition 8 and 2000's Proposition 22.

Proposition 22 passed by 61.4% of the vote in California's 2000 presidential primary. It tried to add section 308.5 to the California Family Code. Section 308.5 was one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Careful readers will note that it's the same sentence proposed by Proposition 8.

As you may know, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that this law was a violation of the State's Constitution. Thereby giving rise to the oft-uttered "The courts overruled the will of the people!!!"

Here's the thing. Yes; the court did overrule the will of the people. Because, sometimes, the Will of the People is wrong.

It was the "Will of the People" to keep slavery legal in the South. It was the "Will of the People" to deny women the right to vote. It was the "Will of the People" to keep Blacks "Separate but Equal" for segregation. It was the "Will of the People" to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany.

The "Will of the People" can be wrong.

To think that the so-called "Will of the People" is always right is patently ridiculous.

Supporters of Proposition 8 frequently call the Justices who overturned Proposition 22 "activist liberal judges." What they don't tell you (or just plain don't know or outright lie about) is Proposition 22 was overturned by a Supreme court consisting of 7 justices; 6 of whom were appointed by Republicans. And, I'm sure I don't need to say that the current batch of Republicans is usually against allowing Same-Sex Marriage. So, to call these justices "liberal" is hypocritical at best and patently ignorant at worst. (To be fair, I haven't bothered to find out the Justices' decisions to find out their past opinion record.)

And, is being an "activist judge" so wrong? I'm pretty sure it was an "activist judge" who ruled that Segregation was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure it was an "activist judge" that ruled to give women the right to vote.

It appears that to be an "Activist Judge" all you have to do is make a decision that someone doesn't like. WHAMMO! You're an Activist Judge and you're EVIL! Unless, of course, you make a decision that someone agrees with; then you're a wise and learned judge.

I welcome your comments.

(I realize that comparing the rights of any two consenting adults to get married to the Holocaust is a bit extreme but that was the point. It speaks to the "Slippery Slope" arguments that are used to oppose same-sex marriage. "If we allow two women to marry each other, what's next? A man marrying his goldfish!!!????")

Proposition 8: Of Family and Email

Over the weekend, I got this message from a friend. I've posted it here with both his permission and his endorsement.

Hello,

Yes, not my traditional “howdy” or “what’s up?” or “how’re you?” but “hello”. I’m mad…hell, I’m furious!...and I’m going to do something about it!

Everyone receiving this email knows me personally. For some reason I consider you family or friend or somewhere in between. That includes a certain level of respect for each other and appreciation for our rights as human beings. It’s with this in mind that I write this email.

If anyone reading this email votes “yes” on Prop 8, then please do NOT EVER speak to me again!

Yes, I mean that!

I don’t care what my connection to you is, because if you support Prop 8, you are not welcome in my house or my life EVER again. Period. I don’t care why you vote that way, because in the final analysis it’s a vote that says I’m somehow inferior to you and not deserving of the same basic human rights and privileges you enjoy. That’s bigoted and discriminatory and I will NOT have ANYONE in my life that feels that way!

This is NOT a religious issue, because our country’s founding principles are a separation of Church and State. This is NOT a personal issue, because what I do with the man I love has NOTHING to do with you personally. This is NOT a social issue, as allowing me to form a publically-recognized committed-union with someone I want to spend my life with in NO WAY weakens your marriage. And if you think it does, then your marriage is a pretty crappy sham…

Don’t tell me to calm down, either! >8-(

How would you expect your Black friends to react to your affirmation of some KKK creed? How would your Jewish friends react to you denying the historicity of the Holocaust? How would your female friends respond to being told they are patently inferior and not deserving of equal rights?

THIS is the social movement of our times, no less important or controversial than the Woman’s Suffrage movements of the 1920s or the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. If you missed out on your chance to DO THE RIGHT THING in the past, then here’s your chance in the present! Support equal rights for all, not just those who look and pray the way you do.

VOTE NO on PROP 8!

And yes, I absolutely mean and will stand by EVERYTHING I’ve written here.

Hugs,
David

p.s. – if you want more info…believe me, I’ve a ton. This entire campaign is based on lies and intentional misinterpretations! No Church can be sued any more than it can today (i.e. the Catholic Church will be no more required to perform gay marriages than they are required to marry divorcees today). And comparing polygamous marriage or under-age or sibling marriage as anything related to gay marriage in this proposition is somewhere between an intentional disingenuine straw man argument and a bold-faced LIE. It’s like condemning all people of faith because some zealots blow up buildings…!

I've heard from David since he sent his message went out; his loving family is still voting Yes on Proposition 8. It's ridiculous beyond any measure how his family, who says they love David, still want to deny him and others the rights they themselves enjoy simply because of whom David may want to marry. And in the process cause the so-called loving ties to be severed.

Is "tradition" so strong, so engraved, so entrenched that it is worth alienating those who you say you love?

While I may not be prepared to sever ties with family and friends on this issue I definitely understand the depth of his emotion.

Please, vote no on Proposition 8 in California. Or, vote No on Arizona's Proposition 102 and Florida's Proposition 2.

Like with all these postings, I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: Of Field Trips and Indoctrination

The "Yes on 8" campaign has recently taken issue with a field trip taken by a San Francisco Public School First Grade class to City Hall. See their side of the story ( http://tinyurl.com/49ec7n ) for their take on it. (Sorry, you'll have to cut and paste it; I simply do not want to drive traffic to their site.)

What they do not tell you in that story is:

• The field trip was the idea of a students parent.
  
• Like all field trips, the students needed parental permission to go.
• Only two families opted out of the field trip.

The Yes on 8 campaign tries to tell you that your children will be "indoctrinated" into thinking that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage by such trips. That your children will be educated without your consent on the subject. And that's just a lie. Permission slips are required for field trips; parents can opt out of having their children included in the health discussions that would involve any discussion of marriage. Children aren't educated in a vacuum devoid of parental involvement.

(Why is "indoctrination" bad only when it isn't what you want indoctrinated?)

The Yes on 8 Campaign's Co-Manager, Frank Schubert, said "I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding." Of course they haven't. Heterosexual marriages are commonplace; there's nothing educational, remarkable or otherwise noteworthy in them. However, for the first time in California's history, same-sex couples are getting legally married. That is a very noteworthy occurrence regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter of marriage.

(According to the original story in the San Francisco Chronicle the students had a personal relationship with the person getting married! It's not like the school trotted the class off to just any marriage ceremony. It was, indeed, a teachable moment.)

In their ridiculously slanted "story" the Yes on 8 campaign trots out Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie "Rosie" Avila who says,

"Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will."

According to the California Secretary of State's webpage, Orange County (which is where Santa Ana is located) voted 60% for George W. Bush, Republican, in the 2004 General Election. San Francisco County voted 83% for John Kerry, Democrat. Clearly, Orange County is more conservative than San Francisco County. So, does the comparisons in school boards really hold up? I think not.

Surely, Ms. Avila knows that a field trip requires the parent's permission. And surely, she also knows that a parent can opt out

Asolutely nothing is preventing parents from taking an active role in the education of their children. Ms. Avila seems to ignore the facts and react only on her fears.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: "Valid" Marriages And Fear

If Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California") passes you can bet that there will be legal challenges to the legally performed same-sex marriages being currently performed in California. I'd wager that those challenges would take on the tone of:

"Well, it's in the constitution that your marriage isn't valid. So, the state should deny your benefits and privileges. I don't care if your marriage was performed in August 2008; the constitution says it isn't valid, so bugger off."

Though, I doubt they'd use the word "bugger".

Do you really want to have children dragged through the courts being told that the two people they call parents no longer have a valid marriage? Do you want children to have to be told in school that, yes, some same-sex marriages are legal but some aren't? Do you want to have to explain to your children the horrors of why same-sex marriage is illegal? Please. Think of the children.

Yes, I'm using a "fear" tactic to oppose Proposition 8; the same type of fear tactic that supporters use. I'm doing it to make a point. The "Yes on 8" seems to be solely based on fear; fear of what will happen to the children. However, they ignorantly don't realize that none of the fears they keep saying will happen are happening.

See, Gay Marriage is ALREADY LEGAL in California. And not ONE of the supposed "fears" the supporters bring up is happening.

Please, vote no on Proposition 8. It's for the children of this litigious society.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: The Mormons' Hypocrisy

The Mormon church, for some bizarre reason, is vehemently against governments giving the same rights and privileges offered to gay couples as are offered to straight couples. I'm, of course, referring to Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") here in California. (I have another post which details a number of difficulties with that seemingly simple sentence.)

However, the Mormons must have to do a number of strangely contorted mental gymnastics to get around what their own scripture says. Specifically, Doctrine and Covenants 134:9, which reads:

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

How is the Mormon's use of their buildings, satellite networks (also this page from the Mormon Times) in any way not mingling their "religious influence with civil government"?? And before you say that there are no churches that support gay marriage you might want to check what the Metropolitan Community Church or the Universal Unitarian churches say on the issue. Surely, there are other "religious societies" which support same-sex marriage, or Marriage Equality.

On the positive side of things, there are a (probably small) number of Mormons who oppose Proposition 8. People in this and similar groups (such as these reasonable folks) risk being excommunicated from, disfellowshipped from, or otherwise punished by the church for publicly going against their church leaders.

The Doctrine and Covenants may call it "mingling religious influence"; I call it a downright totalitarian abuse of power.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8 in California

Next month, voters of California will either attempt to write discrimination into the state Constitution or keep discrimination out of it. Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") I think it is badly written, ambiguous, divisive, and on the wrong side of history.

First, it's nearly impossible to legally define "man" and "woman". It can't be done by mere appearance; there are many masculine-appearing women and feminine-appearing men. It can't be defined by which sex one self-identifies with; what's to stop someone from saying they feel like a man just to get married to her lesbian partner? It can't be done by inspecting genitalia; there are many pre-operative transsexuals and there are many female impersonators who have implants to heighten the illusion as well as other concerns. It can't be defined by who can and can't bear children or who does or does not produce sperm; does a woman who's had a hysterectomy suddenly become male or does a man who's been castrated suddenly become female? And, finally, it can't be decided by looking at chromosomes; women born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome have XY chromosomes but in all other respects are female.

As a result, the proposed "amendment" is ambiguous in to whom it applies.

Besides, I can't think of *ANY* previous constitutional amendments that are specifically designed to *ELIMINATE* rights of a certain group.

Supporters of Prop 8 say that gay couples can have "domestic partnerships"; that's the same "separate but equal" argument used in segregation. There are many automatic rights and benefits granted by the government in a marriage but require a skilled lawyer for a domestic partnership--if they're even available to that domestic partnership. Separate is hardly *EVER* equal and it isn't in this case either.

Take, for example, the requirement that a domestic partnership requires the two people to live together. There is no such requirement for a marriage. And that's just one example.

Finally, Proposition 8 is on the "wrong side of history." Supporters claim that Proposition 8 only maintains "traditional" marriage. It was 'traditional' to deny women the right to vote. It was 'traditional' to keep slaves. It was 'traditional' to deny inter-racial marriage. Those traditions were wrong--they still are--and so is this 'tradition' of governments only offering certain benefits to heterosexual couples.

Prop 8 should be defeated. If they really want to "protect marriage" they should outlaw divorce.

I welcome your comments.

Kevin Trudeau's Two Magic Words

(This has become, by far, the single post popular post in any of my blogs or websites I've ever written. If you find the information here useful or amusing (or, anything, really) please feel free to leave a comment; I'd love to hear what y'all think. August 6, 2010)

A Review of Chapter 12 of Debt Cure$™ "They" Don't Want You to Know About.

If you've seen the infomercial for Kevin Trudeau's Debt Cure$™ book you're probably wondering what the "Two Magic Words" are. In the infomercial he claims that these Two Magic Words will clear up your credit almost overnight. If you're suspicious of such hyperbole, you should be.

First off, there aren't two magic words. There are eight of them. Or maybe six if you count an acronym as a word. So, right out of the proverbial starting gate, Mr. Trudeau has lied to you.

Discharged Debt

The first set of "magic" words are "Discharged Debt". How will using that with your creditor help clear your credit? Good question. But it only applies to those who (1) have declared bankruptcy, and (2) whose debts have been discharged by the court but not reported by the creditor to the credit agency.

Mr. Trudeau tells the story of one of his seemingly billions of friends, Dan Nolastname, who declared bankruptcy but never bothered to check his credit report after his debts were discharged by the court. the following year, he applied for a mortgage and, surprise, surprise, one of the debts hadn't been reported as discharged and was holding up the mortgage approval process. It seems to me that not checking your credit report (for free at www.annualcreditreport.com; do it now; I'll wait. ) after completing a bankruptcy proceeding would be about the smartest thing to do. And, who in their right mind would apply for such a big loan without first making sure the credit report was 100% accurate before hand?

"Dan Nolastname" paid the $9,500 debt he didn't owe just to get the mortgage going through. (He later sued the old creditor and got his $9,500 back as well as $14,000 in "fines and attorney fees".)

Regardless, this situation doesn't seem to me to be the fault of the creditor; it's Dan's fault for not making sure that all his discharged debt had been properly reported to the credit agencies. Due diligence, my friend; make sure there are no errors on your credit report. It's really that simple.

Identity Theft

The second set of "magic" words is "Identity Theft".

Mr. Trudeau tells an unprovable story of yet another among his seemingly billions of friends, Kurt. Kurt apparently had a $15,000 debt being reported by American Express to the credit agencies. Kurt apparently didn't have - and never had - any American Express account. Kurt then told "Customer Service", after having lawyers allegedly send letters saying the debt wasn't his, that he "must be the victim of identity theft."

And, "poof!", according to Kevin Trudeau, the debt was removed from the credit report. He never comes out and says that you should claim that any legitimate debt on your credit report isn't yours because of identity theft but why else include this section if it isn't at least implied. In fact, he says,

"If there is something on your credit report that is a total mystery, you need to tell the credit card company or the bank that it is just not yours! Two magic words = identity theft. You should be able to get immediate improvement!"

No admonition to check for why it's a "total mystery"; he just tells you that if you don't recognize it, you must have been the victim of identity theft! This seems to me to be nothing more than a thinly veiled suggestion that you claim identity theft on any debts you don't want to pay.

The Statute of Limitations

And the third set of "magic" words is "The SOL". What? He means "The Statute of Limitations". Which careful readers will note is actually four words.

If the Statute of Limitations is up on a debt, it can't be collected. (The Statute of Limitations varies from 3 years to 15 years depending on the type of debt and the state in which the debt agreement was entered.)

He appears to advocate just ignoring your debt until it just goes away. He says to call the debt "alleged" and to never admit (or pay a tiny amount of it) to anybody who calls or writes about it. And, while legal, it certainly isn't ethical. If you signed a contract to pay for something, it's your obligation to pay it.

Summary

The only real and good advice in all of Chapter 12 is "Stay on top of your affairs and you can head off problems a lot quicker." Surely, you don't need a 300+ page book to tell you that. Save your money; or borrow the book from the library like I did.

In my opinion, the best way to "get rid" of your debt is to pay it off. It's your ethical obligation to do so. Bankruptcy should be only used when severe unforeseen circumstances arise (death of a wage earner, etc.) which severely limit your ability to pay the debt you owe off. Above all, you should not enter into a debt contract if you know you don't have the means to pay it; that's lying and is utterly, completely wrong.

-----

For a review of the whole book, not just Chapter 12: Review of Kevin Trudeau's Debt Cures Book

Kevin Trudeau, in my opinion, offers absolutely nothing of value to anybody but himself. Ever. In anything he writes, says, does, thinks, or plans.

(While I'm not exactly sure what is trademarked (either "Debt Cures" or "Debt Cure$") it's owned by either Debt Cures, LLC (curiously, the copyright holder of the book) or Kevin Trudeau himself. Why set up an LLC? Well, it's a Limited Liability Company which, unless I'm wrong, means that the person or persons who set it up are not personally responsible for any of its debts or obligations. So, perhaps, another cure for your debt is to set up some sort of shell company, an LLC, and sink it into oblivion.)

On a related note: The FTC has banned Kevin Trudeau from Infomercials For Three Years, Ordered to Pay More Than $5 Million for False Claims About Weight-Loss Book.

September 14, 2010: On another related note: Judge Orders Kevin Trudeau to Pay More Than $37 Million for False Claims About Weight-Loss Book. Seems like Kevin can't keep his hands outta the cookie jar.

Gay Marriage in the United States

Mass. Senate votes to let out-of-state gays marry
(That's from the Associated Press. Since it will be available at that URL for only a month from today I'm going to post a few tiny excerpts to make my point. I believe this would be covered under the Fair Use copyright laws.)

Ok, enough of that on to why I'm writing about this.

I was REALLY hoping that California's recent legalization of gay marriage would have this sort of snow-ball effect across the country. Now, a discriminatory law that was rarely enforced in Massachusetts except for gay couples is about to be repealed.

Quoth the AP:

The state Senate voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state. The move to repeal the law, which prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states, is driven in part by California's recent legalization of same-sex marriage.

What I think is going to happen from here is that couples who travel to California or Massachusetts and get married will then travel back home and file suits to have their state recognize their marriage under the federal Full Faith and Credit Clause written into the United States' Constitution. It says that states should respect "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" made in other states. That means that if you're married in California, your marriage should be recognized by Oklahoma, Idaho, or even Florida. That's the way it is for heterosexual couples.

I predict a flurry of lawsuits being brought in the future. And, while I occasionally complain about the litigious society that is the US, in this case, perhaps that litigiousness will bring about some good.

Gay Marriage in California

Well, June 17th, 2008. All over the state of California men are getting married to each other and women are getting married to other women. Where is the great gnashing of teeth and opening caverns of Hell I was promised when this occurred? When will this country collapse and disappear off the face of the earth (allegedly) like every other society which has "embraced" homosexuality? Where are the great masses of "demeaned" marriages that we were told would inevitably follow same-sex marriage?

Turns out, it's rather quiet for a historic event. Strange... I guess the opposition doesn't much care to protest.

Gas Prices

Yeah, I'm jumping on the bandwagon... But not for the reason you might think.

Gas Prices are now over $4.00 a gallon in "many" parts of the US. (According to an AP news story today.) And, good ol' Prez Bush, The Sequel, recently said that he "hadn't heard" that gas prices were so high. What the FUCK does this asshole of a president do while he's only reading the headlines of the newspaper? Everything this guy says should immediately be inverted "I'm a uniter, not a divider", "[FEMA President Brown] is doing a heck-of-a-job!", "We aren't headed into a recession."

To top that off oil companies are making THE MOST MONEY THEY EVER HAVE! with these gas prices! What the HELL went on at that top-secret Energy Commission meeting back at the beginning of Shrub's Presidency??

Yes, I'm a little miffed. Ok, I'm downright peeved. And, with these prices around here being in the mid-three-dollar range, I don't go away from home very often. Hell, mowing the lawn is getting to be too expensive.