The Right to Love

August 27th 2009 will mark the one year anniversary of the death of Dorothy Martin. Mrs Martin was a pioneer for lesbian rights, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the 1960s and 1970s across America. Dorothy Martin died two months after fulfilling the dream of her fifty year relationship with girlfriend Phyllis Lyon, by marrying in June 2008, in California. They should be commended for their work. Anti-discrimination laws, the right for a gay lady or gentleman to visit a loved one in hospital, work place regulations in support of gay rights, society as a whole owes both Lyon and Martin a great debt for their courage and their relentless fighting.
I cannot think of a more pro-marriage fight, than that put up by Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all allow same sex marriage. Vermont is soon to follow on September 1st 2009, and Maine will join that list of States on September 14th 2009. And whilst I welcome the right of the State to provide it’s own definition of marriage ahead of the Federal Government, I’d suggest further that it is the individual’s right to decide what is and isn’t acceptable. It is not the State’s legislature who decide the arrangement of love. If you do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, then simply don’t attend a gay wedding. Legally consenting couples, whether straight or gay have a right to express their love for each other via a ceremony of vows and commitment. It has the business of no one else. It does not impact your daily life. It does not undermine “traditional marriage” (a subject I shall come on to later).

The Defence Of Marriage Act is quite clearly anti-homosexual. I’m not entirely sure what Marriage needs defending from? It’s a thriving business as far as i’m aware. The Defence of Marriage Act, is simply a bigoted few, denying the rights of a section of society, that simply doesn’t conform to the narrow minded Republican view of what is decent and correct. It is indefensible that Congress simply assumes it has the moral authority to decide who should and shouldn’t be recognised as “married”. I’m unsure why same sex marriage is even a question any more, why it’s even debated. It is surely for the two people in any relationship, to decide if they want to take a vow of devotion or not? It is the jurisdiction of politicians on any side of the political divide to decide. As “rights” and as “freedom” goes, the freedom to fall in love and to commit to whomever you so wish, is one of the most basic rights any of us is entitled to, without being punished or alienated.

A rather vicious little group, ironically named “Alliance for Marriage” in 2001 announced it’s intention to create an Amendment to the Constitution that would have ultimately destroyed the right of homosexual couples to be married, whilst alienating them further, as they were sub human. The Amendment was referred to as “The Federal Marriage Amendment“. It would have meant that every State would be forced to recognise, the description of the FMA, which happened to be “SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” A nasty little piece of discriminatory legislation.

In short, the Amendment would have been a step backward, for diversity, tolerance, acceptance and difference. The homosexual community is not an alien race hell bent on destroying America. The homosexual community is no different to the heterosexual community, other than possessing a different preference when it comes to love. They are the Police officials who keep you safe, doctors who keep you alive, fire fighters who save you from burning to death, teachers who prepare your children for the future, they are the Oscar Wilde’s, and the Leonardo Da Vinci’s. It is simply a case of personal preference when it comes to love. Banning same sex marriage is as ridiculous a notion to me, as banning marriage between those with different coloured eyes or hair. It makes no sense. The Federal Marriage Act was a disgusting piece of legislation. The Federal Bigotry Act would have certainly been a more apt name. The Constitution is not a tool for discrimination.

Shockingly, Gallup reports that 40% of people asked, believe Homosexuality itself (not gay marriage) should not be legal. 40% of people asked would like to criminalise people, purely for being gay.

In order to pass into law, and become a Constitutional Amendment, the proposal had to attract the votes of two thirds of each House, and ratification by three fourths of the States. On July 18th 2006, a vote took place in the U.S House of Representatives, and failed by 236 yea to 187 nay votes. It needed 290 votes to pass the House. Whilst I welcome it’s failure, 236 yeas is slightly worrying, for perhaps the World’s most powerful and apparently “free” nation. The deeply held bigoted attitudes still in force.

The Constitution of the United States thankfully possesses the clause, Article IV, Section 1, which states quite unequivocally “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” States are required, by the Constitution, to recognise the marriage rights of those who were married in other States. George Bush, said at the time “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people“. A statement that is quite frankly regressive, and a product of the eight years of the Presidency of Bush – fear. Why is it “critical to American families and American society” that same sex marriage be banned? Given the past eight years, i’d suggest that letting Texans run for President is critical not just to American society, but Global society as a whole. George Bush would have decided that because he doesn’t approve of the relationship between Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon, that it is therefore “un-American” by the standards of the Constitutional Amendment, he shamefully backed. For the 21st Century, I cannot believe an Amendment was even discussed.

Ex Republican Congressman, Richard Curtis voted against banning discrimination against Homosexuals, he also voted against domestic partnerships for Homosexual couples. In 2007, Curtis (who is married and has two daughters, and is very very anti-gay rights) was forced to resign his position, because he was found to have dressed in women’s clothes, and had sex with a male gay porn model named Cody Castagna, in a hotel room, in Washington. A smile was brought to my face when I read this story.

It seems the American Right is unwilling to move forward. Although, that’s nothing new.

In 1924, the Virginia Legislature passed a law entitled “The Racial Integrity Act” which made interracial marriage illegal. The idea, was to kill off any It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving V Virginia, that the United States Supreme Court overturned the ruling, when interracial couple Mildred and Richard Loving were sentenced to a year in Jail, simply for marrying. They worked tirelessly to overturn the Racial Integrity Act and were successful in 1967. To us here in 2009, the entire idea of blocking interracial marriage, is abhorrent. The Judge presiding over the case of the Loving’s, which sentenced them to a year in Prison, is quoted as saying:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Religion. Of course it’s Religion. Whenever someone feels the need to discriminate, or impose bigoted judgements on others, they tend to use the Bible to help justify the unjustifiable. As with the Lovings case, the fundamental argument against same-sex marriage, comes from the frankly ridiculous religious notion that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, and nothing more. It sounds as if the Bible is strict and straight forward in it’s proposals on marriage. It simply isn’t. It is therefore perplexing as to why those with such deeply held Christian principles of the Religious Right, are wasting their time focusing on same sex marriage, when they should also be focusing on Biblical insistances they otherwise tend to pretend don’t exist?
1 Corinthians 11:8-9, which states “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” is pretty straight forward in suggesting that women should exist simple to serve men. Can I expect a “Role Of Women in Society Act“?
David is admired, by Christendom, and so perhaps those with such strong opinions against Gay marriage from a Religious stand point, could help introduce legislation to allow polygamy, because as 2 Samuel 5:13 quite clearly states, the role model that is David “…took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.“
I’m guessing it’s only a matter of time before those guardians of all that is moral and decent in the World, over at “Alliance for Marriage” really do themselves proud by truly sticking to what the Bible says of family life, especially in relation to Genesis 19:31-32, which says:
“One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
Only recently has marriage started to become more about love, than strengthening family ties. Nobles throughout 16th Century Europe would almost invoke Exodus 21:7, by “selling” their daughters into prominent Catholic families, to strengthen relations. A great example of this, would be of Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, who was set aside to marry Arthur Tudor, the son of Henry VII of England, purely to strengthen the claim of the Tudor’s to the throne of England due to Isabella’s Royal English ancestry. This wasn’t a match made out of love. Neither was Catherine’s subsequent marriage to Arthur’s brother Henry, who of course became the tyrant, Henry VIII. Love and marriage (whilst a fantastic Sinatra song) did not go together like “a horse and carriage“, until very very recently. “Tradition” is irrelevant.

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and damaging to society. No it isn’t. Religious intolerance though, now that’s damaging to society. Wars, death, torture, inability to accept the diversity of humanity, is so disastrously detrimental to the future of society, to blame homosexuality is pathetic at best and shockingly ignorant at worst. And surely it is not unnatural to disagree in principle with Aquinas’ teachings on the theory of Natural Law. It is surely unnatural though, to repress your desires and your very human needs, just to suit the narrow minded, homophobic views of a few bigoted individuals and their pretty damn evil God. Religion, is far more unnatural.

I’m not entirely sure that dogmatic Religious nonsense is to blame though. I’d suggest that homophobia comes is simply an illogical prejudice, and that the Bible is purely used to apply justification for such ridiculous prejudices. The Bible is nothing more than a tool to advance individual bigotry.

If the opponents of same-sex marriage could give me legitimate reasons why homosexual couples, in loving relationships, should not be allowed to marry, i’m more than willing to debate this with you.

Right Winged Extremism

So whilst Conservative America still hasn’t come to terms with the fact that it is no longer in control (of anything, including a grip on reality), the rest of us sit back and watch with joy as poll ratings show President Obama higher than any President in recorded history two months into their Presidency.

It would appear that Republicans across America have suddenly decided that they, and only they know how to deal with the economy. “More spending is wrong!!” they shout. As if they have had a change of heart, given that they twice empowered a President in George W Bush who spent billions of Dollars killing over 1,000,000 people in Iraq, whilst doubling the deficit in the process. They were okay with that. But suddenly, they’ve had a change of heart, bless them.

They’ve complained daily since January, about everything. From Obama not wearing a jacket in the Oval Office to Obama being some sort of warrior addicted to letting Cuban Communists take over the World (rather than rightfully hoping to lift failed sanctions that have contributed to Cuban misery for fifty years). Oh and not forgetting those Republicans who seem to have drank a bottle of “over dramatic juice” when they explode in a fit of blogging rage with statements such as “Barack Obama has declared WAR on the youngest members of our human family!” over at Rationshed (I can’t seem to find the blog where they defend the hundreds of thousands of dead children as a result of the Iraq War, perhaps i’m missing something).

I think I outlined Republican bitter misery beautifully in a previous blog, situated here. He’s pro-choice, Republicans refer to him as a murderer. He’s a democrat and not a Conservative, so Republicans label him a Socialist. He’s liberal, and so Republicans suggest he’s destroying the rights of men and women by being pro gay marriage. To sum up, they’re ridiculous people. And now, they’ve gone further into the realms of pathetic, with their attack on the recently published “Rightwing Extremism:Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” from the Department of Homeland Security. Now bare in mind the same Republicans didn’t seem to have a problem when Bush was spending billions of dollars on an unjust war leading to the unnecessary deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent people; that, they were fine with. But this latest publication, they seem to feel is an attack on their rights. They didn’t seem all that concerned when Bush was tapping phones of whomever he wished. The Conservatives have had no problem in labelling anyone who disagreed with Bush for the past eight years; a “commie” or “anti-American” or even worse an “extremist”, all the time referring to themselves and only themselves quite ridiculously as “patriots” and now suddenly the tables have turned, they cannot control their bitter rage. So, let’s examine what they appear to be angry at……

“This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.”
- Sounds reasonable to me. The transparency that “must” be present when domestic policy is to be influenced would never have existed in a Bush document.

“(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”
- This is true over here in the UK too. With recession, comes anti-immigration sentiment. Suddenly people start calling for protectionism, for immigrants to be sent home, and the British National Party is gaining such growing support that Labour’s Deputy Leader Harriet Harman even mentioned the BNP threat to the Independent. I can only imagine it would be a hell of a lot worse if our Prime Minister were black. And given that race relations in the UK are not even half as tense as the U.S, it’s no surprise that this has been included. Ridiculous White Supremacists, like a guy I have argued with on a Facebook group recently, he I can quote as saying…..
“It is an historical fact that every nation in the history of the world in which the White population mixed its gene pool with that of the lower races lost its civilization. While we do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race.”
….. it’s this kind of attitude that is monstrously dangerous within modern, civilised society and which leads to rational Centrists and Lefties having to fight.

“(U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.”
- Again, perfectly logical. They are fighting groups that may potentially contribute to acts of extreme violence.

Every item on the document I read, I found myself agreeing with, not understanding why any Conservative (unless they’re white supremacists recruiting easily influenced kids and planning some violent attack on government buildings) would have a problem with it? I’m certain they wouldn’t have complained if Bush had issued a similar document against Left Wing extremists. So I decided to search the Blogosphere for reasons that Conservatives have resulted to bitter online crying once again. Kelly Conaty MD.MBA.NFL.WWE.YOUCANDOITIFYOUBnQIT didn’t seem to want to highlight the part she disagreed with, choosing instead to appear to disagree with the entire document, and so seems to support white supremacists. She refers to the people villified in the document as “Patriots”. How very manipulative. I was hoping Right Winged America would stop using that word now that their eight year reign of terror is over. But apparently not.

Samsoldier goes one step further, and as he claims to (quite over dramatically seeped in ridiculous typical Right Winged hysteria) have become “imbued with a creeping feeling of dread” whilst reading the document, he marks out his issue with the document, which is on page two……

“The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
- Samsoldier interprets this passage in quite an odd and obscure way (but then, later he admits he’s a Christian, so obscure interpretation is his way of life)….

“Excuse me, but I am a returning military veteran. You have just told me that I am damaged goods”
- No they didn’t. That’s not what it said at all. They did not say “Military veterans are not to be trusted.” They were merely outlining potential threats, of which pissed off military veterans could on occasion, even the odd occasion (as they have in the past) certainly be part of that. It is worth preparing for every possibility.
“You are telling communities that I am dangerous and some sort of raging lunatic. “
- No they didn’t. Given that the document was leaked, it was supposed to be secret, and so communities were not supposed to be told anything. They merely stated that returning military personnel could be a threat, now that’s not all of you. I know Republicans like to make sweeping judgements about gays, atheists and anyone with a slightly darker skin complexion, but this document did not make any sweeping judgement.
” Now you are inciting the nation to treat me with suspicion and fear. “
- No they’re not. That’s almost ingenious a suggestion as when Christians say “Are you saying somewhere along the line my granny fucked a chimp?”. It isn’t what was said, it was your obscure reading of a perfectly legitimate document. What if a returning Veteran shoots someone tomorrow because he’s finding it difficult to reintergrate? What if there is another Timothy McVeigh lurking in the darkness? What if he explodes a bomb killing thousands, wouldn’t you want to know that there were precautions in place just in case the worst were to happen? The document is not saying that all military personnel returning from duty are fearless killing lunatics, it’s saying that the odd one or two may pose a threat. And so surely it’s only right that the Department of Homeland Security, the very machine which exists to secure the Homeland from ANY potential threat, do just that? I’m pretty sure most Republicans wouldn’t have a problem with a similar document that stated Muslims may pose a threat.

Other bloggers, such as Michelle Malkin appear to have ignored the content of the document itself, and just decided to invent their own document to comment on. Michelle says…. “The piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives.”
-Yes, yes it is…….. that is if Conservative America consists of white supremacists hell bent on destroying government buildings.

Another major bone of contention is…
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
- And yet, it makes perfect sense. Firstly, it’s a side note, it’s explaining right winged in terms of the asterix present in the phrase “domestic rightwing* terrorists“….and so, logic tells me that it isn’t stating that you shouldn’t believe in local authority over federal authority, as the ridiculously named “Nobama” blog claims it to mean. It is merely suggesting that if you have Right Winged beliefs, and you intend to cause terror in the name of those Right Winged beliefs, then you’re an extremist. I would have thought that is pretty self explanatory. It isn’t stating that Jefferson is an extremist because although Jefferson may have been pro-state, he did not condone acts of terror to achieve that goal. The document is not anti-Jefferson (like the rather naive CSBurks suggests in a fit of melodramatic idiocy). The document is anti-Bomb-strapped-Jefferson.
The word “rejecting” makes this particularly clear to me. If you suddenly decide to stop paying taxes, reject all federal laws, start plotting a revolution based on splitting up the Union, then you’re an extremist. The dictionary defines “reject” as “refuse to accept or acknowledge” and so yes, if you refuse to acknowledge or accept federal authority, i’d say you’re an extremist. Rejection is different from disagreeing with. But why should I have to explain that, when the report itself explains it here…
“(U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

So having said all of this, bloggers like Generic rant, Cdat 88, Nukegingrich (whose point, I can’t decipher especially when he appears to claim that the document is suggesting that all heterosexuals are considered extremists) and every other Republican blogger who now identify themselves as “extremist” by their interpretation of the Homeland Security Document…… which by my interpretation, is merely all of the right winged angry bloggers merely agreeing that they’re white supremacists who intend of rejecting all federal authority and instigating attacks on government buildings.

It appears to be just another Republican bitter attack on a President far more popular than any one the Republicans could have put forward to run the country. A few days ago, they were all complaining that Obama bowed to the Saudi King Abdullah, that he “embarrassed” America rather than a show of respect and decency not heard of over the past eight years of bombs and secrecy. Obama bowed to the King out of respect. George Bush metaphorically masturbated the Saudis for eight long years, but that doesn’t seem to bother Republicans. Instead, they waited for the black guy to do it, and then insisted that he must be a Muslim. You couldn’t make this shit up.

Does anyone take Republicans seriously any more? Do Conservatives really matter nowadays? Or are they all just hypocritical, bitter, ignorant little people left over from the past eight years of bully tactics, hysteria and fear? Where were these outcries from Republicans when Rush Limbaugh said “I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” Limbaugh suggests an entire race of people are inherently violent and that slavery wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, and Republicans cannot wait to defend this overweight, uneducated, bigoted, repugnant turd. But when the tables have turned, they cry out in mass hysteria. It’s so hypocritical, it’s almost amusing.

One thing is for sure, every time a Republican whinges like a bitter child throwing a tantrum in a store, it goes to show that Obama must be doing something right. It makes me proud to be Liberal.

The hypocrisy of Freedom

It’s become wildly hypocritical; It’s largely based on out dated tradition; It’s horribly fickle; and it has no coherence or general moral standing. I’m speaking of course, about the Republican idea of “Freedom“. Freedom appears to only apply when it suits Republican America. Republican Freedom is a skewed, manipulated form of the ideals of American Freedom in general. For example, and i’ve spoke about this one before; The Freedom to own a gun whether you’re merely a law abiding huntsman, or whether you’re a 21 year old with an enraged grudge against class mates and teachers; you’re protected by a 2nd Amendment that clearly didn’t expect to be the subject of debate. Although i’m certain Jefferson and Franklin didn’t propose that anyone should be allowed to keep an arsenal of sub machine guns; that the words “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be ignored. If I were President, i’d make bullets ten times more expensive than they are now, tax them massively. But what do I know.

Freedom is etched into the American way of thinking. Since the very beginning, the fight that America has undertook has been one dedicated to freeing it’s people from tyranny. “We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal” cries the Declaration of Independence. There is no mistaking that Thomas Jefferson composed a beautifully written document when he drafted the Declaration. Of course, it hasn’t troubled America that the term “all men are created equal” written at a time when even Jefferson had over 150 slaves of which many received regular beatings may have been slightly ironic. And so the hypocrisy of American Freedom was born. Frederick Douglas speaking in 1852 managed to reconcile America Freedom and the abolition of Slavery quite beautifully. “That which is inhuman cannot be divine.“

In 2009, Republicans appear to take that general level of “Freedom Hypocrisy” to a new level. Freedom today, appears to apply only to economic freedom, for those who already have a significant amount of money. Bloggers like Free America appear to be under the impression that Obama and Pelosi are systematically working to purposely destroy America with their pesky much needed Liberal policies, despite the fact that over the past eight years America has been involved in an unjust illegal war leading to the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent people; displacement of a further 4.5 million and 5 million orphaned children. Hurricane Katrina striking New Orleans saw the end of the lives of over 1,800 people whilst 80% of the City was flooded, which lead to further deaths of many people who merely couldn’t get to food or shelter because the Republican Government’s response was pathetic at best and ignorantly genocidal at worst. Then of course, you have the worst economic crises in ….well…. ever. When Clinton left the White House, he left a budget surplus of over $230bn. Eight years later, eight years of Republican Government, and America is in the mist of an economic crises. Of course, Republicans like to suggest that Clinton’s surplus was inherited from the Reagan tax cuts. Fine. But then, surely they must admit that Obama therefore inherited a miserable legacy that it will take more than two months to correct. I swear, Obama was in the White House less than a day before Republicans started blaming him.

Anyway, back to “freedom”. Whilst the word itself connotes the ultimate in human existence, it isn’t quite as black and white in Republican America. It suits Republican America to ascribe Freedom to economics. To pay as little in the way of taxation as possible. Whilst a child may inherit a few million dollars, another may be unlucky enough to be one of the 35 million Americans who inherit nothing but the dilapidated and forgotten poverty stricken lifestyles encouraged by poor educational standards and lack of health care, that the Republican Americans are quick to suggest is some sort of perfect system choosing to ignore that “all men are created equally” when it suits them. To this day, at 23 years old, i’m struggling to understand how a system that allows the poverty line for children under 18 to increase from 12.1 million, to 12.9 million between 2001 and 2003; yet at the same time allows those earning over $1,000,000 see their taxes drop with the Bush Tax Cuts, as the mark of a great economic system…. it quite clearly isn’t. I repeat Douglas’ sentiment “That which is inhuman cannot be divine.” Ignoring the plight of those in poverty or dismissing them as “lazy“, whilst simultaneously choosing to ignore the problem of Climate Change despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary – purely because it might affect their “freedom” to exploit resources for business opportunity, is not real “freedom“.

Freedom to claim that universal healthcare, is some evil socialist manifestation that never works, whilst ignoring that you have universal policing and universal fire protection – just adds to the hypocrisy of “freedom” that Republican America only clings to when it threatens them, regardless of the fact that it may actually help other people. A legacy of “self before others” left by Thatcher and Reagan. Forgive me for not buying into it.

I’m not too sure why Republicans chose to draw the line on personal freedom, at the right for Homosexuals to get married. All of a sudden Republicans have decided that Gay people are sexually immoral devils, promiscuous by nature, AIDs ridden, unable to keep a relationship going, and a danger to children. As if that only exists in the homosexual community. They chose often to quote Leviticus 18:22; “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” As proof that God hates gays and so gays shouldn’t marry. They fail however to acknowledge that if we’re to take the Old Testament into consideration when debating such issues, we must conclude that Leviticus 11:8 with regard to pig skin, stating: “Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you” should mean that anyone who plays American Football, is doomed to hell, a long with gay people. But of course not, because in true Republican fashion, Leviticus 11:8 doesn’t appeal to them because it threatens their life style, and so they pick and chose which areas of the Bible appeal to their prejudices already.

Of course, whilst talking Christianity, it isn’t difficult to come to the conclusion that if God truly did support the Republicans, as ex Senator Norm Coleman suggested, when he told Mike Gallagher; “God wants me to serve“, then you can bet that Jesus would have charged a fortune for all those free EVIL SOCIALIST miracles he supposedly performed.

When you come to the conclusion that Republicans only appear to support ideas like “Freedom” and Religious belief when it suits their prejudices, you have to take a look at the “Pro-life” lobby. “Pro Life” only seems to appeal to Republicans when someone is set to have an abortion. When the Country is destroying a Nation and killing over 1,000,000 of it’s citizens, Republicans don’t seem all that concerned. When stem cell research could lead to the scientists providing mankind with a better understanding of complex cell division, which in turn could lead to life saving treatments and cures…. real pro-life investments….. Republicans tend to oppose it. Minority Leader John Boehner even went so far as to suggest that embryonic stem cells are American lives too, rather than cells. He suggested that Obama lifting the ban on federal funding for Stem Cell research, he had “rolled back important protections for innocent life”. It’s nice to see that Boehner has such deep concern over cells, yet doesn’t seem too fussed about the loss of American military lives, when he stated in 2007 that dead U.S Troops was a “small price” to pay to win the war in Iraq.

The concept of freedom is interestingly two toned, when you contrast the U.S obsession with the word, and how the U.S works across the World, especially with Nations that it disagrees with philosophically.
According to a speech made by Dan Griswold, to Rice University in Houston, in 2005…. “If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.“
The underlying fact is that whilst America seeks “freedom” (in this case, freedom means the right of American businesses to take over the resources and land of as much of the foreign World as possible) across the World based on it’s own flawed values, it will attempt to achieve it by any means necessary, which explains the disastrous war in Iraq and the inhumane embargo against Cuba. As shown in my last blog, America’s economic dominance may not continue for that much longer, given that Iran have already ceased trading oil in U.S dollars with Russia looking likely to follow.

Economic “freedom” in the guise of pure Capitalism, is not to be considered in the same area as Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to assemble peacefully. Those are the inalienable rights built into the Declaration of Independence, not the idea that over 12 million children below the poverty line who will never benefit from the resources available to the 5% of top earners who own more than 50% of the entire Wealth of the Nation, as being true “freedom”.

American Freedom, whilst a lovely idea, is horribly flawed, ignorant, racist, inhumane, discriminatory, religiously bias, hypocritical, manipulative, and has been twisted into the skewed mess that Republican America holds so dear today. The idea that “all men are created equal” is a sentiment long lost. If you’re gay, want an abortion, demand action on climate change, or support stem cell research……. freedom doesn’t seem to extend as far as you. Sorry.