UA-9726592-1
Showing posts with label lesbian.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lesbian.. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Al Jazeera: Gay acceptance--GOP's Black Swan

 In Black Swan, Natalie Portman, a pristine and proper ballerina, must figure out how to go beyond her ability to dance the white swan in "Swan Lake." She must find the passion, a darker side if you will, to convincingly portray the seductress that is the black swan.

Of course, as she takes this leap, Portman's character is drawn deeper and deeper into a hallucinatory psychosis, unable to distinguish between reality and delusion.

In the film, Portman must become the Black Swan to play it, there is no middle ground where she can inhabit the character, but not the character's life - which causes her to lose all the self-control and discipline she has gained on stage as well as off.

Which would seem to work the same way as conservatism, at least with regard to social policy - as right wingers fear in their fevered and misfiring synapses that we'll all become black swans just like they would (and often still do), without authoritarian rigidity dictating every aspect of our personal lives.

In other words, much like in the film, in the conservative worldview there can also be no middle ground.

Either we all become Pat Robertson - you know, before the newfound love of the pot plant - or you know where things are headed. To quote the great Dr. Venkman from Ghostbusters, "human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!"

This same dance has played out with policies relating to birth control, divorce, religion in schools and a variety of other issues.

But most recently, it reared its Rovian head to spit venom on legislation that would make gay Americans equal to the rest of us under law and started a brawl among conservatives that is worthy of Camille and Kelsey Grammar.

The first of their two most recent Swan Lake moment happened during the vote in the recent lame-duck Congress to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

The Family Research Council, recently rewarded for all their hard work at being bigots with the designation of "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre, pulled some statistics out of a part of their body they're afraid to acknowledge to claim that "homosexual assault" would skyrocket if we let openly gay service members into our armed forces.

These happy - or gay if you will - protectors of our purity worried aloud about the "sleeping" and/or "intoxicated" victims of what would seem to be gay sexual Terminators not simply satisfied with converting foxholes into Liberace revivals, but forcing themselves on anyone and everyone within stone's throw of their tiaras.

The Family Research Council is an organisation, mind you, whose founder was outed not too long ago for having shopped for a European travelling companion at Rentboy.com.

He had a bad rotator cuff, you see, and naturally a gay escort site was the safe choice for a place to seek assistance for the strenuous task of porting his Sampsonites through the Old World.

Yes, you really can't make this stuff up.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Defense of Marriage Act declared unconstitutional

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit in an order Wednesday seems to have declared the half of DOMA that declares that a same-sex marriage cannot be a marriage under federal law or for purposes of granting federal benefits unconstitutional, a violation of the equal protection component of the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
 


In sum, to the extent that the application of DOMA serves to preclude the provision of health insurance coverage to a same-sex spouse of a legally married federal employee because of the employee's and his or her spouse's sex or sexual orientation, DOMA, as applied, contravenes the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.

That's about as flat a declaration of the unconstitutionality of that part of DOMA as one can expect to see come from a court. (Note that it places no reliance on the fact that the employee in question was an employee of a federal court, as opposed to of the federal government in general.

Rightardia is suprised that Ninth Amendment issues were not addressed in the ruling. The federal government has no constitutional basis for regulating marraige. We laugh when conservatives say they are strict constructionist and pass such a stupid law that has no chance of passing constitutional muster.

source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7054773

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 5288 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Powered by ScribeFire.