Gay Day in California

Today Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage.

You can read the entire 138 page ruling on Scribd. Ultimately, the judge concluded the following:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The constitutional obligations refer to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibit state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without the process and proceedings of the courts of justice. For example, taking away somebody's right to marry.

Coincidentally, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution also has that Citizenship Clause we've been hearing so much about lately. Some congressman (Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, I'm looking at you) are hyperventilating over "anchor babies" and are radically suggesting that birthright citizenship is a mistake and that the Amendment should be transformed or even repealed. This would of course create a permanent underclass of immigrant workers... exactly what the Fourteenth was designed to prevent!

At one point in history, Republicans viewed passage of this Amendment as an accomplishment. However, 144 years later, they're having second thoughts.

But hey, if they can repeal it now, they can re-institute slavery and block same-sex marriage all in one move! And though I don't like conspiracy theories, I wouldn't doubt that these are the exact intentions of some members of the Republican party.

Anyway, if you want a same-sex marriage in California, you better do it before they overturn the overturn.

Traditional Divorce

(image via Miami Herald)

I've always felt that if Republicans were serious about defending marriage, then they would outlaw divorce. The consequences of divorce have been studied for decades. On the other hand, the consequences of gay marriage don't seem so daunting.

It's no secret that Republicans are hypocrites on this issue, but when Karl Rove (the man who used fear-mongering on same-sex marriage to turn around elections and pass bans) asks for privacy after obtaining a divorce under Texas' "no fault" divorce law, I have to say "No! You can't have your privacy!" You want to be the pious judge over the marriages of other people? You want to be the defender of marriage? Did your traditional wedding vows say anything about "til death do us part"? Then no, I don't think you deserve any privacy.

Maybe Rove can rebrand himself as the Champion of Traditional Divorce.

Oh, Pat!

Nobody -- absolutely nobody -- should ever take Pat Robertson seriously. So try not to laugh too hard as you watch this video where Pat responds to Maine's marriage equality law saying, "You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent":




Of course, Pat's argument is the classic "slippery slope" fallacy. Pat offers no justifications or legal precedents showing how marriage equality will lead to legalizing bestiality or that other sick crap he was dreaming about.

But here's what I really find funny. Gay marriage opponents are always mentioning their favorite story about the woman in India who married a snake. However, homosexuality is illegal in India. So, by Pat's logic, it must be the ban on gay marriage that leads to these bizarre unions!

Oh, Pat! I sense that you're trying your hardest to equate homosexuality with child molestation, but the facts don't support your fear-mongering. In fact, despite what certain fake plumbers think, America is slowly moving toward a more tolerant view of homosexuality. Maybe the Republican party should try to progress with the rest of us?

Subprime Marriages

'You loser!" screamed Katie, aiming a vase at her husband. "You've destroyed my life,'' she continued, hurling it. "Just look at my hair, look at my nails! You loser, you jerk, you nobody."

I don't feel sorry for the rich men and their gold-digging wives described in this recent Telegraph UK article. Both sides are selfish and materialistic: the women who marry men for money and then leave them when the property portfolios shrink, and the stupid shallow men who want trophy wives and can't recognize real love. Maybe they deserve each other.

Whether these stories of toxic wives are a real trend or not, I think the super-wealthy are deserving of some kind of comeuppance. These are the people who enabled the current financial crisis. Using Citigroup as one example, the New York Times exposes how some of these millionaire bankers either had no idea what they were selling or took no responsibility for it:

According to a former Citigroup executive, Mr. Prince started putting pressure on Mr. Maheras and others to increase earnings in the bank’s trading operations, particularly in the creation of collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — securities that packaged mortgages and other forms of debt into bundles for resale to investors.

Because C.D.O.’s included so many forms of bundled debt, gauging their risk was particularly tricky; some parts of the bundle could be sound, while others were vulnerable to default.

“Chuck Prince going down to the corporate investment bank in late 2002 was the start of that process,” a former Citigroup executive said of the bank’s big C.D.O. push. “Chuck was totally new to the job. He didn’t know a C.D.O. from a grocery list, so he looked for someone for advice and support. That person was Rubin. And Rubin had always been an advocate of being more aggressive in the capital markets arena. He would say, ‘You have to take more risk if you want to earn more.’ ”

It appeared to be a good time for building up Citigroup’s C.D.O. business. As the housing market around the country took flight, the C.D.O. market also grew apace as more and more mortgages were pooled together into newfangled securities.

Of course, it wasn't impossible to predict the meltdown. Meredith Whitney, an obscure analyst of financial firms for Oppenheimer Securities, understood the mismanagement of Citigroup and predicted the company would go bust:

From that moment, Whitney became E.F. Hutton: When she spoke, people listened. Her message was clear. If you want to know what these Wall Street firms are really worth, take a hard look at the crappy assets they bought with huge sums of ­borrowed money, and imagine what they’d fetch in a fire sale. The vast assemblages of highly paid people inside the firms were essentially worth nothing. For better than a year now, Whitney has responded to the claims by bankers and brokers that they had put their problems behind them with this write-down or that capital raise with a claim of her own: You’re wrong. You’re still not facing up to how badly you have mismanaged your business.

Pair these idiot bankers with the regulators who destroyed regulations, and you have one big dysfunctional relationship which is, sadly, a very real trend. Although I'd personally prefer the cathartic act of smashing a vase across their skulls, we are instead expected to bail them out.

About The Human Heart

I've been terribly sick with a cold for two days, and I've spent many hours in bed. However, the urge to blog is stronger than shivers, sweats and sneezes.

I'm going to let Keith Olbermann provide the heart of this post for me. Here are his special comments on California's Proposition 8 (if video doesn't show, click here):



On a lighter note, this guy who I've never heard of before wants you to know that his only serious concern about gays getting married is that they'll "register someplace pricey."

True Story

In the summer of 2006, my brother decided to leave his wife of 11 years for a girl he met in the Philippines. I'm not sure exactly how he met the girl. He either met her online or through another friend in the Philippines.

Anyway, my brother was "in love" with the girl. I will call her Liz. There was a bit of a problem getting Liz into the US though. The family said that the father made a little mistake on her birth certificate. Instead of listing her birth year as 1982, he put it down as 1987. That would have made her 19 at the time, which I guess would have been legal but she was suppose to be 24.

My brother is in his mid 50's, by the way, and has been married four times.

The birth certificate problem delayed getting Liz into the country. Meanwhile, my brother made several trips to visit her, bringing her family all kinds of gifts -- clothes, dishes, toys. He bought Liz a motor bike so she could get to and from work safely. He also bought her family some property.

Meanwhile, Liz is promising that she will take care of him. She will cook, clean, go to nursing school, and have children with him. She also planned to bring her 11 year old sister to the US.

Eventually the birth certificate problem was fixed. They bribed a priest to provide a baptism record which can be used in place of a birth certificate in their country. So in the summer of 2007, it seemed that she would finally be coming to the US. She went to the hospital to get some vaccinations she needed. Well, the family says she had an allergic reaction to something. She ended up in critical condition in the hospital, and she needed a blood transfusion. I have no doubt that my brother sent the money for the blood transfusion.

Then, we were told that she recovered and was fine.

At the end of September 2007, my brother flew to the Philippines to pick up Liz, get some final paperwork taken care of, and then bring her back to the US. The trip was suppose to take about two weeks.

He came back after one week without Liz. He said that when he arrived in the Philippines, he was met at the airport by Liz's older sister. The sister, who I will call "Jane Fonda" because (no joke) that is her real fucking name, said that Liz was not the same person any more. She said that after the illness, Liz had sustained brain damage, and that it would not be possible for my brother to marry her now. So he went to see her. He saw that she was not the same person, so he said his final good-byes and came home.

He called our mother to tell her what had happened. Our whole family felt bad. Even though we felt it was a scam all along, we knew (or thought we knew) that he was in love with her. We were worried that he might even be suicidal.

But a few days later, his daughter (who is an adult) emailed me to say "don't worry about my dad, he has already moved on to somebody else. It does not matter if it is one girl or another. He just wants somebody to be with."

Here is the kicker: The girl that he has moved on to is Liz's older sister (aka Jane Fonda). I feel like the story is starting all over from the beginning. He is now concentrating on getting Jane over to the US. He will visit her this Christmas and no doubt bring gifts for the entire family.

My family is in disbelief. Nobody wants to tell him he's a fool. He's an adult. He can make his own mistakes. He doesn't ask our family for money, so it's his own business. But we realize that this Philippine family is juicing him for all he's worth.

The above story is basically what I posted to the Craig's List rants section last November. A couple of people replied sharing similar stories. I'm not even sure what I'm asking for by posting this. I'm trying to make sense out of a situation that concerns me. I can't honestly say that I'm upset -- I'm just uneasy over this.

The latest development came last week. My brother flew to Bahrain to spend time with Jane. Why meet in Bahrain? All I've been told is that Jane has a friend there. But still, Bahrain? Bahrain might be one of the more liberal countries in the middle east, but does an American really want to be there right now? Unless you work for an oil company, why would you want to be there? It was definitely unwise to travel there during the 5th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Unwise. Every move seems unwise.

Is there a cure for his obsession? I guess he does not want to be cured.