I don’t know about you…

…but for me, today has been all about the schadenfreude.

Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 7.08.37 PM

In Texas, news is that Rick Perry has thrown a petulant snit over last night’s trouncing of SB5, and has called for a new special session on July 2, to try to ram the law through again. Everyone should consider that anti-choicers absolutely took note of what took place at the state capitol last night, and will doubtless be mustering their troops to put in a heavy presence on the 2nd. I anticipate an epic, Game of Thrones-scale battle.


  1. says

    Ah and a hearty high five goes to Martin–gotta love it! Amazing too how the biggest flag waving, so called patriots are always the MAIN ONES trying to ramrod their out dated ideas down everyone’s throats when they are felled by the democratic process. Another fantastic example of how religion poisons minds.

  2. says

    Indeed, in all its facets, including those I am may not personally like i.e., the freedom of bigots to spout nonsense on radio shows) 🙂

  3. says

    Ahahaha! I visualized the white haired olf gentleman stamping his foot in a corner with his face all scrunched up as if he is refusing a spoonful of tapioca pudding…! “Never, ever, ever…”

  4. Lord Narf says

    I’ve always wondered about that. Is there any part of the Bible that explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman? I mean something clear, not something that could be stretched to mean freaking anything, like the anti-abortionists do.

    “See?!? It says that God knew the prophet while he was still in the womb! That means that God doesn’t want us to MURDER BABIES!!!!!”

    What the f- … how do you … wha?

    I’ve read the whole thing, so you’d think I would remember something like that. My eyes glazed over it pretty badly, at times, though. Lots of random things might have slipped by without my brain taking much notice of them. The only things I specifically remember are the examples of the people.

    Abraham sure as hell wasn’t monogamous. Moses had at least two. King David had many, even before Bathsheba, over whom he had his falling out with God. Solomon had … well, a crapload.

    These were all people favored by God, who had direct conversations with him. You’d think that if God had such a bug up his ass about non-heterosexual, non-monogamous marriage, he would have told them to cut that shit out.

    Oh, and say, what about Lot? He was a righteous man, and he had his two daughters who “got him drunk” (yeah, that’s what I’d say, too) and had babies. That’s sort of like marriage, right?

  5. dutchdelight says

    I don’t understand why he doesn’t come right out and say that he wants the government to prevent other people who love each other from marrying because his religious views should rule everyone in the country.

    His hiding behind this silly definition bullshit is just a diversion, like anybody cares what a rapist defines as rape, or a white collar criminal defines as fraud, or what a childishly hiding invisible magic superbeing that keeps humans as pets, defines as marriage. It doesn’t convince anybody of anything.

    When i hear fundies in the US talking about marriage, they always present marriage as if their god invented the concept and it’s some kind of christian invention. Really weird, especially when followed up with arguments about “biblical marriage” that only serve to illustrate that this particular fundamentalist has never read his bible. I often wonder how that ever happened, and why it’s seems a pretty localized conviction (local believers here will say their god thinks marriage is important, but they don’t seem to think it was their god or christians in particular that invented and/or defined it).

  6. unfogged says

    There were a lot of comments about ‘the biblical definition of marriage’ yesterday and they only showed that the speaker didn’t know that definition or, more likely, they know that their audience doesn’t know. The Christian view of marriage as laid out by Paul reduces it to an unpleasant recognition of base impulses to be indulged in only if you must.

    The comments I heard more frequently revolved around “won’t somebody think of the children” because only the 1950’s style family can possibly raise children successfully. They are just blind to the facts that (a) they are wrong and kids can thrive in many different environments and (b) even if they were right it is an argument against gay adoption and against any divorce and has little to do with gay marriage. Scaremongering is all they have since there is no rational justification to oppose it.

    It’s also always amazing about how the right-wing clamor for “state’s rights” changes tune when the federal government recognizes a state’s right to do something they don’t like.

  7. jacobfromlost says

    If conservatives are really concerned about their idea of “traditional marriage”, they should FIRST outlaw “heterosexual divorce”.

    Of course, they would never do that, because that isn’t really their concern.

  8. Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine" says

    I don’t know if anyone else saw this but Bryan Fischer on Twitter quoted Andrew Jackson’s response to the SCOTUS regarding the Trail of Tears regarding the DOMA ruling.

    Fischer literally compared his actions to a forced death march

  9. saysomething says

    Hmm…. When I hear ‘them’ wail, “Won’t somebody think of the CHILDREN?!” I think of stories like this one:


    These women, without this supreme court ruling, were facing separation, and their children would suffer the consequences. With one spouse deported to Ireland (where their union also wouldn’t be recognized) and the other here with their children? How is that good for the children?

    I wish THEY would think of the children…

  10. pianoman, Heathen & Torontophile says

    It must be difficult at times to be a christian. i mean, you sit there and stir up hatred against a group of people, try to enact laws that discriminate against them, and then are told you can’t do that to these people, because society has evolved to a point where this is unacceptable. Of course, all the while claiming discrimination against yourself and your religion for not being allowed to treat certain groups of citizens as garbage.

    It has to be difficult to reconcile the many glaring gaps in logic they use. If only they’d all get together and figure out their religious contradictions and fallacies first! then worry about gays and all the other people they hate.

  11. says

    It isn’t difficult for them to reconcile glaring gaps in their logic, because they don’t apply logic. They just justify themselves that whatever they are doing, it’s what God wants, and leave it at that.

  12. says

    They are mustering the troops but not for the 2nd, nothing is likely to happen in the first couple of days because the entire process must start over. There is also no guarantee that this will be the first bill on the agenda, as a couple of Perry’s other pet bills are on the agenda. They’ve pissed off a lot of people and while the Texas Republicans ain’t the sharpest spurs in the bunkhouse, they do run a bit brighter than Perry himself and will do what they can to minimize public debate and public access. NOW, NARAL and other organizations have already put the word out to hold tight and wait for the bat signal that it is time to gather once again, but that it won’t be next Monday and probably not next Tuesday.

    Do I think they will try to close off access to the capital, be it the senate chamber or committee hearings? Yes, I think they will try, but I don’t know enough about the legal situation to guess whether that will work.

  13. says

    Not only did they have babies, but these sons became great nations–that Israelites constantly came up against and slaughtered….

  14. says

    Some religious leader somewhere proclaims a certain “thing” as fact and since “book learning” is akin to satan worship, they simply accept it as fact and it becomes indisputable canon over time.

  15. says

    My main bone of contenton. They always scream that Liberals are legislating morality and yet they want a “moral” law for everything written in their own personal book of faerytales. I am a case in point for being raised by a gay parent. My dad’s homosexuality affected me very little and my bisexuality, IMHO, is an aspect of nature, not nurture–my sister is straight. Not like dad sat down and said “Now hunny, today you are gonna like girls AND guys.” I may have my faults, but they don’t arise from my dad being gay, and I will ask any of those idiots to find a kid raised by hetero parents who don’t have their own brand of baggage.. They also seem to have no problem with heterosexuals who are less than fit raising kids…that list can stretch on ad infinitum.

  16. says

    Precisely, they think Homosexuality is a sin based on the boogey man in the sky and they want the nation to kowtow to their bigoted belief system–while saying of course, that no one else can do the same. Hypocrites all.

  17. says

    Their desire to martyr themselve knows no bounds–they shoudld just align themselves with Westboro Baptist. They mock them but they scertly admire thier “bravery”…

  18. says

    Yep, I am sad to say I belonged to that mindset for waaay too long (not the anti-gay aspect but the overlooking of glaring illogical ideas…)…

  19. says

    Oh, I am sure they have thier nasty ass justifications for this as well–there is no reasoning with folks who can shift thier ideas in a moment’s notice like some twisted balloon animal.

  20. Wayne says

    What can one say? It’s Texas where everything is bigger and better, especially the ego of the Governor.
    How dare the people question his actions? He is their better by virtue of have been elected.
    Ain’t nothing gonna keep Rick Perry from making sure babies are born and adults are executed. Not even logic and reason.

  21. says

    Those rationalizations and mind-numbingly absurd arguments help them convince themselves that they aren’t bigots while they’re being bigots.

  22. says

    Morality is doing right, no matter what you are told.
    Religion is doing what you are told, mo matter what is right.

    Wish I knew where that quote came from.
    Keep up the good work people!

  23. fwtbc says

    sigh, another post that’s not terribly clear because it includes an image, but no alt text/textual description of it.

    Please Martin, can you start including proper alternate text when you upload images, or in the case of tweets, use the proper embedding option rather than a screenshot.

  24. Tyrant says


    It is a screencap of tweets:

    Bryan Fischer tweets:

    In our battle to defend marriage as God has defined it, we will never give in. We will never, never, never, never give in.

    Martin Wagner answers:

    @BryanJFischer Marriage “as God defined it”? Would that be “pay 50 shekels to marry your rape victim” or “marry your brother’s widow”?


  25. davidct says

    Fisher seems to have forgotten the family values in the bible. Particularly how it is OK to call your wife your sister and pimp her out when traveling in foreign lands.

    I didn’t see any to the big mouthed atheist feminists standing with us the other night at the capital. Don’t worry you weren’t missed.

  26. Lord Narf says

    I saw some Christian apologetics site that was trying to say that god promoted monogamy even in the old testament, and that those who were polygamous were powerful enough to do what they wish, against God’s will … and that they were punished.

    Ah, here we go:

    We have examples of saints in the Old Testament going off the commandment i.e Solomon, but this is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained.

    In the Bible I count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them. Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Samuel 1:2; David 1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chronicles 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chronicles 21:14; Joash 2 Chronicles 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; Belshazzar Daniel 5:2; 1 Chronicles 2:8; Hosea in Hosea 3:1,2. Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record (Gen.29:15-30, Jacob and his wives.)

    Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy? Well they certainly did not get blessed for it! The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will.


    Wait … what? No, David was punished for having someone murdered so he could steal the guy’s wife. He wasn’t punished for polygamy. And how the hell was Abraham punished exactly?

    I don’t recall the others by name, but I assume similar shenanigans with the rest of them.

  27. says

    They continue to make up shit as they go along, easy to do when you got a flawed book to base your arguments from. I wondered when they were going to try to answer this question and what tactic they would use. Not surprised it’s more cherry picking and outright misinterpretations and lies. Look out for slews of Christians spouting these talking points as fact and canon when you bring up old marriage rituals in the OT…

  28. says

    ” I didn’t see any to the big mouthed atheist feminists standing with us the other night at the capital. Don’t worry you weren’t missed.”

    There were probably many feminist there, remember, many males are feminists too — TAE’s own Matt Dillaunty for instance. The big mouthed ones stayed at home apparently.

    If I had been there you would have been able to count at least one humanist, as I battle for the rights of both men and women across the spectrum of races…

    Let’s not join the fundies in bigotry shall we?

  29. Lord Narf says

    Yeah, they’ll ignore or blur over damned-near anything. So, God told the Jews to freaking kill every homosexual they found, and kill anyone found collecting sticks on the Sabbath … but he had to give in to their customs of polygamy and of owning people as slaves and beating them however they wanted, as long as they stopped short of killing them?

    Bullshit. Pull the other one.

  30. says

    The fact that line of logic works on anyone is beyond me … even when I was a Christian I would have been like “Say what?” especially about the David thing, because that story in the bible was one of numeorus head scratchers for me. I know what David was punished for and it wasn’t polygomy.

  31. says

    Oh and here’s a thought — if gawd gives in to the whims of folks ( I heard this described as “god’s permissive will’), then he should follow suit with homosexual marriage, riiiight. I mean, he allowed polygamy when it was supposedly against his own definitions of marriage, riiiiight? This argument does not hold any kind of water and smacks of the desperation of a bigoted, hate filled people.

  32. says

    I didn’t see any to the big mouthed atheist feminists standing with us the other night at the capital. Don’t worry you weren’t missed.

    The important thing is that you’ve still got somebody that you can be bigoted against.

  33. Lord Narf says

    He’s using a screen reader. He’s blind or otherwise visually impaired to the point that he can’t read a screen. Without alt-text, he gets nothing in the image box.

    The thing is, if you’re not actually working in the web-design industry, for which you have to constantly think about accessibility regulations, it just doesn’t occur to you.

  34. says

    I’ll digress a moment…

    It’s really just another type of privilege. Those who are privileged enough to be able to see aren’t jerks just because they don’t provide alt content… because they don’t have to deal with visual issues, it’s less likely to occur to them to take action, unless it’s an already established habit. The privilege “blinds” them to the issues of the blind.

    I just think it’s a good example. Carry on.

  35. Lord Narf says

    Well, how often does it come up? No one I speak to directly, either online or offline has issues like this. It’s not something I normally need to think about. You’ve got to expect several repetitions, before someone will adjust their habits to compensate.

    Sure, it’s privilege. So what? It’s not like he’s refusing to acknowledge and compensate for it. It just doesn’t occur to him, most of the time. Black people and women are all over the place. Blind people are not.

  36. says

    So what?

    I think you got the “so what” part, and I generally agree with you. I wasn’t bashing on Martin. I just thought it was another example for educational purposes.

    But I’d point out that the population density of blind people and black people isn’t so much the question, so much as how frequently does one have to deal with the ramifications of being in those situations… which would be about the same for a seeing white person in regards to both visual impairment and race.

    I think we need more examples of different types of privilege for the sake of explanation. I think people can generally get the idea that being a black person in America puts one in a disadvantage frequently, but if we attempt to explain male privilege, they suddenly go feeble-minded, and it’s like trying to explain quantum physics to a Neanderthal.

  37. trj says

    [David] wasn’t punished for polygamy.

    Indeed not. In fact, God himself gave David his multiple wives (2 Samuel 12:7-8). Quite an endorsement of polygamy, actually.

  38. says

    To drive home a point I was trying to make (not necessarily targeted at you, but in general), my point was that it’s not that Martin is an evil bastard.

    Whenever we try to explain male privilege to these other people, they take it as some kind of insult, like we’re calling into question their character or integrity… like if we were to explain white privilege to a white person, it’s not that we’re necessarily calling that person racist. It’s more about obliviousness.

    With some other examples (like with visual impairment), that could be better elaborated.

  39. unfogged says

    The more I think about the recent rulings regarding DOMA and prop 8 the less I see them as a victory for equal rights and more as neutral outcomes at best. Both rulings, and for that matter the voting rights act ruling as well, essentially upheld the autonomy of the individual states to discriminate as they wish. By holding state’s rights above deeper principles the court has left us with a patchwork of different levels of citizenship. Things certainly could have been worse since they could have enshrined discrimination at the federal level. As it stands, it will just be a matter of time before more states allow gay marriage and current state bans are overturned but that would have happened anyway.
    With any luck one at least one of the conservative seats on the bench will open up in the next few years and we’ll be able to get somebody more neutral in there. There will likely be suits over one state not recognizing a marriage valid in another state and for preventing minorities from voting and it’d be nice to have a court that is biased towards the rights of the individual instead of the state or their personal prejudices hearing them.

  40. Lord Narf says

    Yeah, Maddow was saying something along those lines. What happens when a couple married in a state like California or Washington has to move to Utah? Suddenly, they’ve lost their rights.

    The problem is even more significant for gay couples in the military. You’ll have them resisting transfers to states that don’t recognize their marriages. Some of that is corrected by living on base, but that isn’t good enough.

  41. unfogged says

    I gave up trying to watch Maddow; I agree most of what she says but she too often blows relatively minor things way out of proportion just to try to make a story. She tries to hard to be anti-FOX when just presenting facts would serve the purpose better. She was never as bad as Olberman was though; he was way off the deep end.

    The military is a good point though and I hadn’t thought about that. It will be interesting to see what happens when someone is transferred and can’t bring their family along. Even living on base you still have to deal with the surrounding community. The same problem must be happening for companies and with DOMA struck down it will be an issue for federal employees. You’ll have the choice of your family or your job because you need to move to one of the bigoted backwaters where everybody minds everybody else’s business.

  42. says

    Yep–which is what makes it so hard to have a conversation. I was once called sexist for pointing out how few women were in the animation fields…as if I was trying to imply all men are evil due to this lack. It was a simple statement of fact. The knee jerk reaction to what is so apparent is what hinders our progress.

  43. says

    A point was made that straight couples who marry have their marriages acknowledged across state lines via federal laws. That is why my husband and I wouldn’t have to renew our vows or licenses to move to California. That Federal law should apply to gay marriages as well ( forgive me but I cannot recall the name of the law in question)

  44. iamnarf says

    Anyone else having problems commenting on Aron’s blog? I just updated my Gravatar, and it’s also immediately following a massive spambot attack on his blog. I don’t know what to guess about what is causing the issue.

  45. I Am Narf says

    Hmm, I’m getting the appropriate “Your comment is awaiting moderation,” message on this blog. It’s not showing on Aron’s, though. Very weird.

  46. Lord Narf says

    Anyone else having difficulty posting to Aron’s blog? He just had a major hit by spambots, this past weekend, and I thought it might be related to that.

  47. says

    Didn’t you get the memo that any woman who defends herself, or her human rights, is a big mouth feminist even if she doesn’t identify as such? Women are supposed to accept random ovatures from any guy who says hello to be considered open minded and never get mad about anything, including rape, because bad things can happen to men too. But guess what–I oppose male violation as well and I am just as vocal about it, funny how I am not called a loud mouth feminist on such occassions…

    Speaking of rape–Angelina Jolie gave a speech on human rights in this regard to the UN…suppose she is a big mouthed feminist as well?:


  48. Corwyn says

    U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 1:

    “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

  49. Lord Narf says

    I think that’s why some states are trying to begin enforcing their anti-sodomy laws, again, like one of our favorite assholes in Virginia.

    I think it’s something like the wedge strategy of Intelligent Design. If they can somehow get the sexual activities of gay people prosecuted, again … never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the subject and cannot be overridden … they can possibly make an argument that illegal contracts cannot be what Article IV had in mind, and thus we can’t make them honor those contracts.

    When the next round of rulings on gay marriage finally come down the line, in a few more years, I suspect that we’re going to have to institute heavy-handed, federal enforcement, like something out of the days of Brown v. Board of Education, in some of the crazier states, like Mississippi.

    That’s assuming that we don’t have a Republican president from 2016 to 2024. Hell, Lawrence v. Texas was only a 6-3 decision. If Obama doesn’t get another appointment (I can’t imagine the insane idiots in the Senate approving any justice who is in favor of gay rights or legal abortion, without a Republican filibuster), and we lost Ginsburg and either Kennedy or Breyer, between 2016 and 2024, I could see Lawrence v. Texas being overturned.

    Then, it’s batshit insane time, in this country, and I’m peace-outing to Canada (not a hyperbolic statement; I mean that seriously).