Check out this butt sex travel reference guide

Following up on the magazine’s insightful story about efforts to remove Texas’ “homosexual conduct” law from the books, Mother Jones put together this handy-dandy map that can easily be printed out and used as a reference source as you travel around the country.

It turns out that a total of 14 states still have sodomy statutes on the books, despite the fact that these laws can’t be enforced because they were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas:

Since Lawrence, efforts to formally repeal laws in Montana, Kansas, Utah, Louisiana, North Carolina, and, most notably, Texas have all faced resistance before fizzling out in their respective state legislatures. Conservatives in those states know they can’t enforce the laws, but by keeping them in the code, they can send a message that homosexuality is officially condemned by the government.

As you can see, most of the 14 states with statutes still on the books — 10 to be exact — ban sodomy regardless of whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual. In other words, before Lawrence, butt sex was illegal in these states for mom and dad, too!

Texas, meanwhile, is one of only four states where sodomy is illegal — or was illegal — only for gay people. The others are Oklahoma, Kansas and Montana. Which is strange because if there’s any place where cornholeing should be legal, if not encouraged, it’s Kansas.

—  John Wright

Catholics stepping up holy marriage war; our wholly non-war against faith to remain exact same

Louisville, Kentucky’s Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ increased efforts against same-sex marriage:

Archbishop Kurtz said 4,500 copies of a DVD “Made for Each Other,” and its accompanying education materials had been distributed around the country, and other materials are in development aimed at teaching children. He also announced that there are plans to hire a full-time staff adviser at the USCCB on marriage and family

Archbishop Kurtz: A ‘Roe Moment’ for Marriage? [National Catholic Register]

Well first off: We don’t know what the 1939 Carole Lombard/Jimmy Stewart classic Made For Each Other

51Gz4Cw4N4L. Sl500 Aa300

…has to do with faith-based resistance to civil marriage. But okay, whatever. We learn about Catholics from Dominique and The Sound of Music, so we do know how invaluable Turner Classic Movies can be.

But no, what we really wanna focus on is the materials they’re sending out to teach kids. Because what are these folks always saying about us? That we indoctrinate children. That we recruit. That we try to capture the young minds when they are young and malleable. Yet here we have the Catholic Church doing just that. Proudly. Unapologetically. And of course whereas our efforts to educate youth are all based on a casual, benign, instinctual acceptance of the world’s population for what it truly is, the Catholic Church’s effort is all about telling kids that certain, cherry-picked faith condemnations have cast millions of the world’s creatures into the realm of sin, where celibacy is the best hope for a happy life. Sorry, but that kind of teaching is the very definition of indoctrination (whether you agree with it or not)!

Archbishop Kurtz says he is so concerned about this, at this time, “today is like 1970 for marriage”:

“If you had seen Roe v. Wade coming three years out, what would you have done differently?”

Our answer: We would’ve given thanks for being born into a country with a co-equal branch of government that, like all branches of government, are to be separated from personal faith-based whims or unfair impediments that are drummed up a motivated majority. Then we would’ve drug our bell-bottomed booties back to our Tang and first-run “Brady Bunch” episode. And we’d hope that fair-minded Americans of 2010 would do the exact same of us (except with skinny cords, Red Bull, and “Glee”)




Good As You

—  admin

Video: Iowa for [denying courts should play same exact roles they played in other minority rights fights]

To sum up what Iowa For Freedom‘s Bob Vander Plaats and WHO radio’s Jen Green are saying in the following video: LGBT people have no right or responsibility to use the court system to keep discrimination in check. Not in California, not in Iowa, not in the the Florida adoption matter. To hear Vander Plaats and Green tell it, those who invoke “the laws of nature and nature’s God” are simply not beholden to the constitutional assessments from one co-equal branch of government. At least not until “the people©” get to say if the constitution, as written, is hetero-y enough for their liking.

Have a listen:

How could using the retention vote be an abuse, Jen? Oh, in practical terms, no, the right to vote itself is not an abuse. But when one group who is motivated 100% by faith-based discrimination against LGBT people joins forces with anti-LGBT organizations like American Family Association and the National Organization For Marriage to vindictively oust judges who did nothing more than cast one opinion that supports a minority population in ways that they themselves do not? Well again: That’s not an overstep in terms of the rights of citizenship, a role that allows people to cast a vote for whatever reason. But it is a completely callous, anti-intellectual, anti-civic, unprovoked, undeserved bout of retribution that is based on personal biases, not a fair, well-rounded assessment of the judges’ overall performance. And that’s what we’re saying about this current effort. It’s not that those who wish to deny gay people of rights CAN’T act like this one vote is the only way to drain the piss form their Iowa cornflakes. It’s to say that they, as non-persecuted members of a state that includes good and decent LGBT neighbors, simply shouldn’t act so damn unneighborly!

This Iowa For Freedom effort is all about providing a catharsis to the anti-marriage equality set, in hopes of keeping the momentum going until they someday get to turn this unanimous court ruling into a popularity contest. Also, as everyone involved admits: It’s all about making an example of these judges, so as to send a message to the rest of the nation. That might be an acceptable thing to do, if the Iowa Supreme Court were a cheating ex-boyfriend and this vote were an effigial voodoo doll. But the fair and independent judiciary should probably command just an eensy bit more head voice and a little less personal heart fire than Iowa For Freedom is affording it.

***

*Oh, and about that David Barton who Vander Plaats mentions at 2:21: Right Wing Radio Host David Barton: Government Should ‘Regulate Homosexuality’ [Towle]




Good As You

—  John Wright