OK, not quite, but my favorite uber-religious nutbar Bob Marshall, who is famous for using the government to sniff around in your pants, now wants to use taxpayer dollars for “education, research, and policy change to address the public health crisis.”
“When you see more of these episodes of teens texting pictures to each other, there’s obviously an obsession or fixation on the body as an object, not a person,” Marshall said in a recent interview with GayRVA. “It’s not very helpful for social relations or later development of a family. I thought, lets draw a line in the sand.”
Marshall says early exposure to pornography leads to low self-esteem and body image disorders in young people.
Whenever petty tyrants in three-piece suits seek to infringe on our freedoms via government force, they always seek to create a crisis. Whether it’s the “epidemic” of “gun violence,” which is a transparently stupid manipulation of weak minds to instill fear in the ignorant and uninformed, or precious snowflakes venting their angst on suicide hotlines, because they’re too weak understand and respect our system of government, everything that power-hungry statists want the government to address by force becomes a “public health crisis.”
Bob Marshall’s particular brand of DERPITUDE has everything to do with where adults insert their sexual organs. Whether it’s attempting to ban gays from serving openly in the Virginia National Guard, because apparently, they’re just not going to be able to resist inserting their penises into their buddies in the shower, or blocking a stellar prosecutor from serving as district court judge, because said stellar prosecutor is open about his committed relationship to another man (and ostensibly sticks his penis into said man), or claiming “sodomy is not a civil right,” showing just how little he knows about the nature of civil rights, Bob Marshall loves to launch government assaults on the privacy and fundamental rights of the individual.
When it comes to derp, Bob Marshall is the herpes of the Virginia House of Delegates – the gift that keeps on giving.
If Bob Marshall’s theocratic sensibilities are offended, he wants everyone else to be prevented from doing it.
This time it’s porn.
Now, let me say this up front. There’s a lot of really bad stuff associated with pornography. Some innocents are forced into it by traffickers, pedophiles, and organized criminals for profit.
But a crime is a crime, and forcing someone into porn, or prostitution, or drugs against their will, or when they are unable to consent, is a crime. Period. No matter what activity is involved in said force. Child pornography is illegal – and for good reason – these scumbags use authority, pressure, and outright force to rape children. There’s no hole dank enough for these depraved, cro-magnon turds!
So let’s talk about the effects of pornography on normal human beings. Having read a bit on the subject, I have to say that the portrayal of pornography as addictive, or in some way turning the consumer into a victim, is absolute garbage. Psychology Today confirms this assessment. Porn is not the problem, you are!
The media and American society have accepted that sex and porn are addictive, because it seems intuitively true – we all feel like sometimes, we might do something stupid or self-destructive, when sex is involved. But, this false belief is dangerous, and ultimately not helpful. Because when people buy into the belief that porn is addictive, it changes the argument, and all of a sudden, it seems like it is porn and sex that are the problems. Porn addiction becomes a label, and seems to be an explanation, when in fact, it is just meaningless words and platitudes that distract from the real issue. But sex and porn aren’t the problems. You are.
Research shows that women actually have a stronger physiological response to pornography than men, although women respond differently than men do – rather than respond to the sex of the actors depicted in the stimuli, women respond differently to context. How else does one explain the success of the horribly-written, housewife porn “Fifty Shades of Grey”?
Research also shows that the availability of pornography does not result in greater instances of sex crimes.
In fact, research shows only roughly 1 percent of people report problems in their lives caused by out of control sexual behaviors. Given the widespread availability of pornography, one would expect that number to be higher if porn truly has a deleterious effect on people’s lives, as the theocrats claim.
Porn does not make you change your values.
It does not make you a better or worse person than you already were.
And if it were as addictive as the theocrats claim, porn addiction would be prevalent in the United States, given its wide availability and its prevalence on the Internet. You would be hard pressed to find any American who hasn’t seen pornography at least once, and the only people who seem to use “addiction” as an excuse are the ones who cheat on their spouses, who commit sex crimes, and who destroy themselves.
To me, this is the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility!
And besides having zero respect for privacy and property rights of the individual (yes, our bodies are the ultimate in private property!), small-minded bigots like Bob Marshall, have zero tolerance for those who choose not to genuflect in front of his sky elf as he does, or behave in a manner allegedly proscribed by said elf.
Bob Marshall doesn’t want gay people to be active members of society, to serve in the armed forces, or in any other governmental capacity. He is, in fact, obsessed with anything having to do with other people’s sexual behavior.
This is a frothing ass canoe who opposed providing emergency contraception to college students (you know – in case one of them gets raped or something – because THAT never happens!), claiming that it will turn women into “chemical Love Canals for frat house playboys,” and sought to bar all Virginia public schools from providing it to rape victims.
This is an unhinged, statist turd who sought to prevent single women from getting pregnant via artificial insemination using government force, because there was no penis present to impregnate them. Bob doesn’t like anything but a penis-vagina combination, apparently.
And Bob Marshall is such a frothing fundamentalist fruitcake, that he has actually claimed that disabled children are God’s punishment to mothers who have formerly had abortions. The outcry was so great, that the idiot had to back off and apologize, claiming he didn’t mean it.
Now he has set his sights on pornography, because it’s just another thing that his deity forbids, and therefore he thinks everyone else should be deprived of it too. So of course, he wants to use money the rest of us earned to promote his religious mores and impose them on the rest of us.
Rob says Marshall is a rock star in the Virginia legislature when it comes to protection of property rights. I would submit that anyone who cannot comprehend or respect the very basic property right to one’s own body cannot possibly be trusted to protect any other right we may hold dear.
Here’s hoping saner minds in the Virginia legislature prevail, because this shit pickle will continue wasting time and taxpayer resources to infringe on the basic rights of all Virginians.
Better yet, send Derpy the Wonder Spud packing.
I blogged about two things yesterday: the Davis toad and guns.
Now, granted the gun article was what I considered to be interesting media treatment of a hoplophobe in an apocalyptic environment, but I thought it was relevant, considering what a huge following “The Walking Dead” and its companion series, “Fear the Walking Dead” have. I find the media’s and the entertainment industries portrayal of a complete societal breakdown and its effects on numerous types of people (including those who refuse to acknowledge what’s happening, those who hate guns, those who are willing to victimize others, etc.) fascinating.
Politics is downstream from culture, and I think it’s vital that we understand how popular culture eventually impacts policy, as well as the political views of the public writ large.
And yet, the most heated discussion is taking place on a much more micro level. It’s Kim Davis that is getting all the press. It’s Kim Davis that’s getting all the hits on this blog. It’s the Kim Davis issue that’s getting the debate and the conversation.
Maybe the Davis issue is also a cultural one and deserves the debate. But she’s one person. One intransigent zealot, whose only claim to fame is the refusal to do her job, and brief imprisonment for contempt of court. And yet, she is the one that is causing contention in people who are otherwise allies on the majority of issues.
I don’t know about you guys, but I find this interesting. While this case will eventually have implications nationwide, I find social issues to be generally less critical to the survival of the republic. And frankly, had this case not been littering every news report, my Facebook timeline, my Twitter feed, and every other website I visit, I doubt I would have given it the time of day.
Maybe it’s just me, but Kim Davis just never interested me all that much. And yet, even though I published both posts around the same time of day, the Davis post is the one with scores of comments, while the post I, personally, find more interesting is barely getting a glance.
What I really hate about the Davis issue is that it has become so contentious, it’s causing a rift between people who generally otherwise are allies. There are some good, intelligent comments in response to that entry, but at the same time, I’m frustrated that someone whose only claim to fame is using the cover of religion to discriminate against people at least some of whom ostensibly put her in power and pay her salary, is causing said split when there are bigger, more important issues we face as a country.
ISIL and terrorism writ large.
Soaring debt levels.
Possible government shutdown without a continuing resolution to keep the doors open, so to speak.
And never forget, we still have troops in Afghanistan. We still have service members dying in the war against terror. We still have security issues with which we must deal. But here we are… discussing Kim Davis. At least a good chunk of my distaste for this woman comes from this fact. It’s a micro issue in a world where macro problems are, by definition, much more significant.
Anyway, if anyone has a good analysis of the reason why this Davis woman is so much more interesting to discuss than issues such as gun control, foreign policy, national security, etc., please let me know. I’d love to get some insight.
Because, frankly, I’m a bit flummoxed.
No, you’re not, Kim Davis.
I know, I’m breaking my own self-imposed rule by writing about this toad, but considering she has been screeching in the media about how she’s all victimy and stuff, I figured I’d clear up a few things.
Kentucky clerk Kim Davis says marriage licenses are being issued in Rowan County without her authority and she wants her name and title removed.
And when the deputy clerks issue licenses with her name removed, this entitled bitch says, “uh-uh!” The licenses may not be valid without her signature.
She would object to the documents noting that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,” and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority.
So, translation: I am the Clerk. I refuse to resign, because I’m entitled to my job and my $80,000/year salary. But I refuse to have legal documents issued under my authority, but I won’t resign and allow others to issue them under theirs.
Essentially, she’s holding the issue hostage.
But… But… But… HER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!
Now, y’all know I’ve defended Christians and their right to hold their beliefs. My stance on churches performing gay marriages has always been and remains that any church should be free to deny or perform the religious ceremony for gay couples (much like any baker, photographer, etc. as a private citizen should have the right to deny any client for any reason, no matter how ignorant), and any congregants who disagree with their church’s actions on the issue can find a new place of worship. Everyone wins. No government interference. The church officials follow their own consciences on the issue, and the worshipers do as well.
This, however, has nothing to do with this toad’s religious freedom, and here’s why:
As the County Clerk, she is the government. She is part of said government. She is required to issue legal documents. Note, these licenses are not religious documents. They are legal ones. No one is asking her to approve of the union. No one is asking her to perform a religious ceremony. She is required – as part of her job – to issue legal documents to people – people who pay her $80,000 salary. If she cannot in good conscience do her job, she should resign.
But… But… But… Kentucky passed an amendment to its state constitution banning gay marriages and unions, and 10th Amendment!
Well, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By using her authority as Clerk, Davis is doing exactly that. Gays are persons. They are also taxpayers who pay her salary. She is denying them equal protection under the law, as is the Kentucky State Constitution. And she is doing so, even as she draws her salary from them.
But… but… but… putting her name on a license signifies her endorsement of gay marriage, and therefore violates her religious freedom!
No, it doesn’t. It is not a religious act she is being asked to perform, and even though the Kentucky State Constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,
As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.
Surprisingly, the Washington Post analysis I cited above actually supports Davis’ view and says if she believes “that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA.” The only problem with this is that if her name is removed as the clerk, then the licenses issues may very well be invalid, and once again, she is holding the process hostage to her religious beliefs.
Look, there are some complex legal issues here, and no one is denying this. This is one reason why government involvement in marriage is such a ridiculous idea, and why I’m a huge proponent of getting the government – whether federal or state – out of the issue altogether.
People who want to spend their lives together should be free to do so. They should be free to leave their estates to one another. They should be free to have children together and raise them with love and care. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital without showing a state-issued marriage certificate, and they should certainly be able to receive the flag from the casket of their loved one when said loved one is killed in action!
No one should be forced – and yes, government is force – to perform a religious ceremony, bake a cake, take wedding photographs, or create wedding bands for any ceremony they find religiously objectionable.
But to turn the tables, no government official – and make no mistake, that Davis toad is a government official – should have the right to deny equal treatment under the law to any taxpayer, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on said taxpayers by refusing to step down, since legally it might be that she’s the only one who is authorized by law to sign those legal documents. What she is saying is, “I will not sign these legal documents. I will not allow my name to be on them. But I won’t step aside and allow anyone else’s name to be on them either.”
As I said, it’s not about her religious freedom. It’s about everyone else’s right to be free from her religious views.
If this toad had any integrity at all, she would turn down the $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers, that includes gay ones. But no… she’s fine with taking their tax dollars, but not fine with providing to them the services she was hired to provide?
Nope. Unacceptable. Unacceptable morally and ethically. And hypocritical to boot!
No, she is not a martyr.
No, she is not a hero.
No, she cannot be compared to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. or any other civil rights hero, because she is using her government office to deny equal treatment under the law to consenting adults wishing to spend their lives together, and she is hiding behind her religion. Sorry. NO-GO! She’s not fighting for religious rights. Her religious rights have not been violated, unless you consider her right to hold a government job and draw an $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers a “right,” in which case, please just STAHP TALKING! No, she is not being punished for her religious beliefs. She is free to hold them. She is free to exercise them. She is free to worship as she pleases and to interpret her Bible in any way she wishes. What is is not free to do is use her government office to deny equal protections under the law to the very taxpayers who pay her fucking salary!
She is being punished for refusing to do her job, to which she doesn’t have a right. Get over it. This toad is no Rosa Parks.
As you can tell, I don’t think much of her as a person. I think she’s an attention whore. I think she’s a selfish twat, who if she had any integrity at all, would leave that cushy government job if she believed that something as simple as putting her name on a legal document (NOT A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT) violates her religious beliefs.
I know plenty of religious people who believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I may not agree with them, but I’m not religious, so that’s understandable. They should be free to hold those beliefs without governments penalizing them. They should be free to decline to perform a religious ceremony if it violates their beliefs. They should be free to decline to participate in said ceremony, if it violates their beliefs.
But what they are not and should not be free to do is deny others equal treatment under the law if they are government officials. And that is exactly what Davis is trying to do, while hiding behind her “I’m a religious person” shield!
You may differ with me on the assessment. You may even know more about the law than I do. I freely admit I’m not a lawyer. I also freely admit, my amateur legal assessment may be off. That said, what is NOT off is my assessment that for Davis to refuse to treat all taxpayers equally while gleefully taking home a rather large paycheck funded by them is immoral and unethical. Bakers who refuse to cater gay weddings don’t take money from gay couples to whom they refuse to provide a service. Same with photographers, and any other private companies that refuse to make that a part of their services. Kim Davis still draws that salary from taxpayers, while refusing to provide them with the services for which they pay, and refusing to step aside and allow another government official to do so. That makes her a hypocritical toad in my book.
Have fun trying to convince me otherwise.
What is it they always say? Never discuss politics or religion on the first date, right? I generally violate both these rules on a near daily basis on this blog, because, well, it’s my blog, and I can.
I’ve never let anyone who may be easily butthurt alter my course, because, well, it’s my blog.
And I’ve never shied away from calling out every frothing fundamentalist fruitcake of any stripe and stomping on their petty little feelings. That includes froth-flecked atheists who get chafed labia at the very sight of a cross or the sound of a prayer and frenzied fucktards who leave fake tips to spread the message of GAWD to some poor schmuck of a waiter who makes $2.50/hour.
Lately, dealing with house and financial issues, I’ve blogged about little else. Been kind of preoccupied, ya know?
But my buddy Chris knows just what it takes to bring me back on track (frankly, I suspect he simply wants to see my head explode at frothing fundamentalist fruitcake insanity), so he refers me to this – ostensibly satanic symbols on a school bus, or fucking brake lights to those of us who are somewhat grounded in reality.
Robyn Wilkins snapped a photo when she noticed the shape of an upside down, five-pointed star outlined in the brake lights of a school bus that was stopped in Cordova.
“Anyone who fears a God, if not God and Jesus Christ, should be outraged,” Wilkins said.
She says Christians should be outraged that a symbol that looks like a pentagram would be allowed in the design of a vehicle used to transport children to public schools.
I wish this was The Onion, but it’s not. This drooling fuck weasel is actually outraged at this.
See? This is why we can’t have nice things.
Now, most of us normal critters simply look at the brake lights and say, “Oh! The bus is stopping. We should probably do the same.”
The more creative of us will say, “Hey look! Little stars on the brake lights. Cute!”
But screeching fundatards, who have nothing better to do with their time, will immediately fly into a froth-flecked rage over a simple design and claim it’s some kind of a subliminal satanic symbol.
This particular simple-minded crackpot says Christians should be offended that their children are being transported to school in a bus that has Pagan symbols on it! I suppose her twat is also chafed at the fact that the five-pointed star is also a symbol of Christianity associated with the birth Jesus Christ when the wise men followed a star toward Jerusalem in search of the new-born King, and from there to Bethlehem – to the very location where Jesus was born. The original pentagram (sans circle) was used to represent the five wounds of Jesus, the five senses, the five joys that Mary had of Jesus, and the five virtues of knighthood. And the upside-down star appeared on an LDS temple in Illinois. I don’t think anyone can accuse Mormons of not fearing God or Jesus Christ!
It wasn’t even until the 19th century that all of a sudden an occult author and “magician” decided to ascribe evil to the inverted star! So this drooling nimrod is offended by a symbol that wasn’t even considered “evil” until an occult writer grabbed a hold of it and declared it so! Ferpetessake!
In other words, the star, pentagram, or whatever you want to call it has been around for ages, and it amuses me (or disgusts me) to see ignorami glom onto a “definition” created by a “magician,” whom they would normally shun as yet another devil worshiping heathen, in order to drool their outrage.
But most of all, it’s just an innocent design – at least to those of us who aren’t FUCKING CRAZY and looking for something to get offended about!
You want to be outraged? Be outraged about a Christian pastor being imprisoned and beaten in Iran! Be outraged at the Islamic State threatening to kill Christians if they don’t convert! Be outraged at Christian prosecution in Laos. Be outraged at any number of outrages going on in the world against all sorts of people!
This ass-chapping retardery that somehow became a news story over a stupid break light?
Someone needs a hobby.
AFP reports today that the Assholes of al Q’aida were less than pleased with the Taliban slaughter of 149 people, mostly children, in a Peshawar, Pakistan school.
“Our hearts are bursting with pain and grief over this incident,” Osama Mehmood, spokesman for Al-Qaeda South Asia chapter said in a four-page emailed statement.
“There is no doubt that the list of crimes and atrocities of the Pakistani army has crossed the limit and it is true that this army is ahead of everyone in America’s slavery and genocide of Muslims… but it does not mean that we should seek revenge from oppressed Muslims,” Mehmood said.
“The guns that we have taken up against Allah’s enemy America and its pet rulers and slave army should not be aimed towards children, women and our Muslim people,” he added.
How cute and touching. One set of savages condemning another set of savages for being savages. These are the savages who were responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans, including innocent women and children on those airplanes on 9-11. These are the savages who condemned those who supported Malala Yousafzai – the young girl who was shot by Taliban savages for daring to get an education!
For the record, I don’t believe al Q’aida assholes for a minute that their hearts are breaking. They have no hearts. They have bile and evil, but no hearts. So fuck ’em.
But really, how much of an asshole do you have to be to have these assholes condemn your actions?