1/2 Kracked Kup: Those Swingin' Cats in America!

As the pendulum swings back
America slowly wakes up...

Sooner or later the pendulum had to begin swinging back the other way. I’ve been saying for some time now that it had to come sooner than later otherwise we were going to find ourselves on the wrong end of a right wing dictatorship. Well, according to the latest Pew Research Center for People & the Press/Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life poll (story appended to end *1) we are seeing the first stirrings of the move away from the strong public support of the far right’s policies. The American people are finally beginning to notice that everything that was promised to them by the GOP (once initials for the “Grand Old Party”, now it’s more like the “God Only Party”) not only hasn’t come through, but if anything it’s been the opposite of what was promised that’s been rammed down our throats. We Americans may be a bit slow to react as a whole, but there is only so long we’ll take being lied to... and when that point has been reached we tend to overthrow some people’s apple carts, and often those folks are the ones who believe that they can’t be overthrown. And so it is with the Un-Holy Trinity that has hijacked the GOP for so long... The Ultra Rich, The Ultra Right, and The Religious Right. The rich will always be there, that’s the nature of this particular political beast. But their other two partners in crime are as disposable as modern diapers, and if they become too much of a load the rich will dump them just like a dirty diaper... that is to say fast and putting just as much distance as possible between them and the dumpees.

It hasn’t helped the Republican Cause to have the once vaunted “moral unassailability” of their incumbents and challengers disintegrating one indictment at a time beginning with DeLay and his crew... Nor does it help that the Democrats are outstripping them in donations for the first time since the invention of the computer. The Democratic war chest is so intimidating that in many local, state, and even some congressional races, Democratic candidates are going unchallenged.

What is even more destructive to the Republican stranglehold on America is that the once feared Republican unity is beginning to splinter, as we are seeing in California with the competing hate amendments designed to strip gay families of their rights, protections and responsibilities (Christian Right Press Release appended *2). I think Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) put it best when describing the destructive tendencies of the right wing extremists who control his party:

"I've been a Republican all my life.? They'll never throw me out.? But they have an amazing ability to eat their young.? They give each other the saliva test of purity every once in a while, and then they lose.? And then they just sit around and bitch for four years.? It's a fairly fascinating party."

The Republican take on these problems is quite different from mine. And like their take on the state of the economy, it has very little resemblance to reality. It’s kinda like arguing with your mother-in-law; at the time her explanations seem to make sense, but the moment you are out of her immediate influence and have a chance to think about those explanations logically away from the heat of emotion, you realize that what had seemed so rational at the time was really nothing but pretzel logic making no sense whatsoever!

But it's no time to relax and watch the show by any means!

What does it mean when I say “The days of the Religious Reich are nearly over”? For one thing, now is the time for everyone to roll up their sleeves and get involved to help shape this mess of left-overs before the loonies get control of it. Cripes... anyone who doesn't get involved and get involved NOW doesn't have any room to gripe when they don't like the way things turn out in 2006 and especially again in 2008! For another thing, it means that it’s more important than ever that everyone speak out against the abuses of the Bush administration and the Members of Congress who have blindly supported the agenda of the Religious Reich. The more who speak out now, the more who will feel free to speak out!

No opinion is too “out there” to be spoken (so long as it does not qualify as a “terrorist threat”), just ask my friend Noel Adamson, who in the course of expressing his view earned the honor of receiving an unannounced visit from the Secret Service. All he did to warrant this visit was to express his opinion that he wished the President would be tried for war crimes and if found guilty executed in the best tradition of the Far Republican Reich. You see, there was no threat there. No “terrorist threat”. And certainly no threat either actual or implied that wished for the President to be murdered. No what Noel wished for on his blog (see appendix * for url) was for President Bush to be afforded the full legal process, to be tried in the International World Court in The Hague for the war crimes much of the world believes he is guilty of, and IF found guilty, executed just as the Allies had the Nazi war criminals executed at the close of World War II. But it would seem that someone in the Secret Service didn’t like someone talking about holding their boss accountable for his actions.

Now I’m not saying that everyone needs to express an opinion as radical as Noel’s by any means! What I AM saying is that if Noel has the guts to continue to express his opinion after such an extreme attempt to silence him, then it should be no problem for others to speak out who have a slightly less extreme opinion. If you don’t, then you deserve exactly what you get. And if you get that, I’m gonna be really, really pissed at you... because I don’t deserve that at all!

That's my opinion and you are welcome to it.

Julie Johnson aka “The Great Spoon“

_________________________________
____________________________
________________________

Appendix:

*Noel Adamson’s Blog “Treason Incorporated”

http://treasonincorporated.blogspot.com/

Noel’s report about his visit from the Secret Cervix:
http://treasonincorporated.blogspot.com/2005/08/visit-from-men-in-black.html

*1 U.S. poll: Support grows for gay marriage
Jen Christensen, PlanetOut Network
Monday, August 8, 2005 / 10:38 AM

SUMMARY: New poll results show an increasing number of Americans support marriage rights for gay couples -- the highest support since July 2003

The marriage equality movement may be gaining momentum in the United States, as new poll results show an increasing number of Americans support marriage rights for gay couples -- the highest support since July 2003.

According to the new Pew Research Center for People & the Press/Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life poll, 35 percent of Americans polled were in favor of allowing gay couples to get legally married. Fifty-three percent still opposed marriage for gay couples, but that same number of people polled, 53 percent, said they wanted gay couples to have some kind of legal arrangement, such as civil unions.

"This is exactly what the right wing is afraid of," Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said. "People have had a year of legal marriage in Massachusetts to see how ending marriage discrimination helps gay and lesbian families and hurts no one."

During 2003, Massachusetts' high court ruled that gay couples in that state could get married, which they began doing in 2004. Following that decision, 11 states passed anti-gay marriage amendments, and poll data showed a slip in support for marriage rights.

The poll also showed a slight increase in religious groups' support for marriage rights.

The poll questions were part of a broader study of national issues that may face the incoming U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Marriage rights for gay couples did not figure in the top five issues people were concerned would come before the Supreme Court. Abortion was the biggest interest, followed by the rights of imprisoned terrorists.

The poll also touched on stem cell research, religious displays in public forums, affirmative action and physician-assisted suicide.

Gay rights advocates such as Wolfson suggest these latest poll results on the marriage issue show the effectiveness of gay activism and the impact of equal marriage rights in Massachusetts.

"The long-term trend in America's civil rights discussion, including this recent rebound of public support for marriage equality, which follows the ferment and barrage of the past several months, demonstrates the power of engaging the public and showing them the reality of marriage equality, rather than right-wing rhetoric and scare tactics."

Copyright © 1995-1999 PlanetOut Corporation.

*2 Christian News Wire (press release), DC, August 11, 2005
http://www.earnedmedia.org/vym0811.htm

Fatally-Flawed California Marriage Amendment Won't Protect Marriage
'California Marriage Protection Act' doesn't protect marriage rights,
allows 'gay marriage by another name'

To: National Desk

Contact: VoteYesMarriage.com, 916-265-5643

SACRAMENTO, Aug. 11 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The proposed California
constitutional marriage amendment named the "California Marriage
Protection Act" will not protect marriage. Several constitutional
attorneys have determined that the deeply flawed initiative sponsored by
the Protect Marriage group does not protect marriage rights for a man
and a woman, allows homosexual "marriage" by a different name to
continue or be created by the Legislature, and is unconstitutionally
vague.

"Pro-family Californians will be shocked and disappointed when they find
out that the amendment by the Protect Marriage group won't protect
marriage," said former California Assemblyman Larry Bowler, a proponent
of the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative sponsored by
VoteYesMarriage.com. "Sadly, the Protect Marriage group is inadvertently
permitting 'gay marriage by another name' by allowing marriage rights to
go to unmarried persons. This poorly-drafted initiative won't protect
marriage; it'll give counterfeit marriage to our children and
grandchildren."

"Despite what people are hearing on the radio and reading in emails and
newsletters, nowhere does the text of the 'Protect Marriage Amendment'
spell out that the rights of marriage are for marriage," said veteran
California pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, one of the organizers of
VoteYesMarriage.com. "This is a big mistake, since the courts already
require marriage initiatives to specifically protect the rights of
marriage in order to prevent 'gay marriage by another name.'"

The problem is what the Protect Marriage group's amendment won't do. The
"California Marriage Protection Act" reads as follows: "A marriage
between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or
recognized in this state." Leading pro-family constitutional attorneys
have determined that the California Marriage Protection Act sponsored by
ProtectMarriage.com will:

1. Leave marriage a mere word by only protecting the licensure of
marriage.

2. Continue "gay marriage by another name" in California. The phrase
"legal union" is unconstitutionally vague and includes labor unions,
credit unions, business unions, etc. A judge will not be able to read
"domestic partnership" into the phrase without banning other
partnerships, such as business partnerships. Both overly broad and
nonspecific, the "California Marriage Protection Act" means "gay
marriage by another name" (AB 205, a California law that went into
effect January 1, 2005, awarded virtually all the statutory rights of
marriage to same-sex "domestic partners") will continue to diminish
marriage by hijacking marriage rights.

3. Permit the State Legislature to create a new type of "counterfeit
marriage." Because the ProtectMarriage.com amendment does not explicitly
protect the "rights of marriage," the California State Legislature could
easily invent a new type of "agreement" under contract law, declare it
is not a "union," and insert into it 100 percent of the rights of
marriage. This creation of homosexual "marriage" by yet another name
would reduce marriage for a husband and wife to a mere word without
exclusive legal value.

4. Allow the courts and the Legislature to force private businesses and
organizations to undermine marriage by requiring them to grant full
marriage benefits to unmarried persons, despite any moral or religious
convictions that marriage is only for one man and one woman. (The
intolerant August 1, 2005 ruling of the California Supreme Court would
continue forcing business owners to undermine marriage.)

5. Even allow a future Legislature to someday abolish the legal
institution of marriage in the name of "equality," "non-discrimination"
and "tolerance" for all. Last year and this year, legislation to abolish
marriage has been introduced in New York (A01823 by Assemblymember
Deborah Glick).

"The only thing that ultimately matters is the legal effect -- what an
initiative will accomplish once the courts have looked at it," said
Thomasson. "Despite its good intentions, the amendment by the Protect
Marriage group is fatally flawed and legally unsound; it won't protect
marriage rights. California pro-family voters cannot in good conscience
support this counterfeit marriage initiative. Fortunately, voters have a
choice and can support the true-blue marriage amendment sponsored by
VoteYesMarriage.com. The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative
will protect everything about marriage – marriage licenses, marriage
rights, and all legal aspects of marriage – for one man and one woman."
(The text is posted at www.VoteYesMarriage.com).

The failure to write the "rights of marriage" into Proposition 22
(passed in March 2000) is why California has counterfeit marriage today.
The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, in its April
4, 2005 decision upholding AB 205 (California Family Code, Section
297.5), ruled that the legal status of marriage for only a man and a
woman does not prevent unmarried couples from being awarded all the
rights of marriage under a different name:

"Because the plain, unambiguous language of Proposition 22 is concerned
only with who is entitled to obtain the status of marriage, and not with
the rights and obligations associated with marriage, section 297.5
(which does not grant the legal status of marriage to registered
domestic partners) does not add to, or take away from, Proposition 22."
-- Knight v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App.4th 14, 26 (2005)

Leading pro-family constitutional attorneys have signed a public letter
endorsing the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative as "the only
(proposed amendment) that will fully protect marriage for a man and a
woman."

The VoteYesMarriage.com coalition has an August 18 court hearing in
Sacramento to challenge Attorney General Bill Lockyer's inaccurate and
prejudicial title and summary before gathering signatures to place the

Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative on the 2006 ballot.