Fearless on my breath...

More stuff carted to new place despite the heat (ugh) and I did my walkthrough checklist. Chatted with the manager for a bit (it's just what we do) and when she found out I'm a mint nut she was immediately intrigued. I suspect we're going to be exchanging cuttings some time soon ;)

On the way over I heard the good news on the radio, the California Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriage in the state! Nearly drove off the road yipping with glee. Sometimes I really do love my adopted state.

I also decided what I'd like for my birthday this year (aside from a job, that is). I saw this incredible film on KQED called "A Walk to Beautiful" about the plight of women badly injured during childbirth in Ethiopia. These poor women not only lose their babies but become incontinent and are shunned by their families and communities. It's just horrifying what they're forced to endure, especially when a simple surgery can cure most if not all of them. And what I'd really like this year is for donations to go to the Fistula Foundation to help pay for the hospital and its work. It would make me so unbelievably happy to know I was able to help these women in some small way. Absolutely the perfect birthday gift.

It would be great if I could look at the NJ ruling in favor of gay marriage without a certain degree of cynicism. However, knowing that the wingnuts are going to whip their cult into a froth with the fear of a gay nation is just crazy making. I mean what's so outlandish about this:

The State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children. Other than sustaining the traditional definition of marriage, which is not implicated in this discussion, the State has not articulated any legitimate public need for depriving committed same-sex couples of the host of benefits and privileges that are afforded to married heterosexual couples. There is, on the one hand, no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships. To the extent that families are strengthened by encouraging monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the Court cannot discern a public need that would justify the legal disabilities that now afflict same-sex domestic partnerships.

How do you rationally argue against that?

No, seriously, this is the kind of Democratic representative I thought only existed in my dreams. David Englin (D-45) is a Virginia representative, who was on duty in the Pentagon on 9/11, and who I would vote for in a heartbeat. Check this out:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I’m not going to talk about same-sex marriage. I’m no fool — although others might make a different judgement about a freshman delegate rising in this chamber on the third day of session. But I understand that on the issue of marriage, I’m in the minority, perhaps even in my own caucus. I also sleep very well at night knowing that at some point in the future of this great Commonwealth, those of us of my opinion will be judged to have been on the right side of history. But let’s for a moment forget about the question of same-sex marriage, because this amendment addresses much more than that. We need to be clear and honest: This amendment also outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar private legal arrangements.
( Read the rest... )
This is where our party should be going, and every spineless Dem who has tap danced around this issue should hang their heads in shame when they read this.
via Pandagon

EDIT:
Daaaang, have they been putting something in the Dems' water lately, or what?

Paul Hackett shows he has a pair...

"The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world," he said. "The challenge is for the rest of us moderate Americans and citizens of the world to put down the fork and spoon, turn off the TV, and participate in the process and try to push back on these radical nuts - and they are nuts."

And when the GOP tried to get him to take it back, he responded with:

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it. Equal justice under the law for all regardless of who they are and how they were born is fundamental to our American spirit and our American freedoms. Any person or group that argues that the law should not apply equally to all Americans is, frankly, un-American."

"The Republican Party has been hijacked by religious fanatics, who are out of touch with mainstream America. Think of the recent comments by Pat Robertson - a religious fanatic by any measure - that the United States should assassinate a democratically elected leader in Venezuela, and that Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment because Sharon wished to trade land for peace."

"Since the Republican Party has been utterly unable to stand for something positive, they have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and have pandered to religious fanatics not to vote for something they believe in, but to vote against their fellow Americans with whom they disagree. Those among us who would use religion and politics to divide rather than unite Americans should be ashamed."