Forget Pot; Why Hasn't Big Liquor Fixed Antiquated State Laws?

This past election cycle, I was onboard our "Legalize It" effort here in Ohio, both for personal and logical reasons. Marijuana should be regulated, taxed and legal in my estimation. It is demonstrably safer than alcohol, which is legal. Moreover, there is a wave of acceptance sweeping the nation for legal pot, rivaled only by the same-sex marriage wave that successfully swept through over the last several years. So, why not?

Ah, dare to dream.

But when you think about it, it's rather amazing that pot is making such headway, when liquor has such a confusing and often times stupid set of restrictions in place against it, from state to state. I'm not talking about age restrictions, here either. I really don't have much problem with 21-and-over being the place we draw the line. Though, honestly, it does make you wonder why "adulthood" is legally scattered from 18-to-21 depending upon what area of law we're talking about. But that's another issue for another day.

If you wants it, you points to it, you
sick, degenerate drinker you!
But NOT on Sunday!!! Heathen!!!

The reason for my interest in this issue has to do with having moved back to Ohio after 20 years in Las Vegas. Liquor laws in Las Vegas are quite liberal, and I was used to being able to run down to Lee's Discount Liquor and buying whatever I wanted, just about whenever I wanted. Prices were reasonable, and there was a lot of competition. You could by most kinds of alcohol just about anywhere in Vegas, from a liquor store to a Walmart, to a grocery, corner quickie mart or even Sam's Club or Costco. Obviously, a dedicated store would have more varieties in both brands and higher proofs, but if you wanted honest-to-god vodka, you could find it just about anywhere.

Not in Ohio. Ohio restricts where you buy it, and when you can buy it. Beyond that, they further slice it by what kind of alcohol, and what proof. I can walk into most grocery or warehouse stores and pick up wine, beer and a bewildering variety of beer- and wine-based pseudo liquors. Sometimes, if you're diluted by half. No joke. Watered down. Most times, if you want a full variety of choices, you have to go to a dedicated state-run liquor store, or be lucky enough to have a grocer that has a full-fledged liquor store within their store. Most don't. Even stores that say they do often don't. Those that do charge far more than I used to pay back in my desert home. And there are restricted hours. Want to pick up something for a party before 1pm on a Sunday? Tough.
lucky, they also have spirits. But virtually always, those spirits are

Paradise in Las Vegas!

Dedicated stores are often dingy, sorrowful looking affairs that make you feel dirty when you walk in the door. If they have any browseable liquor, it's the cheap stuff, with top-shelf brands behind the counter. You literally have to point to what you want, and have them hand it to you. It feels like you're buying porn or something. But there is a world outside of Ohio, and even Las Vegas for that matter. When we've ventured out of our newly re-adopted state, we've made stops in other states, checking out how they do things. West Virginia has more liberal laws, though I can't say the stores I've visited have been particularly inviting. Pennsylvania may have arcane laws, but I must've hit one store at the right time in Pittsburgh, because it had a decent selection, and decent prices. Still nothing like Sin City. Iowa offers a decent grocer-based option, with separate-but-attached liquor stores by the main grocery. Prices are better than Ohio, if not great. And time restrictions are also better.

Binny's! Now that's what I'm talking about!

That was a reasonable option on our recent visit, and we were set to pick up a carload for our home bar. But we ran out of time, and just didn't get around to it. Undeterred, we decided to find something on the way home. At a gas fill-up in Illinois, we noticed our truck stop had a dedicated liquor store. Cool! We grabbed a couple of bottles of whiskey (priced above Nevada, but below Ohio), but were told, in broken English, that we were too early. No sales on Sunday before 10 am! It was 9:15. Okay, then, back on the road. I plugged my request into my phone, and huzzah!!! A liquor discount store in Champaign called "Binny's." And it was right off the freeway!

This is not an ad, but let me tell you, it was a real discovery. It was like Vegas, only better actually. Illinois may very well have perplexing liquor laws that I'm not privy to. But this store was big, it had huge variety. It had low, low prices. And the people were super-friendly. Even Lee's Discount Liquor didn't manage that, most days. Suffice it to say, we stocked up. And just for example, a handle-bottle of JD was at least $20 cheaper there, no joke.

But all of this got me to wondering: why is it this way? Why does each state have a hodge-podge of antiquated, religiously tinged, ridiculous liquor laws in almost 2016? I realize, even Ohioans don't have it as bad as some other--particularly Southern--states, whose laws can be downright bizarre. But why do brewers, distillers and other liquor companies put up with it? Why would they make special, diluted spirits just for Ohio? These are huge companies in some cases. Isn't there a liquor lobby? Wouldn't Lee's or Binny's like to have big box stores in Columbus or Cincinnati? Wouldn't Costco, Sam's or even Kroger? I really don't get it. But I'd like to see a ballot initiative! Maybe if the liquor lobby scratched the marijuana lobby's back. . .

The Gay Thing: Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Given ONE MORE DAY?

Okay, long story short, after the Supreme Court effectively legalized marriage between same-sex couples in the entire United States, there was some foot-dragging and stone-walling by several elected officials. They were scattered around the country, and most have been resolved. But there's this clerk in Kentucky--represented by muckraking Right Wing World attorneys, naturally--who is loudly and proudly defiant in the face of the ruling.

She was thought to have exhausted all potential trump cards, and should have had to start issuing licenses on Tuesday morning. She didn't. She is brazenly defying all courts including the Supremes, using extraordinarily flimsy, baseless, illogical and frankly goofy reasoning. But, since she's an elected official, she can't get fired directly. But she is in contempt of court, and also refusing to do her job, though she won't resign. She hasn't got a legal leg to stand on, but she's still stamping her feet.

Thrice-divorced, four-times-traditionally married marriage defender,
Kim Davis, in stunning blue. From source, LGBTQNation.

All of this is made somewhat hilarious by the fact that this woman, Kim Davis, has apparently been married four times and divorced three. She continues to conflate "holy matrimony" with civil marriage, confuses the county courthouse with a church, and confuses her government job with some sort of religious consecration. She's either a dim bulb, a nutbar or a disingenuous grafter hoping for a big score and some fame. But for some reason, they're giving her yet another day to come to her senses.

But here's a point to ponder, for any of you Kim Davis supporters out there:

Should a Muslim DMV worker be allowed to refuse issuing drivers licenses to women, if he says it's against his religion? How would that be any different?

[Excerpt]

Judge: Kim Davis has until end of day Wednesday to respond
 
A federal judge says a Kentucky county clerk who won’t issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious beliefs has until close of business Wednesday to respond to the latest motion in the case. . .

Read more at: LGBTQNation

The Gay Thing: Ted Cruz's Disingenuous "Religious Freedom" Video

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Gay Thing: Here is Why Religious Objections to Gay Marriage are BUNK

Yes, The Gay Thing again. Sorry for being sort of a one-track-blog lately, but this topic just keeps bobbing up to the top. And the level of stupid amongst blogs, social media, Right Wing World and even from elected officials, is really starting to irritate me to the point of distraction.

I've struggled with writing a streamlined rebuttal to all of these "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" that keep cropping up, and with the arguments behind them. Then I realized, there is a very simple reason why "marriage" isn't some special, sanctified, sacred, religious haven immune to ordinary laws. And here it is:


Attention RFRA Supporters: Not a church.

Civil marriage and "holy matrimony" have coexisted for decades, centuries even, and have not heretofore presented a religious conflict for wedding and formal event vendors.

That's it. That proves, a) that the perspective of the religiously sensitive cake baker or florist is anti-gay bigotry wrapped in religion, and b) that legal protection for their position is unnecessary.

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church, for example, has been free to ignore the validity of any couple's marriage that they don't deem to fit with their doctrine. Even congregants in good standing have been denied a "church wedding" within its walls. This is still true now, and will remain true unless the Vatican changes its mind on the subject, not whether or not the United States changes its civil laws. The same is true for any church or religion, as it pertains to what they consider valid in their religion.

Wedding reception hall (cakes, flowers, catering):
Also, not a church.

At the same time, many marriages have either no formal religious endorsement, or no religious component at all. There has been no recent prohibition against marriages by atheists, agnostics, interfaith couples, previously married couples, excommunicated Catholics or really, hardly any combination of unrelated, consenting adults. These marriages have co-existed with those considered to be religiously sanctified for time immemorial. These people have purchased cakes, flowers, catering, photography, tuxedos, dresses, hired reception halls, been listed on gift registries, been featured in newspapers, and managed to do it all without creating  religious crises for any of the vendors involved.

The fact that now--now that same-sex marriage is a reality, and soon probably a nation-wide one--suddenly "requires" special exemptions to laws, and protections for religious belief ought to be very telling to everyone what this is really all about: anti-gay bigotry. How can all of the above be true, and this simple fact not be obvious? These vendors managed to ignore any "sincerely held beliefs" about their clients' private lives and personal morality before. Why has that suddenly changed for this particular category of "sinner?" And how can it possibly be legally justified?

Well, it can only be justified if you ignore precedent, logic, reason and go merely for truthiness and "gut-feel," and if you have a tendency to feel squishy about religious teachings. Because even if we did have to bend over backwards for religious belief in any and all case law, Christians have thus far been unable to present which commandment or bit of doctrine forbids selling wares to "sinners" in the first place. But, now I'm off on a tangent. Here, read this excellent article that tends to back me up, won't you?

Image from source, Think Progress

[Excerpt]

Why The Christian Right May Never Recover From Indiana

Maurice Bessinger built his fortune serving barbecue. At the half-dozen locations of his Piggie Park restaurants, customers could enjoy meats slathered in the yellow, mustard-based sauce unique to South Carolina. That is, of course, unless they were black, for Bessinger was also a proud racist. As late as the twenty-first century, Piggie Park distributed tracts to its customers claiming that the Bible is a pro-slavery document — one of them claimed that African slaves “blessed the Lord for allowing them to be enslaved and sent to America.” After Congress banned whites-only restaurants in 1964, Bessinger reportedly put up an uncensored version of a sign warning that “[t]he law makes us serve n***ers, but any money we get from them goes to the Ku Klux Klan. . .”

Read more at: Think Progress

Indiana: It's a Great Place to be a Bigot!

Right Wing World: Outrage Over Houston Sermon Subpoenas

It's always something in Right Wing World, some outrage--usually outrageously overblown--to obsess about. It will usually erupt into the mainstream, first as a "what's got their knickers in a twist?-type story, then it either gets treated like a real story, or is tsk-tsked away as a nothingburger. I only wish the latter was how it always went.

This time, it has to do with a lawsuit--filed by the religious side--that has resulted in the subpoenas of church sermons. Why? Because discovery goes both ways in a lawsuit, and because tax exempt churches should not be overtly involved in politics. Simple, right?

No, it would apparently be the worst thing that has ever happened to freedom in America. Even though churches have pretty much been begging for this for years. And waiting

The Usual Suspects, from TowleRoad

for it, so they could do the present freak-out. And it doesn't hurt that the case is LGBT-related either.

Don't buy it. In fact, don't ever buy it without looking into what the current outrage is about.

[Excerpt]

RIGHT-WING FREAKS OUT OVER HOUSTON'S SUBPOENA OF PASTORS' ROLE IN CITY'S EQUAL RIGHTS ORDINANCE CASE

Back in August we reported that anti-gay activists in Houston had failed in their efforts to collect enough signatures for a ballot measure that would place Houston's LGBT-inclusive Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) up for a public referendum. The activists (which included local pastors) proceeded to sue the city over the rejection of signatures and a court date was set for January 2015. . .

Read more at: TowleRoad (and yes, I chose a gay news site on purpose)

Seen at the "Values Voters Summit"

This was spotted at the oh-so-moral-and-Christian "Values Voters Summit." Why these extremists attract any mainstream Republican speakers and support is a mystery. If I were a career politician, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near them. But I can nearly guarantee you that nobody there will denounce this sort of thing, even though it was clearly created by a lunatic.

 



Found at: JoeMyGod

Washington State Politician Thinks "Religious Freedom" Means for Christianity Only

Wow, would he be easy to caricature!
Image from source, Raw Story

When the Supreme Court recently ruled that it was constitutional to open governmental meetings with prayers, I knew this was coming. I've done enough arguing online over the years to see it. When a lot of Christians argue for religious freedom, they really mean freedom for Christians.

[Excerpt]

Wash. state city councilman demands all prayers be directed to Christian God

A city councilman in Kennewick, Washington is demanding that council meetings open with a prayer to an explicitly Christian God, The Tri-City Herald reports. John Trumbo proposed that all city council meetings should begin with a prayer “directed in name and reference to the same God addressed in the Founding Fathers’ signatory documents that established this nation. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

Lawrence O'Donnell Rewrites Kentucky's "Noah's Ark" Theme Park

Who knew there were cranes in Noah's day? Image from Inquisitr.

Oh, this is good. As an atheist, it's not often you get something this good from a religious person. And Lawrence O'Donnell is a good (though perhaps not devout) Catholic. Like me, he has a few problems with some of the Bible's wackier stories, notably the one about Noah's Ark.

The Noah story figured prominently in my slide into atheism. In my confirmation classes, it was clear that everyone around me took Genesis, up to that point, as literal truth. I was having enough trouble with that, but Noah's Ark? Plot holes you can drive an ocean liner through. It cannot be taken as a literal story, unless one is a child, one hasn't really thought about the story since he was a child, or with an economy-sized tub of faith spackle.

So anyway, they're building a theme park in Kentucky, based around the Noah story, complete with a "replica" of the ark. Kentucky is apparently going to give this entirely religious production millions of dollars worth of tax credits. To a heathen like me, this is very irritating. So, I was relieved to find Lawrence on my side. And his piece is also quite entertaining. Especially his pronunciation of "Ark Park."
 

The Rude Pundit on the Consequences of the Hobby Lobby Decision

Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit

There are lots of things that have bugged me about the Supreme Court and some of their decisions over the last few years. One of the biggest bones of contention for me, is that the court doesn't seem to plan for "unintended consequences." Or intended consequences. Or any consequences. They often either don't seem to have considered what the decision before them could lead to, or don't care.

Remember when Justice Samuel Alito shot back "Not true," when President Obama mentioned possible consequences of the Citizens United ruling, during the State of the Union Address? Turns out, Obama was right on the money. That tells me, Alito didn't ponder where CU could lead, or didn't believe it would happen. Later, when SCOTUS took a knife to the Voting Rights Act, they indicated that racism was over, and that the part they carved out was unnecessary. Minutes later, affected states began enacting previously prohibited voting restrictions. Wrong again, SCOTUS.

Now, we've got a) corporate personhood, b) corporations with religious beliefs, c) beliefs that are not contingent on reality or science, d) laws that can be disregarded by corporations with "sincerely held beliefs" that are in conflict with those laws, e) corporations having religious beliefs that trump the employees' religious beliefs, and f) untold future claims of possibly presently uninvented religions, with unknown beliefs. And of course, there is the underlying disrespect for women that seems to hang over anything politically conservative. It's a freakin' mess.

But I've gone on too long here. I don't have the talent of Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit, who has put pixels to screen on this subject, with far more zest than I can give it. So read on. I'll run a link to Part II when it goes live.

[Excerpt]

Yes, Everything Is Worse Than It Seems (Part 1: Hobby Lobby, Science, and You)

. . .Think about how that willful disbelief in science can apply. If Cargill, a closely-held corporation, says that its church doesn't believe that climate change is human-made, does that mean it can ignore pollution mandate? Can Chick-fil-A claim that its owners' religion says that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not genetic trait so, fuck you, queers, go home? Just think of all the laws you can toss out if you have a religious belief that is total bullshit, but sincerely held. Koch Industries was just told, "Go nuts, motherfuckers. Have blood orgies to your mad gods and sacrifice virgins to the oil demons, if that's what you believe." Walmart can finally make lard a sacrament. . .

Read more at: The Rude Pundit

Rachel Maddow: Previous SCOTUS Religion Cases Went Much Differently

A history lesson you should watch, so you can realize just how radical Monday's Hobby Lobby decision really was. If you don't have time for both videos, it's the second one that relates to the story below, the first is on the same subject.

[Excerpt]

Rachel Maddow: Christian segregationists would support Hobby Lobby ruling



Segregationists like Maurice Bessinger, who used religion to justify his beliefs, would be stunned and possibly pleased by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling regarding workers’ access to reproductive health measures, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said, “His belief in slavery and segregation as divinely ordained? That was certainly sincerely held,” Maddow said. “Certainly it was based in religion. But in his case, that was not enough to deprive people of their right to protections and rights that they were afforded under law. Now though, the court today said religion is all you need. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

SCOTUS Allows State-sponsored Religion. . .?

History, as some see it.

As an atheist, I have often been irritated by situations in which I basically have to go to church. I don't mean weddings, funerals, or being nice to my mother-in-law at Christmas. I mean non-church settings where there is prayer, or other invocations of God/Jesus. Mostly I roll with it (while doing a lot of eye-rolling). Occasionally, I'll grumble about it under my breath. I'm not offended by such displays, I'm just alternatively bored, embarrassed or just in an utter state of disbelief (pun intended). I just find them at best, silly. Silly like praying to The Great Gazoo.

But the silliness is worse when it is promoted by the government. Pretty clearly, the founding fathers intended a wall of separation between church and state. They did not want state sponsored religion. Still, mostly, I roll with it. Though I believe "In God We Trust," "God Bless America," and "One Nation, Under God" to be utterly pointless and meaningless, I also know that these things are drenched in tradition and emotion for a lot of people. I can endure it, even though I believe them to be unconstitutional when inserted on money, or in laws.

Others take this stuff more seriously, and literally make a federal case of it. And I kind of wish they wouldn't, at least as long as we have a conservative court. Because with the current SCOTUS, I knew they'd find a way to somehow twist logic to make overt Christian prayers led by elected officials to be okay, even though they're clearly not. Just like "God" on the money is somehow not religious (but also for some reason is demanded by the religious to be there), I knew they'd pull this. So, it would have been better just to leave it alone, rather than having it enshrined in law.

But, Christians, I wouldn't be partying too heartily. You are not the only religion. And one of these days, you might find yourself in a situation where you--like me--are bowing your head to the prayers of others. Muslims or Hindus or Scientologists or Satanists or Wiccans or Pastafarians. Just wait. Then, maybe you'll get a taste of what it feels like.

[Excerpt]

The Supreme Court Just Blew A Gaping Hole In The Wall Of Separation Between Church And State

Town of Greece v. Galloway is the case that proponents of the separation of church and state have feared every since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor left the Supreme Court in 2006. It strikes at the heart of the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of religious doctrine or belief. And it brings religious conservatives within inches of a victory they have sought for more than two decades. For the sort of people who believe America should be a “Christian nation,” today is a today to celebrate. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

The Supremes and Hobby Lobby

For a "creative center," they sure have a boring, boring logo.
Helvetica, really? Image from Crooks and Liars.

The Supreme Court took on the Hobby Lobby case on Tuesday, and many of the news reports were rather alarming to me. The case is ostensibly about the ObamaCare contraception mandate, and whether or not a corporation's religious freedom is violated by it. But the case is potentially much more far-reaching than this one element of the Affordable Care Act.

My first problem with the case is that it assumes a corporation can have religious beliefs. "Corporations are people, my friend," was Mitt Romney's infamous quote, which is a troublesome concept, no matter how you take it. Corporations are actually groups of people, each with individual rights. Claiming that the corporation itself has rights seems like this collection of people has got more rights than a single individual, at least to me. But let's take that as a given, that corporations are people.

Fine then, how do you determine this "person's" religion? Do you go by the CEO? The CFO or COO? Do you take a poll of the board of directors, add 'em all up, take an average, and call that the corporation's religion? What about the employees, do their religious rights and freedoms get automatically trumped by the employer? If so, why? And why on earth should an employer have to follow the boss's idea of what kind of health care she should receive?

It's all such bizarre reasoning, and seems to not even bother imagining what potential pitfalls might follow, if it should prevail at SCOTUS. It also--as many "religious freedom" arguments do--assumes that only Christianity will be the religion in question, to be allowed these exemptions. Nope, if this case wins, every religion from Islam to Wicca to Pastafarians will have a new challenge: finding religious exemptions to laws that they can exploit. What's to stop a lobbying group with an agenda from creating their own religion with a doctrine that matches their list of wants? Suddenly, you have legal chaos. And all because the guy who runs Hobby Lobby really doesn't like President Obama. Crazy.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Struggles In Hobby Lobby Case With Question Of Companies' Religious Rights

Justices on the Supreme Court seemed to struggle Tuesday with the question of whether a private company can get out of a federal law by citing the religious beliefs of its shareholders. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Atheist Wants I-Beam Cross Removed from 9/11 Museum

I'm an atheist. But I'm also a realist. I know that even though we're supposed to have a separation of church and state, there are some battles that are just not going to be won, right or not. "In God We Trust" isn't coming off the money, though it doesn't belong there. "Under God" isn't coming out over the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it was only inserted there in the 50s (and how weird is a pledge of allegiance in a free country anyway?). [Story continues below]

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

You do have to draw the line somewhere. There is no earthly reason that the Ten Commandments should be in front of a court of law. Religious displays really shouldn't be on display at City Hall (even with multiple other religions and context, it's still unnecessary). And the latter can even come off as a buzzkill. But every so often a grim atheist (they're always just dire) will "fight the good fight" and try to get a court to order such things unconstitutional. It works on the monuments. But the rest always throws judges into contortions worthy of Cirque du Soleil, desperately reaching to find a reason why these things don't constitute a violation.

Such it is with the "cross" at Ground Zero, the crossed I-beams found in the rubble of the World Trade Center. Christians took the cross as a sign of. . .something. Jesus, yes, I know. But what it means isn't clear. That Jesus could've stopped the attack, but didn't? That Jesus "won?" I dunno. But it's kind of like when a fanatic sees the Virgin Mary in a tomato, or Jesus in a splotch on the garage floor. It's not a cross, it's a section of the building, which are--surprise!--crossed all over the place. But it wouldn't be any kind of deal at all, except for the fact that this museum is partially federally funded.

Christians (and very likely the lawyer and/or judge) will deny that the cross is a religious symbol. Clearly, it's just a section of the building! And they'll likely win. But you know the only reason they want it at all, is because it is, or at least has become a religious symbol. The atheist in this case is correct. But he's going to lose.

 

The Gay Thing: Jan Brewer Vetos Arizona "Religious Conscience" Law

When she began speaking, Jan Brewer made me a bit nervous. Whenever she speaks, I flash back to her infamous deer-in-the-headlights opening remarks at one of her gubernatorial debates. She's not a talented public speaker, but then again, neither am I. But she did come through on the right side of this one. So, Arizona's anti-gay "religious conscience" law is now vetoed.

Unfortunately, Arizona seems to be somewhere in the middle of the pack, when it comes to these far-right anti-gay laws in the states. They've been popping up like weeds as sort of a backlash to the break-neck speed with which the marriage equality movement is racking up victories. It's a badly thought out, obviously unconstitutional overreaction, and it's clearly coordinated. Luckily, it's failing. So far. Will Jan Brewer's legacy be that she effectively killed this line of attack? Or will the next try (Missouri, at last check) make it?


There has been some fun to be had along the way, oddly enough. First it was exciting that this dispute caught the news cycle, and just kept getting bigger. But it got comical when one by one, prominent Republicans (mostly after the NFL and Apple were urging a veto) jumped on the veto bandwagon. Brewer was left with a fairly easy choice, because everyone was on her side except the rabid, anti-gay contingent. And if you dip a toe into Right Wing World over at FreeRepublic.com, you'll see that they think they are the only ones marching on the right foot on this, and that the whole rest of the world is wrong.

[Excerpt]

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes controversial anti-gay bill, SB 1062
 
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have allowed businesses that asserted their religious beliefs the right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers. The controversial measure faced a surge of opposition in recent days from large corporations and athletic organizations, including Delta Air Lines, the Super Bowl host committee and Major League Baseball. . .

Read more at: CNN

AZ Gov. Jan Brewer Dithers on Anti-gay "Religious Freedom" Law

Image from source, USA Today

I put "dithers" in the headline, because it's a very good description of what Jan Brewer is doing, and because conservatives love to use that word. Usually in a disparaging way, often when unwarranted. In this case, it's quite warranted.

[Excerpt]

Arizona governor takes time on anti-gay bill

Gov. Jan Brewer returned to Arizona on Tuesday, five days into an escalating controversy over a bill that would allow the use of religious beliefs as a basis for refusing service to gays and others. The Republican governor has not tipped her hand about what action she will take -- or when. . .

Read more at: USA Today

So, THAT Happened: Satanist Group Unveils Proposed Monument for Oklahoma Courthouse

This made me laugh myself silly. I've been saying for years, if you allow religion in your politics, you don't get to limit it to just one religion, you have to let them all in. And there are a lot of them, some--shall we say--less than mainstream. I'm sure that most of the supporters of the Ten Commandments monument are horrified by the design of this one. But I can't help myself, I find it hilarious. It was clearly designed for both reactions.

Image from source, Yahoo! News

Unintended consequences, people.

[Excerpt]

Group unveils Satan statue design for Oklahoma

A satanic group unveiled designs Monday for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan it wants to put at the Oklahoma state Capitol, where a Ten Commandments monument was placed in 2012. . .

Read more at: Yahoo! News

Meanwhile, on Facebook: Anti-Marriage Equality Group Changes Mission

A lot of people wonder what drives groups that put out ballot amendments to outlaw same-sex marriage as strenuously as possible, and spend millions of dollars to do so. These same groups will then fight tooth-and-nail to keep those laws intact, fight when they are overturned, and keep plugging away after the battle is lost. And you've got to wonder, why? I mean, for actual gay people and their allies, there is a vested interest: equal civil marriage equality.  It's a tangible, real-world thing they're fighting for. The anti- side? They win or lose exactly nothing either way. Everything in their fear-mongering arsenal is hypothetical, vague, even though marriage equality has been with us in parts of the country for 10 years.

There's been a lot of speculation that the reason is money. Gobs and gobs of money.  Scaring people about the eeeevil gays attaining a marriage of equality is lucrative, if you scare the right people. Brian Brown, the head honcho at the (badly named) National Organization for Marriage makes six figures annually. NOM was a couple million in the red last year, but Brown got paid. Still, with the massive success of the marriage equality movement over the last couple of years, another mystery is what they'll all do once the anti-gay money train runs off the tracks?

Shift gears! Exploit another aspect of your tangled web of religion and politics! Well, I don't know if that's what NOM will do, or its affiliates and "family"-named compatriots. But here's just one example, one of the smaller groups populating Facebook is changing its name from "I Support Traditional Marriage," to the much more dramatic (and nonetheless vague) "Warriors for Christ." Their new motto is, "We will not keep silent." Because free speech, of course, and I've gotta wonder who they imagine has been silencing them. Maybe that's the new angle: paranoia over "persecution" of Christians? I'd bet on it.

By the way, if you think this is trivial because of the small number of followers this page had, I agree. But keep in mind, though NOM does fairly well on Facebook with 39K followers, their Twitter followers are logging about 7,000. How many of them are people like me, keeping tabs on them would be speculation, but I speculate: half. And even if every one was legit, that's a fairly paltry number of followers for a movement. For contrast, The Rachel Maddow Show has 1.1 million Facebook likes, and 2.8 million Twitter followers.

Satanists to Build Monument Next to Oklahoma Ten Commandments?

Image from source, Wonkette

Unintended consequences. That's what "good Christians" tempt, every time they try to insert their religion into matters of state. If you allow The Ten Commandments or a crèche at the state courthouse, you have to allow similar things from other religions. They're not all "nice" religions, from the Christian perspective. But they should have thought of that, shouldn't they? And what constitutes a "religion," anyway? Couldn't just about anybody invent a religion, ordain themselves a priest, and--ahem--erect any kind of monument their religion might think of?

[Excerpt]

Satanists Generously Offer To Build Monument Next To Oklahoma Statehouse’s 10 Commandments Display

In a move that pretty much says “I’ll see your rhetorical question and raise you an ugly public monument,” a group calling itself the “Satanic Temple” has offered to display a big ol’ monument in honor of the Hornéd One, to be installed on the Statehouse grounds near the state’s display of the 10 Commandments. These are the dadaist religious trolls who made “God hate Fred Phelps’s mom last night back in July. Best of all, the epic trolling appears to be sanctioned under the 2009 law that erected the 10 Commandments at the statehouse. We hope the Pastafarians will be next, because noodles are yummy. . .

Read more at Wonkette

Right Wing World: President Obama, Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address and "God"

I've been hoping that there would be some issue to talk about beyond ObamaCare (enough, give it a couple of months, see what shakes out, I'm sick of hearing about it). And there have been other things in the news cycle. But they all seem to be weird or just stupid. And stupid is the faux controversy about President Obama and the Gettysburg Address.

The President was asked to read one of the drafts of the address for documentary film maker Ken Burns. The version he read from did not contain the phrase "under God." This particular draft never has. But without doing a lick of research--or just a simple Google search--Right Wing World went off half cocked, per usual. They lit the blogosphere, talk radio and undoubtedly FOX "News" afire, alleging that Obama took God out Lincoln's famous speech.



Image of the "Hay Copy" of the Gettysburg Address
from Wikipedia

I rolled my eyes hard enough to hear an audible thunk. What is it like to live in a perpetual state of outrage? And to be so freakin' touchy about this allegedly "all powerful" deity. If he's who they claim him to be, I think he can take it.

[Excerpt]

White House explains why Obama didn't say "under God" in Gettysburg Address

President Obama irked some conservatives with his recitation of the Gettysburg Address, which he read aloud as part of a project celebrating the 150th anniversary of famous Lincoln speech. For the project, spearheaded by documentarian Ken Burns, a number of politicians and other high-profile people recorded themselves reading the Gettysburg Address. Some conservatives took offense to the president's reading. . .

Read more at: CBS News