Today's Comment: Let's get this whole gay Chick-Fil-a issue STRAIGHT

Here is my latest comment on the issue of Chick-Fil-A and its dumb-fuck-o-rama of a president it has. I comment on a Bloomberg article that seems to take very lightly the real issues at hand regarding this inbred company and its redneck leader:

"This yahoo muppet supported a group that wanted to "export gays", called gay people pedophiles, wants gay people to become straight, harasses gay employees of other companies, bullies Christians who do not agree with them.

THAT was and is the problem with Fred Cathy Flintstone. He supports these ideas as he has financially backed these groups that support them. Wall Street hacks like Bloomberg are trying to paint this Chick-Fil-A issue over merely "disagreeing" with a Christian man's beliefs on "traditional marriage" - No, we are dealing with a man who has supported religious terrorism against the gay community. THAT is why we won't go and eat his chicken sandwiches, and I find it hilarious that the "free marketeers" and Wall Street ghouls are having a fit over gays and their supporters NOT wanting to do business with Chick-Fil-A, these are the same hacks who cry and moan that they want businesses to allow them to discriminate, to de-regulate them and so on, all in the name of "freedom" yet balk at the idea of gays choosing freely to not buy chicken sandwiches from Yokel Cathy. What they are now saying is that NOT buying a product from a person you find reprehensible somehow violates that person's "freedom of speech."

Yeah, right. You tea-fascists are masters of Orwellian manipulation and distortion"

When teabaggers say 'religious freedom' when talking gay rights they really mean this...

As in harassing gay couples at Walmart.

You see Tea-fascists and their reactionary allies want you and I to believe that gay rights will hurt or infringe their 'religious freedom.' One would assume how can two dudes getting married actually do that? How does a gay wedding actually stop someone from worshiping their invisible yet very angry and manic depressed sky god?

Well it doesn't. And those who disagree with reality, well what can we say: they are just lost causes. They are zealots who want and need a culture war against loving and caring people.

Teabagger's definition of religious freedom: the ability to expose your religious beliefs to people who are not interested in them, no matter how condescending, no matter how repulsive they are, and no matter how much we politely say 'no, thank you.'

In other words, they are not just fine with homo-erotically worshiping Jesus - they must, MUST convert you or me to their beliefs. If we do not submit to their demands then they would either try to make us feel bad by telling us we are going to burn in hell, persist on us until we surrender, or in many cases, legislate us until we submit to them.

I dunno about you but I am done with all of this religious terrorism. And that's what it is, terrorism and not freedom. Because gay couples have the freedom to believe that being gay is okay and not sinful and no other persistent little ugly troll like the stupid Walmart teabagger employee has a right to try to persuade you otherwise unless you are open to that persuasion.

Weird confused lesbian Hawaiian lawmaker goes into a an incoherent rant as she votes against gay marriage

It seems that Hawaii lawmakers finally broke through the 'citizens filibuster' by right wing bigoted fanatics who had really fantastical views on homosexuality and gay marriage.

While the weird and totally bizarro-world psychotic diatribes of these so-called Christian wanna-be avengers that can make the God Hates Fags cult look tame, it gets even weirder as a confused lesbian legislator votes against the gay marriage bill that would no doubt benefit her and change her quality of life.

Her reason? Well how the fuck should I know.

 I mean her reason is as follows:

"First of all, I didn’t write it down. I really didn’t have time to prepare, because we pretty much went from hearings, hearings, hearings, go home, shower, sleep for three hours. But you really didn’t have time to process. Now we get into the hearing itself, make the decision. Now it’s ready to hit the floor. I really didn’t have any time to write anything down. 

I just decided I’ll take it as it goes. It was really how I was feeling, what was I internalizing from all the 57 hours of testimony. And not just in the room, but when you’re outside the room and seeing people waiting three, four days to stand up there for two minutes. That spoke volumes to me. People coming back day after day, waiting for their chance when they got missed. 

When I stepped into this position, as an appointee in January 2011, I felt I wasn’t worthy of being here. Because you’ve got lawyers, really brilliant people with huge college degrees. And this and that—whew, I’m just Jo from Waianae and I’ve got some street smarts and a fast mouth. When I walked in here, I said, all I have is my integrity, to do my best I can. And I’ve kept myself grounded in that. When this issue started arising, I had to think to myself, you need to stay grounded in what your root beliefs are. I’ve won an election, and sworn to uphold the constitution of the state as well as the United States. You have an obligation to this institution. You really have to think differently, because you are being watched and it is a position that you need to respect even while sitting in your seat. 

I always have taken my personal hat off, my personal beliefs away from it, and said, "Look at the substance, what is the measure, have you heard all the dialogue, have you vetted everything? Have all your questions been answered? And are you willing to make a decision for the 1.4 million people in the state?" For your constituents, but also for the whole state. 

I know who I am, I’m grounded in who I am, I’ve never hid who I am. And when I walked in this door, the GLBT community came knocking on my door and they said, "We’re so glad you’re here. Come on in here." And I’m like, “I’m Jo, I’m a legislator, those are my hats first.”
I know what it meant to step in this room for a kid from Waianae, who graduated from public school, who has no background, to be a female and to be GLBT on top of that. And I didn’t want to come up the gate saying, "Look at me, here I am." Because it would distract from anything that I worked on. I have never waved my flag. I don’t wear it across my chest. 

They were very good at respecting that. And even last year, when they engaged. Let’s vet some bills last November. I saw some stuff I wasn’t pleased with; it was more like, a national group coming down. And that’s when you start tearing at my other side. We don’t need a lot of Mainlanders coming and telling us what we gotta do. And you’ll hear that going on. I said, "You know what, I’m here with my legislative hat, not my personal hat. You guys move forward with whatever you’re doing, and I don’t want to be a participant in that." I stepped out of it. 

As DOMA [section] 3 fell, I was like, this is going to be big. Many of the larger groups, Equality Hawaii and national groups came to me, when stuff started bubbling up, and the governor called the special session. Then it came: "We want you to attend this meeting. We want you to be the face." I was honest with them: "That’s not what I want to do." 

I’m a legislator first and foremost, and I’m not here to promote your pride. I’ve got to do my duty first and I don’t want to seem biased. And they had respectfully said, "OK, cool."
It’s about your work. Vet all the issues, put your personal stuff aside and let’s see where we’re going with this measure. 

I’m choosing not to look at the news, but I hear I’m being blasted pretty bad.
As soon as I got off the floor, probably within the first half hour… (makes explosion noises) I want to have faith that it’s the Mainland and it’s not here. I’m like, "You don’t know who I am, No. 1, because obviously you weren’t in those hearings." 

I totally thought I was going to get blasted by the religious community. When I walked into the hearings, I was like, those faith-based guys are going to come out. And not one of them said anything. They were more about, "Thank you, thank you for listening." And they didn’t know who I was. Outside, I was Rep. Jordan sitting at the table. They had no idea who I was, or my lifestyle, and that’s why I like it. Can we get to know each other before you know the rest of the stuff? 

I was blasted by the GLBT community on Saturday, outside the door. That took me aback. At the time, I hadn’t stated my position, and I was still undecided. These were testifiers the day before, saying, “How can you be undecided? You should be a 'yes.' Do you know what this means?” And I politely engaged with them: "I have some problems with SB1." I explained the issues and they slammed me again. “It’s good. Just vote yes.” They started getting boisterous. My natural instinct is, I’m going to fly some words at you. But you can’t, so I’m like, "Thank you." 

It has been interesting. I am not part of any faith-based group, so I walked in thinking those were going to be the ones going, grrrr, grrrr. But unfortunately, it’s been coming from my community during the hearing. I was like, “Wow, so much for minorities that have been suppressed.” But I’ve got to look at it this way: Maybe they feel they’ve been suppressed for so long that they no longer can contain it and they are just going to lash out at anything without thinking first. But I have to keep that faith to help me not take it personally. It’s not about who is right and who is wrong. It’s about, are we creating a measure that meets the needs of all? 

I had come to the decision that SB1 needed to amended. It wasn’t protective enough for everybody. And I truly know, my GLBT community is not going to go somewhere where they are not welcome. They are not going to go, "Pastor, you need to marry us, even though it is against your grain." Because they want their happy day to be a happy day. A couple isn’t going to step into something that’s not warm and welcoming. We’re really looking at those fringe guys, those ones that pop up on the edges that say, "You’re treading on my rights, so I’m going to come and challenge you." 

When you look at a measure, you have to consider, how do we make this the golden standard, as bulletproof as possible? My major concerns on SB1 was, first, the parental maternal rights, 57-2c, that wasn’t healthy. That definitely needed to be fixed. The religious exemption was not adequate enough. And the divorce portion in there is not fair. We’re talking about creating equity. They have made a provision here where you don’t have to domicile here. And I totally get what they’re saying, but I have some serious problems with that. We should at least make some sort of domicile in our state, so they can file for divorce here. 

I really am not happy with the exemptions. Too narrow. 

I’m not here to protect the big churches or the little churches, I’m saying we can’t erode what’s currently out there. We don’t want to scratch at the religious protections at all, because if we don’t create a measure that’s bulletproof, or as close to bulletproof as possible, then the measure will go to the courts. And they will interpret it however that may be. A judge will make assumptions and make a ruling, and that will become the law of the land. So you really want us to create the legislation. 

I haven’t figured out why I felt so compelled to fight for the religious exemptions, to not erode Constitutional rights. I don’t belong to any particular denomination. I don’t wear one of those hats. I take religion out of everything. My religion is the mountain, the aina and spiritual. Everybody finds their own religion somewhere. I have the same values as they do, but it’s just a little different. When I walked into this session, that rose to the surface. Why me? Why am I trying to protect your religious rights? 

I’m still trying to figure out. I’ve always followed paths. I don’t find the path. The path finds me. This, obviously, is a path I’m supposed to go. You’re not supposed to question. Just ‘OK.’ 

At the end of the day, the way SB1 HD1 is written right now, walking into the third reading I can’t say it is written the best that we can provide to all. If that’s at the risk of not allowing same-gender couples to get married on Dec. 2, I can’t stop that, I’m sorry. We want to make sure it’s good. It’s not about who gets to the finish line first. It’s just not."

Did you get that?

Me neither.

She seems like one of those confused dykes that would blow a gay guy, well I dunno why, but she would I tell ya... And her explanation would be as long and as incoherent that it would make a lunatic homeless shouting obscenities at a street corner while selling pencils from a cup be viewed as prime for a debate at Oxford.

Meanwhile, all kidding aside, the only thing I can gather from Miss Mess is that she was probably blackmailed by the right wing fascistoids. God know what shenanigans she is up to that would expose her to political blackmail.

Maybe she was caught giving a blowjob to a gay teen in her car at the airport?

Or its probably typical political bribery, or blackmail. Nothing new here. Keep moving folks nothing to see here.

I mean she had no choice but to vote AGAINST a bill that would change her life for the good, is supported by 3/4 of her district, is supported by a majority of Hawaiians, and its clearly something her constituencies wanted her to support. We are supposed to believe that she has 'concerns' over religious exemptions and other items on the bill, yet she never once attended a meeting while the bill was being drafted and written. She was basically M.I.A. and we are supposed to believe that her concerns are truly genuine and so strong enough that it merited for the first time ever in the history of politics that an openly gay politician to vote against gay marriage.

Oh, did I mention blackmail?

Is Dan Savage a genocidal psychopath?

While on Aussie television the faggot (before you eek on my usage of the word 'faggot' we have to remember that Dan has broken down the barriers of such use of language as he also has the habit of calling other gays 'faggots' as well) was asked about what dangerous idea he would propose. The answer he gave: forced abortions.

I am one of many of little winnie Savage's critics in the gay community for his absurd antics, hypocritical stupidity, and downright narcissistic condescending see-through nature that has, in my belief, made the situation worst for many other gay people.

Being a self appointed 'Representative' of the gay community who has made his career and name for himself by pretending that his superficial expressions and cliche montages like the so-called 'It Gets Better' project will save suicidal gay teens from a dismal selfish end, his quite bizarre behavior while being the gay UN Secretary General in front of the mainstream international media has indeed caused many people, many people who we need their support in the pursuit of rights, to squirm in their living room recliners. Which then begs the question: do all gay guys act like him?

Please, please. Please.

No. The answer is no. The little winnie speaks for himself, and for his loyal brainless cult followers who should know better.

My problem with the little winnie faggot in Chief of the UN of the gay world is that in his world, in his mind in particular, he actually thinks that he's always fucking right: that people adore him, and that the gay community worships him and his carbon footprint because he is our all-knowing gay god who was miraculously resurrected  right after a three-day death orgy spell.

There is nothing wrong with being nasty, in fact many of you may already know how nasty I get. But pretending to be a master of psychology, and the super-hero leader for gay rights activism when in reality you are just a nasty person like myself and no better than a foul mouth like myself, all you are doing is being a great disservice to the cause he claims to adore, where nasty little bigoted foul mouths like Dan and me don't belong at all.

Dan and his ilk are a dangerous breed because they cannot by all means just be satisfied with writing their rants on a blog or a book, but they are trying to actually affect people's real lives and religiously proselytizing to these vulnerable people (suicidal teens) a false hope that the world will change because in Dan Savage's mind it will change without any regard to specifics. Offering delusions to these people instead of a referral to the nearest counselor or psychiatrist is one of the most offending miscreant behaviors of a delusional charismatic false prophet that I have ever seen ever since Joseph Smith.

So when he's asked what idea he thinks of as 'dangerous' the above paragraph should have suffice as an answer. Dan's fake responses to real life or death issues are dangerous in of themselves, whether we talk about the macro of world population control, or the micro yet as important individual lives of teens with emotional issues.

It seems to me that Savage does not really care for gay teens, or life in general for that matter. Now for clarity: I am for a woman's right to choose (ie have an abortion or keep the baby). His revelation on Aussie TV that he is not really 'pro-choice' but he's 'anti-choice' in his answer to the question posed to him either tells me that he's a sinister psychopath who has no connection to his and/or other people's humanity or he's a psychopathic liar, or both. He either genuinely doesn't believes that life is precious and kids should not kill themselves because homophobes bully them, or like his Twitter handle suggests he is just a typical snake-oil bullshitter. He's not really 'pro-choice' he says. He's now all for a China-style mandatory abortions against all women regardless of their choice all in the name of 'population control' the gay community and I are learning.

Or maybe like all the other times he's just being himself and is just bullshitting.

Or maybe his true feelings about humanity itself are now in full display and they have penetrated his austere screen of utter bullshit.

Either way genocidal maniacs and psychopaths, whether they bullshit us or not, should not be in the position of authority of telling the rest of us, and in particular gay teens, how to solve our everyday problems.

I don't pretend to know the solutions to the world's problem because sometimes I don't know, and there is no need to lie unless you are looking for attention.

I don't know. I am being honest. I don't know.

But if winnie Savage is being honest, and he really wants forced abortion to 'solve' overpopulation (instead of solving the problem of resource management and production as I propose as opposed to Savage's dumb abortion idea) then what his thesis proposes is that humanity itself is the problem and not the solution. Meaning, the less humans exist the better mother earth would be. If that is the case, Dan, then why the fuck do you want gay teens not to kill themselves?

In fact, if overpopulation is a such a huge problem why not help by starting with yourself. Why don't you kill yourself to help end overpopulation.

But why would the bullyvengelical who has made a career in stopping suicide commit suicide in the end? He wont. Not because he's a hypocritical coward, though that is part of it, but because even he doesn't believe his own bullshit. So then, one must ask: why should already annoyed bullied gay teens take this dumbfuck seriously in the first place?

(Watch Dan Savage say we need forced abortions after the jump...)