Same Sex Marriage: What’s the big freaking deal?

The issue of same sex marriage is in the news again, both here and abroad. Locally we’re going through the public hearing process of a new Civil Union Bill that will make same sex ‘unions’ legal, although not define them as marriage (which the homosexual community is rightly calling a weak cop-out). In the US, the argument is rearing its head again as the midterm elections draw near and the Republicans desperately search for an issue that will draw attention away from the subject of kiddie-fiddling.

So far the protests against same-sex marriage have been nothing short of retarded. They generally take one of two forms: It’s against our personal tradition/religion and we think you should be forced to conform to our narrow minded thinking; or, children have to be brought up by a mother and a father or they will become sociopaths.

Let’s look at the first argument, being a question of religion or tradition. Many homophobes… i mean, conservative traditionalists … think that a broadening of the marriage laws to include same sex marriage somehow undermines their marital traditions. Seriously, how is saying that gay people can get married going to undermine the rights of straight people to get married? In South Africa polygamy is legal for Zulus, but you don’t hear the Christians screaming blue bloody murder about that infringing on their marital rights. How is same sex marriage any more against their religion than polygamy? Also, just because two gay men can get married doesn’t mean that all straight men must now only be allowed to marry other men. That would be as crazy as forcing gay men to only be allowed to marry women…. oh, wait, that’s what the law does right now. In fact, a law that prevents same sex marriage is no more in keeping with the constitution than a law that prevents inter-racial marriage, and we’ve already been through that one in this country.

And religion aside, just because heterosexual marriage is traditional doesn’t make it right. Past marital traditions that have fallen by the wayside in civilized countries include marrying girls off the moment they menstruate and marrying girls off to the highest bidder. Just because some South Africas still have to pay lobola for their brides doesn’t mean that they have a right to make it the law for all South Africans. Similarly, just because some South Africans still think that only men can marry women, doesn’t mean they have a right to make it law for all South Africans. It’s a simple case of not forcing your culture or religion or viewpoint on anyone else. Which is exactly why lobola and polygamy are still legal here, but are not compulsory. Big difference, that.

Secondly, if people honestly think that a child needs a mother and a father to become a functioning member of society, then why don’t they campaign to make divorce illegal instead? Or, if the religious really believe it, why don’t they protest when their god kills a parent? I’m sure more children are without a mother or father due to death or divorce than due to their parent being gay, so if people really really believe that trite bullshit, then they need to look at the big culprits first. Frankly a child is probably better off with two dads or two moms who are happy and stable, than with any combination of parents who are unhappy, unstable or underground.

The people who try to argue against same sex marriage are morons who are so immersed in the narcissistic idea that their beliefs are the only valid ones, that they cannot see past their own bloated egos. You have no right to force your way of life on anyone else, legally or otherwise. Why the hell do you give a shit if two men or two women want to get married? Unless you’re one of them, it doesn’t affect your life in any way, shape or form. Get over yourself, get over your pastoral fucking traditions, and get a god damn life.

Update: and a little more information on the Civil Unions Bill: it’s not a proposed replacement of the Marriage Act, but a creation of a separate law and separate register for civil unions i.e. straights can be married, gays have to have a civil union. It’s just another way of discriminating, this time explicitly rather than by omission. Add to that the fact that the Civil Union Bill has provisions that allow marriage officers (of the court, not just religious officials) to refuse to perform civil unions on the grounds of ‘conscience’, and what you have is a bill no more constitutional than the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. No wonder the SA Human Rights Commission has denounced it. 

Anyway, according to the 2005 Constitutional Court ruling, if the government doesn’t put a new law in place that allows same sex marriage by December 1, 2006, then the existing law will automatically be read as including same sex marriage from that day forward. So one way or another, homophobes lose.

Letter to Mbeki: the full text

Dr. Brian Foley, HIV researcher and tireless fighter against denialists, has been so kind as to point me in the direction of the full text of the letter sent to President Mbeki by the global community, pleading with him to remove Manto Tshabalala-Msimang from her position as Minister of Health.

Read the letter here.

A correction to the article I linked to in my previous post: there were in fact 82 signatories.

And what has Mbeki’s response been so far? As usual, he’s left the country for a bit until the heat cools.

Update: and the Health Dept is issuing unconstitutional gag orders to its provincial senior directors, ordering them not to speak to the media regarding HIV/AIDS. Wow.

Labelling GM Foods: the debate goes on

American consumer rights advocate Michael Hansen is in South Africa this week to talk about Genetically Modified (GM) foods. He had this to say:

Why is it that South African law allows shops to label their food as “halaal”, “kosher” or “vegetarian” – yet all sorts of government hurdles are thrown up when people demand compulsory labelling of genetically-modified (GM) food?

Where do I start? Each and every one of those examples cites labelling that is required because of a dietary restriction, for socially acceptable religious, moral, and health reasons. Labelling on food is in place to protect the consumer from foods that their religion, physician or lifestyle dictates they should not eat. When it comes to GM foods, there is nothing to protect the consumer from. Labelling of GM foods will imply that there is some need to protect the consumer, which is rubbish, and may be detrimental to the marketing and sale of otherwise perfectly safe foods. You have to be either a complete idiot or willfully ignorant to miss the point.

Hansen also adds:

We hear so much about GM foods being ‘totally safe’ or ‘good for small farmers’ or even that they are ‘better’ than normal foods. So, if that really is the case, then surely the GM industry would be proud of this and want to advertise these facts?

Oh, sure. In South Africa we have a policy where citizens who were previously disadvantaged by apartheid can purchase land through government grants and enrol in a mentorship program whereby they become sustainable commercial farmers. They are very proud of their accomplishments, but I can imagine the furore that will accompany the labelling of their produce as ‘grown by black farmers’.

There is a long tradition of genetic modification of foods, in the formation of cultivars from cloning and hybradization. Bananas, for example, exist only as a small number of cultivars that must be reproduced asexually. Should we start labelling bananas as Clone Foods?

Hansen, and others like him, think that just because something is created by science, it is somehow different to that created by nature. Their basic misunderstanding of both science and nature only ends up manifesting itself as irrational fear. These are the same kinds of people who, when human cloning becomes a reality, will require that all cloned humans bear a scarlet letter, lest real humans not know they are clones and mistakenly…i don’t know…treat them like people.

Has he even read the bill?

Bush has declared that he will veto HR810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, after it passed the House of Representatives at 238 votes to 194.

So what does HR810 say that has Bush so determined to use his power to veto? It allows for stem cell research to be performed on embryos that were created in fertility clinics and were meant for in vitro fertilization but were in excess of the need, that will otherwise be disposed of, and that have been donated with written consent and without any form of remuneration.

That seems perfectly sensible, so what are some of the objections? House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex) calls it a “vote to fund with taxpayer dollars the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings for the purposes of medical experimentation.” He obviously didn’t read the bill because it doesn’t provide for any kind of funding from the taxpayer. Nor can something be dismembered when it has not yet developed any members, but that’s besides the point. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill) obviously didn’t read it either: “For the first time in our national history, taxpayers’ dollars are going to be spent for the killing of innocent human life.” Again, no provision for funding is specified. Some other people tried to make comparisons with slavery and the Tuskegee experiments, and i’m not even going to dignify their stupidity by quoting it.

But Bush takes the cake with this whopper:

This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life.

He really must not have read the bill, because it specifies that only those embryos that would otherwise be destroyed may be used! The embryos are not going to be any less disposed of whether they’re used for the research or not, retard.

It makes me sick that there isn’t an IQ test before an election.

Burning Issue

Recently Americans had their panties in a twist again about the flag desecration amendment being put before parliament… again. More or less every two years the issue is raised, is passed by the House of Representatives, and is thrown down by the Senate. As it rightly should be, of course, because it’s utterly stupid to propose an amendment to the constitution that is in direct contravention of another (in this case, the First Amendment).

But what I find funny about the whole thing is this: the amendment proposes banning the descration of the flag, which includes a lot of things but in the public eye is mostly focused on the act of burning the flag. Other methods of desecrating the flag include when it is torn, or when it is allowed to fall and touch the ground. When a flag is desecrated it must be disposed of in an approved manner. What is the approved manner of disposing of such flags, according to the US Federal Flag Code?

Burning them.

Judge This

Judge John E. Jones III, who shot to relative fame during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, is still receiving death threats from good Christians and being branded a traitor by the Republicans, six months after the trial has reached a close.

For those not familiar with the back story, Judge Jones ruled against the Dover School District in a case that was expected to allow the Pennsylvania science curriculum to include a statement that evolution was only a theory and that alternate theories (ie intelligent design) should be explored. Judge Jones ruled that the intelligent design was clearly a thinly-disguised form of creationism, that it contained no science whatsoever and was thus disqualified from being considered in a science curriculum, and that the inclusion of the statement was a violation of First Amendment Rights.

The IDiot camp were shocked by the ruling. You see, Judge Jones is a Republican judge appointed by a Republican president, and both party and president are supporters of biblical creation over evolution. They expected the ruling to be a shoe-in for ID. But Jones showed them that a Judge must leave his beliefs at the door, and consider only the law and the evidence brought before him. Amazing then that in the face of such judicial impartiality, he is being treated like the Judas of modern times.

A quote from the article linked above:

One particularly strident commentary piece by conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly, published a week after the ruling, really set Jones off.
Schlafly wrote that Jones, a career Republican appointed to the federal bench by President Bush in 2002, wouldn’t be a judge if not for the “millions of evangelical Christians” who supported Bush in 2000. His ruling, she wrote, “stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.”

Just replace ‘millions of evangelical christians’ with ‘mafia’ and you get a sense of what’s going on here – the people who feel they are responsible for getting the judge his position tried to call in a favor, and are sending death threats because the judge they appointed turned out to be a man of the law. What next? A horse’s head in his bed? Cement boots and a tour of the Delaware?

Republicans and Christians alike need to get it through their heads: Jones ruled on the law and the facts, not on faith and favors. In this, he may have been a poor Christian, but he was an excellent District Court Judge. Good for him.

Begging for Change

New bylaws passed in Cape Town now make it illegal for beggars to:

1. Touch someone without their consent.
2. Follow someone in a manner or conduct that influences reasonable fear for bodily harm.
3. Continue to beg from someone after being turned down.

The bylaw also prohibits fornication, urination, defecation and spitting in public. And living in your car. Hell yeah.

Let’s be very clear: it doesn’t make begging illegal; it makes aggressive begging illegal. Anyone who has actually been accosted by aggressive and sometimes even violent beggars welcomes this bylaw. Certainly, anyone who ever encountered ‘Cyclops’, the one-eyed beggar in Rondebosch who begs with a stick raised in his other hand, would welcome the opportunity to call the police and have the violent fucker thrown in jail.

But not these bleeding hearts. They say it’s retrogressive and out of the dark ages. Interesting that they all seem to think it outlaws begging, but never mind that. None of them seem to recognize that while it’s not a crime to be poor and have to resort to begging, it is a crime to threaten someone in order to get money from them. Here’s one example of the idiocy: Sandra Morreira, director for The Homestead, which deals with street children, said:

This bylaw does not want to see beggars in town and it will make it impossible for them to survive.

Really? So is she implying that currently the only way beggers get money from people is to harrass and threaten them, and that begging in a non-aggressive manner will result in them being unable to survive? Interesting. I thought she was on their side. Here’s another one: Colin Arendse, secretary for the Homeless People’s Crisis Committee, said:

Given the social standing of homeless people, most are indigent and such a bylaw is out of sync with our new-found democracy.

I’m sorry, out of sync with our new-found democracy? Which party was it that was promising violent begging in exchange for your vote? Where in the constitution does it protect the right to threaten people with bodily harm if they don’t give you money?

Let me be clear on something: i don’t give money to beggars, because it only perpetuates the cycle. But i am never, ever rude. I turn them down politely, and if they are respectful in any way of their fellow citizens they will leave it at that. Those who harrass you, follow you, grab at you and continue to demand money long after it has been made politely clear you are not going to give them any, are stepping over a line. I am very glad that we now have a legal recourse when they do so.

RAF vs The Constitution: Only the Facts

Ok, some people have asked for only the facts of the RAF bill. i don’t normally rise to the kind of baiting that’s been going on here, but I’m tired of it now so this will be my last comment on this subject.

Here you go. Every single one of the following is a fact:

1. According the the Constitution, Chapter 1, Section 3, subsection 2, i quote “All citizens are equally entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits of citizenship.”

2. From same Constitution, Chapter 2, Section 34: “Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.”

3. Again from same Constitution, Chapter 8, Section 173: “The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice. ”

4. All people who purchase petrol or pay for public transport and thus indirectly purchase petrol, have contributed into the road accident fund. Even if you do not qualify for the same benefits as other contributors, you are still required to contribute.

5. If the bill goes forward, only people with “serious” injuries will be deemed deserving of compensation for pain and suffering. Serious injuries are defined as disablement, paralysis, dysfunction of a vital organ, brain injury, or an injury as defined by the minister of transport. Even then there is a cap of R100,000 on claims for these.

6. If the bill goes forward, people who earn more than R13,000 per month will not be entitled to full compensation of lost earnings.

7. However, according to the department’s own statistics, less than 1% of the amount paid out annually is to this earning bracket.

7. If the bill goes forward, actuaries predict that medical aid premiums will rise considerably as medical aid schemes usually pay out and then are compensated by the fund. Reduce the amount of compensation, increase the cost to the medical aid, increase the cost to you.

8. The RAF bill will take away your right to litigate against the guilty party for compensation. This is in direct contravention of item 2 above, and item 3 in that the courts are not regulating the process in this regard, the government is.

9. The DA called the latter “an untenable position and a fundamental change to our Common Law rights.”

10. The IFP called the Bill a legal disaster.

11. The fund has been the focus of several allegations of corruption, fraud and embezzlement. Evidence has been found of applicants signing power of attorney on dates after their death, recording claims on dates prior to the accident, and in some cases the same details being used in several applications over a short period.

12. The head of the RAF was fired in May amid allegations of corruption.

13. The fund is over R18 million in the red. This is cited as being the reason for the reforms outlined in the bill.

14. In the report of the RAF commission 2002, Judge Kathy Satchwell noted that about 35 percent to 55 percent of the fuel levy income paid to the RAF did not reach victims of road accidents, but was spent on administration.

15. In this year’s budget, Manuel noted that over the past three years the revenue to the RAF had increased from R2,6-billion to R4,5-billion at an annual average increase of 20,3 percent.

These are all facts. Put them together in context and you can form your own opinion. If that opinion, like mine, is that the bill is unconstitutional, is a knee-jerk reaction to appear to be doing something about gross mismanagement, and is only going to result in the citizens being screwed while the officials still skim off the top, sign the petition.

Road Accident Fund: Stop the Bill

Picture this: it’s a pleasant saturday evening and you’re taking a walk down the road to the shops. Suddenly out of nowhere some drunk fool veers off the road and slams his BMW into you. You break an arm, a leg, and your face is scarred for life. He’s rich and you are just a student.

Does the Road Accident Fund pay out? NO.
Can you sue him for pain and suffering, or even your medical costs? NO.

This is what the new RAF bill is proposing. Broken arms, legs and facial scarring will no longer be considered serious enough for the fund to pay out. And they are going to take away your common law right to sue the guilty party for compensation. How is this constitutional?

The govt feels they are losing too much money to road accident victims, so they are going to reduce payouts. And we already pay 31.5c on every litre of petrol to this fund. What for?

This bill proposes a blatant contravention of your rights. It is unfair, unconstitutional and unrealistic. Do your part to stop this bill and sign the online petition.

———-

OK, now that i’ve done my bit for the day 🙂

Yesterday I was talking about how zimbabwe’s rulers use the acquisition of white-owned farms as a lie to cover up acquisition of land for the government’s own use. In SA, land redistribution has so far taken the path that both the buyer and seller must agree to the terms of sale for the sale to go through, and the process is merely mediated by the government. Sounds fair, right? It would be if they were planning to keep it that way. The first seizure order on a white owned farm in SA has been delivered. The floodgates are official open. The government has seen how Mugabe has got away with it for so long without any real retaliation from africa or the world, and now they know they can go right ahead and do it too. Gotta love that constitution.

And Tony Yengeni, the one attempting to get his corruption sentence reduced so he can continue to serve in parliament, is in the news again. This time, a man fitting his description, driving a car registered to him, was spotted driving recklessly on all four rims down Marine Drive in Table View. He was apparently drunk. He eventually stopped, spoke to the people who reported the incident and had been following him, and to two security guards who were at the scene. They all agree that it was him. He then drove off before the police arrived. And this man wants to be allowed to continue to serve in public office. Brilliant. He hasn’t even been arrested yet. ‘An investigation is in progress’. Uhuh. Sure.

Crime and Punishment

The juxtaposition of these two stories in today’s news headlines was just too priceless.

South African judges are disgusted at Tony Yengeni’s appeal to reduce his sentence for corruption from 4 years with possibility of probation after 8 months, to 18 months suspended sentence. The reason is that government officials only have to give up their seats if they are dealt a sentence of 12 months or more of jail time. Reduction of the sentence will allow Yengeni to return to parliament. Yes, that’s right, in South Africa you may still serve in government after being convicted of corruption. Yes, we still like to pretend we live in a country with a real government and not a banana republic.

Meanwhile, in China, the punishment for corruption is death, previously administered by a bullet to the back of the head, more recently by lethal injection. Human Rights activists are all over this like flies on shit. Personally, I don’t see the problem.