by jhwygirl

I am beyond disgusted with this kind of stuff. If I’ve never written to the fact that the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, I’ve written nothing.

Today I find that the MT GOP, at its most recent convention, re-affirmed its 2008 platform calling for making homosexual acts criminal.

And lest you think I’m making this up – mainly because the page link I provided has been removed today by the MT GOP – here is a cached version, courtesy of the google.

Now – these Einsteins of the MT GOP apparently have no respect for the Montana Constitution, nor the United State’s Constitution. See, both the Montana Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States of America have struck down “anti-sodomy” laws.

The Montana Supreme Court did so in Gryczan v. State, 942 P.2d 112 (1997). Not only that, Gryczan and the right of privacy it has conferred has been reaffirmed over and over again by both the Montana courts and other state and federal courts repeatedly since its rendering.

The United States Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence et. al. V. Texas (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003), finding a constitutional protection to sexuality. Only Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

In other words – it’s no government’s business what anyone does in their bedroom.

Where does it stop, MT GOP? What is it you want? Are there not enough problems out there facing Montanan’s? Have you no respect for the ultimate law of our land? Of our nation?

By Goddess, something is really failing us here, Montana – I am gosh darn sick and tired of politicians on both sides of the aisle proposing voting for passing and signing bills into law that violate the constitution (be it the Montana Constitution or the Constitution of the United States).

It’s beyond disrespectful that politicians think they can push the boundaries of these precious documents as if saying to The People “Go ahead and sue me – you can’t afford the fight.”

It’s pretty friggin’ simple – policies must obey rules; rules must obey laws; laws must obey the Constitution. It’s not a “sometimes” thing. It’s not something that should only followed when it’s convenient or when the “other party” is in charge

It’s all the time.

  1. Peter

    Your “cached version” links to the 2008 platform. I do not see the 2010 platform posted yet.

  2. Big Swede

    So sodomy with young children in a bedroom is not the govt’s business?

  3. H.

    It’s back online, at a new address – but with the same language.

    A few Democratic Party conventions ago, it’s important to know, Sen. Christine Kaufmann and Rep. Diane Sands did their best to make sure equality was not removed from the Democratic platform. The way I heard it, some folks at the top of the party thought it would be best if LGBT people weren’t mentioned because it might make some folks in Montana queazy, the thought of two men in love. But the fact is that the right is talking about LGBT people using misinformation and lies. If we don’t talk about what the queer community experiences on a day-to-day basis, all voters will hear is the lies. We gotta give them something else, the truth, so we can move forward.

    Things are getting better for LGBT people every day, every year, with every generation. But we still have a lot of education to do with both sides of the isle.

    Just last session, in 2009, Reps. Kendall Van Dyk, Cohenauer, Beck, and Flemming voted against the domestic partnership bill on the floor of the house. That’s right, democrats.

    We’ll see what they do in 2011.

    • klemz

      San Francisco is not a Montana city.

      • You’re right, I don’t even remember what my point was. Please just ignore my post above, seeing as San Francisco is not a city in Montana is serves little if no purpose to this conversation. [/sarcasm]

        • klemz

          Have you ever been to Up Your Alley? Or Folsom? Did you accidentally stumble upon these events innocently with your little protestant family waddling like ducks in a row through the streets of San Francisco, not noticing the subtle warning signs of harry men walking around casually in leather with riding crops and 15-foot rainbow flags flying above the Castro?

          If so, I’m sorry nobody put you on notice: there are gay people in San Francisco, and sexuality of any kind is not a (strictly) private matter there.

  4. ayn rand

    FYI the platform and bylaws are both on line for those of you tech challenged.

  5. free your brain

    But, it’s OK to let them play music at your wedding!

    Any GOP’rs that listen to Limbaugh in MT going to critique their circus master? Doubtful. Swede, please apply your logic here?
    Ah, the double standard…..

    • Big Swede

      I haven’t heard if Elton beds 12 year olds.

      Looks like your avatar needs a shot of penicillin.

      • And I’ll say it again here Swede so maybe it sinks in: Two adults making an adult decision is called “sex.”

        One adult raping a child is called: “raping a child.” Again, difference.

        Not that someone willing to spew such profound ignorance can understand all of this.

  6. Montana Cowgirl

    Never in this post does jhwygirl reference or defend crimes against children, which are, obviously, illegal. She is instead mocking their unenforceable intrusions into the lives of adults.

  7. Big Swede

    I guess I’l have to spell it out for you guys. Let’s exam the quote.

    “We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.”

    As far as I see the only illegal homosexual act currently illegal is sex with under age same gender.

    • Pulling answers out of your ass again, Swede. The Montana Comprehensive Code of Criminal Conduct of 1973 contains the Deviant Sexual Conduct clause which allows for 10 years and a $50,000 fine for anyone convicted of “sodomy”. You might want to do your research before being seen as blatantly wrong yet again.

      But then again, no one could possibly see that as a “civil rights” issue. ~wink~

      • Big Swede

        Oh that explains it. The quote really reads.

        “We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal, even legislation that has been thrown out by the MT Supreme Court.”

  8. Somewhere in the distance, a dog barked …

    There must be a name for this sort of sensational reporting on what the “other side”is up to. This thread is a waste of time and energy. The important issues of the day are the wars, the Gulf, the bailouts, pending expiration of tax cuts, Guantanamo, threats to civil liberties, and others.

    For each one of those issues, the onus for action lies at the feet of the Democrats. While you, jhwygirl, caterwaul away about such trivialities as this, your own party is sticking it to us.

    And hey, by the way, Ed Kemmick made an eloquent plea for MT Cowgirl to out herself, since she takes on a somewhat high profile (it’s only a blog) and is openly critical of real people with real names.

    Why don’t you do the same, jhwygirl. Man up.

    • I agree:

      threats to civil liberties

      is an important issue of the day.

    • Wulfgar, anonymous blogger that you are: You know full well that I am referring to big issues for which Democrats offer no protection or solution, as they are the problem, and that the picayune matter presented by Jwhatevergirl’s post here will in the end amount to much ado about nothing, which is all that Democrats have left when they duck every other issue.

      I have a proposal for you, my friend, and all anonymous bloggers: Oftentimes it is necessary to shield one’s identity to protect one’s job. I get that. That said, there should be limits on bloggers using pseudonyms attacking real people with real names.

      Therefore I propose the following: You, Cowgirl, jwwhatever and anyone else writing on a blog (not those who merely comment) shall be prohibited from attacking real people with real names. You may only attack anonymous public officialese, journalists, and the like.

      And further, if you use your little perches on your cute little blogs to attack real people with real names, you shall refer to yourselves as follows:

      I am Wulfgar, a weaselblogger…
      I am Cowgirl, a weaselblogger …

      You get the idea. Man up.

      • You’re getting desperate for Ad Hominem attacks, Mark. You know I’m not anonymous. Pretty much everybody here knows I’m not anonymous. Here’s how anonymous I am: My name is Rob Kailey, and I am the IT Manager at the MSU Bookstore, in Bozeman Montana. You, on the other hand, are a true weasel for lying your fricking ass off about what you know in hopes that someone, anyone, will help you and support you and nurture you in your fight for justice. Anyone who would support you when you’ve lied your ass off to get them to do it, deserves whatever disrespect they will be met with, liar. Now, someone who wanted to “man up” would admit they’ve lied. I’m betting that you won’t, Mark.

        That said, there should be limits on bloggers using pseudonyms attacking real people with real names.

        Not much of a fan of the first amendment, are you? I thought as much.

        • Now, stop posting as Wulfgar when you attack real people with real names, and – which is more – you’ll be a Man my son!

          If you did not prefer to be anonymous, you would use your real name in all situations where you attack real people with real names.

          You’re at the boiling point now. This is where you usually go off and start laying the f-bomb on people. But you’ve said nothing for which I need offer a defense. You’re sputtering now.

          Shall I trek on over to your blog now and learn what names you have called me, weasel?

          • Bullshit, Mark. You ain’t the boss o’ me, or of this blog or of the world. You are a mousy little man who can’t stand up without lying.

            I’ve been known as ‘Wulfgar’ online since before you could program the flashing “12:00” off your VCR. So don’t tell me what I “prefer”, Mark. You’re just looking more desperate by the moment.

            And another lie. You have no reason to trek over to my blog. You’ve already trolled it quite enough, thank you. Sadly, Mark, many people here know that as well.

          • And by the way, Thank You!

            someone who wanted to “man up” would admit they’ve lied. I’m betting that you won’t, Mark.

            I win the bet.

            • Appear that you are playing with yourself.

            • English. Please learn it.

            • Well, I meant to pain an image drawn from your silly bet with yourself in which I was to have been a participant. The image was of you masturbating. But since this is a family blog where real people interact, I opted to make an allusion to what you were doing. It’s like a dog whistle in that only people tuned in on that frequency will hear it.

              And since you are not much attune to subtlety, I’ll have to spell it out: Enjoy yourself, brother, as your best friend holds both your unit and your beer, but not at once unless you are really practiced.

              How’s that for English? Did any pass through the cranium?

            • I meant to pain an image drawn from your silly bet with yourself

              English. Please learn it.

              The image was of you masturbating.

              Keep your fantasies to yourself, Mark. Otherwise Swede will post pictures.

              Enjoy yourself, brother, as your best friend holds both your unit and your beer, but not at once unless you are really practiced.

              I’m not your brother. Learn English.

              How’s that for English?

              Really really bad. Descriptions of you wanking while thinking of me? That’s pretty twisted, Mark.

              Did any pass through the cranium?

              Any what? Kindly go back to whatever native language you speak, because English challenges you too much.

  9. H.

    “For each one of those issues, the onus for action lies at the feet of the Democrats. While you, jhwygirl, caterwaul away about such trivialities as this, your own party is sticking it to us.”

    “Trivialities”? Really? A statewide political party advocating for 10 year prison sentences for gays and lesbians in their platform is trivial to you? Oh, what privilege!

  10. Pete Talbot

    You missed the boat, there, Mark. Jhwygirl asks in her post, “Are there not enough problems out there facing Montanans?” In other words, “the Republicans have time for this crap?” Same point you were raising.

    You also list “threats to civil liberties” as an issue that rates more attention than gay rights. If throwing two consensual adults in prison for having sex isn’t a threat to civil liberties, I don’t know what is.

    Finally, I could explain to you why jhwygirl uses a pseudonym, but it’s not my place and frankly, it would be a waste of my time on you.

    • Please. Ain’t nobody going to prison.

      I am searching for a name for this political tactic – that’s all it is – where party faithful are kept in a state of angst due to perceived threats from the other party while the leadership of their own party screws us. It is … projection.

      That’s it!!! Eureka! Projection!!! Projection.

  11. Now that Mark, the liar, has been rendered almost incoherent, kindly allow me to offer a straight up comment.

    Sodomy law is a dog-whistle campaign. Sans his arrogance, Mark is correct about that. It’s only effective, however, because it really is a civil rights issue, one he personally couldn’t give a crap about. Truth is, many of us do, and are rightly outraged about the inclusion of support of authoritarian BS laws in the Republican platform. This shouldn’t stand, and won’t stand.

    Now some argue that a civil rights issue is just a distraction. People don’t really favor gay rights, and that makes it a weak issue for argument. Only if we let it be. Gay rights = civil rights, unless one can’t “man up” enough to recognize the obvious. Some would have it that we shouldn’t focus on that issue because Democrats use it to mask their failures at other things. I would argue that Republicans use it to fire their base and play on irrational fears. As regards this issue, the Montana Republicans are truly in the wrong. Somehow, to some, that means that calling out the wrongness means that we will and must support Democrats when Democrats want the same things as Republicants. Some would have it that this issue distracts us from the goal, and we should revile Democrats because we agree with them on this issue but not what “REALLY” matters, like civil rights, as if this isn’t a civil rights issue. Some would be really screwed up.

    Issue by issue is how we should make our decisions. On this issue, the Republicans are wrong, have been wrong and remain wrong. There is no shame in pointing out the obvious, here. Apparently, some want focus on something else, even though there is no cost to focusing on what is plainly wrong! Do any readers here have limits on their issues? Can you only focus on a set number of things? Hehe, no.

    This is not zero sum, despite what some might claim. Concern that the Republicants want gays imprisoned does not steal thought or concern for other issues. What it does steal is the belief that the two parties are all the same, and many will not abide such theft of honesty. How dare anyone think Republicants are horrid when we want Democrats to fail!!!!eleventy1!!

    The facts: Any one who is not enslaved to a doctrine would recognize that sodomy laws are f’ing stupid. Most civil libertarians, who vote predominately Republicant recognize that fact. For an party, any party, to include sodomy laws as a favored plank of their platform is f’ing stupid, and should be avoided at all costs. Voting Democrats in, even if you haven’t GOTTEN EVERY GODDAMNED THING YOU EVER WANTED FROM THEM! is not a horror when faced with the fact that Republicants stand against civil rights.

    Republicants have just taken a stand against civil rights. despite what some assholes might tell you, thinking ill of that is not a crime.

    • Gay marriage and sodomy laws are not the same, are they Rusty?

      • Stay down. You’re beat.

        Of course, here I am alluding to the movie Cool and Luke, and a man of character, Lukas Jackson. You ain’t none of that man. But you are down, you are beat, so off to yourself with that right hand and that beer, and enjoy. It’s all you got.

        • Cool and Luke

          I’m unfamiliar with that film. Perhaps you have a link?


          Desperate. That’s what you are and what you exhibit. You are desperate, Mark.

        • Again, a false statement uttered to sound like the final word. I am not desperate. I got more, lots more, and can undo you anytime I so desire. You’re that easy.

          Thank you for repressing the f-bombs. I know they were on the launch pad.

        • I got more, lots more, and can undo you anytime I so desire. You’re that easy.

          Go for it, liar.

      • Obviously you’re right…I don’t know what I was thinking. Please, carry on.

      • They are derived from the same impulse. People who want to punish people for behaviors they don’t like usually have a repressed desire to participate in those behaviors.

        • HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! I remember that bullshit assessment from my liberal days! Keep it up!

          • Mark T

            Rusty Rusty Rusty … it’s not political. Any human impulse that is suppressed is going to come out somehow. Repressed gays are all about and are easy to spot. The Fundy churches are crawling with them. Those places represses hetero impulses too and are hotbeds of closet humping. Any porn dealer will tell you hecscores a bonanza when a church group has a convention.

            It’s life my man. It’s people.

  12. Montana Cowgirl

    Perhaps Jhwygirl doesn’t want creepsters to know her real name so that they are unable to find her address and phone number and show up with their craziness at her doorstep. Some people here are scary crazy.

    • Big Swede

      Got it already on google maps.

      I’m the guy hitchhiking with a chain-saw.

    • Fine. Whatever. But an anonymous person should not be a critic of a real person with a real name. All I am saying is that you confine yourself to criticism of people who, like you, hide behind pseudonyms, and leave the rest alone. Seems only fair.

      • I am sure there are reasons that J-Girl must hide her identity, like (but obviously not the same, I know) Mark Felt hid his identity during and after the Watergate Scandal.

        Perhaps being IDed would damage her professional life.

        • Trust me, there are no Mark Felt’s here. And as far as I know, Felt did not adopt a pseudonym and start attacking real people with real names in the ensuing years. He was anonymous for the same reason that leakers in the Obama’s Pentagon today are anonymous – like Ellsburg, prison awaits.

          Jwhatever girl and Cowgirl ain’t going to prison, but if they fear for their safety, fine. Just limit their attacks to other pseudonymous people.

  13. AnonymousCoward

    I don’t see anything wrong with anonymous comments.

    Maybe jhwygirl is actually a man, a convicted pedophile and rapist or or perhaps a thief and an embezzler. Perhaps jhwygirl is not actually from Montana, but blogging from Karachi. Or, considering the quality of the posts, it could be that the mostly likely explanation is that jhwygirl is actually not a liberal but a conservative offering weak strawman arguments to in an attempt to discredit the left.

    We have no way of knowing if any of these speculations are true or untrue.

    Whatever the reasons for hiding behind a pseudonym, I support them.

    • Neither do I see anything wrong with anonymous comments. I am talking about the managers of the blogs. If they want to remain anonymous, fine, but stop attacking public people. Otherwise, they are bloggerweasels.

  14. petetalbot

    I’ll repeat myself here. I have the luxury of posting under my real name. I’m an old, self-employed white guy and don’t have to worry about the repercussions from what I write … or more so, don’t really care.

    Some people post under a pseudonym because they are cowards. Jhwygirl is not a coward. She has her reasons.

    Also, Mark, please note that jhwygirl casts aspersions at the GOP — an easy target, granted, but she doesn’t go after an individual — which sort of defuses what you’re saying.

    • Fair enough. Here’s what I said:

      Jwhatever girl and Cowgirl ain’t going to prison, but if they fear for their safety, fine. Just limit their attacks to other pseudonymous people.

      Cowgirl is especially flagrant about this, writing more and more drivel as she takes more and more heat for it.

      • You’re kind of unbelievable, Mark. First, you tell people that concern for a civil rights issue is unwarranted because it’s just dog-whistle politics (no, it isn’t). And then you start pompously stamping your feet like the Little Dictator making up rules for everyone else that have no basis in morality, reason or even the reality of human communication.

        What’s hysterically ironic is that only person who comments either at this website or LitW who got caught red-handed making up a persona for the exact purpose of trolling

        is you.

        • For those of you who read, Mark said that he understands that blog commenters must sometimes be anonymous, most since they are afraid to be caught loafing at work or having opinions the boss doesn’t like.

          Mark only said that those who write posts on blogs should identify themselves, or limit their attacks to others who are hidden behind green curtains.

          • Mark, I reiterate. The only one in Montana known to have adopted an alternate anonymous persona for the purpose of trolling is you. That doesn’t mean that you’re the only one who does it, but anonymous commenters such as yourself have no credibility. And if “Rod” is some ass playing at being Mark, you have no credibility either. But thanks for the link.

            • You’re a guy who doesn’t seem to know anything that goes on and on and on, usually hitting his peak just before last call. Drunk, sure about everything, and yet, somehow … full of shit.

              You must stop talking about “credibility” this instant! I lived through the “health care” debate with you. Like Cowgirl, you are a person who cannot see what is before your eyes, and looks upstream for your opinions, in your and her case,the Democrat leadership.

              Enuf of you, pointless person.

  15. Marianne

    Newspaper editorial boards write anonymous critiques of real people and no one has a problem. By Mark’s logic, he should only be allowed to criticize socialists, not dems or repubs. It’s just stupid.

    • Newspaper editorial boards are, ahem, publicly identified and answerable for their opinions. Don’t know who they are? Call and ask.

      By Mark’s logic, he should only be allowed to criticize socialists, not dems or repubs. It’s just stupid.

      Huh? Come again? WTF?

      • Marianne

        Huh? can you name for me all the members of the newspaper editorial boards? No you can’t. Because they aren’t identified. Moron. Please crawl back under your rock. If you don’t like freedom speech, admit it like a “man.”

        • Cowgirl is going through rating comments again, like she has some insight into anything.

          Marianne, I’m not going to exchange with you anymore, as you are saying things that are stupid. Members of editorial boards are public people, and great fanfare is made when they are appointed. They don’t know anymore than anyone else, but they are given a high perch from which to spout nonsense. That’s all.

        • klemz

          Missoulian: Sherry Devlin, Stacey Meuller, Gwen Florio, Jim McGowan and Tyler Christianson.

          Every newspaper that I know of lists their EB membership on the inside masthead. Don’t take this as support for Mark’s position, but you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • And which one writes the editorial? Unidentified, anonymous. Who’s bullet in the firing squad is a blank? Do you or Mark know?

          No, you don’t.

          • klemz

            Wulfgar, I frequently wrote anonymous columns for the Indy (etc) and for another alt weekly in California. I’m not taking Mark’s position on this.

            I’ve also been on an editorial board and it’s considered bad form to say (even in private) that you opposed an editorial board position that people don’t like. Sometimes you end up writing op-eds for a position you opposed.

            It’s not an anonymous thing.

            And yes, when I lived in Missoula and read the Missoulian almost every day I could often tell which op-eds were written by particular people (especially Tyler).

            • Tyler Christensen

              Especially Tyler, because those particular editorials were especially awesome … right?

              • klemz

                I would agree with that statement except it might imply that the editorials not written by you were even remotely awesome.

                When some of the other members write I feel like I’m in a one-room schoolhouse being scolded.

                Sorry, I butchered your last name.

          • My apologies. I am incorrect as concerns you, klemz. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong at all concerning Mark, or the greater population.

            • Sure you are. You’re kind of cornered here. Jwhatevergirl and Cowgirl remain anonymous because they do not want to be known. That’s OK, no problem, as I have said now what … ten times? So long as they do not use their very low perch (it’s a blog, fer chrissakes) to attack real people.

              And the same goes for you. You attacked a public person, George Orchenski, using your pseudonym, calling him a “fucking moron”. That’s a coward at work.

            • That would make sense, Mark, except that George knows who i am. He, like you, even started using my name as a weak threat, presumably because he was too much of a moron to realize that I don’t care. There is no threat there to me. None. So perhaps you could clarify exactly what I’m supposed to be afraid of. You? Hardly. George even less.

              After all, Ochenski never called me on my insult. But you adopted a false anonymous persona to attempt it. You have no moral standing here, Mark. And I’m not afraid of the morally bankrupt.

              • Whatever. You’re rambling, you know. I do feel the beginnings of a volcano that will soon be spewing f-bombs right and left. You and Carlos Zambrano need to do some anger management.

              • I do feel the beginnings of a volcano that will soon be spewing f-bombs right and left.

                Perhaps you should avoid Mexican food, Gregg S/Monty/Broken Wind/Mark T/ Mark Tokarski, serial liar.

  16. ayn rand

    a quick check of the 2004 platform shows this same language was there then. New???

  17. This issue is sounding suspiciously wedgey.

    • Or you’re just paranoid.

      It is a “wedge” issue Mark. Only *you* think it has no relevance because of that. That’s ’cause you’re kinda dumb.

  18. since this string has deteriorated into a cartoon i thought i would supply one to lighten the mood…..

  19. Alanmt

    I wasn’t aware that this language was already in the GOP platform. I wish I had been. The reaffirmation of it is despicable.

    So, if my so-called friends and fellow Republicans had their way, I would be in jail, as a sex offender. As would my husband. And our daughter? Off to DFS, I suppose, for placement. This is sick and wrong.

  1. 1 All is projection « Piece Of Mind

    […] in America we have two political parties that are comprised of people who each project themselves on the other. Party leadership are pretty much unified in objectives while the people […]

  2. 2 How’s That New AP Policy on Attribution Working Out?

    […] make homosexuality illegal today, three months after blogs and the Missoula Independent broke and developed the […]

  3. 3 Bozeman’s Resolution in Support of Montana’s Same Sex Couples (Cont.) « 4&20 blackbirds

    […] Montana in the national news spotlight for the Montana GOP’s platform criminalizing homosexuality, this resolution highlights some of the things I touched on in that previous post – namely […]

  4. 4 You Can Text While Driving in Montana, But Don’t Be Gay While Doing It « 4&20 blackbirds

    […] law is, btw, unconstitutional under the Montana Constitution….and it is also proudly part of the Montana Republican Party […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,891 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • June 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: