there has been a lot of kerfuffle recently about two things that aren’t necessarily related in the obvious sense, but basically come down to the same thing, when you think about it. the first is universal health care or the lack thereof, and the other one is gay marriage.

the declaration of independance says that all <citizens of the united states> men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

i’ve always wondered about the part that says “among these…” because usually people say that it doesn’t guarantee you anything other than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that’s beside the point.

the first right mentioned is “life”, but what does that mean, really? if you’re alive, you don’t have any choice in the matter, but technically, anyway, if you try to kill yourself you can be arrested for the crime of attempted suicide, so it’s obvious that the government has an interest in keeping those people who are currently alive in a living state. but if you’re sick, that’s when the kerfuffle starts. these days, if you’re one of those many americans who don’t have health insurance, there’s the very strong possibility that you will die, and there’s nothing that the government will do to stop it. on the other hand, if you are taken to a hospital with a life-threatening illness, the probability that you’ll get emergency treatment is very high, even if you’re not a citizen.

i see a dichotomy here: the republicretins are all up in arms because obama’s public health care plan would potentially provide medical treatment for illegal aliens, and potentially determine when a critically ill patient is no longer eligible for treatment.

but currently, if a critically ill patient is taken to a hospital, they’ll get treatment whether they are a citizen or not. if one of the rights guaranteed by the declaration of independance is a right to life, then what would the government gain by having “death panels” to determine when a certain patient is no longer eligible for health care?

but the republicretins rail on as if it were the end of the world when obama suggests that providing health care for everyone is something that should be seriously considered. crazy people… malfunctioning people… 8/

and the gay marriage thing… fine. if you don’t like homosexuals getting married, then don’t marry a homosexual. by all means, don’t deny that they exist, or are immoral (that’s where “liberty” comes in to play). don’t equate them with pedophiles or other “deviants” – what does that word, “deviant” mean anyway? is the republican assemblyman from california, who is married with two children, and who was an outspoken supporter for proposition 8, but recently revealed to the world over a microphone that he didn’t know was turned on, that he was having an extramarital affair (in rather graphic terms) more or less a “deviant” than the gay couple down the street who have been together for 25 years, are good neighbours and keep to themselves? by the way, the republican assemblyman, mike duvall, has since resigned, but he is steadfastly refusing to admit that he was carrying on an extramarital affair… my guess is that he will admit it sooner or later, but claim the forgiveness of jeezis for his transgression.

it would seem to me that the declaration guarantees the right of any citizen to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases as long as it doesn’t kill someone or cause a riot. the declaration of independance guarantees the right for homosexuals to get married, regardless of what the neighbours might think. as long as they’re – what’s the right term? “monogamous” isn’t right for gay males… “monoandrous”? – faithful to each other and don’t go out and rape people, whatever it’s called, they have as much right to get married as a man and a woman.

it’s not a matter of “redefining” marriage, because, ultimately, marriage is a religious insitution before anything else, and, as we all know, mixing religion and matters of state is strictly prohibited by the same constitution that defines our rights. but if two gay people want to make a commitment to each other, there are certain rights that marriage provides, which are denied to people who are not married, which is not fair to gay people, who currently are prohibited from getting married. there has to be a way to provide those rights to all people, regardless of their sexuality.

much as i hate to use this phrase, i wish that the republicretins would simply get over it, because we are going to have public health care, and we are going to allow gay marriage…

or there will be riots…

which are what the constitution does not protect.

---

Disgraced California lawmaker denies affairs
By JULIET WILLIAMS
090910

A pro-family values California lawmaker who resigned after being caught on tape boasting about his sexual conquests denied Thursday that he had extramarital affairs, saying that “my offense was engaging in inappropriate storytelling.”

Mike Duvall stepped down Wednesday after a videotape surfaced in which was overheard telling a lawmaker about having sex with a lobbyist and another woman, including salacious details about how one mistress wears skimpy underwear and likes to be spanked. The 54-year-old Republican is married with two adult children.

But Duvall said Thursday that his “decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs.”

“My offense was engaging in inappropriate storytelling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state,” he said in a statement posted on his Web site.

Up until the video emerged, Duvall’s second term as a member of the California Assembly was progressing pretty much like his first — in relative obscurity, with few notable legislative accomplishments.

But he is now a YouTube hit after KCAL-TV aired his racy comments about sexual escapades that were caught by an open microphone in a Capitol hearing room. Several media outlets said the comments referred to Duvall’s affairs with a female lobbyist and another woman.

California’s legislative leaders have been trying to focus on a number high-profile issues — from water policy to prisons to renewable energy — during the waning days of their legislative session. On Wednesday, they instead found themselves answering questions about a lawmaker who bragged about a spanking fetish, the type of underwear worn by a mistress and his apparent ability to carry on two extramarital affairs at once.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, called it “a very sad day.”

“We have such big issues before the Legislature and to have this become a distraction, he felt his responsibility was to step aside,” she said.

He made the comments about the affairs to Assemblyman Jeff Miller during a break in a committee meeting inside the Capitol on July 8, apparently unaware that the microphone at the desk was on.

“I’m getting into spanking her,” Duvall is heard saying on the videotape, which was made as a matter of routine by a legislative office.

Miller asks if she likes it. Duvall responds: “She goes, ‘I know you like spanking me.’ I said, ‘Yeah, that’s ’cause you’re such a bad girl.'”

Duvall also describes the woman’s “eye-patch underwear” and the age difference between himself and his mistress, identified in some media reports as a lobbyist for an energy company. He tells Miller, a fellow Republican from Corona, that the woman’s birthday was two days earlier.

Duvall said he joked with the woman that she was getting old after turning 36 and told her, “I am going to have to trade you in.”

The lawmaker then brags about an affair he is having with another woman.

“Oh, she is hot! I talked to her yesterday. She goes, ‘So are we finished?’ I go, ‘No, we’re not finished.’ I go, ‘You know about the other one, but she doesn’t know about you!'” Duvall can be heard saying in an apparent reference to his affair with the lobbyist.

The unseemly remarks also raise questions about the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists. The Assembly Ethics Committee is investigating Duvall’s comments, in part to determine whether the affair might have influenced his votes.

He was vice chairman of the Assembly Utilities Committee.

Several media outlets reported the woman Duvall refers to in his comments works as a lobbyist for Sempra Energy, a San Diego-based energy services company that operates San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Gas Co.

Sempra issued an e-mail statement saying it was investigating the claims.

“The employee has denied the speculative media reports. Our investigation will be conducted to ensure not only that our policies on employee conduct are strictly adhered to, but also that our employee is treated fairly,” the company said.

Duvall was elected in 2006 to represent an Orange County district that includes Fullerton, Anaheim, Placentia, Orange, Brea and Yorba Linda. Before that, he served six years on the Yorba Linda City Council. He also owns an insurance agency.

In stepping down, Duvall said it would not be fair to his family, constituents or friends to remain in office.

“I am deeply saddened that my inappropriate comments have become a major distraction for my colleagues in the Assembly, who are working hard on the very serious problems facing our state,” he said. “Therefore, I have decided to resign my office, effective immediately, so that the Assembly can get back to work.”

The lawmaker had received a 100 percent rating from Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative advocacy group, for his votes on legislation considered pro-family during the 2007-08 legislative session.