I am so confused...

... by this cartoon. What does it mean?

Updated (3/6/04): Luckily, some readers have theories on this. Philip P. is as confused as I am:

I think the cartoonist thinks Elvis was gay. Or at least had something to do with gays. I dunno.

But Barnaby Yeh has a more cohesive theory:

It's a jab at the Religious Right, for all their preoccupation with essentially nothing. Meanwhile, TRUE morality - the kind that makes peopple, you know, care about pre-emptive war and poverty and whatnot - has been totally ignored, leaving a very disappointed Uncle Sam. In other words, instead of taking moral principles to heart, the Religious Right keeps bringing up BS issues.

Hmmm...

The Boondocks presents Bush's distinguished service record...

Dental record, anyway.

Thanks a Lot, Senator...

I'm not really in the mood to be criticizing Bush opponents right now, but... what's up with Kerry endorsing the anti-gay amendment to the Massachusetts constitution? I liked him a lot better when he was calling Bush "divisive" for endorsing a similar amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Seriously, what gives? I realize that for reasons of political expediency he probably can't say he SUPPORTS gay marriage, but to support a constitutional amendment? I think I'm feeling sick again...

Speaking of Activist Judges...

Oh no, not again. First Pickering, now Pryor. Not to mention the hundreds of other right-wing ideologues Bush has already seated (see InTheseTimes for more on that).

New Cartoon! Clarity in a time of Confusion!
Regarding Bush's adorable little speech yesterday...

Bush kicks off his campaign with some heavy gay-bashing. His slogan? "Steady Leadership in a Time of Change."

P.S. Cagle has a useful roundup of gay-marriage themed cartoons. Which sadly doesn't include this great one by San Francisco resident Keith Knight. Also, Tom Toles imagines how Bush will be remembered in the future.

P.P.S.Bob Harris has a collection of countdowns til Bush leaves office, it definitely brings good cheer to the mind and spirit. Link via This Modern World.

It's Valentine's Day in San Francisco!

(Note: the links in the post no longer go to the photos they were originally meant to point to, for some reason... sorry about that!)

They just had to outdo Massachusetts, didn't they? But seriously, looking at all those photos of happy couples brought a few tears to my eyes, even if the marriages probably don't have much legal standing. One of the more touching stories was this one--after 51 years as a couple, Phyllis Lyon, left, 79, and Del Martin, 82, were married yesterday. How about that, huh?

Luckily the Klu Klux Klan was on hand to defend traditional American values with tasteful signs reading "Gay=Got Aids Yet?"

P.S. For a bizarre, if totally unrelated, Valentine's Day cartoon, see Lalo Alcaraz. And for a great, completed non-Valentine's-related cartoon, see Ted Rall.

Life Imitating Art
In the worst way...

Not so long ago, Keith Knight did a hilarious cartoon takeoff on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, "Black Eye for the White Guy." Well... let's just hope he gets some kind of royalty payment out of this one.

New Cartoon! Gay Marriage Drove Us to Divorce!

Shocking true tales, just in time for Valentine's Day.

Update: Things are getting crazy in Massachusetts! The "compromise" amendment (i.e. the "please let us write separate but unequal into the constitution" amendment) failed, so now it's all or nothing. Let's hope for all...

Same-sex marriage cartoon roundup, take 2
Things are really starting to heat up...

Back when the Massachusetts Supreme Court made its original ruling, I put together roundup number one. Now that the culture wars are heating up again, with the anti-gay rightwingers out in full force having fits over same-sex marriage, it's time for roundup two.

So, on the side of good:

Cartoons that recall a different marriage controversy: Mike Thompson. In other words: years from now, history is not going to look kindly on same-sex marriage opponents.

Cartoons that predict Bush's next preemptive strike: Rob Rogers has a good one. Joe Heller has one too, but I'm puzzled by the presence of Uncle Sam rather than George W. Scott Bateman has a great one that I already linked to, but why not read it again?

Cartoons puzzled by the whole "marriage defense" crowd: Ben Sargent and yours truly.

Cartoons that go heavy on the Massachusetts metaphors: Steve Benson and Bob Englehart.

And more: Tony Auth, Tom Toles, and Ward Sutton, and Dan Wasserman.

And on the other side:

Cartoons featuring gay stereotypes, flowers, and/or shotguns: John Cole.

Cartoons warning us that SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WILL DOOM THE HUMAN RACE TO EXTINCTION: OK, so Chuck Asay is actually arguing that same-sex attraction is "unnatural", but same difference.

And cartoons not quite on either side:

Cartoons that I THINK are against same-sex marriage, but I can't tell for sure: Wayne Stayskal and Chan Lowe.

Cartoons that I THINK are for, but who knows? Bill DeOre.

Cartoons about the Democratic candidates and same-sex marriage: Gary Markstein and Doug Marlette. And here's one by Dick Wright, though it probably belongs more in the "against gay marriage" category, as Mr. Wright believes in sodomy laws.

And on a totally different side: When Janet Jackson breast metaphors go too far.

Bush On the Economy: "I Need Some Ribs"
Also, "I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs."

OK, this (meaning Bush's remarks last month to the press at the Nothin' Fancy cafe in New Mexico) is just WEIRD:

Q. Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.

THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch -- what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?

Q...Ribs.

THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.

Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?

Q An answer.

Q Can we buy some questions?

THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people -- they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.

You heard it right from our leader's mouth, folks, the key to the economic recovery is BUYING RIBS. With "high-priced" money, no less.

As a sidenote--am I the only one upset by how normal and everyday the term "homeland security" has become? Everyone seems to be using it, Democrat and Republican alike. It sounds way too much like "fatherland" to my liking--why not just say "domestic security"?

The Return of Lucky Ducky...

...and some other cartoons of note.

Yes, Ruben Bolling's lovable have-not bird is back, just in time for duck season.

Some more good cartoons...

Aaron McGruder on marriage rebuilding contracts. Mark Fiore on computerized voting machines and, yes, duck season. Signe Wilkinson on Bush administration "veterans". Ann Telnaes on duck season. Clay Bennett on the Bush budget. Stuart Carlson on Martha and Ken. Ward Sutton on Bush Rangers and Pioneers. And Scott Bateman on Colin Powell's credibility, or lack thereof.

Speaking of Scott, I had the good fortune to have him and his wife Amy as houseguests last weekend, it was great fun, we went out for some good pancakes, and they spoiled my cat rotten with attention and toys and took multiple adorable photos of her.

And some cartoons that make me want to throw things...

Chuck Asay warns us that if we allow same-sex marriage THE HUMAN RACE WILL BECOME EXTINCT. Oh yeah, and all the cartoons that thought jokes about Janet Jackson and "the boob tube" were actually original, they go in this category too.

Mitt Compares Same-Sex Marriage to Slavery

...And compares the proposed anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'm not making this up. In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Marriage" Romney compares the Mass. Supreme Judical Court ruling on same-sex marriage to the Dred Scott decision (in which the Supreme Court ruled that no slave could become a free citizen or have any rights). He then compares the proposed anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendment to the Emancipation Proclamation. He urges "the people" to "act now to protect marriage in your state."

To top it all off, the piece is illustrated with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln. So apparently Romney sees himself as the Great Emancipator, freeing heterosexual married couples from the hardship and oppression that the possibility of same-sex marriage is inflicting upon them?

Guest Commentary: On Dred Scott and Goodridge

Now, I haven't studied law, so I decided to solicit a guest commentary on Romney's argument from a friend who has, soon-to-be lawyer Matt Scott. Romney is railing against "activist judges" going against "the will of the people", but Matt argues that Dred Scott was the opposite of judicial activism--the court refused to take action to change the status quo and recognize the civil rights of African Americans:

Governor Romney's comparison of Dred Scott to Goodridge et al. v. Dept. of Public Health is completely irrational. In his description of the decision he states the Massachusetts Supreme Court "detected a previously unrecognized right" in the Massachusetts constitution. But if one follows this logic, the Massachusetts court's decision is the polar opposite of Dred Scott.

In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court refused to recognize the citizenship of free African-Americans. In the court's mind, this interpretation was justified because "neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people." In short, the "We" in "We the People" only included whites. Even if the member of the court did not personally agree with this interpretation, they claimed it was not the role of the judiciary to critique the intentions of the framers; their duty was to apply those intentions to the current era:

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power... The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed...

The court in Dred Scott was not circumventing the will of the legislature or the executive branch, it was claiming that the rights of freed slaves were not guaranteed by the constitution as it stood at the time. For these rights to be recognized an amendment would be needed that expanded the definition of the People to include groups other than whites. The court actually refused to be activist.

This is the exact role that Governor Romney would like the judiciary to play. According to Romney, rather than recognizing the constitutional right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, the court should allow that decision to be made by the People. As the court in Dred Scott refused to recognize concept of citizenship and the rights associated with it as "an evolving paradigm," Governor Romney refuses to realize that the concept of marriage and family is evolving beyond his worldview. While he would love for family to remain a vehicle for the propagation of patriarchy, "husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter," it won't and he is grasping at irrational straws to try and stop this evolution.

Of course, the sad part is it probably won't matter how irrational Romney's or Bush's arguments are. If Bush was against activist courts, he wouldn't have allowed the Supreme Court to appoint him as president, and he wouldn't be so fond of Justice Antonin Scalia (recently seen on a duck-hunting trip with Dick Cheney). And he wouldn't have pushed through the appointment of a racist right-wing extremist judge like Pickering--against the will of the Senate, no less.

P.S. Massachusetts legislators are going to be voting on the proposed amendment Feb. 11. If you live in Massachusetts... let your representatives know what you think.

P.P.S. Robert's Virtual Soapbox has a little ode to Massachusetts, pointing out that not only might Massachusetts be the first to have gay marriage, it was the Boston Globe that first dug up the Bush AWOL dirt.

Update: Meanwhile....

Ohio has just become the 39th state to ban gay marriage, as Gov. Taft has just signed one of the strictest anti-same-sex marriage bans in the country into law. Truly a great day for civil rights supporters and slavery abolitionists everywhere.

Swallow this pill, Dr. Mitt

"Gays Have Full Marriage Rights, Massachusetts Court Says." Civil unions need not apply, thank you very much. Romney and Bush, of course, tried to spin the good news as a blow to democracy:

"We've heard from the court, but not from the people. The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage. This issue is too important to leave to a one-vote majority of the SJC. This is why it's imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state Constitution."-Gov. Mitt Romney

''Activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order without regard for the will of the people.'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Funny that an undemocratically-elected president should talk about activist judges and the will of the people... but regardless, vital advances in human rights can't always be left up to majority rule.