Teabaggers -- the paranoia continues

Exhibit A is Dan Maes, who hopes to be governor of Colorado. He thinks bike share programs are a UN plot:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are "converting Denver into a United Nations community."

"This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed," Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor's efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes "that's exactly the attitude they want you to have."

"This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms," Maes said.

He added: "These aren't just warm, fuzzy ideas from the mayor. These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to."

From the Denver Post. Happily, virtually every comment that I read on that story thought Maes' position to be ridiculous.

Exhibit B is an organization called the Family Research Council (and yes, this is one book that you can judge by its cover). Not surprisingly, they aren't at all happy to hear that their beloved Proposition 8 runs afoul of their supposedly even more beloved Constitution. As Ken at Popehat points out, the judge in the case, Vaughn Walker, is a longtime Republican, appointed by Reagan against the will of liberal Democrats. So when he doesn't do what conservatives think he should do, they have a novel explanation:

It turns out that the Judge behind Proposition 8′s undoing was just biding his time until he could unleash his ultimate agenda: decimating marriages that have defined civilization since the beginning of time.

Straight from the horse's mouth, via the above linked Popehat post. A sinister sleeper agent, presumably put there by Satan, the Communists, the Freemasons, the Elders of Zion, lizards from outer space, or some combination thereof, for the sole purpose of destroying the institution of marriage. I guess it makes sense to somebody...

A story from "liberal" California

This is disgusting:

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes. Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Source (all emphasis is in the original). Would that happen in Canada? I honestly think not (one of a diminishing number of things for which we can still feel genuine pride in our country). However, we shouldn't be too smug about even this. After all, it's not because we're intrinsically better people, but merely because our constitution is worded in such a way that implies the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. Were it not for that, I wouldn't be surprised to see abuses like the above in some parts of this country (including some places a few kilometres outside the Perimeter).