The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Although Rubb Ed and I are still celebrating the SCOTUS decisions on Prop. 8 and DOMA, we still face the grim reality that plenty of people in the gay community face life in states that don't have marriage equality.

That fact hit me square in the face today when I read this story about a gay couple in Ohio - Jim and John - who had a huge hurdle to clear to get to Maryland in order to get married: John has advanced ALS.

In order to get things squared away, Jim had to fly to Maryland to get the marriage license (MD is one of the few states that doesn't require both parties show up to get the license), then fly back to Ohio. Then, they needed over $12,000 (yes, twelve thousand!) to charter a plane to get from Cincinnati to Baltimore due to the special care John needed. Thankfully, social media played a role in raising the money and they were able to get to Baltimore three days ago. Upon landing and taxiing to the tarmac, Jim and John were married on the plane by John's aunt. Within 30 minutes, they were back in the air and on their way back to Ohio where they were greeted by friends and family.

Although it was a joyous occasion to be sure, it still is bittersweet. Straight couples can leisurely walk into any courthouse in any county in any state in the U.S., plunk down their money and walk out with a marriage license. Meanwhile, Jim and John had to spend thousands and thousands of dollars just for the privilege of being married.

And their home state won't even recognize their marriage.

(You can access the video here. I suggest plenty of tissues.)

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Although Rubb Ed and I are still celebrating the SCOTUS decisions on Prop. 8 and DOMA, we still face the grim reality that plenty of people in the gay community face life in states that don't have marriage equality.

That fact hit me square in the face today when I read this story about a gay couple in Ohio - Jim and John - who had a huge hurdle to clear to get to Maryland in order to get married: John has advanced ALS.

In order to get things squared away, Jim had to fly to Maryland to get the marriage license (MD is one of the few states that doesn't require both parties show up to get the license), then fly back to Ohio. Then, they needed over $12,000 (yes, twelve thousand!) to charter a plane to get from Cincinnati to Baltimore due to the special care John needed. Thankfully, social media played a role in raising the money and they were able to get to Baltimore three days ago. Upon landing and taxiing to the tarmac, Jim and John were married on the plane by John's aunt. Within 30 minutes, they were back in the air and on their way back to Ohio where they were greeted by friends and family.

Although it was a joyous occasion to be sure, it still is bittersweet. Straight couples can leisurely walk into any courthouse in any county in any state in the U.S., plunk down their money and walk out with a marriage license. Meanwhile, Jim and John had to spend thousands and thousands of dollars just for the privilege of being married.

And their home state won't even recognize their marriage.

(You can access the video here. I suggest plenty of tissues.)

Really... really just pisses me off that fellow residents of my city had to do this kind of thing. but the suburbs of the city have a lot of money committed to conservatism and tea party politics.

Glad they were able to get married... really pisses of me off that the state refuses to recognize their marriage... but doesn't really surprise me when this is a state that refused free money from the federal government to expand medicaid on principle.

The California Supreme Court officially told the Prop. 8 supporters to go pound sand as they were not going to stop gay marriage from happening in the Golden State.

The California Supreme Court refused a request by backers of Proposition 8 to reinstate the measure, which banned gay marriage, after they lost a fight in nation’s highest court to block same-sex weddings.

Proposition 8 backers filed a petition July 12 and asked the state’s high court to order county clerks to enforce the gay-marriage ban, claiming the measure was still valid because a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month didn’t find it was unconstitutional. They asked for an immediate injunction reinstating the law while the lawsuit is pending.

I give it two weeks before Prop. 8 supporters file a pleading in some court somewhere begging for an injunction.

Why? Because they can.

----------

It looks like by Friday at this time, England and Wales will have marriage equality.

The House of Lords had its third reading of the marriage equality bill and had some technical amendments that it sent back to the House of Commons. There seems to be no problems with those technical changes, so the Commons will accept them, provide a final reading and vote, and then will wait for Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to issue her royal assent, which is seen as a formality.

Gosh, it's really odd to realize that just five years ago, the Rev. Rick Warren was riding high in this country. He was hosting presidential debates and lecturing us all on how same-sex marriage was going to doom us all since gay marriage is just like incest or polygamy.

But Warren doesn't get much press these days, but he still has a few zinger left inside of him, like when he Tweeted these lovely bits of wisdom:

IMAGE(http://www.feastinginphoenix.com/images/rickwarrentweet.JPG)

Let's deal with the first. Of course it matters. History will forever remember that the anti-abolitionists, the anti-suffragettes, the segregationists, the people who supported anti-miscegenation laws, and on and on were on the wrong side of history. One doesn't have to invoke George Santayana to know the importance of history, but Warren wants to dismiss it in lieu of truth as though you have to pick one or the other. But as for truth, Warren is on very shaky ground. The notion (which is what Warren is suggesting) that the Bible contains an understanding of the psycho-sexual development of sexual orientation and, therefore, the "truth" it contains about homosexuality is clear and undeniable is absurd.

As for Warren's second tweet, Warren sets up a huge straw man. Who is saying that truth or what is right is determined by popularity or polls? Segregation has always been wrong even when the public supported it. But Warren's tweet would have been a bit more poignant, brave, and daring if he had made it about, oh, five years ago when only two states had gay marriage, the President didn't support gay marriage, and no state had affirmed gay marriage at the ballot box.

Now it just comes across as sour grapes.

Sadly, that may be Rick Warren's legacy.

Rick Warren, Mega-tool wrote:

I'm not winning anymore so I'm going to cry about it and claim I'm better than everyone else... because that's clearly what Jesus wants me to do while I continue spewing hate speech.

My snarky reply back to that second tweet would be something along the lines of

McIrish's snarky twitter reply wrote:

Wait, I'm confused - so you now support gay marriage because you realize you've been using the bible to promote bigotry and hatred?

McIrishJihad wrote:

My snarky reply back to that second tweet would be something along the lines of

McIrish's snarky twitter reply wrote:

Wait, I'm confused - so you now support gay marriage because you realize you've been using the bible to promote bigotry and hatred?

If I had any non-SR4 money to spend, I would spend it convincing you to post that.

This growing conceit that people who are against marriage equality are some downtrodden minority bravely campaigning against unfair, misguided public opinion is... I dunno. Dumb. These people who can post these things and get in front of crowds and say this stuff without any real* fear of being beaten within an inch of their life or just brutally killed really have zero concept of what they're talking about. While I don't think the violence is as bad as it used to be, these folks really just have no idea what persecution is.

(*first one to make an argument about how "this one time..." somehow compares to decades of violent history against homosexuals wins!)

This one time i lost an arm wrestling match to a pre op trans lesbian. I screamed misandry and went directly to church.

There is a minority opinion, and then there is flat out wrong. Speaking of, is the flat earth society a brave group of minority view-holders fighting the tyranny of the majority? Or are they just crazy and wrong?

The Downtrodden Minority of Hate notion having been ensconced in official record in Scalia's minority dissent. I'm not going to lie, I'm going to show some real, possibly scary, almost surely in poor taste glee when he dies. I mean, after we find the last horcrux.

Lionsgate responds to calls to boycott Ender's Game:

As proud longtime supporters of the LGBT community, champions of films ranging from Gods and Monsters to The Perks of Being a Wallflower and a company that is proud to have recognized same-sex unions and domestic partnerships within its employee benefits policies for many years, we obviously do not agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card and those of the National Organization for Marriage. However, they are completely irrelevant to a discussion of Ender’s Game. The simple fact is that neither the underlying book nor the film itself reflect these views in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, the film not only transports viewers to an entertaining and action-filled world, but it does so with positive and inspiring characters who ultimately deliver an ennobling and life-affirming message. Lionsgate will continue its longstanding commitment to the LGBT community by exploring new ways we can support LGBT causes and, as part of this ongoing process, will host a benefit premiere for Ender’s Game.

Personally I think that if they were so pro-LGBT, they wouldn't have done business with a screaming bigot like Card in the first place. Sometimes you just can't separate art from its creator.

Nevin73 wrote:

Lionsgate responds to calls to boycott Ender's Game:

As proud longtime supporters of the LGBT community, champions of films ranging from Gods and Monsters to The Perks of Being a Wallflower and a company that is proud to have recognized same-sex unions and domestic partnerships within its employee benefits policies for many years, we obviously do not agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card and those of the National Organization for Marriage. However, they are completely irrelevant to a discussion of Ender’s Game. The simple fact is that neither the underlying book nor the film itself reflect these views in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, the film not only transports viewers to an entertaining and action-filled world, but it does so with positive and inspiring characters who ultimately deliver an ennobling and life-affirming message. Lionsgate will continue its longstanding commitment to the LGBT community by exploring new ways we can support LGBT causes and, as part of this ongoing process, will host a benefit premiere for Ender’s Game.

Personally I think that if they were so pro-LGBT, they wouldn't have done business with a screaming bigot like Card in the first place. Sometimes you just can't separate art from its creator.

They're actually putting money into his hands, which is going straight into anti-LGBT organizations. f*ck them and f*ck this rationalization.

SixteenBlue wrote:

They're actually putting money into his hands, which is going straight into anti-LGBT organizations. f*ck them and f*ck this rationalization.

Basically my take as well. I'll support all the other things that you guys do, but not ones that are giving money to OSC.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

Lionsgate does have pro-LGBT history so it's not as if the claim is baseless. The apology is still crap. If I give you a piece of cake and break your nose, you're still going to be pissed about the broken nose.

I think it'd be a much better apology if they also gave an amount equal to whatever Card is getting to LGBT groups. It wouldn't make up for it completely, but it'd help some.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

What did I miss in this book? I remember a dweeb (kind of like myself at the time of reading) pining after some girl who was going out with some dude. Dweeb hangs out with both of them... and at some point during a near intimate encounter between dweeb and girl, he goes into some kind of convulsions/shock, starts remembering a history of abuse... and that's about it? I'm looking at CliffNotes for this.

EDIT: Back, unless every cliff notes site a Google Search could bring up missed something... I don't see anything here dealing with LGBT issues... was someone in the production process or the writer part of the LGBT community? Also apparently that dude the girl was hanging out with was her step-brother, so that's either weird... or just explains why an intimate encounter with the main character and the girl was not THAT big a deal in terms of "wait, is she getting ready to cheat on her guy with this dude?"

'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' wins GLAAD Media Award for top movie

Written by Stephen Chbosky, who also authored the book as well as directed the film, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is a celebration of friendship. The movie features an openly gay high school student name Patrick played by Ezra Miller who, in touch with his sexuality, refuses to be anything other than who he is meant to be.

The movie is timeless although set in the 80's. It deals with issues so many LGBT youth are faced with in modern day society. Throughout the movie a special friendship if formed by the three characters of Sam, Patrick and Charlie who connect through their unique differences. Together they explore first love, kisses, heartbreak and their sexuality.

Chbosky does a great job in this film with his portrayal of the character of Patrick in his openness with his sexuality and his growth through tears. "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is a film very deserving of the award which recognize "inclusive representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and the issues that affect their lives."

Stengah wrote:

I think it'd be a much better apology if they also gave an amount equal to whatever Card is getting to LGBT groups. It wouldn't make up for it completely, but it'd help some.

If they did that and the movie wasn't going be horrible I would be willing to see it.
Of course it will be horrible which is enough reason to not see it... and the money going to Card is a second perfectly good reason to boycott it.

I am glad lions gate has a good history, but they just threw a bunch of their good credit away. Shame.

The British House of Commons has how given it's marriage equality bill a third reading and the bill simply needs Queen Elizabeth II's Royal Assent to become law.

Her Majesty's assent is a formality, so gay marriage will be a reality in England Wales by the weekend with the first gay weddings slated for next summers.

Congratulations to England and Wales!!!!

The United Kingdom is proud to announce that Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has given her royal assent to the marriage equality bill and gay marriage is now a reality in England and Wales.

The first marriages will take place in the summer of 2014.

CHEERS!

The article doesn't really say. Why is it going to take to 2014 for the first gay marriages to happen if it's legal now?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

The United Kingdom is proud to announce that Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has given her royal assent to the marriage equality bill and gay marriage is now a reality in England and Wales.

The first marriages will take place in the summer of 2014.

CHEERS!

Jolly good!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

The United Kingdom is proud to announce that Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has given her royal assent to the marriage equality bill and gay marriage is now a reality in England and Wales.

The first marriages will take place in the summer of 2014.

CHEERS!

This image amused me:

IMAGE(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003150_705418072820982_820142889_n.jpg)

That... is pretty friggin awesome. Given the queen's wardrobe, they could probably go for even more gradation in color if they wanted to.

The not-so-fine people over at NOM are trying a new tact and it goes something like this:

"We have this guy, you see, who is something, something and he really hates gay people despite sort of being gay himself. But he's sort of ex-gay or bisexual, you see, and, by the way, he thinks that nasty, filthy, disgusting, flaming homosexuals (which he may or may not be one - we really can't tell or don't know) are destroying children and he is leading a coalition to bring truth to the people that gay people (of which he may or may not be one - we really can't tell or don't know) can't be trusted to raise children. So, something, something!"

That's certain to be a winning strategy, right?

Well, meet Robert Oscar Lopez, one of the most self-loathing human beings currently living on Planet Earth. Lopez is a professor at Cal State Northridge and has been an anti-gay activist for years citing the fact that he was raised by a lesbian mother who, because of her "lifestyle," ruined his life and blames his woes in life simply because of his mother's sexual orientation. He has stated he is gay, but married a woman and says he is bisexual, but not really. But is he ex-gay? We're not sure. He won't say. But he's not gay. Yeah, I am confused, too.

However, we do know he is rabidly anti-gay. In fact, he wrote an amicus brief in the Prop. 8 trial in front of the SCOTUS supporting the law, and when DOMA was struck down, he penned this little chestnut:

"Incidentally, through my Puerto Rican roots I am also the descendant of African slaves, as I would guess Sotomayor might be as well. The scars inflicted on the survivors of slavery are tied to the fact that our ancestors were bought, sold, and robbed of a link to our biological roots. This is precisely what gay parenting does to kids through baby farming, adoption on demand, insemination, and surrogacy. You don't solve the historical trauma of such uprooting by vindicating the purveyor of the trauma -- in the case of slavery, white negreros, and in the case of same-sex parenting, gay activists who selfishly placed their desire for a family over children's needs for a mom and a dad. Slavery isn't the only past crime against humanity that offers warnings against shielding "parents" from scrutiny of their deprivation of children's roots. Did it protect the children born as slaves to keep slavery legal? Does it protect children deprived of their fathers to make it legal for the lesbians who have sequestered them to continue excluding them from contact with their fathers? Is the wise Latina awake? Paying attention? Just not connecting the dots? Hello!!"

Lopez then wrote two articles about how gay parents are child abuses just by the very nature that they are gay and parents.

Not to be outdone, NOM sent out this fundraising blast alluding to Lopez:

More and more academics and social scientists are speaking out about the good of marriage, especially for children, and the serious problems that kids experience when raised by parents in a same-sex relationship. Increasingly, members of the gay community themselves are becoming active, speaking out against same-sex parenting and the emotional trauma they say same-sex relationships can inflict on children. One prominent scholar has argued that society, egged-on by a biased media, demands that we accept and even celebrate a relationship that intentionally injures a child, depriving her of a mother or father, further victimizing the child who struggles with her emotional loss. This same scholar, who was raised by a lesbian mother and her partner, recently wrote in raw and powerful terms that he considers same-sex parenting to be akin to child abuse.

NOM, once again, is lying through its teeth. "More and more academics and social scientists" are not speaking out about the problems kids are facing when being raised in same-sex households. And, NOM has come up with a total of two "members of the gay community" who are anti-gay marriage and same-sex parenting (Lopez doesn't count because he won't confirm what he is).

With the criticism of NOM's fundraising blast, Lopez decided to step up to the plate and double down:

Regardless of the condemnations and attacks, I stand by my point of view, made in recent American Thinker and Public Discourse articles, that same-sex parenting is inherently abusive of children.

I know that hurts a lot of gay and lesbian people's feelings, but there's really no nice way to state this. We've been nice and delicate about the issue ever since Heather Has Two Mommies was foisted on elementary schools. The Gay Lobby, rather than engaging in a good-faith discussion of whether it was ethical to deprive children of a mom or dad based on adult wishes, simply steamrolled everybody and rammed same-sex parenting down all our throats.
...
Same-sex parenting flagrantly violates children's rights, deprives them of inalienable rights, and risks inflicting grievous emotional distress on them, with no justification whatsoever, other than the whims of adults.

It is abuse. It is abuse. Face it.

No, it's not abuse. But Lopez's tortured logic is.

Again, one of the most self-loathing human beings on the planet.

I really hope NOM isn't banking everything on this one.

This is precisely what gay parenting does to kids through baby farming, adoption on demand, insemination, and surrogacy

I suspect that the occurrences of those things amongst breeders is much, much higher than amongst LGBT folk. Yet, civilization still carries on. See Canada for exaple.Surely if god had withdrawn his favour due to our long support of gay marriage, we would have been deprived of the holy goodness that is bacon and maple syrup!!

Well, this is an interesting turn.

It looks like the federal amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage might not even make it out of committee:

The Huffington Post has been reaching out to key Republican offices for the past two weeks to see if or when anyone plans to move the bill forward, but nobody seems to want to go near it. An aide to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said committee decisions are up to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). A Cantor aide said to talk to the House Judiciary Committee about their plans. Aides on that committee didn't reply to numerous requests for comment on the status of the bill, and Huelskamp's office also never responded.

The bill currently has 36 co-sponsors and needs 290 votes to pass.

The last time this legislation was voted on, only Massachusetts had gay marriage and the majority of the public was against allowing gays to marriage. Even then, the bill failed in a 236-187 vote in 2006 falling 54 votes shy of passage.

Not that it had a chance anyway as it would never muster the 290 votes in the House much less even be heard in the U.S. Senate, but it is great to hear that it might not even make it to the floor of the House for consideration.

Good.

For the record, when I talk about how it would be a great idea to adopt a 12 year-old kid so that you skip the useless stage and get a person that can do chores around the house, I'm joking. I'm not actually planning on doing so, or working the kid to the bone if I do decide to adopt a teenager for other reasons.

Of course I'm heterosexual, so Lopez probably isn't too concerned by my possible adoption-slavery-child labor-trafficking potential.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
That Lopez Guy wrote:

The Lobby, rather than engaging in a good-faith discussion of whether it was ethical to deprive children of a mom or dad based on adult wishes...

It is abuse. It is abuse. Face it.

Not to beat a dead horse, but someone should tell him that he should be going after divorce first, because that's pretty much the embodiment of "depriving children of a mom or a dad based on adult wishes".