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

Those are the dirtiest gays I've ever seen.

Keldar wrote:
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".

Not to mention legally compelling widows and widowers to remarry as soon as possible after their spouse dies. To do otherwise would be child abuse, right?

Didn't Dan Quayle give this same argument, and was flat out wrong over 20 years ago now? And has been so resoundingly refuted the past 10 years with declining crime rates, increased college graduation rates, etc?

How well off a kid is has so much to do with the mother during her pregnancy, it is ludicrous to see all of this junk. So much of it comes down to the mom's age, her level of education, employment status, and annual earning. So if you are really concerned with children's welfare, you get the pill in the hands of every woman under the age of 25 so that they can finish college and get an above median job.

At long last, the Republican Party in the U.S. House of Representatives has finally decided that they are no longer going to defend any federal statute that prohibits recognition of gay marriage:

House Republican leaders announced in a court filing Thursday that they will not defend remaining statutes similar to the Defense of Marriage Act that ban recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages.

The move comes three weeks and one day after the Supreme Court ruled in Edith Windsor’s case that the federal definition of marriage in DOMA was unconstitutional because it banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages.

“[T]he House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute,” lawyers for the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), controlled by House Republicans, wrote about veterans’ benefits statutes that similarly ban recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages.

“The document from the legal team speaks for itself,” House Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, told BuzzFeed, when asked for comment on the move.

Gee, and all it cost us was $2.5 million tax dollars.

BLAG has to be about the worst name for something, ever.

New Ender's Game editorial

This is the best response I've come across to address OSC's recent hypocrisy. I've been trying to articulate this for weeks:

Third, he asked for tolerance from "the victorious proponents of gay marriage".

Tolerance.

You will note that he did not rescind his earlier statements. He did not amend or soften his position. He did not apologise for being an active agent in the persecution and inequality of gay people. He did not even say that he would break his ties to the National Organization for Marriage. He certainly did not seek to make amends.

He's not sorry. He only wants us to stop talking about it, so that his movie doesn't have to deal with negative press. Heaven knows what he'll say when the movie leaves theatres. And he wants us to show him tolerance.

Here is my answer to Orson Scott Card: you have my tolerance.

I tolerate your right to get married. I tolerate your right to build a family, just as I would tolerate your decision not to. I tolerate your right to adopt. I tolerate your right to share your financial burdens with your partner. I tolerate your right to visit your partner in hospital. I tolerate your right to marry in a church or out of it. I tolerate your right to have your marriage recognised by the state and by others.

I tolerate your freedom. I tolerate your books in libraries. I tolerate your presence in schools. I tolerate your right to hold hands with your partner in a public space. I tolerate your right to be open about who you love without fear of recrimination from neighbours, employers, or churches.

I tolerate your religion. So long as you don't seek to impose your views on people who don't share them, I gladly tolerate your right to worship and your right to express your beliefs. I tolerate your existence.

Do not assume that my tolerance extends to indulgence. Tolerance doesn't mean that I stand silent while you rail against me. Tolerance does not require me to abandon my own financial power as a consumer. Tolerance does not oblige me to support artists who are unrepentant bigots.

When we sought your tolerance, we weren't asking you to buy a ticket to a movie. You have my tolerance, Orson. You have always had my tolerance.

Now I'm going to boycott your movie.

Tolerate that.

In addition to supporting gay marriage, it looks like the UK is on track for finally pulling their collective head out of their collective ass and finally granting Alan Turing a posthumous pardon his conviction of violating the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act, which outlawed homosexuality.

For the non-history Goodjers, Turing was the man who cracked the German Navy's Enigma code during WWII. Prior to breaking that code German U-boats were sinking more ships than were being built. Meaning had he not broken the code all of England would have been cut off and starved out, much in the same way did to Japan late in the war.

His reward for saving England was being convicted in 1952 and chemically castrated. He committed suicide two years later.

EDIT: Thank you, Hyp.

*cough*

Turing.

Edit: Much better!

On the other side, there's been some bitterness that the government didn't seem to be interested in admitting wrongdoing in its past treatment of homosexuality. It would be nice if they did that, too. Still, baby steps and all that.

Hypatian wrote:

Edit: Much better! :D

Happy hour cocktails caught up with my typing and proofreading!

Hypatian wrote:

On the other side, there's been some bitterness that the government didn't seem to be interested in admitting wrongdoing in its past treatment of homosexuality. It would be nice if they did that, too. Still, baby steps and all that.

Considering the only terrible thing we've done that we've actually apologized for is the Japanese Internment, I'm not holding my breath that England is going to apologize for the convictions of people that were found guilty of a 120+ year old law that was overturned nearly 50 years ago.

That being said, it's kinda a big deal that England is admitting that one of their modern national heroes was gay and that it's entirely OK. It's not one giant leap for mankind, but it's also not exactly a baby step.

Yeah. I think some of the upset is because "being pardoned for X" doesn't really make sense unless X is a crime. Which it was at the time, but it's still... weird.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/rIqwB31.png)

A thing that happened, now has happened on the Internet.

And in not-so-stunning news, another cranky, old, white, Republican man in San Diego files a petition with the California Supreme Court trying to stop gay marriages.

This time, it's the County Clerk of San Diego County:

But Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr. argued that the court should halt weddings while it considers the argument that the federal court ruling should apply only to the two couples who sued over Proposition 8, as well as to the county clerks in Alameda and Los Angeles counties, where the couples live.

Dronenburg, 69, is an elected Republican whose office is in charge of issuing marriage licenses in San Diego County.

Too bad that Dronenburg can't even get the GOP-dominated San Diego County Board of Supervisors to support him. In fact, they are running for the hills from him:

"The county clerk has acted independently on this matter,'' board Supervisor Greg Cox said. "No one else from the county was consulted or had any part of this court action, including the Board of Supervisors. The county's position is and always has been that we, the county, will follow applicable law with regards to same-sex marriage."

I am sure these types of filings will continue for months to come.

Edwin wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/rIqwB31.png)

I personally loved his comment about him 'inseminating' his husband as much as possible in hopes it will result in a pregnancy. Grover Norquist looked like he wanted to vomited.

Edwin wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/rIqwB31.png)

I just saw this segment on HBOGo last night. It was pure awesome. Grover Norquist did indeed look like he was swallowing some bile.

One other thing that struck me as funny. Talking in stereotypes here, but there were four men in the room. The only one that looked even remotely in good shape was the gay man. Go figure.

As I just said in a chat message with Phoenix Rev, I'm just horribly ashamed at how the USA treats people like him and me based on who we love. I'm ashamed that there are people like the ones on Big Brother this season who still treat people of different races as inferior, solely based on their skin color. It's 2013, and people to this day don't get the idea of "do unto others as you would have done unto you."

It's not a really difficult test. "Hey, I want to do this. Would I feel badly if this was done to me? Yes? Hmm... maybe I shouldn't do it."

Last week, I posted this story about Jim and John, a couple in Ohio who flew to Maryland to get married, but had additional problems because John has advanced ALS. (You can watch the video here.)

After the couple arrived home, they filed suit in the State of Ohio looking for an injunction to stop any enforcement of that state's constitutional ban on gay marriage because when John dies, his death certificate in Ohio will list him as "unmarried" despite the fact that they have a valid marriage license from Maryland and are legally married. Ohio simply will not recognize their marriage.

Today, a federal magistrate granted an injunction against the State of Ohio and specifically for Jim and John requiring that the constitutional ban on gay marriage not apply to Jim and John for the purposes of John's death certificate. This will allow John to be buried in Jim's family's cemetery plot next to Jim when he died (based on the terms of the family plot set down by Jim's grandfather).

There has been no response from the State of Ohio, but it could only be horrible cruel and mean-spirited to fight this injunction when John's life is rapidly ending. The injunction only applies to him and his husband, so the State of Ohio fighting this is simply spite.

But even so, Rubb Ed and I realized that this has hit us harder than expected.

Some of you may know from the "loathing" thread on Everything Else that I have been battling some health issues that may be stemming from a brain tumor. In a couple of weeks, I will be having another MRI to determine if the "problem area" is more of a problem. If it is and there is something seriously wrong, then, there is always that fear that life may be fleeting. It is gut-wrenching to think that if I died in the State of Arizona, my death certificate would list me as "unmarried" as Arizona also has a constitutional ban on gay marriage. This has made our struggle for marriage equality hit home moreso than it has been since the day we picked up our marriage license at the Santa Ana, California Courthouse back in May of 2008.

So, as much as it will tax our financial and emotional resources, Rubb Ed and I may have no choice but to sue the State of Arizona to get an injunction similar to that of Jim and John in Ohio.

And all of this because people like Maggie Gallagher and Rick Santorum get their knickers in a twist because two people of the same gender want the same thing they have.

Please keep us in the loop.

If it comes to a legal battle, I think I can speak for all of us here when I tell you that we've got your backs and we'll help in any way we can.

Rubb Ed, Phoenix Rev send me a PM if you like, and you are looking for help finding an attorney. I have a few connections with people in Arizona. I would hope you can find a pro bono civil rights attorney though.

oilypenguin wrote:

Please keep us in the loop.

If it comes to a legal battle, I think I can speak for all of us here when I tell you that we've got your backs and we'll help in any way we can.

Absolutely.

Yeah, we'll be sending good karma and lending whatever support we can.

obirano wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Please keep us in the loop.

If it comes to a legal battle, I think I can speak for all of us here when I tell you that we've got your backs and we'll help in any way we can.

Absolutely.

A million times over!

Also, I hate my state. Ohio continues to disappoint me on every level.

Today, a federal magistrate granted an injunction against the State of Ohio and specifically for Jim and John requiring that the constitutional ban on gay marriage not apply to Jim and John for the purposes of John's death certificate. This will allow John to be buried in Jim's family's cemetery plot next to Jim when he died (based on the terms of the family plot set down by Jim's grandfather).

I was really hoping post DOMA and Prop 8 that these bans would be lifted everywhere... instead we get one couple with extreme extenuating circumstances. Really hope this leads to more changes for my state so we can not be quite so terribad.

The California Supreme Court has told the San Diego County Clerk who wanted gay marriages stopped in the Golden State to go pound sand.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court once again refused to stop gays from marrying, rejecting a bid Tuesday by a San Diego County clerk.

In a closed session, the state high court turned down a request by San Diego County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr. for a temporary hold or “stay” on same-sex marriages. The court rejected a similar request last week by the sponsors of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned gay marriage.

Dronenburg asked the court Friday to stop the marriages while it considers whether a 2010 federal injunction required him and other county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He noted that the California Constitution continues to define marriage as an opposite-sex union.

ProtectMarriage, the sponsor of Proposition 8, has argued that the injunction by a San Francisco trial judge was limited at most to two counties, Los Angeles and Alameda, the homes of the two same-sex couples who challenged the marriage ban in federal court.

So far, clerks from about 24 of the state’s 58 counties, including Los Angeles, have opposed the attempt to revive Proposition 8.

Perhaps Mr. Dronenburg will now go back to doing his job.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Perhaps Mr. Dronenburg will now go back to doing his job.

In related news, I have a bridge you could buy. Don't worry, we can relocate it to California for you.

The race for Governor of Virginia is quite tight. Current VA Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli has decided to take a stand, by pushing to reinstate the old "Crimes Against Nature" law which criminalizes oral and anal sex between consenting adults, even if they are married.

In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals deemed the law invalid in connection with a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country.

Cuccinelli unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the ruling, taking the case to the full 15-judge appellate court and asking the Supreme Court to step in.

The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public," but the law itself states that "if any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Dimmerswitch wrote:

The race for Governor of Virginia is quite tight. Current VA Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli has decided to take a stand, by pushing to reinstate the old "Crimes Against Nature" law which criminalizes oral and anal sex between consenting adults, even if they are married.

In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals deemed the law invalid in connection with a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country.

Cuccinelli unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the ruling, taking the case to the full 15-judge appellate court and asking the Supreme Court to step in.

The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public," but the law itself states that "if any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Dan Savage tweeted (and retweeted other people's comments) about this yesterday. His language is very colorful, but to clean it up a bit, he said that reporters should be asking Cuccinelli about the details of his sex life. Since Cuccinelli is trying to pass laws governing other people's sex lives, then the public has a right to know if he ever indulges in the things that he wants to make illegal.

Also, if you haven't listened to it yet, the latest Savage Love podcast is awesome. Instead of the usual format, it is just Dan and Ari Shapiro (of NPR) sitting onstage and having a conversation. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public,"...

So sex with minors, rape, and public indecency aren't already crimes in VA?

I think it's time for a new ad campaign: "Guys, Cuccinelli is trying to take away your BJs."

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Like in the back of a Volkswagen?