Really? More serious than the Valerie Plame leak?

As many others have already pointed out: How many 15 year olds have a proof-of-age ID that would be deemed acceptable by a pharmacy?

The plain fact is, almost nobody has an ID like that until they’re of driving age.

My mother always said if you can’t say something nice about someone, best not to say anything at all.

So…

Yeah… and they’re all up in arms because we’ve had years and years of pastors and clergy being jailed for refusing to wed mixed-sex couples and for speaking out against interracial marriage from the pulpit.

Oh, right, that’s never, EVER happened in the nearly half century since Loving v. Virginia. Not once.

Yeesh.

The Republicans’ top two problems? Number one is far too many of them have beliefs which are incredibly vile, ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant, and/or racist.

And number two is they can’t keep their mouths shut about it.

He is an ignoramus, absolutely.

I’m Bi. I’ve also been married to another woman for over 14 years, and I have no desire to leave our monogamous marriage, nor do I pine for men. (Which isn’t to say I don’t swoon a little every time I see a George Clooney grin…but hey, I’m married, not dead.)

It’s interesting though: For decades, gay men had to fight the false stereotype of being incapable of forming lasting relationships. Sadly, we Bi’s still have to deal with it.

Jeffress reminds me of the first time when, as a fairly young but precocious child, I got into an argument with a racist.

Sadly, this racist was also my father, and he was unmoved by the pictures I showed him of African Americans being beaten, fire-hosed and attacked by dogs, and the ‘colored / white’ drinking fountains and all the rest. Know what he said about the fountains? “Look at it, I bet they spit in it all the time. Anyway, it’s all shitty like that because those N*s don’t know how to take care of things.” (My father had a very foul mouth, too.)

He absolutely would not consider that just maybe it was because the racists running those places chose to give the crappiest water fountain to the “colored” people and spent money for the newest refrigerated unit only for whites. I never was able to educate him or change his mind. Indeed, most of our ‘arguments’ ended with him insisting that one day, I would ‘straighten up’ and learn to agree with him. He passed away a few years back and I’m proud to say, “No, Dad. I never absorbed your bigotry. You failed.”

It’s the same thing with these anti-gay homophobes. They’re immune to facts, and make up stuff to support their hate. The few we can get to admit that sexual orientation isn’t a choice will still assert it’s wrong to be gay anyway and say that life-long celibacy is the only moral choice. But most of them won’t even go that far, and continue to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. A debate requires, at minimum, an agreement that objective facts take precedence over made-up BS — and unfortunately they refuse.

A key distinction in that survey: “Identify as LGBT.”

If there was a way to suss out actual numbers of people who may identify as straight, but nevertheless engage in gay sex from time to time — meaning they’re actually bisexual in practice, even if not in identification, I’d wager those percentages would be much higher.

Then there are those who are closeted and in denial. Or simply closeted and unwilling to tell anyone about their actual sexual and/r gender orientation.

Up until my early 30s, I never would have admitted to anyone I was anything but straight. Turns out I never really was, but that’s what I kept telling myself all those years of trying to want what I was supposed to want.

I tried a McRib once, many years ago. And by ‘tried’, I mean that I took two bites from it, spat out the second, and threw it away. It was nasty, gristly, and didn’t taste anything like ‘edible.’

I’m sure there are plenty of folks who like the McRib, but I am not and never will be one of them.

I’m with several others here: A clear case of sour grapes.

“Oh, he never really wanted the job anyway.”

Mitt Romney had ample opportunities to choose not to run or to drop out at any time during the primaries when it became clear he was never going to be anybody’s first choice in the GOP.

If Mittens really didn’t want the job, then why did he spend the last six years campaigning for it? What a load of BS.

The part I found fascinating is how in both cases, SCOTUS asked the plaintiffs and defenders to file arguments on the issue of standing. To my thinking, that isn’t a door you open — twice — without expecting (or wanting?) someone to walk through it.

In both cases, there were legitimate concerns raised as to whether the laws’ defenders could prove they themselves would suffer any tangible harm should those laws be overturned. Moreover, with the BLAG defense of DOMA, there are a number of Constitutional separation-of-powers questions, as in does a partisan legal group from one house of the legislature have any right to defend a law that is supposed to be up to the executive branch to defend (or not)?

In recent years, in close votes, SCOTUS appears to have been moving toward tightening standing and applying a more rigorous ‘tangible direct harm’ standard. The one exception they carved out was for state governments to have standing to challenge Federal agencies and rules (MA vs EPA). In two other cases — one related to ongoing forest service timber sales and the other an a-religious challenge to faith-based initiatives from the White House — they ruled that the groups did not in fact have standing to continue legal challenges.

A common thread running through these cases — DOMA/PropH8 and recent rulings — is a skeptical attitude whenever lines of legal responsibility and duty are crossed.

I would not be surprised if SCOTUS punts the issue of deciding whether marriage itself is a universal American civil right, but instead come at it sideways. First, to deny standing to the PropH8 supporters, thereby affirming Judge Walker’s original ruling. (Or they might do the legal dance of sending the case back to CA, knowing full well it’d be a pro forma hearing with the governor and state atty’ general again declining to defend PropH8, followed by summary judgment and overturning.) And secondly to deny the House GOP Bipartisan (sic) Legal Advisory Group standing to defend DOMA, based on the lack of Constitutional authority to do so. That would leave Obama’s DOJ and the plaintiffs (Windsor’s attorneys) as the only ones in the room, both arguing that DOMA is unfair and discriminatory, as well as unconstitutional.

Anyway, TLDR; version: I am pretty confident standing will be denied to the PropH8 supporters and think it is slightly more likely than not standing will also be denied to BLAG. As far as a ruling, I think there will be a partial split ruling, where SCOTUS will rule that, for now, individual states can define marriage however they like — including bans on same-sex marriage — but that the federal government itself may not discriminate against those legally enacted marriages. And here’s where I go out on a limb: Even if the couple in question gets married in one state where marriage equality is the law and then move to or live in another. What I don’t think they’ll do is to overturn all those state-level constitutional amendments and laws. Not yet.

Of course, I’ve been wildly wrong in the past…

The link to the Advocate article is broken. Points right back here.

Oh fer crissake… Hollywood really has run out of original ideas, hasn’t it?

Every bloody thing they make anymore is a sequel, remake, reboot, or adaptation of someone’s decades-old original creative idea.

Fischer’s candor may be refreshing, but his statements are abominable. Once again, the AFA is exposed as the hate group we already knew it to be.

Sadly, Limbaugh listeners probably believe him.

Moreover, the meaning of the word ‘bane’ dates back to before the 12th century.

Damn those anti-Romney Anglo-Saxons and their 900 year-plus conspiracy to deny Mittens the presidency he surely deserves to be allowed to buy!

Actually, you can’t buy these bottles right now because they’re completely out of stock (7/4/12). Be happy to do so once they’re back.

Is it too early in the day for a nice big tumbler full of Schadenfreude?

Nah!

It’s a very narrow ruling, and my reading of it seems to allow states to do whatever they like on same-sex marriage at the state level.

Sure, it’s a big deal in that it addresses federal recognition of perfectly legal same-sex marriages.

But again, it ignores the equal protection and full faith & credit implications, as well as the inherent animus in singling out one group of people for unequal treatment.

This is going to have to be combined with some other ruling, or even if upheld, it’s going to just muddy the mess further. What happens when a married couple moves to Texas or Mississippi? Do the Feds stop recognizing that marriage because those states ban them? Are they suggesting gay couples who want to be married have no choice or recourse but to limit their residency and movement within the United States to just those places where their relationship is valid and legal?

What happens if one of the more bigoted states decides to go ahead and make getting a same-sex marriage in another state a crime for its residents? Under this ruling, there’s nothing to stop or hinder such a move.

I’m not saying Federal recognition is chopped liver — it’s a big deal and would, I think, represent the dam beginning to burst (to mix metaphors). But until we get a marriage equality reprise of Loving v. Virginia, it’s still going to be a mess for gay and lesbian American couples.