Nice. Also: About half of my state, New Mexico, has marriage equality at present. And at minimum the rest of the state should be that light blue color.
And Oregon has announced that for all intents and purposes, they’ll recognize same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
Then there’s Colorado, Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania where there are court challenges going forward. Plus cases in Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina…
The bigots are losing.
The extra guy is daddy’s on-the-down-low lover/prostitute. He always brings plenty of meth.
Yep — and let’s not forget: Several of the most populated counties in New Mexico have been issuing and registering marriage licenses for same-sex couples for a few months now.
I’d say at minimum, we have a ‘light blue’ state overall, with red counties sprinkled throughout.
Then there are the pending cases in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oregon, and lots of other states.
Becca commented on the blog post Bryan Fischer: Russian anti-gay law is the Public Policy the Religious Right Have Been Advocating
The regressive radical rightists are silent because Russia is doing what they dream of doing here in America — but most of them aren’t quite ready to let their mask of pretended ‘reasonableness’ slip off entirely yet.
Becca commented on the blog post Obama Gives Support To Osprey: The Military Boondoggle That Just Won’t Die
I live in New Mexico, not all that far from Kirtland AFB, and have seen Ospreys in flight on numerous occasions.
There’s one other detail about that aircraft that’s not often mentioned, aside from its serious reliability problems: It is incredibly frickin’ loud.
We’re talking way louder than a Huey. Subjectively, I think they’re louder even than the twin-rotor Chinook.
In a combat situation, they all but scream, “Shoot me down” — and give enemies plenty of notice they’re coming.
Becca commented on the blog post Dear Prop 8 supporters, you lost. Stop now or continue to make fools of yourselves
Moving the goalposts. More bites at the apple. Anything to stop other people from making families, enjoying legal protections, committing to responsibilities, and being happy.
I mean, yeesh! Judge Walker and the 9th Circuit were abundantly clear in the plain language of their rulings that they were not ruling merely to provide injunctive legal relief to just two couples or overturn Prop H8 in just two counties.
They ruled Prop H8 unconstitutional, period, end of. Unconstitutional because it denied equal rights to gay and lesbian couples and their families. Unconstitutional because a civil right was granted and then taken away. And what’s doubly hilarious is the SCOTUS ruling to deny standing was clear that nobody but the government of the state of California could ask for further litigation on the matter.
Anyway, expect ADF’s filing to be laughed out of court.
Becca commented on the blog post States With Civil Unions Are Depriving Gay Couples Of Federal Marriage Benefits
That map is incorrect with respect to my home state, New Mexico.
Its asterisk indicates that it recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. At present, it does not, even though our law would seem to indicate that our government *should*.
We have a number of cases now working their way through the courts to try to force the issue, because the only place in NM state law where it specifies that marriage is limited to one man and one woman is the one that regulates the marriage license form.
We’re hopeful, but we’re not there yet.
We’re not even free from that past. Just today, there was a woman posting several times over on AmericaBlog that she objected to the gay rights struggle because we LGBTs are, by her definition, immoral.
And she’s far from alone.
Becca commented on the blog post Bursting the Blue State Fantasy that Gay Enclaves Are ‘Safe’ to Be Out
Sadly, despite the passage of the much vaunted and often mentioned Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes law, in four and a half years there has been only one LGBT-related prosecution using it.
That one crime was the beating of Kevin Pennington in April 2011 in Kentucky. It took authorities nearly a full year before they brought charges.
The law might as well not even exist.
Becca commented on the blog post Eric Holder Proves He can Fear Monger with the Best of Them
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.
Becca commented on the blog post Assemblies of God Lawyer Assures Pastors That They Can Legally Refuse to Conduct Same-Sex Marriages
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.
Becca commented on the blog post The GOP autopsy generates a lot of walking (brain) dead. This week it’s Ben Carson and Don Young
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.
Becca commented on the blog post Scott Lively’s Ignorance Provides A Teachable Moment About The Definition Of Bisexuality
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.
Becca commented on the blog post Why Do Some States Have More LGBT People Than Others?
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.
Becca commented on the blog post More evidence of the decline of American culture: the return of the McRib
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.
Becca commented on the blog post This should go over well with donors: Mitt Romney ‘had no desire’ to be President
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.
Becca commented on the blog post Mortal blows for DOMA ahead? U.S. Supreme Court to hear two marriage equality cases
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…
- Load More