Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

HRC is a fucking waste of your $. Clueless "insiders" all the way.

yeah i gave to them once in a fit of protest at something or other, and then read enough about them to keep me from giving again.

Sullivan's been pretty good over the years of listing examples of HRC's sycophancy.

John Cole droppin' a truth bomb:

I honestly don’t know where the gay rights movement goes from here. There have been some recent successes- there seems to be some movement on DADT, an openly gay mayor was elected in North Carolina, Washington state passed a gay rights bill, Obama signed the Shephard legislation, the HIV ban was lifted, and some other victories in other states in recent years. At the same time, I understand (as much as I can) the anger and the frustration. They did the right things- they had bills passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, followed the legitimate political process, and unlike any other civil rights issue, laws are only temporary for gays and a year later it gets overturned in referendums. It has to be maddening, and I have no answers. About the only thing I can do is to stop being a jerk and openly taunting gay bloggers when I think they are doing something stupid or flailing pointlessly at the administration, because at this point I can’t think anything other than that they have every right to be pissed. I don’t know if it will work, but maybe the only recourse left for the gay rights movement is legitimate anger. Nothing else seems to be working.

The next step is to challenge the Maine referendum as being unconstitutional, IMO. (don't know if it will work but that's the avenue I'd try)

I also wonder if there is some type of organized boycott/protest re: refusing to pay state and federal taxes until this issue is resolved that could be organized.

Overall, 51 percent of voters said same-sex couples should be allowed to become legally married in the state, and 43% were opposed. But by nearly twice as large a margin, 56 to 41 percent, voters did not want the issue to appear on the ballot again in 2010.

^^^er that's in California, poll released today

i think marriage is pointless aside from legal issues but that's possibly more because i am without love than an atheist although both are true ;_;

It feels like once this gets settled and dragged through the courts and gay marriage or gender neutral civil unions are standardized everyone's going to be so tired of hearing about marriage that a lot of people won't see it as any sort of big deal in general. If all the anti gay marriage people had sucked it up and encouraged it but asked for church-by-church exceptions it would have a lot more of the mystique or whatever intact ten years from now.

Frank sez DADT to be repealed next year as part of Defense Authorization Bill

thought it said 2011

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Frank_Dont_Ask_repeal_coming_next_year.html

Are same-sex couples better parents?

read it here, confused now tbh

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=28029

well, the bill passed in 2010 is for the next year, i.e. 2011. Gov't doesn't exactly work on a pay-as-you-go scheme.

wait what? not from ur country btw jus so u kno

like getting snarky abt me not being 100% on how ur govt works seems pretty silly but then mayb that is how u roll

that's not really snarky though

But as an amendment, it could be made effective whenever they choose, Shakey, no?

not trying to be snarky! sorry.

Appropriations/funding bills are passed for each fiscal year, not on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis. After all, the gov't only collects income taxes once a year. So in 2009 congress approves all the funding for 2010, in 2010 they approve all the funding for 2011, etc. This is kinda a standard budgeting practice for governments, isn't it? And since the DADT repeal is being included in an appropriations bill that will pass next year, that means it will go into effect in 2011. But the bill will have passed and the law will have been repealed in 2010. Make sense?

x-post

But as an amendment, it could be made effective whenever they choose, Shakey, no?

well this is kinda true but what else would they amend it to? The defense budget is a bill that is guaranteed passage, no one's going to filibuster or vote it down based on this one amendment. Whereas if they amended it to some other random bill it might be more difficult to get through.

yeah i can see how in a large country like the US this would be a cumbersome move that would take up to a year to implement but living in a country with 4 million ppl I tend not to think of things like this, sorry for interpreting snark and thereby forcing this thread into digressions abt fiscal years :-/

If they do pass it as an amendment, they probably won't tie it to any appropriations schedule but set out a timetable to amend the Title 10 of the US Code.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-doma-repeal-attempt-in-2010-and.html

That's good news. If you don't care about gay marriage. Which you don't.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/prop-8-backers-seek-to-block-federal-trial-broadcast.html

"Many supporters of Proposition 8 who are being dragged into this case are fearful about being questioned about their personal, political and religious beliefs on the stand and having that televised," Pugno said.

I kinda have a hard time generating sympathy for these folks..

fuck 'em

agreed

Are they going to call that poor lady who runs El Coyote as a witness?

fuck 'em

― larry craig memorial gloryhole (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, January 8, 2010 4:45 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wonderful piece by ted olson in newsweek

I wonder if Ted Olson has a gay family member. Hes so passionate about it.

I also dont understand how this thing going on now is a 'trial'. Is some couple suing the state civilly for discrimination?

Olson's a fascinating guy. For all his wingnut roots he gives the impression of a guy who's spent a lifetime carving out principles only to have them challenged recently, and he's sensitive enough to find a connection between "classic" conservatism and the support of gay marrriage.

this might be old news but divorce rates lower in states that don't ban gay marriage

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

Is some couple suing the state civilly for discrimination?

yes gay couples are suing the state for violating their civil rights under the Constitution - no matter what happens this is the case that will go to the Supreme Court

Can't wait for embittered Scalia dissent.

maybe he'll get so bent-out-of-shape he'll just, you know, die already.

"So am I to understand that homosexualists, you know, what to stick penile objects yay big into their anuses? They're not the only ones who'll be asking for protection."

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/10/scalia.jpg

I imagine he finds gays about as confusing as non-Christians (cf. his whole "the cross is not a religious symbol" argument)

"the penis goes WHERE?"

^^^^ this would be a question to a lesbian couple

btw this is a good book.

Nino Scalia can probably imagine lots of positions for lesbians.

Ha ha, I read the most apopleptic review of that book not long ago.

the title's the worst part.

My post is a little misleading. The reviewer basically said that she outed him as a highly partisan judge in very bad faith.

i think people who read that book and don't think scalia is a highly partisan judge are only fooling themselves

Yeah, um, if anyone's been hoodwinked it's readers. I mean, Scalia doesn't equivocate or "clarify" public statements. He doesn't give a damn.

http://cbs2.com/local/cindy.mccain.gay.2.1439011.html