Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:
The Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings Thursday evening on a bill that would make marriage equality the law of the land in Rhode Island, bringing the state into line with the rest of New England. The hearings lasted until 5:00 am, and many advocates and opponents gave testimony.
But the person who stole the show was a sixth-grader.
Matthew Lannon, a 12-year-old who has two moms gave a powerful voice to America's youth in his testimony before the committee, delivering the most clear and concise case for marriage equality you could ask for from anyone, at any age.
Damn what is with these incredibly intelligent children these days?
We had that nine year old explaining the universe yesterday and now today we have this young man explaining the importance of allowing people in love to marry. Personally I think it is about time for all of us old folks to step aside and just let these kids take over.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments on California's gay marriage ban. As of right now I don't know exactly what they will decide but I think it is clear that regardless of what they decide the ban on gay marriage, in ANY state, is not going to stand for too much longer.
Not with kids like Matthew Lannon rushing toward adulthood that's for sure.
If Supreme Court Sam Alito is any example of the mindset on this court, we are doomed to another few centuries of bronze age mythology, religion, and superstition determining the outcome of social issues.
ReplyDeleteOn the gay marriage issue, Alito actually said that "Gay marriage is newer than cell phones or the internet"
I wonder if this man thinks about his words before he says them?
"http://www.businessinsider.com/alito-gay-marriage-cell-phones-internet-supreme-court-prop-8-oral-arguments-2013-3
"
Well Alito actually voted just a decade ago I kid you not - to make homosexual sex illegal! And yet he continues to call himself a small government conservative and strict constitutionalist. Apparently to him that means peeping in your bedroom each night to see there's no hanky panky between two of the same gender! Who knew! What makes him so disgusting though is the smug remarks he makes about gay people, truly believing he sounds smart saying them (surely, how did this man get so high up? I mean really?) like; 'were not stopping anyone having sexual relations, they just can't have sexual relations with people of their own gender. It's the same for all of us!' (that's a paraphrase, his was nastier)
DeleteHow many news networks will point out that not only does he think gay people should not be able to marry but that he thinks gay people ahould be LOCKED UP and kept segregated from people like him. Probably none. They will take him at his word that he isn't a bigot, won't pull up all the evidence saying otherwise and as usual the news will be the same even handed crap we always get from American media!
Yea, and a lot of those incredibly intelligent children are being raised by gay couples!!! I see these wonderful children standing up for their parents and you can see they are doing a GREAT job parenting those kids!! It just shines through. Like you said G, the next generation is definitely going to be more progressive!! Bodes well for the country. We need to stop giving the soap box up to the loud mouthed minority groups full of racism, hate, religious intolerance and loaded guns!! Those folks don't get that their views are not in the democratic majority in this country. We really need to take religion out of civic discourse. Religion has no place in our government legislation!
ReplyDeleteIt's despicable how out President has manipulated this issue to win votes. Could he be a bigger hack and flipflopper, not just with this either?
ReplyDeleteIt AWESOME what a huge influence our president has had on this debate and you can piss and moan all you want, but it's happening, it's a BIG FUCKING DEAL and you can't do anything to stop it, so crawl back under your rock and STFU.
DeleteHow Obama changed the gay marriage debate
But now, as the Supreme Court considers two cases on gay marriage, it’s clear Obama’s words profoundly changed the gay marriage debate. His support for gay marriage immediately shifted opinion in one of the last parts of the Democratic base resistant to gay unions: African-Americans.
While polls differ on the exact level of black support for gay marriage, almost half of African-Americans in Maryland backed a provision allowing gay marriages there last fall, and opposition to gay marriage has dipped below 50 percent among blacks nationally, according to the Pew Research Center. And Obama’s statement made it easier for influential African-American organizations, such as the NAACP, also to voice their support for gay marriage, as well as professional athletes, even if some influential pastors in many black communities still opposed it.
Obama’s words also caused a profound shift among his fellow politicians. It had always been expected Obama would declare his support for gay marriage, but in 2013 or 2014, after he had won re-election by focusing on other issues. Instead, the president illustrated backing gay marriage was not politically risky, declaring his support for gay unions and then winning not just in liberal states like California and New York but in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and other places with sizable blocs of conservatives and religious voters who some thought would turn out in droves to defeat a candidate who supported gay marriage.
more...
http://thegrio.com/2013/03/26/how-obama-changed-the-gay-marriage-debate/
Conservatives Promise 'DEFCON 6' If The Supreme Court Overturns California's Gay Marriage Ban
ReplyDelete...If the court rules to overturn Proposition 8, conservative opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the issue will move to the center of Republican political discourse, in much the same way that Roe vs. Wade and abortion became the party's defining wedge issue in the 1980s and '90s.
"It strikes me that what we have right now is exactly what the genius of our federal system was designed to provide — a broad range of local solutions and arrangements to what is a contentious issue," said evangelical operative Ralph Reed, who leads the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
"If the court were to go to the most extreme case and strike down 41 state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman by an act of judicial fiat, I think it will further polarize our politics, it will undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and it will likely spark a marriage equivalent of the pro-life movement that will spend decades trying to reverse the decision," Reed said.
A national debate about gay marriage would be the worst-case scenario for the Republican Party as it moves to sideline social issues in an attempt to broaden its appeal to a wider swath of voters.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/top-conservatives-promise-defcon-6-if-the-supreme-court-overturns-californias-gay-marriage-ban-2013-3#ixzz2OkuW7yBg
John Boehner Secretly Forces Taxpayers to Spend Millions of Dollars Defending DOMA
ReplyDeleteJohn Boehner has skimmed $742,000 in House funds to defend DOMA, but his cap on the DOMA defense fund is actually $3.1 million taxpayer dollars.
In January, Speaker John Boehner and the House Republican leadership secretly raised the spending cap on their DOMA defense fund a third time to $3.1 million. The cap is now more than six times its original $500,000 limit. Democrats had no idea that the cap had been secretly raised until after it had already been finalized.
Here’s the kicker. John Boehner has taken money out of the Justice Department’s budget to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. According to the Huffington Post, “Boehner so far has collected $742,000 to defend DOMA, and that money was skimmed from funds that would normally go toward House officer and employee salaries, Chief Administrative Officer Dan Strodel told members of a House Appropriations subcommittee. Strodel said none of that money came out of the budget of the Justice Department, which dropped its defense of DOMA in February 2011 after Attorney General Eric Holder determined it to be unconstitutional. Boehner, in his authority as speaker, has been defending the law on behalf of the federal government ever since.”
http://www.politicususa.com/john-boehner-secretly-forces-taxpayers-spend-millions-dollars-defending-doma.html
What You Need To Know After the First of Two SCOTUS Marriage Equality Cases
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court listened to arguments in the first of two cases concerning same sex marriage. Defenders of same sex marriage argue that Prop 8 and DOMA are unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
Defenders of DOMA and Prop 8 claim states’ rights, democracy and tradition should prevail over the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Observers noted one aspect of these cases that may provide cover for Supreme Court Justices who would on one hand, rather avoid ruling on the constitutionality of same sex marriages and at the same time would prefer to avoid being on the wrong side of history.
Today, the Court considered arguments in the Proposition 8 case, and will consider arguments in U.S. v. Windsor which seeks to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) tomorrow.
The Court could decide that the Plaintiff doesn’t have standing, as noted by Scotusblog: “First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.”
The Court has a basis to conclude that the Plaintiff in the Prop 8 case doesn’t have standing.
http://www.politicususa.com/scotus-considers-marriage-equality-cases.html
Majority of Justices Skeptical of Federal Ban on Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses
ReplyDeleteA majority of the justices on Wednesday questioned the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, as the Supreme Court took up the volatile issue of same-sex marriage for a second day.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, widely considered the swing vote on the divided court, joined the four liberals in posing skeptical questions to a lawyer defending the law, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs.
“The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage,” Justice Kennedy said during oral arguments, suggesting that the question should be left to the states. He disagreed with the contention that the federal law simply created a single definition for federal purposes, noting that same-sex couples are not treated the same as other married couples. “It’s not really uniformity,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/supreme-court-defense-of-marriage-act.html?emc=na&_r=0
Tweet Of The Day
ReplyDeleteFinal update: #scotus 80% likely to strike down #doma. J Kennedy suggests it violates states’ rights; 4 other Justices see as gay rights.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/27/tweet-of-the-day-21/
Defense Of Marriage Act Takes A Beating At Supreme Court
ReplyDeleteA majority of the Supreme Court justices delivered a beating to the Defense of Marriage Act during oral arguments Wednesday, signaling a positive outcome for marriage equality.
The four liberal-leaning justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared deeply skeptical that the federal government has legal justification for treating gay and straight couples unequally. They seemed inclined to overturn Section 3 of the 1996 law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage and thereby denies benefits to gay and lesbian couples even if they are legally wed in their states.
In his line of questioning, Kennedy, who has a track record in favor of gay rights, repeatedly contended that the federal government had exceeded its constitutional authority.
“You are at real risk of going in conflict … with federal police powers,” he told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing in favor of upholding DOMA. When Clement tried to argue that it was a valid exercise of federal power and does not infringe on states’ rights, Kennedy responded, “I see illogic in your argument.” He wondered why Congress could deny marriage benefits in states “where the voters have decided” that same sex marriage ought to be legal.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito appeared favorable to DOMA. They were preoccupied with the question of whether axing the law down could create a legal basis for the federal government to supersede state definitions of marriage.
The four Democratic-appointed justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were openly doubtful of DOMA’s validity.
“You’re treating married couples differently,” said Sotomayor.
Kagan suggested that “Congress’ judgment” when passing the law in 1996 “was infected with animus, with fear, with dislike.”
Breyer said he “can’t imagine” what the rational basis would be for denying benefits to married gay couples under federal law.
Ginsburg said recognition of marriage “affects every area of life,” mentioning hospital visits to sick partners and Social Security retirement benefits as examples. “It’s pervasive.”
Justice Clarence Thomas did not speak during the arguments, as is customary for him.
Before spending one hour hearing the merits of the case, the justices devoted 50 minutes to questions about whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the issue. It’s an unusual case because the Obama administration declined to defend DOMA, a federal law, leaving the House Republican majority to step in and hire Clement, a former Bush White House Solicitor General, to argue for the law.
Most of the justices appeared to agree that the DOMA case had standing.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/supreme-court-doma.php?ref=fpa
Bet You Can’t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mediaite.com/online/bet-you-cant-tell-the-difference-between-these-actual-anti-interracial-and-anti-gay-marriage-quotes/#0
Young Conservatives Push For DOMA Repeal At Supreme Court
ReplyDeleteCasey Syron, 19, was probably the only person at the Supreme Court on Wednesday wearing a National Rifle Association hat. He was also holding a sign proclaiming himself to be a proud gay Republican.
"It's important to let people know that not all gay people are Democrats," said Syron, who is from Chicago but is now attending school at George Washington University. "A lot of my friends who are gay are libertarian and Republican."
Syron said he is involved with College Republicans at GWU, and several of his fellow members were joining him at the Supreme Court to push for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which says the federal government cannot recognize same-sex marriages.
The Obama administration has refused to defend DOMA in court, arguing that it's unconstitutional. House Republicans, however, have picked up the defense and hired former George W. Bush administration official Paul Clement to argue the case before the Supreme Court.
When asked what he thought of House Republicans doing this, Syron replied that it was "disgusting."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/conservatives-doma_n_2964738.html
Edie Windsor vs. DOMA: 83-Year-Old Lesbian Petitions U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Case
ReplyDeleteThe 83-year-old plaintiff in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case spoke to media after being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, but her remarks emphasized the human angle of her "overwhelming" fight rather than strictly economics.
Saying she suffered from "broken heart syndrome" after the death of her wife Thea Spyer, Edith "Edie" Windsor told the crowd, "[Marriage] is a magic word, for anybody who doesn't understand why we want it and why we need it -- it is magic."
She went on to note, "Today is like a spectacular event for me...I mean, it's a lifetime kind of event, and I know that the spirit of my late spouse Thea Spyer is right here watching and listening, and would be very proud and happy of where we've come to."
The Windsor vs. United States case centers on the over 1,100 benefits not awarded to same-sex couples under DOMA. As for Windsor herself, she was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes when Spyer died -- fees she would not have had to pay had she been married to a man.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/edie-windsor-doma_n_1675983.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/edith-windsor-scotus-doma-speech_n_2965104.html
Some adults could learn a lot from these kids. Matthew was perfect, especially the part about his family not being "perfect". Considering how long many of these couples have endured and waited, they put heterosexual "marriage" to shame.
ReplyDeleteI bet neither of these young men are home-schooled or at fundie church schools.
ReplyDelete