Friday, July 29, 2011

Bachmann: Leave My Husband Alone!

Via JMG: Cindy Jacobs: My First Biblical Vision

Whackdoodle televangelist Cindy Jacobs, whom you probably best know for claiming that God killed millions of birds to show his displeasure with the repeal of DADT, relates her first biblical vision:
Around three a.m., I was awakened by a voice, "Wake up! I want to talk with you! I am Gabriel and I am here to give you a message from God.” I did not see him; nonetheless, I had no doubt that he was who he said he was. The next thing I knew, I was having a vision of mounting and riding a huge chestnut horse and my friend Julie was mounting and riding a white stallion. She was part of a vast army of women. As the Lord showed me country after country, I saw thousands of women on horseback behind me to march across the earth. In the vision, I was wearing armor and carried a sword.Gabriel told me that the women in the vision comprised a great company of women who would march across the planet, preaching the gospel, doing miracles, and transforming the nations.
Jacobs says that God frequently speaks to her personally. That's when he reveals the various reasons that he routinely kills millions of people with earthquakes and tsunamis. Usually, it has to do with the gays. Gay marriage in Mexico City? Kill 50,000 Japanese! So sayeth Cindy.

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: New York Marriage Poll

The above is a new poll by ABC News/WaPo.
Democrats and Republicans react in opposite ways to the new law, each facing stark internal divisions that may present challenges to building a winning coalition in 2012. Among Democrats, the divide is between the liberal base and those with conservative or moderate stripes. Liberal Democrats view the law positively by an overwhelming 74 to 25 percent margin. A smaller 54 percent majority of moderate and conservative Democrats say the same. Among African Americans, another loyal segment of the Democratic party coalition, more than six in 10 say the law is a negative development, while roughly one in three see it positively. Republicans broadly reject the law by a 2 to 1 margin, but alignment with the tea party movement complicates political calculations concerning the issue. More than seven in 10 Republicans who support the Tea Party movement view the New York law as a negative development.
(Via - Towleroad)

reposted from Joe

Via Kate Clinton: Whale of a Week

Via AmericaBlogGay: Judge orders Boehner’s lawyers to answer DOMA questions, calls argument "disingenous"

Last week, we wrote about the request from Edie Windsor's lawyers for an order compelling John Boehner's lawyers to answer questions. Today, the Judge issued that order, telling Paul Clement that he must answer two of the key questions. I've posted the order here.
Here's the key passage from the order:The two interrogatories pressed by the plaintiff ask "What, if anything, do you contend are the compelling justifications for section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 77" (Interrogatory no. 1) and "What, if anything, do you assert are the legitimate government interests rationally advanced by section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7?" (Interrogatory no. 3). BLAG objects to both on the ground that, to the extent they are construed as contention interrogatories, they are premature. That argument is disingenuous; at the time BLAG responded, the discovery deadline was three days away, and it is now closed. (emphasis added)

BLAG also objects to Interrogatory no. 1 because "it assumes the legal conclusion that Congress required a compelling justification to enact Section 3 of DOMA." In fact, the interrogatory assumes only that, if the Court finds st ct scrutiny to be the appropriate standard of review, BLAG may wish to proffer compelling justifications for DOMA. The plaintiff is entitled to know what those justifications are, and BLAG is there directed to answer Interrogatory 1.

In response to Interrogatory no. 3, BLAG sets forth authority for the proposition that under rational basis analysis, there is no need to demonstrate the basis on which the legislature actually chose to create classifications. That may be an accurate summary of the law, but it misses the point. BLAG will presumably suggest to the Court potentially rational grounds for the enactment of DOMA, and it must disclose those to the plaintiff in response to a proper contention interrogatory. Accordingly, BLAG shall answer Interrogatory no. 3 as well.

So, Boehner and Clement must answer those two very important questions.

Yes, the court called BLAG's argument "disingenuous." Yikes. That's very strong language for a judge to use. It's accurate, but that has to sting Mr. Paul Clement.

Anyway, we're keeping a close eye on this case. It's the first one where we've seen Boehner's legal team in action. And, they're not doing so well.

Disingenuous, indeed.

Via AmericaBlogGay: To defend Scott Brown, Senate GOP campaign committee attacks Dan Savage - while Brown pals around with known hate group

Seriously, whoever thought it was a good idea to engage Dan Savage is an idiot. But, game on.
Ben Smith has the details. Basically, to deflect criticism from Scott Brown for not appearing in the Massachusetts' delegation "It Gets Better" video, the NRSC's spokesperson, Brian Walsh, attacked Dan Savage. Here's an excerpt:

It’s truly reached a new level of desperation in their efforts to tear down Scott Brown, but we look forward to hearing whether state and national Democrat leaders agree with Dan Savage’s long history of lewd, violent and anti-Christian rhetoric. Given their press conference call today, one has to presume at this point that they do.

That's pretty darn sanctimonious coming from the NRSC, which includes David Vitter (who was caught frequenting numerous prostitutes (a crime) while married) as a member.  It's also pretty hypocritical of Brown, who had no problem associating himself with a known hate group last year.

Has anyone at the NRSC googled "Santorum" lately?

Ben also has an email response from Dan, which reads, in part: It is interesting, though, that not a single GOP elected official can bring himself or herself to make a video, or participate in the creation of one. No GOP elected can risk being seen letting bullied LGBT kids know that life isn't high school and that it will get better for them. it doesn't require signing off on the entire gay agenda (the president made a video, and he doesn't support gay marriage). No GOP elected can back the seemingly radical notion that LGBT kids shouldn't kill themselves, that they should have hope for their futures.

No GOP elected official can do even that -- David Cameron, meanwhile, made a video months ago.

Which tells us a lot about the noisiest part of the GOP's base -- lewd (have you seen their websites?) hate groups like focus on the family and Americans for truth about homosexuality -- and how feared they are by even "moderate" senators like Scott Brown.

Seriously, the "It Gets Better" videos are about saving kids. Clearly, that's not a GOP priority.

Maybe Dan should just redefine Republican, or at least Scott Brown.