Labels: AFA, Alzheimer's, CA Supreme Court, California, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Proposition 8
reposted from Joe
Friday, March 4, 2011
Via JMG: Alzheimer's Patient Wants To Marry While He Still Recognizes His Partner
Californians Ed Watson and Derence Kernik have been together for 40 years, but Ed has been been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and the couple is desperately hoping to marry while he can still recognize Derence. In a totally fucking related development, today the American Family Association denounced attempts to have the stay on Prop 8 lifted, using the headline, "Patience Is Not A Homosexual Virtue."
reposted from Joe
reposted from Joe
Via JMG: Trump: Gays Deserve No Rights At All
We already knew Donald Trump opposes same-sex marriage, but now we learn just how far his animus towards gay people extends. After indicating to the Des Moines Register that he will compete in next year's Iowa caucus should he decide to seek office, Trump was questioned on his stance concerning same sex marriages. "They should not be able to marry," the Celebrity Apprentice star asserted. Trump also admitted that he hasn't developed a "fully formed" opinion on extending medical and civil benefits to gay couples, but he added: "As of this moment, I would say no and no." The TV personality has suggested that he will announce his final decision on whether to launch a presidential bid in the coming months.GOProud will be so pleased.
Via JMG: Concerned Women Are Concernstipated About 80s Pop Stars Getting Married
Or so it would seem from their bizarre image accompanying this message:So, just like any other despot, Obama decided unilaterally to make the decision for all of us ignorant Americans who support DOMA, and we should be grateful. Shame on him. And shame on us if we just stand by silently and take it. We should not! We must speak out. Truthfully, we have been too silent for far too long. President Obama and Mr. Holder have been actively working against DOMA and, therefore, against all Americans ever since they took office. Even on the cases where they decided to “defend” DOMA, they were actually undermining its reasoning by abandoning the most effective arguments.
DOJ’s mission statement says it is “...to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” But President Obama and the attorney general have made a mockery of impartiality. They have chosen to side with an extreme, liberal minority and chose to suppress the rights of the majority of Americans. Simply put, if you support DOMA, this president and his administration view you as the enemy who does not deserve the same protections other Americans enjoy. We are on our own.
Via HRC:
Dear Daniel,
| Don't let Republican leaders in Congress waste time and resources protecting the hateful Defense of Marriage Act. Make an urgent gift to fund our all-out effort to fight DOMA.  |
In the wake of President Obama's courageous decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), radical lawmakers have sunk to a new low.
Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have spent this past week working to placate anti-LGBT members of Congress and their right wing base by indicating they will defend DOMA – no matter what it takes.
So much for their pledges to focus on jobs and the economy. These so-called fiscal conservatives are wasting Congress's time and resources to defend discrimination.
We've never taken these attacks sitting down – and we can't start now. Time and again, our opponents lash out when we make progress. And time and again we band together to stop them. We've got to do it again this week, with a rapid-response effort in Congress and beyond. Can you help now?
In the past several weeks, HRC has helped drive major victories: civil unions in Hawaii and Illinois; unprecedented progress on marriage equality in Maryland, Rhode Island, and New York; and President Obama's decision on DOMA. All of those phone calls, rallies, letters to Congress, meetings with lawmakers – they're working.
But these victories have pushed our opponents to redouble their efforts to undermine equality.
So we're at a crossroads. We can catapult off of these recent victories and others in Illinois and Hawaii, grab this momentum with both hands and lay a foundation now for a future of full marriage equality – or we can let the extreme right wing dictate America's political agenda.
Right-wing radicals know the tide is turning against them. It's just making them more desperate. Only your generous grassroots support will help us stand strong. We must seize this moment. Are you with us, Daniel?
Thank you for helping us win – and for keeping this movement strong.
Best,
Joe Solmonese
President
Via JMG: Thrice-Married Serial Adulterer Arranged $200K To Protect Sanctity Of Marriage
According to the Los Angeles Times, Newt Gingrich served as middleman for an anonymous donor who gave $200,000 in "seed money" to fund the successful campaign to oust three Iowa state Supreme Court justices. This year, several potential presidential candidates are vying for attention among religious conservatives. But only Gingrich was instrumental in the most heralded event of recent Christian political activism: The effort last fall to remove the Iowa judges. "It wouldn't have happened without Newt," said David Lane, executive director of Iowa for Freedom, the organization that led the campaign. "Newt provided strategic advice and arranged the initial seed money, about $200,000, which is what got everything started." The money came from an anonymous donor whose contribution was arranged by Gingrich, Lane said. Robert L. Vander Plaats, chief spokesman for the judicial campaign, said the former speaker provided key strategic advice. He said Gingrich had won over pastors in the state with his "open and transparent" approach.Newt Gingrich would like to remind everybody that that marriage is between one man and one woman whom you abandon riddled with cancer on her hospital bed while you fuck the shit out of your mistress whom you later marry and cheat on with a third woman while screaming with Godly moral outrage about the infidelities of the president.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Via JMG: New Book: Germans Invented Gay Rights
According to a coming book by historian Robert Beachy, the genesis of the modern gay rights movement came in 19th century Germany. Modern conceptions of homosexuality began, ironically, with an anti-sodomy law. When the German empire was unified in 1871, the Imperial Criminal Code included a law prohibiting sexual penetration of one man by another. Questions about what types of activity should fall under the law spurred a sustained public inquiry into the nature of same-sex eroticism and sexuality in general. [snip] This new view of same-sex love was pioneered by German doctors who published early case studies of homosexuals in the 1850s. German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing released the first edition of his hugely influential Psychopathia Sexualis in 1886, which included multiple case studies of homosexuals that supported this new position. Through his work, Krafft-Ebing became a vocal opponent of the German anti-sodomy law, stating that homosexuality "should not be viewed as a psychic depravity or even sickness."Beachy claims the world's first gay rights group, the Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee (Scientific-Humanitarian Committee) came into being at that time to gather petition signatures to repeal the anti-sodomy law. His book, The German Invention Of Homosexuality, is due out next year.
Via JMG: HomoQuotable - Jim Burroway
"This [Westboro] ruling is important for many reasons. First and foremost, it preserves the primacy of free speech in America, which benefits us all. But from a parochial pro-LGBT narrative, it’s equally important to note that it proves the lie to the multiple instances when anti-gay activists falsely claimed that advances in LGBT equality and protections — whether they come in the form of marriage equality or hate crimes protections — will result in the infringement of religious and speech rights. They never have and, if this ruling is any indication, it reaffirms the fact that they never will. So the next time someone claims that marriage equality will result in pastors being prosecuted for hate speech, make a note of it: Snyder v Phelps." - Jim Burroway, writing for Box Turtle Bulletin.Labels: Box Turtle Bulletin, First Amendment, HomoQuotable, Jim Burroway, LGBT rights, religion, Supreme Court, Westboro
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Via JMG: Gillibrand Launches RepealDOMA.com
Just launched by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Via Huffington Post:We must repeal this discriminatory law. There is no reason same-sex couples should be denied the same rights that my husband and I and so many other straight Americans enjoy. For me it comes down to the very simple principles that every American should be able to marry the person they love, and that discrimination against LGBT Americans is unconstitutional and wrong. The law as it currently stands denies federal benefits to thousands of legally married couples -- more than 1,100 federal rights and privileges enjoyed by straight couples, including hospital visitation, inheritance and some health care benefits. It discourages states from recognizing these legal marriages and it denies millions more Americans the right to marry the person they love. This is wrong.Gillibrand has also pledged to cosponsor Feinstein's coming repeal bill.
Via JMG: Quote Of The Day - Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
"Dear Mr. Speaker, In a letter to you last week, the Attorney General advised that the Administration has concluded that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and therefore will cease to defend the statute in pending litigation. It is in the best interests of taxpayers and the constitution for you to refrain from appointing special counsel to defend this law. A decision to appoint special counsel would be an unnecessary cost to taxpayers, and would detract from our shared goal of cutting wasteful spending and creating jobs."The executive branch’s responsibility to defend federal laws is not absolute, particularly in instances such as the present case, where the federal law is in direct conflict with the confines of the Constitution. At this critical economic juncture in our nation’s history, it is imperative that we as legislators do not devote resources to defending an antiquated and unconstitutional law."- Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, in a letter sent today to House Speaker John Boehner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)