...só depende da mente que observa!
Gasshô _/|\_
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Via AmericaBlogGay: Pelosi: Bachmann needs to break silence on youth suicides in her MN district
Andrew Harmon spoke to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- and Pelosi had some words for Michele Bachmann about bullying and youth suicide:
Over the past two years, nine teens have committed suicide in Minnesota’s largest school district, resulting in federal investigations, lawsuits from advocacy groups, and the morbid designation of a “suicide contagion area” by state public health officials. At least four suicide victims, as Mother Jones noted in a feature published Monday, had been reported victims of bullying because they were LGBT or perceived to be LGBT.
But Bachmann has yet to speak out on the suicides within the state's 6th congressional district and appears to have chided anti-bullying legislative efforts in the past.
Pelosi told The Advocate of Bachmann’s silence on the issue, “I would think that if she wanted to be the President of the United States, she would understand that this is a larger issue than whether someone is gay or not, but as to whether someone is harassed and bullied to the point of seeing no way out.”
“Obviously it’s an issue bigger than Michele Bachmann’s district, so maybe we should all be speaking out about it, and not just leaving it to her,” Pelosi added.
But, it's a very big issue in Michele Bachmann's district. Scarily big.
Via AmericablogGay: Pelosi to Bachmann: Address the teen suicides in your district
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann’s failure to address a disturbing trend of teen suicides within her own congressional district does not reflect well on her White House ambitions, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told The Advocate Thursday.
Over the past two years, nine teens have committed suicide in Minnesota’s largest school district, resulting in federal investigations, lawsuits from advocacy groups, and the morbid designation of a “suicide contagion area” by state public health officials. At least four suicide victims, as Mother Jones noted in a feature published Monday, had been reported victims of bullying because they were LGBT or perceived to be LGBT.
But Bachmann has yet to speak out on the suicides within the state's 6th congressional district and appears to have chided anti-bullying legislative efforts in the past.
Pelosi told The Advocate of Bachmann’s silence on the issue, “I would think that if she wanted to be the President of the United States, she would understand that this is a larger issue than whether someone is gay or not, but as to whether someone is harassed and bullied to the point of seeing no way out.”
“Obviously it’s an issue bigger than Michele Bachmann’s district, so maybe we should all be speaking out about it, and not just leaving it to her,” Pelosi added.
Related posts on AMERICAblog Gay:
Friday, July 29, 2011
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.
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)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)