"No, I'm just not in favor of gay marriage. I live in New York. New York is a place with lots of gays, and I think it is great. But I'm not in favor of gay marriage." - Three times married Donald Trump, whose potential 2012 presidential run is being backed by GOProud. Before you dismiss his opinion as inconsequential, consider that Donald Trump is arguably the most famous New Yorker in the world and somebody whose support on this could have been quite useful.
About a dozen married straight couples were "umarried until gay marriage" yesterday in a Central Park protest staged by performance artist Reverend Billy. More photos here.-"Big tent fag hag and muslim bodily fluids swapper."
-"I have no tolerance for homo-tolerants. Boo & shame on you Ann. You are a Catholic."
-"There are still fools and idiots who think this woman is a conservative. I bet within a year she will become a Democrat. Maybe then, she will grab a brain, a hamburger, and Obama’s Birth Certificate."
-"I guess it’s OK to destroy the traditional family as long as you call yourself a conservative republican.
-"Fame is a terrible drug, Ann. Shame. You were once brilliant."
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible — officially sanctioned discrimination against one group of Americans imposed during an election year. President Obama seems to know that, or at least he has called on Congress to repeal it. So why do his government’s lawyers continue to defend the act in court? [snip] There are two crucial questions here. The overarching one, of course, is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to deny benefits to some people who are legally married under their state’s laws. Much also depends on the standard of review. How should courts evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people?Read the entire editorial.
On the merits, this should be an easy call. A law focusing on a group that has been subjected to unfair discrimination, as gay people have been, is supposed to get a hard test. It is presumed invalid unless the government proves that the officials’ purpose in adopting the law advances a real and compelling interest. That sort of heightened scrutiny would challenge the administration’s weak argument for upholding the act. It would also make it more difficult to sustain other forms of anti-gay discrimination, including state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry. By now, such blatant discrimination should be presumed to be unconstitutional, and the Justice Department should finally say so.
On Friday a couple gay was turned away from a special "Date Night" event at Kentucky's Creation Museum after being told that their presence would add an "un-Christian element" to the venue. Blogger Joe Sonka describes his evening:I rushed back from DC to my old Kentucky home last night to attend the spectacular "Date Night at the Creation Museum", where my date and I were to take in a nice dinner and listen to Ken Ham explain what makes a good relationship work. Unfortunately, we were told at the door that we would not be allowed entry. They explained to us that the Creation Museum Date Night was a "Christian environment", therefore the presence of two men eating dinner together would not be allowed. The very sight of this would "add an un-Christian element to the event" and "disrupt the evening for everyone". The Creation Museum rep further informed us that you cannot be a Christian if you are gay, asking "can you tell me what exactly is Christian about being gay?"Sonka and his date were also denied refunds on their $71 tickets.
Shortly after his CPAC appearance, former defense secretary Donald "War Criminal" Rumsfeld endorsed the repeal of DADT. “First of all, we know that gays and lesbians have been serving in the military for decades with honorable service,” Rumsfeld said. “We know that [repeal of a ban on gays serving openly] is an idea whose time has come.” Rumsfeld says he has “enormous respect” for the ground commanders and service chiefs who have expressed concerns about the impact of gays serving openly on unit cohesion, and he urged the top brass to implement the new law “with care.” But Rumsfeld says that congress, which passed the repeal bill in the waning days of the last session, has expressed the will of the American people.The Freepers are very unhappy with this.
Bill C-389 now goes to the Senate, where it must go through three readings. Readings in the Senate don’t take months-to-years as they do for Private Members Bills in Parliament. However, as far as I know, a Senator still needs to be found who is willing to bring the bill to the floor. There could be some perils in the Senate. In the past, the Senate has mostly just ratified and tweaked legislation passed by Parliament, but as Harper has packed more conservatives into the Senate (rather than reforming it to create an elected Senate, which he once campaigned on), it has been sometimes used more undemocratically. In one recent such move, he used a lack of attendance of Liberal senators to kill a climate change bill. It is also still entirely possible that an election call could kill the bill before it is enacted into law. What would happen then is that as a community, we would need to press candidates and parties to pledge to finish what was started, and also to address other glaring omissions such as the absence of sex / gender from the hate crimes provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada.(Tipped by Rex Wockner)
