Category Archives: Marriage Equality

Inaction Speaks Louder Than Words

I rarely link to BuzzFeed here. I restrict posting listicles and tests to see which Boardwalk Empire character one is to facebook and da twittah. I made that last one up, but there oughta be a such test. Get on it, y’all.

Anyway, I don’t think BuzzFeed when I contemplate posting about SCOTUS but their legal editor, Chris Geidner, wrote the best thing I’ve read about the court’s refusal to grant cert yesterday:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy often focuses on two ideas when he plays a part in moving the law: human dignity and the cumulative importance of the states.

On Monday, the court decided not to take up seven cases involving bans on same-sex couples’ marriages. The decision advanced Kennedy’s two main interests in a significant way — and set the course for achieving marriage equality in 50 states.

Those were the first two graphs, make sure you read the rest to learn why I concur with my learned colleague from BuzzFeed. There were clearly sufficient votes on both sides of the issue to take on the cases but the Windsor dissenters know they don’t have the votes and the majority in that case want more states to legalize gay marriage. It’s much harder to take rights away from people than it is to grant them. If the number approaches 30, there’s a chance that the pro-gay rights wing of the Court can win the vote of another Justice. The Chief may be the target. He’s very conservative but also more pragmatic than the other right wingers.

Another reason the Supremes didn’t take on these cases is that there are no conflicts in the Circuit Courts as of yet. The Fifth Circuit has challenges to marriage bans in Texas and Louisiana on its plate. It’s an ultra-conservative appellate court so my hunch is that they will uphold the bans. BUT yesterday’s inaction may have jump started the inevitability train and they could surprise us. We shall see.

There has been, of course, a lot of derpery in the commentariat. I expect Fox News to get it wrong but I saw Pete Williams on The Last Word last night and he swung and missed with this comment:

So, you know, what happened here, I think, we have to do a little guessing on. It takes four votes to grant a case. So, for example, the four conservatives might have been expected to say we need to look at these lower court rulings that struck down bans against same-sex marriage in these states, but they would only do that, likely, if they thought they had a fifth vote to win, and that is Anthony Kennedy, and they may have well decided they don`t have him.

May well? The thing I’m certain that he knows better. Justice Kennedy may be a wild card on many issues but he will go down in history as the gay rights Justice. He’s written all three major opinions that have come down in the area since 1996. I guess I’ll write it off to fatigue or the need for drama on cable news but Williams is better than that. To extend the baseball analogy, this performance was more like Rob Deer than Ted Williams…

Marriage equality may not have been achieved where I live, but it’s on its way. The number of states with legal same sex marriage rose to 30 yesterday including states such as Utah and South Carolina. Think of that, South Fucking Carolina. Now Utah is used to unusual marital regimes, but the land of John C. Calhoun and Strom Thurmond? That added an extra touch of awesomeness to yesterday.

Sometimes inaction speaks louder than words. You can quote me on that.

Tagged ,

‘It’s Over’

Even Governor Deadeyes admits it: 

The governor, a named defendant in the lawsuit by eight same-sex couples, said he had voted for Wisconsin’s ban in 2006 and hadn’t changed his support for it, but he said he was accepting the Supreme Court’s decision.

Asked if the U.S. Constitution should be amended to ban same-sex marriage, Walker downplayed the notion, saying, “I think it’s resolved.”

“For us, it’s over in Wisconsin,” Walker said of the fight over gay marriage. “Others will have to talk about the federal level.”

It’s a losing issue for Republicans and it always should have been.

I’ve been thinking about 2004 a lot lately, mostly because every time John Kerry makes a speech I get fucking pissed off again that not enough people voted for him, and he’s the Secretary of State now so he talks a lot.

But I really do feel like 2004 was our chance to turn things back around. The Bush Doctrine hadn’t taken hold hard enough yet, and people were still open to another argument. If Democrats hadn’t been such chickenass pussy-ass pussified pussies, I mean, remember this? 

A year into his job, Mayor Gavin Newsom could hardly be more popular. A survey last weekend put his approval rating among San Franciscans at 80 percent.

Polls show that a mainstay of the Democratic mayor’s support has been his stance on same-sex marriage. But with his party reeling from Senator John Kerry’s defeat on Tuesday, Mr. Newsom’s decision in February to open City Hall to thousands of gay weddings has become a subject of considerable debate among Democrats.

Some in the party were suggesting even before the election that Mr. Newsom had played into President Bush’s game plan by inviting a showdown on the divisive same-sex-marriage issue.

Most of the talk has been behind closed doors. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and Newsom supporter, answered a question about the subject at a news conference outside her San Francisco home on Wednesday, the prickly discussion spilled into the open.

“I believe it did energize a very conservative vote,” Ms. Feinstein said of the same-sex marriages here. “I think it gave them a position to rally around. I’m not casting a value judgment. I’m just saying I do believe that’s what happened.”

“So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon,” she added. “And people aren’t ready for it.”

Fuck you, Diane. You were wrong, and Bush was wrong, and everybody in the decade since who made anybody who wanted to get married wait one more second than they wanted to wait to get married was wrong, too, and now it’s over.

It was over then, too. Everybody who couldn’t admit it yelled and screamed and passed scaredy-cat laws that helped no one and hurt thousands, and their volume increased in proportion to just how over it already was. The louder they got, the farther they seemed to push themselves into the past, and in the end their voices were just echoing up through the garbage chute of history.

It’s over in Wisconsin. Soon it will be over everywhere. And someday nobody will ever admit to being on the other side. That’s how over it is.

A.

Fuck No, Louisiana

Dateline: New Orleans. I always wanted to do that. Sweet dreams are made of this…

Judge Martin Feldman channeled Rick Santorum and Nino Scalia in his opinion upholding the Louisiana ban on gay marriage today:

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman upheld Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, the first time a federal judge has ruled against marriage equality proponents since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year in U.S. v. Windsor invalidated a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In his long-awaited 32-page decision, Feldman dismissed a lawsuit brought by same-sex marriage proponents who argued that Louisiana’s ban violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, writing that Louisiana has a “legitimate interest” in “addressing the meaning of marriage through the democratic process.”

It marked the first time since the Windsor ruling that a federal judge has decided a state’s authority to define marriage trumps the right of a gay or lesbian couple to equal treatment, snapping an unbroken string of victories for gay-rights advocates in states from Utah to Virginia.

Judge Feldman did the old right-wing soft shoe about how this could lead to incestuous marriages and all that shit, but this is just one more round in this  long fight. Frankly, the Fifth Circuit is chock-full-O-barking-mad-wingnuts and would have reversed a favorable ruling in any event. This way, they’ll affirm, which will help send this case to the Supremes. One of the reasons they have for taking cases is a conflict in the circuit courts, which will happen when the 5th Circuiteers get their hands on the Robicheaux v. Caldwell case.

Continue reading

‘You Are the Same’

Yes: 

Jean Salzer, 49, and Linda Kapheim, 52, said they were surprised how quickly Crabb acted and hadn't been prepared for Friday's ruling. Two of their friends married Friday night while they were at a Tony Bennett concert in Milwaukee.

"Then we looked at each other and said, 'Let's do this,'" Salzer said.

They married Saturday morning. Though they have been together for 14 years, Kapheim said, "It just makes it so real for family."

"I think there's that legitimacy piece," Salzer agreed. "You are the same as everyone else. Someone with power says we are married."

A. 

JUMP AROUND BITCHES

Well, here's one less thing for me to feel superior about sitting here in Illinois, and I couldn't be happier: 

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison Friday overturned Wisconsin's gay marriage ban, striking down an amendment to the state constitution approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2006.

Crabb did not stay her ruling but also did not immediately issue an order blocking the enforcement of the order, leaving it for the moment unclear whether couples could immediately marry in the courthouses of Wisconsin.

Instead, Crabb asked the gay couples who had sued over the ban to describe by June 16 exactly what they wanted the judge to block with respect to the enforcement of the law. She said she would then address whether to stay her decision while the matter is on appeal.

Freep the poll at the link. 

This son of a bitch gives a bad name to sons of bitches everywhere: 

Last month, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen acknowledged he would not be surprised to lose the case. He asked the judge to immediately block her own decision if she does strike down the ban. Normally, lawyers wait until a judge rules before asking for a stay.

Von Clownstick intends to appeal. Good luck with that, asshole. I don't know if you've noticed but we are emphatically NOT THERE anymore. 

God, remember 2004? Do you guys remember 20fucking04, when gay marriages in San Fran (God bless all those brave couples, may they all live a hundred years) were going to doom the Democrats' chances and make all liberals look like pervert-loving weirdos or something? Remember those weddings? I sent flowers to those weddings. I was sitting at work trying to pretend I was, you know, working, when I was refreshing people's blogs like mad because they kept posting pictures of weddings and I couldn't get enough of the pictures of weddings. 

The avalanche started then, and the pebbles voted to roll it back, and DOMA came down anyway. It's been too long a road, for too many many people, to get us to here, but here? Here right now?

Love wins. So you go appeal. You go be sour and angry and talk about how hard it is to live in a world with other happy people in it. Go waste your goddamn time. Go pretend that most of the time life doesn't suck and life isn't short and life doesn't need more sweetness and joy in it all the time. Go smash your head on the rocks if you want. It's all over. 

A. 

Two Dudes

Oh suck it, you moralistic bitchasses:

The reason we put it on the front page is simple: No story in our newspaper would generate more interest than this one. For some people, the very idea of homosexual marriage is appalling. They sincerely believed that this is a violation of God’s law and the more acceptable it becomes to society, the more clear it becomes that the moral fabric of our country is in tatters. For others, the marriage of Toven and Taylor is evidence that our society is on a path to increasing tolerance and they celebrate what they view as progress. What the people on either side of the debate share is a strong sense that this is an important issue, worthy of public disclosure and discussion. In North Carolina, the issue was important enough to have a vote on a constitutional amendment just to make it tougher to pass a law against gay marriage, even though the practice was already illegal in the state.

Finally, some people have questioned the particular photo we used with the story, which depicts the couple kissing under crossed sabers.

To those, I respond that no photo tells the story more clearly. The kiss under the sabers is a staple picture from military weddings. It would be hard to come up with an image that says more strongly that this is a military wedding of two men. It would have been impossible to take such a picture two years ago, first because any service member who valued his career could not openly admit his relationship, and second because no military chapel would have permitted the ceremony. This picture says more clearly than any others our photographer took that times have changed, probably more rapidly than anyone expected. Whether people celebrate the changes or condemn them, it is our responsibility as a newspaper to report them.

In other words, ooh, you don’t like a picture of two dudes kissing. Those two dudes probably didn’t like it much that until quite recently, they would have been fired for kissing. Jailed for kissing. Likely beaten or killed for kissing. So if we’re making surviving things that fucking suck an Olympic sport, THEY WIN.

I am so sick of this crap, this “seeing a thing I don’t like” being equated to actual harm. Nobody is hurting these bigots. Nobody is making their lives more difficult and it’s grossly insulting to those facing real hardship to imply otherwise. Being offended at breakfast is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

I am offended at breakfast almost every day, because Charles Krauthammer still has a job, and Dick Cheney and his robot heart continue to exist while so many good decent non-warmongering people do not, and somebody pays Jenny McFUCKINGCarthy to be on TV, but I put the Internet away and go out the front door into a world where as a straight white middle-class girl married to a dude I have exactly jack shit to worry about in terms of oppression and intolerance.

As does just about everybody complaining about the picture.

A.

Tweet of the Day: TBogg Edition

Some of the best tweets are essentially sight gags like this one by the estimable TBogg:

Former Senator Man Dog Sex looks like a Louisiana politician in that ice cream suit, man. It’s a better look than the whole parochial school sweater vest thing.

Before I forget, FUCK YEAH, PENNSYLVANIA.

Tweet of the Day: TBogg Edition

Some of the best tweets are essentially sight gags like this one by the estimable TBogg:

Former Senator Man Dog Sex looks like a Louisiana politician in that ice cream suit, man. It’s a better look than the whole parochial school sweater vest thing.

Before I forget, FUCK YEAH, PENNSYLVANIA.

Tweet of the Day: TBogg Edition

Some of the best tweets are essentially sight gags like this one by the estimable TBogg:

Former Senator Man Dog Sex looks like a Louisiana politician in that ice cream suit, man. It’s a better look than the whole parochial school sweater vest thing.

Before I forget, FUCK YEAH, PENNSYLVANIA.

Tweet of the Day: TBogg Edition

Some of the best tweets are essentially sight gags like this one by the estimable TBogg:

Former Senator Man Dog Sex looks like a Louisiana politician in that ice cream suit, man. It’s a better look than the whole parochial school sweater vest thing.

Before I forget, FUCK YEAH, PENNSYLVANIA.

Tweet of the Day: TBogg Edition

Some of the best tweets are essentially sight gags like this one by the estimable TBogg:

Former Senator Man Dog Sex looks like a Louisiana politician in that ice cream suit, man. It’s a better look than the whole parochial school sweater vest thing.

Before I forget, FUCK YEAH, PENNSYLVANIA.

Breed for the Reich!

For fuck’s sake:

The state of Kentucky is now defending its right to prohibit same-sex marriage with an unconventional stance: Procreation, the purview of heterosexual couples, is good for the economy, so the state has an obligation to ban gay marriage.

Lawyers for the state filed a brief last week after a federal judge ruled it must recognize gay marriages from other states. The lawyers argued opposite-sex married couples recoup the state for the tax benefits they recieve by procreating and thereby improving the state’s economy. Same-sex couples, they argued, do not.

“Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate,” the lawyers wrote. “Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model.

Yes. Breed, ladies! Breed for the state! That’s a compelling argument.

What the fuck is Kentucky on about here? Kentucky must grow its own workers? Because everybody born in Kentucky stays there and contributes? Because that’s the only way you grow your economy? I don’t know how on earth … I mean, whatever, it’s obviously a ruse to cover their bigotry, but I’ve had more logical arguments with Claire and she can’t talk.

A.

Breed for the Reich!

For fuck’s sake:

The state of Kentucky is now defending its right to prohibit same-sex marriage with an unconventional stance: Procreation, the purview of heterosexual couples, is good for the economy, so the state has an obligation to ban gay marriage.

Lawyers for the state filed a brief last week after a federal judge ruled it must recognize gay marriages from other states. The lawyers argued opposite-sex married couples recoup the state for the tax benefits they recieve by procreating and thereby improving the state’s economy. Same-sex couples, they argued, do not.

“Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate,” the lawyers wrote. “Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model.

Yes. Breed, ladies! Breed for the state! That’s a compelling argument.

What the fuck is Kentucky on about here? Kentucky must grow its own workers? Because everybody born in Kentucky stays there and contributes? Because that’s the only way you grow your economy? I don’t know how on earth … I mean, whatever, it’s obviously a ruse to cover their bigotry, but I’ve had more logical arguments with Claire and she can’t talk.

A.

Breed for the Reich!

For fuck’s sake:

The state of Kentucky is now defending its right to prohibit same-sex marriage with an unconventional stance: Procreation, the purview of heterosexual couples, is good for the economy, so the state has an obligation to ban gay marriage.

Lawyers for the state filed a brief last week after a federal judge ruled it must recognize gay marriages from other states. The lawyers argued opposite-sex married couples recoup the state for the tax benefits they recieve by procreating and thereby improving the state’s economy. Same-sex couples, they argued, do not.

“Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate,” the lawyers wrote. “Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model.

Yes. Breed, ladies! Breed for the state! That’s a compelling argument.

What the fuck is Kentucky on about here? Kentucky must grow its own workers? Because everybody born in Kentucky stays there and contributes? Because that’s the only way you grow your economy? I don’t know how on earth … I mean, whatever, it’s obviously a ruse to cover their bigotry, but I’ve had more logical arguments with Claire and she can’t talk.

A.

Breed for the Reich!

For fuck’s sake:

The state of Kentucky is now defending its right to prohibit same-sex marriage with an unconventional stance: Procreation, the purview of heterosexual couples, is good for the economy, so the state has an obligation to ban gay marriage.

Lawyers for the state filed a brief last week after a federal judge ruled it must recognize gay marriages from other states. The lawyers argued opposite-sex married couples recoup the state for the tax benefits they recieve by procreating and thereby improving the state’s economy. Same-sex couples, they argued, do not.

“Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate,” the lawyers wrote. “Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model.

Yes. Breed, ladies! Breed for the state! That’s a compelling argument.

What the fuck is Kentucky on about here? Kentucky must grow its own workers? Because everybody born in Kentucky stays there and contributes? Because that’s the only way you grow your economy? I don’t know how on earth … I mean, whatever, it’s obviously a ruse to cover their bigotry, but I’ve had more logical arguments with Claire and she can’t talk.

A.

Breed for the Reich!

For fuck’s sake:

The state of Kentucky is now defending its right to prohibit same-sex marriage with an unconventional stance: Procreation, the purview of heterosexual couples, is good for the economy, so the state has an obligation to ban gay marriage.

Lawyers for the state filed a brief last week after a federal judge ruled it must recognize gay marriages from other states. The lawyers argued opposite-sex married couples recoup the state for the tax benefits they recieve by procreating and thereby improving the state’s economy. Same-sex couples, they argued, do not.

“Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate,” the lawyers wrote. “Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model.

Yes. Breed, ladies! Breed for the state! That’s a compelling argument.

What the fuck is Kentucky on about here? Kentucky must grow its own workers? Because everybody born in Kentucky stays there and contributes? Because that’s the only way you grow your economy? I don’t know how on earth … I mean, whatever, it’s obviously a ruse to cover their bigotry, but I’ve had more logical arguments with Claire and she can’t talk.

A.

Breed for the Reich!

For fuck’s sake:

The state of Kentucky is now defending its right to prohibit same-sex marriage with an unconventional stance: Procreation, the purview of heterosexual couples, is good for the economy, so the state has an obligation to ban gay marriage.

Lawyers for the state filed a brief last week after a federal judge ruled it must recognize gay marriages from other states. The lawyers argued opposite-sex married couples recoup the state for the tax benefits they recieve by procreating and thereby improving the state’s economy. Same-sex couples, they argued, do not.

“Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate,” the lawyers wrote. “Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model.

Yes. Breed, ladies! Breed for the state! That’s a compelling argument.

What the fuck is Kentucky on about here? Kentucky must grow its own workers? Because everybody born in Kentucky stays there and contributes? Because that’s the only way you grow your economy? I don’t know how on earth … I mean, whatever, it’s obviously a ruse to cover their bigotry, but I’ve had more logical arguments with Claire and she can’t talk.

A.

Shorter Steve Hickey: Why Don’t All These Homosexuals Want to Suck My Cock?

So annoying, those homosexuals:

“People are asking my secretaries to talk to them about anal sex. I’m getting hundreds of replies from all the way around the world, talking about how they want to rape me,” he told TPM in a phone interview on Friday.

“I’ve received hundreds of emails, lots of tweets. My wife is getting calls, my kids are getting calls. I’m getting calls at all my phone numbers, home and work, which are public. So this is not a crowd that will tolerate any conversation about what they want to legitimize, what they want us to legitimize.”

Any conversation? Let’s refresh our memories about what this clownstick actually said:

Certainly there are board-certified doctors in our state who will attest to what seems self-evident to so many: gay sex is not good for the body or mind. Pardon a crude comparison but regarding men with men, we are talking about a one-way alley meant only for the garbage truck to go down. Frankly, I’d question the judgment of doctor who says it’s all fine.

South Dakota docs, it’s time for you to come out of the closet and give your professional opinion on this matter like you capably and responsibly do on all the others. Somehow the message we are presently getting from the medical community is that eating at McDonalds will kill us but the gay lifestyle has no side effects. Truth be told it seems self-evident the list of side effects would read far longer than anything we hear on a Cialis commercial.

Okay. That’s a very clear starting point for a parlor debate.

A.

Shorter Steve Hickey: Why Don’t All These Homosexuals Want to Suck My Cock?

So annoying, those homosexuals:

“People are asking my secretaries to talk to them about anal sex. I’m getting hundreds of replies from all the way around the world, talking about how they want to rape me,” he told TPM in a phone interview on Friday.

“I’ve received hundreds of emails, lots of tweets. My wife is getting calls, my kids are getting calls. I’m getting calls at all my phone numbers, home and work, which are public. So this is not a crowd that will tolerate any conversation about what they want to legitimize, what they want us to legitimize.”

Any conversation? Let’s refresh our memories about what this clownstick actually said:

Certainly there are board-certified doctors in our state who will attest to what seems self-evident to so many: gay sex is not good for the body or mind. Pardon a crude comparison but regarding men with men, we are talking about a one-way alley meant only for the garbage truck to go down. Frankly, I’d question the judgment of doctor who says it’s all fine.

South Dakota docs, it’s time for you to come out of the closet and give your professional opinion on this matter like you capably and responsibly do on all the others. Somehow the message we are presently getting from the medical community is that eating at McDonalds will kill us but the gay lifestyle has no side effects. Truth be told it seems self-evident the list of side effects would read far longer than anything we hear on a Cialis commercial.

Okay. That’s a very clear starting point for a parlor debate.

A.

Shorter Steve Hickey: Why Don’t All These Homosexuals Want to Suck My Cock?

So annoying, those homosexuals:

“People are asking my secretaries to talk to them about anal sex. I’m getting hundreds of replies from all the way around the world, talking about how they want to rape me,” he told TPM in a phone interview on Friday.

“I’ve received hundreds of emails, lots of tweets. My wife is getting calls, my kids are getting calls. I’m getting calls at all my phone numbers, home and work, which are public. So this is not a crowd that will tolerate any conversation about what they want to legitimize, what they want us to legitimize.”

Any conversation? Let’s refresh our memories about what this clownstick actually said:

Certainly there are board-certified doctors in our state who will attest to what seems self-evident to so many: gay sex is not good for the body or mind. Pardon a crude comparison but regarding men with men, we are talking about a one-way alley meant only for the garbage truck to go down. Frankly, I’d question the judgment of doctor who says it’s all fine.

South Dakota docs, it’s time for you to come out of the closet and give your professional opinion on this matter like you capably and responsibly do on all the others. Somehow the message we are presently getting from the medical community is that eating at McDonalds will kill us but the gay lifestyle has no side effects. Truth be told it seems self-evident the list of side effects would read far longer than anything we hear on a Cialis commercial.

Okay. That’s a very clear starting point for a parlor debate.

A.