The Gay Fray

Plus, we have lots of sex. That part is fun.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When you have activist judges, for either side, they are picked and appointed to manipulate the law to reach the preconceived conclusions of their appointers, while making it look like this analysis was a logical result of the law. They will use the same tactics as any good defense lawyer. His job is to help a guilty client escape justice. They will try to make the criminal look innocent and they will try to discredit the evidence, the accuser and the victims and make them look culpable.

The majority of trial lawyers give most of their political contribution to democratic party candidates. One would expect their criminal protection skills will be a consideration in their appointment by democrats. The bottom line is the will of the majority is being abused by these criminal defense judges.

One thing I notice about the law, is although you and I have to swear to tell the truth in court, lawyers don't have to take an oath of truth in court. They can lie about the truth and innocence of their client. Why is that? Those who don't have to tell the truth get appointed as judges.

How about a lie detector test to make sure the opinion of a judge is not a clever lie scam of a defense lawyer? Would anyone be interested in the truth or is the deception more effective if hidden from sight?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a Quiet Celebration

Dude, it's over ...

... and we won.

No, really. It's over. These cases working through the courts right now are part of the mop-up. The political war ended in December, in Utah, of all places.

Consider Judge John G. Heyburn II, of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Put forward by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and nominated by President George H. W. Bush (R), Heyburn's decision to strike down Kentucky's same-sex marriage ban was so confident that it dismissed Article IV considerations as extraneous; the entire ruling was built around Equal Protection.

It's over.

And We, the People, of the United States of America won.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nine and a Half Out of Twenty-Some Out of Untold Years Preceding

Well, yeah. So, dude, how you been? Good show, cheerio, and all of that.

But, hey ... so, at any rate we in Seattle are enjoying our first Super Bowl win, and first men's sports league title in over thirty years. It's weird, in a way. It's anti-climactic. Compared to the despair of losing, such as we felt less than a decade ago, the satisfaction of seeing our home team win is strangely anticlimactic.

I mention this because as I noted in December ... it's over.

Holy dude salami, Batman! It's over!

Dude ... we won.

And ... yet ....

Yeah. Same thing. I mean, sure, the big party comes once we've finished mopping up the intransigents, but, you know ... just like that Super Bowl, it took us years to accept that we lost. Then again, it took Pittsburgh fans years to accept that they won. Weirdest thing, that.

But winning?

For all the frustration, all of the slackjawed shock and awe over the insane efforts put on by the traditionalists ... I mean ....

Lawrence was one thing.

Windsor was a triumph.

But Kitchen? The judge in Virginia recognized exactly three hugely significant symbolic aspects about the result of her duty, and used them to her fullest, closing with Lincoln after absolutely piling on the legal justifications and, apparently, enjoying that exercise as much as duty would allow. But she opened her Bostic ruling with Mildred Loving. Even before the title, "Opinion and Order".

Kitchen v. Herbert is marriage equality's Loving.

We won in Utah.

Utah begged the Supreme Court.

And the Court said no.

We won, and every judge in the land knows it. One can suggest gritted teeth as Heyburn handed down his ruling in Virginia, but likewise can one suggest the extranaeity of even bothering with an Article IV decision—the Equal Protection question is so glaring that there is no reason to bother with the Full Faith and Credit decision. It remains to be seen which state will put up the Article IV argument, and perhaps that will become for the traditionalists what Loving was to the racists.

But holy shit, dude ... we won.

Let me try that again: We won.

I'm not crying, but this is happening.

Maybe it's just that the victory has always seemed so far off. With the 'Hawks, it's easy enough to remind that statistics would suggest the organization finally winning a Super Bowl almost must happen during my lifetime. And now that it's here, I can certainly accept it but I'm having a hard time filing those memories of desperation.

This, though? When I started this topic in 2004, my arrogant hope was five years. My realistic hope was a decade or two.

Nine and a half years later, though, the American Gay Fray came to an end in a federal courthouse in Utah.

I've never really liked saying, "I'm in shock". That is, I'm sure I've said it, but it's kind of a silly thing to say. To the other, that would explain it; sudden paradigmatic transformations, be they so petty as the Lombardi trophy or vital as the civil rights of my American neighbors, are certainly a "shock to the system".

After the bang, your hearing is flat. Or gravity seems amiss when you finally climb off the bicycle. Some part of me is comfortably numb following two decades of exercise since the Christian zealots set me in motion. At some point, I'm going to awaken to the next morning, when we are sore, or the morning after that when the lactic acid buildup really takes its sensory and functional tolls.

Or the hangover.

Or just another Monday, and there's still more to do. ("Run, rabbit, run. Dig the hole, forget the sun. And when at last the work is done, don't sit down—it's time to dig another one.")

Where is that joyous, celebratory ejaculation of catharsis? I'm not sure it's part of something like this, but I'm okay with that. Perhaps the sensation of victory is simply sublime, and abates slowly. We've our gay friends around the world to stand for, and there's plenty going on in this country that demands our attention.

Remember Huey Long, and Dr. King. Coretta Scott has lived long enough to see us surpass African-Americans in societal respect. There is still work to do.

Remember our sisters and mothers, friends and daughters, who have never actually been people under the Constitution. Say what one will about riding to the maidens' rescues; it's not that, but, rather, the decency of word and deed we owe any person.

Our transgender friends and neighbors still need political support, period. There's so much left to do on that front. I can't even begin to countenance the work that remains.

Ethnicity, creed, sex and gender—there is so much left to do.

The big part comes when we can finally count to fifty and beyond.

But holy shit, dude ... we won. Or ... we won.

We won?

Holy scrotes! We won!

And, yet, it takes an effort to get myself worked up about that.

You know ... Huh? We won? A'ight. I'm'a get a drink.

So, yeah. Good show on all the stuff you've been up do. And happy happy on the future plans. Howzabeen, dude? Oh, by the way, did you hear that it's over? And we won?

 

in someways I hope that Bill doesn't get watered down at all and passes because if its watered down there could be the potential for the courts to ignore it but if its so extreme there is just no way that the courts could excuse not throwing it out

 

I didn't mean I supported the law, I meant that in its current form (as it passed apparently) its such a clear breach of the equal protection clause that I would expect it to be in court already and should be really quick to resolve too and the precedent set should settle this once and for all

 

On Shields and Swords

On Shields and Swords

Steve Benen on the rash of religious-supremacy bills working their way through the states:

When a bad idea pops up in a state legislature, it's about as common as the sunrise. When the same bad idea pops up in 10 state legislatures at the same time, something odd is going on.

At issue are proposals to make anti-gay discrimination easier for social conservatives under the guise of "religious liberty." Kansas, for example, recently generated national headlines for a bill that would have given those with "sincerely held religious beliefs" license to discriminate practically everywhere – restaurants could deny gay couples service; hotels could deny gay couples rooms, even public-sector workers could refuse to provide services to LGBT Kansans.

Kansas' right-to-discriminate bill was derailed, but as Adam Serwer reported yesterday, very similar proposals have drawn attention in Idaho, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. My colleague Laura Conaway found a related measure in Maine ....

.... For proponents of civil rights, the good news is that these proposals are faltering in nine states. The bad news is, a bill in Arizona's Republican-led legislature actually passed yesterday.​

Gov. Brewer's office is not tipping her hand, yet:

The bill, approved by the Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday and the GOP-led House on Thursday, would bolster a business owner’s right to refuse service to gays and others if the owner believes doing so violates the practice and observance of his or her religion.

The state Senate passed it on a straight party-line vote, 17 to 13. The House followed suit, 33 to 27, with two Republicans joining all the Democrats in opposition.

GOP Gov. Jan Brewer’s office said she would not take a position until she'd had a chance to review the measure.

Proponents contend the bill is about protecting religious freedom, rights that “must be respected,” said Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough, who introduced the measure.

Republican Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, a House sponsor, said there had been an “onslaught of attacks on religious freedoms.” The bill, he said, “is trying to protect those freedoms.”

(Carcamo)​

Perhaps it seems a common refrain: My rights are violated as long as yours are intact.

And while that refrain might grow stale over time, here again we see the principle in motion.

Frankly, the best thing Gov. Brewer could do for the nation is to sign this into law, with the result that it will be destroyed in federal court. And then this whole dim-bulb empowerment of religious supremacism can be put to rest.

(Right. Like that would stop them from trying again in another state.)
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "'Religious freedom is a shield, not a sword'". MSNBC. February 21, 2014. MSNBC.com. February 21, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/religious-freedom-shield-not-sword

Carcamo, Cindy. "Gay rights activists in uproar over Arizona 'religious freedom' bill". Los Angeles Times. February 20, 2014. LATimes.com. February 21, 2014. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-gay-rights-arizona-bill-20140220,0,6953661.story

 

Indeed... as a (small) business person myself, I would not turn someone away even if they believed something my religion said was wrong. Now, if they came in and started preaching and what not with no intent to actually be a customer, I'd probably tell em to politely fuck off, but a customer is a customer so long as they have a legitimate desire for your service or product... and of course don't do anything outright illegal.

 

The bill to allow legal discrimination against gays passed in the Kansas House, but the Kanas senate president, a Republican, refused to bring it up for a vote. So the bill isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's a rare moment of sanity in a Republican dominated body. The Kansas business community was up in arms against the bill. It put businesses in a very bad legal space. So This is a win for the business wing of the Republican Party and a big loss for the Tea Party fanatics.

 

Celebration Slowburn

Meanwhile ....

I admit, this is getting to the point where marriage equality folks are starting to officially celebrate the inevitable. And the thing is that even the judges are in on it, so to speak.

Well, okay, it's something perfectly obvious to those on the marriage equality side of the aisle; Ryan J. Reilly explains for Huffington Post:

When U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia of the Western District of Texas struck down the Lone Star State's ban on gay marriage on Wednesday, he cited the words of a man who is normally a friend to conservatives: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garcia, a Clinton appointee who had previously served in the Texas legislature, could have cited any number of opinions to undermine the state's contention that the ability of many opposite-sex couples to procreate, as well as "tradition," justified denying equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.

But the federal judge didn't cite just any Supreme Court justice. He chose to quote from Scalia's dissent in the landmark 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the state's anti-sodomy law ....

.... Garcia isn't the first federal judge to use Scalia's words to undermine a state's defense of a gay marriage ban. In Utah, Ohio, Virginia and Kentucky, federal judges fully embraced Scalia's predictions last year in his dissent in United States v. Windsor, the case that struck down key portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Scalia wrote in that dissent that he believed the majority's logic would inevitably lead to other judges striking down same-sex marriage bans.​

Every judge seems to know it's over. I still can't figure the specific context on Heyburn's ruling in Kentucky, but he was definitely aware that this issue is already settled. Wright Allen, in Bostic (Virginia), knew it was over, and took the occasion to make that point resoundingly.

I certainly will confess that we might also be seeing a transformation by which a stereotype is having a positive influence on the discourse. Then again, that has been true for a while of the stereotype that gay men tend to be more affluent.

Money is money. And, yes, somewhere in the private sector speak loudly and carry a ballistic stick response to the legalized discrimination bills moving through the states that stereotype is echoing through at least somebody's mind. And prior field testing showed that, while it certainly stirs controversy in traditionalist communities, pandering to gay men for their business has paid off for airlines, international hoteliers, soft drinks, fashion, and, yes, even beer.

At the institutional level, everyone not giving primacy to stirring voters to futile battle seems to know this is over.

And the fact that these decisions remind Americans giving prayers of thanks to include St. Antonin of Columbia in their appreciation is ... oh, take the time to enjoy this one. Thank you, Justice Scalia; we couldn't have done it without you.
____________________

Notes:

Reilly, Ryan J. "How Scalia Helped Screw Texas' Case Against Gay Marriage". The Huffington Post. February 26, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. February 27, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/scalia-gay-marriage_n_4861115.html

 

Grass Roots and Astroturf

Grass Roots and Astroturf
Focus on the Family advocating discrimination, religious supremacism

I've long been of the opinion that along with bigotry goes ignorance, and quite often stupidity. Some, for sure, have the thuggish cleverness of the bully, coming up always with new ways to make people they perceive as weaker than them suffer. Indignities to be visited upon their victims — and I feel certain that most of these homophobes take a cruel glee out of the idea of ruining what's often touted as any couple's "happiest day," their wedding ceremony and celebration.

That's why I think that many of these Republican state legislators falling all over themselves to enshrine anti-gay animus in their state laws and constitutions probably don't even think through the consequences of their hateful actions.

—Morn​

Pardons, please, while my ego deflates; it is always gratifying to find someone else saying something I've said before, even if it is in sympathetic press. Indeed, I cannot say whether the point is so tacitly accepted or what, insofar as it is not made often enough.

Therein we might find some suggestion of bigotry, or at the very least an aspect of why people who don't like being called bigots are called bigots when they are (ahem!) "innocently" backing a discrimination bill in the guise of protecting religious freedoms.

That is to say, it may simply be that much of the bigotry is soft, that people don't really intend to be so mean, but ... er ... um ... right.

You may be wondering why the same types of bills are popping up in GOP-controlled legislatures all over America now. Well, just like it was with the "gays are bad for children" talking points cropping up all over the globe, originating with bogus BS ‘studies' published by Regnerus, Marks and others and funded by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), this effort is being coordinated, too.

As reported by Al Jazeera America:

Cornerstone in Idaho, the Kansas Family Policy Council, and the Center for Arizona Policy, which supports the bill there, are all part of a network of 38 state "family policy councils" pressing for these laws under the umbrella of Citizen Link, the advocacy arm of the conservative Christian powerhouse Focus on the Family.​

Focus on the Family is James Dobson's hate-mill, by the way, now headed by Jim Daly. Another backer is the American Religious Freedom Program, headed by Brian Walsh — who disingenuously claims these efforts are nothing more than trying to ensure that priests and florists don't have to participate in Big Gay Weddings. And the ARFP sounds familiar, that's because it's part of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think-tank and lobbying organization run by Ed Whelan, former Reagan official in the DoJ and also former clerk for Justice Scalia.

The fact that it's legal to discriminate against LGBTs in many states is nothing new. Twenty-nine states already have some form of 'religious exemption'. But now this AFRP group has drafted its wide-reaching bill, and according to reports in the Wichita Eagle, has been shopping it around to state legislatures around the country.​

There is a larger political question about alleged grass-roots organizations supporting model legislation written by large interests, but that can be set aside for the moment.

These discrimination bills are part of a concerted effort, specifically rooted in animus toward homosexuals and the transgendered, and used as a lever to establish Christian supremacy in the United States of America.

Tell me this: If you walked into "my bookstore", and upon viewing the graven image of Christ hanging around your neck, simply said, "We don't serve your kind here", what would that mean?

In a pure business consideration, I don't care what religion you are; money is money, and sales are sales.

But in this context of my business as my conscience, we're walking straight into a First Amendment showdown, and the effort to hide the homophobic aspect about these bills, while disingenuous, is a very important consideration.

As Becca Morn explained for AmericaBlog:

The Arizona state Senate just passed a bill with the following provisions:

1. Expands the definition of exercise of religion to specifically include both the practice and observance of religion.

2. Expands the definition of person to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.

3. Changes the terminology within the prohibition of burdening a person's exercise of religion to apply to state action instead of government.

4. Defines state action as any action by the government or the implementation or application of any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether the implementation or action is made or attempted to be made by the government or nongovernmental persons.

5. Specifies that a free exercise of religion claim or defense may be asserted in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.​

Translation: Anybody who wishes to discriminate against someone for any reason need only state it's because it's in their religious beliefs. According to an earlier passage, it doesn't even matter if that belief is "compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."

For example, let's say you're a Catholic, and identify as such. Catholicism has nothing in its tenets about racial discrimination. Doesn't matter — you can still discriminate against African Americans or Hispanics if you feel like it, and say it's because God's Holy Trousers told you to.

Shorter translation: The Arizona bill attempts to nullify all civil rights legislation ever passed, including federal laws, regardless who is being protected.

Here's a few scenarios for you:

• Don't feel like paying women a wage equal to men? Or hiring women at all because in your religious opinion, all women should be housewives? No problem.

• Hate people of color? You don't have to hire them or rent to them or anything. If you own a store, you can dust off that old "No Coloreds" sign and put it back in the window. Go ahead and add "No Gays" if you like. And according to the law, you can also re-add "No Chinese, Jews or Irish either" like they used to have in the olden days. Just have an asterisk — "* = The Lord My God Commands It".


• Let's say you're an EMT. And you come across a gay person bleeding out after a traffic accident. You don't have to treat them if you think they should die. Same thing if you object to people being Jewish or Romani or ginger.

• Or let's say you're a cop answering a domestic abuse call. You see a husband beating his wife. You're free to say, "Fine — it's there in the Bible, men are allowed to beat their wives. Sweetheart, you need to submit to him. Call me if he uses a stick larger in diameter than his thumb."

• Or a state-employed poll worker who believes that only white men should be allowed to vote, for people of color bear the Mark of Cain ...​

There literally is no limit. I saw one wag quip in a comment section, "Yay! Human sacrifice and slavery are back, baby!"​

It's one thing to say these are extreme projections, but two points demand some consideration in that:

(1) The legislation does not guard against these outcomes.

(2) There is always someone who will try.​

Which brings us back 'round the circle:

• Along with bigotry goes ignorance, and quite often stupidity.

• Many of these Republican state legislators falling all over themselves to enshrine anti-gay animus in their state laws and constitutions probably don't even think through the consequences of their hateful actions.​

But here's the thing: After a while, the people one is thrashing with bigotry don't really care if it's "innocent" or not.

Morn's point is well enough, and likely rather quite accurate. However, in applied life it's not that valuable. That is, death throes are even uglier than birth pangs, and traditionally privileged groups are panicking over the prospect of "mere" equality. And there is a coda to such a consideration; as Morn notes:

[EPRC] didn't write a sloppy bill to shop around. I believe the bill does exactly what it means to do, which is something the far-right conservatives have been itching to do ever since the first sweeping civil rights bills were passed in the 1960s: Repeal them.​

We know about the bigotry of these folks. At some point, though, the (ahem!) "innocent" conservative politicians who haven't given thought to the consequences of the policies they support need to wake up and stop making innocence synonymous with blind stupidity.
____________________

Notes:

Morn, Becca. "The eruption of anti-gay legislation nationwide is not a coincidence". AmericaBlog. February 21, 2014. AmericaBlog.com. March 3, 2014. http://americablog.com/2014/02/eruption-anti-gay-legislation-nationwide-coincidence.html

 

Michigan: first gay couple married by state as officials pursue appeal

Apologies if this has already been posted (I didn't see it):

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/22/michigan-counties-marriage-licenses-gay-couples-state-appeal

Quote:

"Two women were the first gay couple to marry in Michigan on Saturday, one day after the state's ban on gay marriage, approved by voters in a landslide in 2004, was scratched from the state constitution by a federal judge.

Glenna DeJong, 53, and Marsha Caspar, 51, both of Lansing, were married by Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum in Mason just after her office opened at 8am Saturday. Byrum said it was an honor to marry same-sex couples who have waited too long for this day.

"I figured in my lifetime it would happen," Caspar said. "But now, when it happens now, it's just overwhelming. I still can't believe it. I don't think it's hit me yet.""

Let's hope that it sticks.

 

At Least They Haven't Accused Her of Being Anything or Anyone

¿W.W.J.D.?
Suffer the little children?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry, kid: Sunnie Kahle is apparently not woman enough for Christ.​

There is nothing about the tale of Timberlake Christian School that doesn't bring a tear to your eye, but only because you would otherwise be convinced you were reading an Onion spoof:

Sports, sneakers, and short hair; it's what makes eight year old Sunnie Kahle unique. It's also what had her removed from Timberlake Christian School. Her grandparents pulled the plug on her time there after they said she was no longer welcome.

The family received a letter telling them that if their eight year old granddaughter didn't follow the school's "biblical standards," that she'd be refused enrollment next year. She's out and in public school now.

Sunnie Kahle has short hair and a huge heart, and as far as her grandparents are concerned, she is a completely normal little girl.

"She cries every morning to get on the bus, she cries when she comes home because she wants to go back to Timberlake Christian with her friends," said Doris Thompson.

Doris and Carroll Thompson are Sunnie's grandparents. They adopted and raised the little girl and took her out of Timberlake Christian School when they received a letter from the school's K-8 Principal.

"You're probably aware that Timberlake Christian School is a religious, Bible believing institution providing education in a distinctly Christian environment," read Doris from a part of the letter.

The letter goes on to say that students have been confused about whether Sunnie is a boy or girl and specifies that administrators can refuse enrollment for condoning sexual immorality, practicing a homosexual lifestyle or alternative gender identity.

The letter goes on to reference specific Bible verses that affirm these beliefs.

The letter reads in part, "We believe that unless Sunnie as well as her family clearly understand that God has made her female and her dress and behavior need to follow suit with her God-ordained identity, that TCS is not the best place for her future education."

(Gherardi)​

Unfortunately, this is not some sort of prank journalism. Rather, these are Biblical standards and Christian values straight out of small-town Virginia.

What would Jesus do? "Eeeew! Not you, boyish girl!"

For its part, according to James Gherardi of WSET, Timberlake has responded by reminding that "they have not accused Sunnie of being anything or anyone".
____________________

Notes:

Gherardi, James. "Little Girl Taken Out Of Christian School After Told She's Too Much Like A Boy". WSET. March 24, 2014. WSET.com. March 25, 2014. http://www.wset.com/story/25061872/...an-school-after-told-shes-too-much-like-a-boy

 

Initially, my first thought is that every major network should run this story, then I take a breath and realize this would only give those at Timberlake a chance to proselytize and gain in their popularity with the homophobes. Ahh, the hell with that, we cannot just put these people on ignore as they spread this kind of hate. One has to ask,"Isn't it really their own prurient thoughts that are the real issue here?" Why are these people even thinking about sex when looking at this little girl?