Sunday, February 15, 2015


I believe that President Obama has lied to the American People. It's en vogue  to call the President a liar.  It's fashionable to call any president a liar actually, but that's a different subject for a different day. Despite his policy positions, he has to be a Socialist-Marxist-Kenyan-Muslim-Secularist-Atheist-Christhating-SOB, because he is lying.
The basic history of Obama goes like this. He has been in the closet for the last eight years. He experimented with supporting Gay Rights in college like so many do, but then was scared back in when he realized  people might judge him for it. Finally his conscience caught up with him and after he outed himself, he looks like the weight of the world has been taken off his chest. 
However I think President Obama was actually lying to the American Public in 2004 when he stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman religious-blah.  His comments were in contradiction to his 8 year old (law professor) statements that he supported ultra-gay marriage. And once again he said it was his personal religious convictions that made him no longer support gay-marriage.
In 2004 Obama upgraded to Obama 2.0 and became a real politician. Like any real politician his position crapped on the 14th Amendment. His official stance was the issue was separate but equal (because we all know how that worked out the first time).  I can only conclude that this was a position taken because at the time Guns, God, and Gays.  Even at this time he supported Civil Unions thus supporting the freedom to love and live with whoever you want. The moral of the story is apparently politics are stupid and make good rational men make terrible decisions for no real reasons.
Then in 2012 crazy eyes Uncle Biden blurted out in front of the whole family on Thanksgiving that President Obama is gay for gay-marriage. Interestingly his policy shift happened 2 months after the Ninth Circuit issued their decision on Perry v. Brown and after it was announced it would be heading for the Supreme Court in the not too distant near. 
I never understood the whole "evolving" phrase. If you know where you are heading intellectually why not just go there and cut out all the bullshit. Anyway, recently in his book, David Axelrod has back up my hunch.

Because of Axelrod's statements, it forced the President to respond via BuzzFeed, naturally:
“I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue,” Obama said. “I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there.” 
Obama said he believed at the time that civil unions were “a sufficient way of squaring the circle,” but that “the pain and the sense of stigma that was being placed on same-sex couples who are friends of [his]” changed his mind. 
“I think the notion that somehow I was always in favor of marriage per se isn't quite accurate,” Obama said. “The old questionnaire … is an example of struggling with what was a real issue at the time, which is, how do you make sure that people’s rights are enjoyed and these religious sensitivities were taken into account?”
Busted. One thing that probably should be mentioned again, the President campaigned in favor of same-sex marriage for his second term. So while I half heartedly call him a liar, it should not delegitimize either his authority on the subject or the progress gained due to his support.

The only portion of the President's statements that I really take issue with is "The old questionnaire … is an example of struggling with what was a real issue at the time, which is, how do you make sure that people’s rights are enjoyed and these religious sensitivities were taken into account?"

Once again it comes down to the question, "what about my religious sensitivities?" Why can't I get married in a church, just because someone from a different religion disagrees? Why should my religious beliefs count less?

I am glad to see that I have prevailed, and my hunches have been validated.

Liam '15

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Back to 'bama

Alabama AG, Luther Strange, filed an appeal to the SCOTUS in regards to Strange v. Searcy. The only possibly bad news for marriage equality is that the appeal falls directly and only to Clarence Thomas.

In his plea, Lex Luther explained that the state needs a longer stay because:
The decisions by the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit (App. B, C) to deny a longer stay have created confusion in the State. Probate judges, who are not supervised by the Attorney General and are not under his control, issue marriage licenses. As an association, the Probate Judges initially said they did not believe they were subject to the District Court’s injunction and remained under an obligation to follow Alabama law. Later, at least some individual Probate Judges reached a different conclusion.The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama,who also heads the Administrative Office of Courts which may have bearing on the authority of Probate Judges and the administration of their work, has expressed doubts about the scope of the District Court order and its application to members of the Alabama Judicial Branch, when the only Defendant before the District Court was the Attorney General.
So, gay marriage needs to be put on hold, because Roy Moore is a dumb fuck who doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and a Bazooka Joe wrapper. Luther admits that Judge Granade issued a warning to the Probate Judges warning that they had two weeks to get their shit together, and if they refused they would get sued. But you that wasn't clear enough or anything.

All of this aside the appeal gets sort of bizarre, when under the section  "The Attorney General is likely to prevail on the merits of his appeal." (hahahahah, yeah you are going to succeed, uggh):
The interests supported by opposite-sex marriage are, at the very least, rational. States are not in the marriage business “to regulate love.” Id. at 404. Instead, state marriage laws link children to their biological parents (and link these biological parents to each other) by imposing a package of privileges and obligations—such as presumptions of paternity—that make less sense in the context of same-sex relationships. It is not irrational or malicious for state laws to reflect an “awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children the same way as couples of opposite sexes.” Id. at 405. It is instead the background against which the institution of marriage has developed over the last several thousand years. 
So you're going to just shit all over adoption then, huh? I mean you did read over this, right, and you saw what you were righting. And no warning bells were going off, saying, "this is kind of a band argument."

I mean really, straight people, are you going to put up with this shit.Marriage is just about popping out babies and only your biological spawn. THIS IS WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT THINKS OF YOU!

And back to the beginning of that paragraph, where it says, "States are not in the marriage business 'to regulate love.'" That's the argument gay couples are making... so thanks, I guess.

'Liam 15

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Sunday Morning Slander

This just in from the "some people just wanna get sued" file:

Credits for the video belong to sfpublicdefender at

On January 27, 2015 at the San Francisco Hall of Justice, Deputy Public Defender, Jami Tillotson, was arrested for resisting arrest. That can't be right?

I watched the video again, and yes it has been confirmed that she has been arrested for resisting arrest.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Stupid. stupid. stupid. stupid. No, stupid. No!

Maybe for obstruction, maybe disobeying a lawful police order... Agugh! Even that is mind blowingly stupid.

Ok, police have discretion, right. So let's say, technically, Ms. Tillotson was obstructing justice (I'm not from California, and I am not going to waste my time looking up the Statute.) It would behoove the Police Department to not arrest her without having absolute certainty, because by arresting her in front of her CLIENT in a COURTHOUSE you have deprived her client of their 6th Amendment right and not mention a whole host of privileges that go with it.

Sorry for being lazy before. It would appear that obstruction and resisting arrest are treated by the same Statute.  Here is Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1):
Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
The nonsense phrase of arrested for resting arrest makes more sense... sort of... well not really as this is not obstruction which Black's Law Dictionary defines as:
Interference with the orderly administration of law and justice, as by giving false information to or withholding evidence from a police officer or prosecutor, or by harming or intimidating a witness or juror.
So nope to resist and nope to obstruction.

Furthermore what the fuck where the police doing gathering information at the Courthouse? That's very late to be gathering evidence.

And because the police were wrong, not only are they open to several lawsuits, but any would be evidence would be inadmissible. So great job dic. You'll be promoted to Chief any day now.

Alright I'm bored by this now. So much more to this based off of other articles.

Liam '15