A Tale of Two Articles

Great News! No fuck that, Fantastic News!

A study from John Hopkins University published in JAMA Pediatrics shows that suicide attempts among queer teens has decreased since introducing marriage equality.

Written by the Associated Press via NBC News:

Teen suicide attempts in the U.S. declined after same-sex marriage became legal and the biggest impact was among gay, lesbian and bisexual kids, a study found.  

The research found declines in states that passed laws allowing gays to marry before the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide. The results don't prove there's a connection, but researchers said policymakers should be aware of the measures' potential benefits for youth mental health.  

Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for all U.S. teens. Suicidal behavior is much more common among gay, lesbian and bisexual kids and adults; about 29 percent of these teens in the study reported attempting suicide, compared with just 6 percent of straight teens.

So it would appear there is a correlation between societal expectance and a reduction in suicide. I feel like this falls into the category of "no duh."

The article goes on to point out:

About 230,000 students reported being gay, lesbian or bisexual. The surveys didn't ask about transgender status. They included questions about suicide attempts, smoking and alcohol or drug use.

In 32 states that enacted same-sex marriage laws during the study, suicide attempts dropped 7 percent among all students and 14 percent among gay kids after the laws were passed. There was no change in suicide attempts in states without those laws.

So it would appear there is a correlation between societal expectance and a reduction in suicide. I feel like this falls into the category of "no duh." Jinx you owe me a coke. Ok I should stop being shitty about this, because at the end of the day it is such great news.

And now for the shitty part.

On the same day as the mega-ultra-super-phenomenal news broke, the Washington Blade published an article detailing the Trump Administration's plan to roll back Transgender Rights. Chris Johnson writes:

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told the Washington Blade on Monday she’s heard from “reliable sources” President Trump has green-lighted the plan for the Justice Department and Education Department to send a “Dear Colleague” letter to schools rescinding the guidance. 

At the time of this writing, this is a rumor. Based on how this White House operates, I normally won't write about a rumor. However, Tump promised on the campaign trail to rescind the Obama guidelines barring discrimination against transgender students.

The article further explains:

Jointly issued in May under the Obama administration by the Justice Department and Education Department, the guidance asserts that denying transgender students access to the restroom in accordance with their gender identity violates the prohibition on sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. 

Rescinding the guidance is consistent with a legal brief the Justice Department filed earlier this month in litigation against the guidance filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on behalf of 12 states. As a result of the litigation, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor issued a preliminary injunction barring the administration from enforcing the guidance nationwide. 

Although the Justice Department under former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch filed an appeal along with a request with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to limit the scope of the injunction to the 12 plaintiff states, the brief under Sessions withdraws that request and informs the federal appeals court the Trump administration is “currently considering how best to proceed in this appeal.”

Ugh. Fuck all of 'em. Those heartless shit bags. Going after any group of teens as political targets is disturbing, but going after LGBT youth is fucking deplorable. Transgender youth have it particularly rough.

According to the Trevor Project "In a national study, 40% of transgender adults reported having made a suicide attempt. 92% of these individuals reported having attempted suicide before the age of 25." The report they're citing is The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality.

What next are they going to propose euthanizing homeless children and orphans.

Fucking shit bags.

Update:

So yes they are rolling back protections for trans* students 'cause states rights, despite this being tied to federal funding and Title IX, but you know states rights... fucking muppets the lot of them.


Liam '17

Today in History: July 24

Texas Supreme Court forces HERO Ordinance to Referendum- July 24, 2015

Because voting on civil rights works out well so often.  Spoilers, Houston voters later repealed the non-discrimination ordinances.

From the Houston Chronicle:

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that Houston City Council must repeal the city's equal rights ordinance or place it on the November ballot. 

The ruling comes three months after a state district judge ruled that opponents of Houston's contentious non-discrimination ordinance passed last year failed to gather enough valid signatures to force a repeal referendum.

"We agree with the Relators that the City Secretary certified their petition and thereby invoked the City Council's ministerial duty to reconsider and repeal the ordinance or submit it to popular vote," the Texas Supreme Court wrote in a per curiam opinion. "The legislative power reserved to the people of Houston is not being honored." Montenegro First Pride March- July 24, 2013

Montenegro First Pride March- July 24, 2013

From Reuters:

Police clashed with anti-gay protesters in Montenegro on Wednesday as they tried to disrupt the first gay pride parade to be held in the staunchly conservative Balkan country that is in talks to join the European Union.

Around 200 demonstrators hurled stones, bottles and flares at policemen in the coastal town of Budva who were keeping them separate from around 40 marchers wearing shirts bearing the colors of the rainbow, the symbol of the gay rights movement.

At least ten demonstrators were arrested and several marchers were slightly injured, according to police.

Protesters chanted "Kill the gays" and carried banners that read "Only healthy Montenegro", a Reuters reporter on the scene said.

Marriage Begins in New York- July 24, 2011

From the New York Times:

Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples, from retirees in Woodstock to college students in Manhattan, rushed to tiny town halls and big city clerks’ offices across New York to wed in the first hours of legal same-sex marriage on Sunday, turning a slumbering summer day into an emotional celebration.

They arrived by subway cars and stretch limousines, with children and with grandparents, in matching sequined ties and pinstriped suits, to utter words that once seemed unimaginable: I do.

Even those who had been together for decades, watching same-sex marriage become legal in surrounding states but suffer rejection in New York, said there was something unexpectedly moving and affirming about having their unions recognized by the state in which they live.

Today in History: July 23

Federal Judge Strikes Down Colorado's Marriage Ban- July 23, 2014

The Order from Burns v. Hickenlooper:

Astronaut Sally Ride Dies- July 23, 2012

From Slate:

Sally Ride was very good at keeping secrets. As the first American woman in space, she protected countless confidences during a lifetime of public appearances. During her post-NASA years, she regularly wrote and reviewed classified government material on high-profile commissions. When she died in 2012 of pancreatic cancer, a diagnosis hidden from all but a tiny handful of family and close friends, I started unraveling the mysteries for her biography. She was a brilliant, mischievous enigma.

But the most surprising revelation was the one that came at the end of her obituary: that for 27 years, she’d been in a loving relationship with another woman, Tam O’Shaughnessy. The collective gasp from an admiring public reverberated for days. A small minority complained that she’d squandered an opportunity to speak out for their rights. A few spouted homophobic hatred. Selfishly, as her pal of more than three decades, I was stunned; hurt, that I did not know Sally fully, that I could not celebrate her happiness with Tam. Then I thought, why does her sexual orientation matter? Finally, I got it.

Complaint Filed in Appling v. Doyle- July 23, 2009

Appling v. Doyle was case from Wisconsin where a petitioner (Appling) filed suit against the  State of Wisconsin trying to bar domestic partnerships, which provided limited legal rights such as hospital visitation rights to same sex couples.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Supporters of Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions Thursday asked the state Supreme Court to declare a system of recognizing domestic partnerships unconstitutional.

Under a provision that was part of the budget Gov. Jim Doyle signed in June, couples will be able to apply for a declaration of domestic partnership with their county of residence starting next month.

The lawsuit filed against the state says that allowing such domestic partnerships establishes a legal status that resembles marriage - which the suit calls a violation of the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and any identical or substantially similar legal status. 

Today in History: July 22

Federal Judge Orders Ohio to Recognize Obergefell & Arthur's Marriage- July 22, 2013

From Buzzfeed:

A federal judge in Ohio ordered state officials Monday to recognize the marriage of two men that was performed in Maryland on the death certificate of an Ohio resident in hospice care who the judge says “is certain to die soon.”

“The end result here and now is that the local Ohio Registrar of death certificates is hereby ORDERED not to accept for recording a death certificate for John Arthur that does not record Mr. Arthur’s status at death as ‘married’ and James Obergefell as his ‘surviving spouse,’” Judge Timothy Black wrote in granting the couple a temporary restraining order Monday. The order is in effect until 5 p.m. Aug. 5, unless the court extends the order at a later date.

“By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages,” the judge concluded, Ohio’s 2004 constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages and Ohio’s statute addressing the same issue “likely violate[] the United States Constitution.”

Today in History: July 20

Canada Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage in All Provinces- July 20, 2005

From the CBC:

Legislation giving same-sex couples the legal right to marry received royal assent on Wednesday and is now the law of the land.

In a late-night vote on Tuesday, the Senate approved the Liberal government's controversial Bill C-38 by a 46-22 vote. Three senators abstained.

The historic vote comes after gay and lesbian couples launched lawsuits in different provinces demanding the right to marry.

Today in History: July 19

Bloomberg Announce Lottery for First Day Same Sex Marriages- July 19, 2011

From CNN:

On July 24, the first day New York's recently passed marriage law goes into effect, the city will conduct a public lottery to allow 764 couples to marry, according to a state press statement Tuesday.

Bloomberg, Council Speaker Christine Quinn and City Clerk Michael McSweeney made the announcement due to the high demand for services, they said in the announcement. The lottery, which started at noon Tuesday, will remain open until noon Thursday on the City Clerk's website.

Today in History: July 18

10th Circuit Rule on Bishop v. Smith- July 18, 2014

From the Washington Blade:

The ban on same-sex marriage in Oklahoma violates the constitutional rights of same-sex couples living in the state, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Bishop v. Smith that Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on the basis of a similar decision the court reached against Utah’s marriage ban.

Writing for the majority in a 46-page decision, U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero, a Clinton appointee, said the court’s ruling in the Oklahoma case “is governed by our ruling” in the Utah lawsuit, Kitchen v. Herbert.

Senate Confirms First Out Gay Man For Federal Bench- July 18, 2011

From the Washington Blade:

The U.S. Senate made history on Monday by confirming for the first time ever an openly gay male to serve as a federal judge.

By a vote of 80-13, the Senate confirmed J. Paul Oetken, whom President Obama nominated in January to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A simple majority was required to confirm Oetken.

Today in History: July 17

EEOC Rules on LGBT Discrimination- July 17, 2015

From the Hill:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that existing federal protections against workplace discrimination based on sex also apply to sexual orientation.

In its opinion, following a 3-2 vote, the EEOC said " 'sexual orientation' as a concept cannot be defined or understood without reference to sex," The Washington Post reported.

The final ruling, which stems from a complaint filed in 2012 by a man who claimed he was denied a job because he is gay, constitutes the EEOC’s official interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the primary statute governing employment discrimination claims against both public and private employers that will guide future EEOC enforcement of federal nondiscrimination laws.

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in the UK- July 17, 2013

From the BBC:

Same-sex couples will be able to get married in England and Wales after new measures became law.

The government's controversial legislation on the issue received Royal Assent on Wednesday.

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships all backed the proposals, which were finally approved by MPs and peers earlier this week.

It is expected that the first gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies will take place by summer next year.

Protests begin over COO of Chick-Fil-A Comments & Donations- July 17, 2012 

From the Advocate:

Dan Cathy, the chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, said there is no denying that his company opposes marriage equality.

Cathy said that he does not feel right billing Chick-fil-A as a Christian business because, as Christian business mentor Fred Roach once said, "There is no such thing as a Christian business ... Christ never died for a corporation."

However, Cathy told the Baptist Press he aims to operate the restaurant chain "on biblical principles." When asked whether his company had an established position against marriage equality, Cathy said, "guilty as charged."

Bigotry by Any Other Name

Sorry about not posting much lately. Works been crazy. I thought this would be a fun little project that I thought up this morning.

Enjoy.



Liam '15

A Brief History of Marriage

Below is an animated mapping of marriage equality over time. Dates are based on when marriage equality became law and reach res judicata.

Enjoy!

State	Date	Population	Percent	% of America to Date
Massachusetts	5/17/04	6,745,408	1.98	1.98
Connecticut	11/12/08	3,596,677	1.05	3.03
Iowa	4/27/09	3,107,126	0.91	3.94
Vermont	9/1/09	626,562	0.18	4.13
New Hampshire	1/1/10	1,326,813	0.39	4.51
District of Columbia	3/9/10	658,893	0.19	4.71
New York	7/24/11	19,746,227	5.79	10.49
Washington	12/6/12	7,061,530	2.07	12.56
Maine	12/29/12	1,330,089	0.39	12.95
Maryland	1/1/13	5,976,407	1.75	14.71
California	6/28/13	38,802,500	11.37	26.08
Delaware	7/1/13	935,614	0.27	26.35
Minnesota	8/1/13	5,457,173	1.60	27.95
Rhode Island	8/1/13	1,055,173	0.31	28.26
New Jersey	10/21/13	8,938,175	2.62	30.88
Hawaii	12/2/13	1,419,561	0.42	31.30
New Mexico	12/19/13	2,085,572	0.61	31.91
Oregon	5/19/14	3,970,239	1.16	33.07
Pennsylvania	5/20/14	12,787,209	3.75	36.82
Illinois	6/1/14	12,880,580	3.78	40.59
Indiana	10/6/14	6,596,855	1.93	42.53
Oklahoma	10/6/14	3,878,051	1.14	43.67
Utah	10/6/14	2,942,902	0.86	44.53
Virginia	10/6/14	8,326,289	2.44	46.97
Wisconsin	10/6/14	5,757,564	1.69	48.66
Colorado	10/7/14	5,355,866	1.57	50.23
Nevada	10/9/14	2,839,099	0.83	51.06
West Virginia	10/9/14	1,850,326	0.54	51.60
North Carolina	10/10/14	9,943,964	2.91	54.51
Idaho	10/15/14	1,634,464	0.48	54.99
Alaska	10/17/14	736,732	0.22	55.21
Arizona	10/17/14	6,731,484	1.97	57.18
Wyoming	10/21/14	584,153	0.17	57.35
Montana	11/19/14	1,023,579	0.30	57.65
South Carolina	11/20/14	4,832,482	1.42	59.07
Florida	1/6/15	19,893,297	5.83	64.90
United States	6/26/15	349,446,072	100	100.00

Liam '15

Shut Your Fucking Pie Hole You Dumb Son of a Bitch

Apologies in advanced as this has turned in to a rant. But fuck it. We'll do it live.

*************

There are few things in this world that I have a greater disdain for than Holocaust Denialism.

That's largely a noncontroversial statement. Hopefully that's noncontroversial. It should be noncontroversial.

Holocaust Denial takes on several forms. The two main branches from which the rest flow are:

1. Flat denial. In this model, proponents claim that the Holocaust never happened. This usually manifests itself in the claim that the Allies made up the story to discredit the Nazis after the War.

Other variations on this include:

• Jewish people were merely expelled from Germany.
• The Nuremberg testimonies from Germans were extracted by torture and thus fake.
• Jewish-Zionist faked it for sympathy.

2. Mitigation. In this model proponents claimed (without evidence) that while the Holocaust happened it wasn't 6 million Jewish people who were murdered, it was more likely an elderly couple and a goat.

Other variations on this include:

• Starvation and disease killed millions rather than a systematic plot.
• Gas Chambers were delousing station.
• Other human atrocities were worse. 

While it is not a form of denialism, there is a troubling current of Holocaust Trivialization that has emerged.

For the purposes of this article, I will define Holocaust Trivialization as the following:

• Wantonly forming poor or false comparison of current events to the Holocaust.
• Violations of Godwin's law or the argument Reductio ad Hitlerum.
• Neologism such as "feminazi" or "gaystapo."   

Here is how the ADL has reacted the word "feminazi":

The pejorative “feminazi” mocks activist women and at the same time trivializes the Holocaust. Comparisons to the Nazis may be politically expedient, but in the end they trivialize the Holocaust and are an insult to the memory of six million Jews and the millions of others who perished at the hands of Nazis. This sexist, offensive term has no place in civil discourse or society. 

I would also add the caveat that Feminist were a group persecuted by the Nazis.  See Magnus Hirschfeld.

My large point to all of this rant is that all this shit needs to stop. I know that's not going to happen, but it needs to end. It's fucking disgusting that people in this country and this era have built media empires and accumulated vast hordes of wealth by targeting groups who were victims of Nazi persecution (Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bryan Fischer, et al.)

When it come to the groups that were assigned a special badge to be worn in concentration camps, more deference needs to be paid when bullshit accusations are being made.

So by now you're probably wondering what the fuck crawled up my ass this morning. The answer lie in the following video from RighWingWatch.Org:

So in case you don't know, that is Rafael Cruz, the father of Ted Cruz. There are two quotes that really stick out to me. 

“If this decision comes against the biblical definition of marriage, the next thing that is going to happen is the government is going to come demanding that churches hire homosexual pastors and churches perform homosexual marriages. It is a very critical time in America.” 

Way to violate the 9th Commandment you sack of shit herpes. You lying pustulant boil on the blotted belly of a rotting carp, have you not read Proverbs 6:16 "There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers."

As pointed out in the Oral Arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges by Justice Kagan, "there are many rabbis that will not conduct marriages between Jews and non-Jews, notwithstanding that we have a constitutional prohibition against religious discrimination. And those rabbis get all the powers and privileges of the State, even if they have that rule, most many, many, many rabbis won't do that."

Everyone fucking knows that. The government doesn't force Pastors to marry people outside of their religion yet interfaith marriage is more than fucking legal.

"Silence is not an option Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi German said 'silence in the face of evil is evil itself.' He also said 'not to speak, is to speak.' See, the silence sends the message loud and clear. We can’t afford to be silent anymore.'

LISTEN UP ASSHOLE, in Nazi German men like me were executed by bigoted assholes. In my lifetime I was liberated by the Supreme Court ruling that my existence is not a crime. I voted in vain to protect my rights as equal citizen when the State I grew up in passed a Constitutional Amendment  stripping my inalienable rights away.

Before you start calling me and mine Nazis you best do your homework. Otherwise it sounds like a call to discrimination. And you know who else discriminated against people...

Sorry, couldn't resist.


Liam '15

Stop Voting for Dumb Fucks

This is a call for people to stop electing Government Officials who say stupid shit.  Case in point, Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore:


The flurry of stupidity is breath taking, but I will do my best.

"There is no word marriage in the Constitution" 

Well except for Article IV Section 1... whoops. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

I mean, sure, it does not directly say marriage, but it definitely means marriage. And this Article is definitely germane to the second question of Obergefell v. Hodges.

"The states can also resist... They can define what authority they have."

Nope.

Article VI says something different, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

"Blah blah blah... 10th amendment argument... blah blah blah"

Honey, we also have a 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection, due process, life liberty and property, these are all afforded to every citizen of the United States, and no state can take those away without a damn good reason. It is not left up to the individual State to decide; it was federalized by the 14th Amendment.

If a law violates any of these principles, and then is ruled unconstitutional, it is no longer law.

If the 10th Amendment superseded the 14th Amendment, then the 14th Amendment would be pointless.

"The Bowers Court says..."

Bowers is no longer precedent. It was over turned on June 26, 2003, with Lawrence v. Texas. It was kind of a big deal. I'm not sure, but  it might have been covered by the newspapers in Alabama.

Why not quote Dred Scott while you're at it?


*****


I'm fucking bored by this. I could go on but too bored. Ennui could be deadly.

How the fuck did this idiot ever get elected the first time around. For fuck sakes I learned this shit in 8th grade. Roy Moore knows less about the law than an 8th Grader. It's fucking embarrassing.

There are a lot of reasons I'm glad I'm not from Alabama and some how Roy Moore nears the top of that list.


Liam '15

Just an Aside

I have been thinking about this, since I heard the Oral Arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges.

Solicitor Bursch for the Plaintiffs argued about 9 times that the purpose of marriage is to link biological children with their biological parents. I find this to be a particularly specious claim, especially when you examine the historical purpose of marriage (or at the very least a purpose.)

A large portion of marriage that is quickly evaporating is legal concept of the "presumption of legitimacy." To a degree anyway, I mean, it isn't totally disappearing.

Let me back up. Black's Law defines presumption of legitimacy as "the presumption that the husband of a woman who gives birth is the father of the child." In, what I am going to pull out of my ass and say, most cases there is no infidelity in a marriage, so the child's paternity is not in question.

Prior to the advent of modern DNA testing (1983), there was no real way of determining who's the father. Thus marriage. If your wife gave birth, it's yours... Unless you were like my uncle and snipped and then two years later miraculously had another child, but that's another story.

In part marriage links children to their parents, and in may cases that is exactly what gay people want to join in on.

It also highlights that marriage is human and thus constantly evolving to adapt to our ever emerging necessities.


Liam '15

Not Even Wrong

On Friday morning instead of work (shh), I read this article that was linked to SCOTUSblog:

Correcting Six Mistakes from the Same-Sex Marriage Oral Arguments Last Week by  James Phillips at the Witherspoon Institute.

I thought it was going to be interesting and soon discovered that it was in fact interesting, but for the wrong reasons.

To get the discussion going in the right direction I want to lay out some terms. Before I dissect this article, I want to quote Black's Law Dictionary on marriage: "The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting marriage, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law."


Section 1. "Error Number One: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same"

Alright, let's do this. Whatcha got:

"During the questioning of Michigan’s attorney, John Bursch, Justice Sotomayor commented that 'In Massachusetts, we’ve got data that it’s—the rates have remained constant since they changed their laws...' Justice Sotomayor is only correct if Massachusetts includes same-sex marriages in that number."

Sorry that's not an error. What she said was factual.

"The marriage scholars were also able to obtain data on opposite-sex marriage rates from three other states that have legalized same-sex marriage, and they likewise have seen declines: Vermont (-5.1 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent), and Iowa (-9.2 percent)."

Over the same period of time based on CDC figures the average change in marriage rate for states that did not allow same-sex marriage is -13.07 percent. Even assuming all of these numbers are correct, the declining marriage rate is still slower in the pro-gay states. Has same-sex marriage led to the appreciation of marriage among heterosexuals? No, there is no mechanism for this to occur. If you want to understand long term marriage trends look to anthropology and economics for the answer.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that at least your first point should be valid, particularly when you are calling people out for being "wrong."


Section 2. "Error Number Two: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around"

True, Justice Sotomayor makes a logical fallacy; however a logical fallacy does not make an assertion incorrect. For example the non-sequitur statement "if there are 2 apples and 2 oranges, and ass-fucking is fun, then there are 4 pieces of fruit" does not discount the truth of 2+2=4.

My point being prove the correlation or shut the fuck up.It doesn't matter that Justice Sotomayor made a logical fallacy, since the base statement wasn't proven to begin with.

Further, this section is pointless as it has little bearing on anything. It would possibly have meaning if the first section were correct, because if same-sex marriage caused a decrease in straight marriage, and marriage "keeps fathers around"... I would dig up some facts to find out the truth of the assertion made by Michigan, but it is absolutely pointless. So, I'm moving on.


Section 3."Error Number Three: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples"

I actually agree with this entire section:

"Justice Kennedy expressed surprise when Mr. Bursch argued that the states are not in the marriage business to bestow dignity. Justice Kennedy responded: 'I don’t understand this is not dignity bestowing. I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage. It’s dignity bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that—that same ennoblement. Or am I missing your point?'Yes, Justice Kennedy was missing the point. He was confusing the reason that a couple may desire to be married with the reason that a state would want to recognize and regulate marriage. Those are distinct.

The funny thing is that this bit undercuts pretty much every argument against same-sex marriage.If marriage doesn't bestow dignity, then it's a bundle of rights and obligations.

And what constitutional basis would the government have to deny a class of people rights and obligations?

See where I'm going with this. Good. If marriage bestows dignity the government cannot take it away, and if it is an institution that bestows rights and obligations the government cannot take it away.


Section 4."Error Number Four: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered"

Another laughable section. Even the title is funny as no one argued this.

The rest of the section is conservative butthurt over changing social mores. To paraphrase Heraclitus, go suck a dick change is the only constant.

Get fucking over it.

Also, way to be total fucking dick bags towards adoption.

And thirdly, no-fault divorce is a problem? Nice can o' worms ya got there.

PS. This is section is largely opinion... not really a subject to error.


Section 5. "Error Number Five: There Is a Parallel between Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell"

Yes, yes there is a definite parallel between civil rights cases.

"At the time of Loving, state prohibitions on inter-racial marriages had been in existence in only some of the states, and then at most for about 300 years if we go back to colonial times in Virginia and Maryland. But man-woman marriage has been the law in every state since the birth of the nation—and in every Western nation for millennia."

Umm... so gays have it had it historically worse and this proves that it's not discrimination? I'm not following your point. Not really even a point I guess. Further more the parallel was established and the article only affirms it.


Section 6. "Error Number Six: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman"

This is another dumb one to argue. Age restrictions are constitutional; by disassociating age restriction from the definition you're only hurting your position. But that's just the title.

Let's look further:

"Several of the justices questioned whether there was a difference between recognizing exceptions to age restrictions and recognizing same-sex marriages.In short: yes, there is. Not all exceptions are equal. Age has never been a part of the definition of marriage."

Umm... consent isn't apart of the definition of marriage... funny. It's like a someone said something contradictory earlier... like in the actual definition of marriage...

The main reason age is a restriction to marriage is because of consent. The concept of consent makes the restriction rational.

****

To sum up the article, ignore every economic reason for a falling rate of marriage to pin it on Griswald, Loving, Roe California adopting No-Fault Divorce, queers getting hitched. It also unquestioningly assumes that a declining marriage rate is bad. It ignores human history and the constant flux of morality.In short the article is sloppy, ignorant, and fails to make a coherent point.


Ok I'm bored now.

Check out the other article linked to SCOTUSblog, which is Lisa Keen's article on Obergefell v. Hodges.


Laim '15

Puppet Theater: Obergefell v. Hodges Part 3

Part 3 of 3.

Liam '15

Puppet Theater: Obergefell v. Hodges Part 2

Part 2 of 3.

Notice how there is no Thomas puppet.


Liam '15

Puppet Theater: Obergefell v. Hodges Part 1

Liam '15

Oops, Wrong Side

Sometimes I hear someone, and my mind reels at the lack of self-awareness. Often times it comes in the form of cognitive dissonance.

Case in point Mat Staver.

As shown in this video posted to YouTube via Right Wing Watch, on Saturday April 25, 2015 Liberty Council founder Mat Staver addressed a march organized by NOM:

As someone who's argued before the United States Supreme Court, I certainly have respect for this court, but I have no respect and cannot respect a lawless decision. This court has not always been right on the issue of marriage. 

In the 1800s it issued the infamous Dred Scott decision, and Justice Taney said, “sorry Dred, no rights for you here at this high court,” because they said blacks were inferior human beings.

How racist and bigoted was that? How contrary to the natural law of God is that decision?

It is no decision worth respecting today, and It was no decision worth respecting then.

In 1927 the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the infamous words, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Saying to Carrie Buck, the Commonwealth Virginia can forcibly sterilize you to get rid of your population, because you have low IQ.

That was a racist bigoted decision flies in the face of the dignity of every person created in the image of God.

No one will defend it now and no one should have defended then.

I say now as we are standing on the precipice this major decision before the United States Supreme Court, these leaders that came together in this marriage pledge, that I hope you sign on it at defendmarriage.org are saying this, “Supreme Court of the United States with all due respect, we warn you, do not cross this line.”

As much as I am an attorney, and I respect the rule of law, I also respect a higher law. And when an earthly law collides with a higher law, we have no choice to obey higher law. We cannot comply Caesar's demands that are in direct conflict with a higher law, and that's what the Doctor Martin Luther King wrote in a letter from a Birmingham jail. There are two kinds of laws just and unjust. You have to obey the just laws, but the unjust laws are no laws at all, and we cannot obey those.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. As a policy matter any other union says that God’s design is flawed. As a policy matter any other unions say that boys don't need fathers and girls don't need mothers, and we know that God’s creation the divine architect that infused into the natural created order, knows what's best for the family. Children need mothers and fathers.

This United States Supreme Court, nor any governmental entity, does not have the authority to redefine God’s natural created order of marriage.

Mat, honey, the connection between Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, and Baker v. Nelson was an unjust denial of the Due Process Clause. Or in other words, Americans are afforded the rights to life, liberty, and property.

In fact, the denial of the 5th Amendment in Dred Scott was a major point for the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that all people are afforded due process protections by both the States as well as the Federal Government.

I know in 2014 your Liberty University had a first time bar passer rate of 50% in Virginia: so I have a feeling you might not be teaching this, but based on the concept of substantive due process the right to marry is a condition of life, liberty, and property as enumerated in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley.

In your own analogy, you are on the wrong side of history. You're not arguing for Dred Scott or Carrie Buck. You're on the side that wants to deny liberty and substantive due process. But thanks for playing and proving why your school is garbage.

If I were a betting man, I would be willing to bet that Mat knows that he is on the wrong side of history, as much of his speech reads nearly perfectly as a pro-LGBT. But quite frankly in the end I don't care.

I am curious though how Mat is going to perform civil disobedience in regards to same-sex marriage.
For civil disobedience, which MLK, Jr. prescribed, the government has to be doing something and your non-compliance is therefore disruptive. For example not paying your taxes. Or sit-ins in Government or public locations.

The only thing I can think that vaguely would qualify, is that Mat won't get married to a dude. Not much of protest there as not getting married affects nothing.

Or perhaps he will get a boyfriend and then won't get married as some sort of fucked-up, bizarro, psycho-sexual protest that only Mat Staver knows about or would makes sense to.

I have heard of people doing weirder things.

The Loophole by Garfunkel and Oates

It's either that or impotent rage. And impotent rage is never attractive.

The very last point I want to touch on is when Mat says, "This United States Supreme Court, nor any governmental entity, does not have the authority to redefine God’s natural created order of marriage."

You do realize that gay people exist, right? And that many of us have kids? And that would be a part of god's order, right? I'm not saying existence is right or wrong, but I am saying that existence is nature. If god didn't want gay people, then why do we exist.

Where do they get off speaking for god. That's pretty fucking arrogant.


Liam '15

Time-Warp

Forever ago (second post) I wrote about Barack Obama's evolution towards supporting same-sex marriage:

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

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