And Down Goes Cantor.

For better or worse, House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, has lost his primary race.

This is probably the biggest political story in around 50 years (obviously things happen to political people... I am saying in terms of an elections and positioning and etc.)

Wow.

Au Revior!

Johnny Walker here I come.

It Goes Darker Still

Dane County, Wisconsin is home to the capital, Madison.  It is also the home to the flagship university for the Wisconsin System. The population of Madison is 233,209, while 42,595 attend the University, 40,000 attend Madison College, and there are 4,454 instructors between both institutions.  Thus 37 percent of the population is tied to higher learning.

So it is of absolutely no surprise that Madison is liberal.  It was also absolutely not a surprise when the Dane County Clerk began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples the moment Wolf v. Walker was released.

In fact the County Clerk made a statement before the ruling saying this was his office's intent.

But let's see how the AG represented the State after the ruling. This is how it went down according to an article written by Judith Davidoff on June 6th for the Isthmus:

In his motion Friday to Crabb, Van Hollen said the fact that marriage licenses have already been issued to same-sex couples in Wisconsin "is precisely the type of confusion and uncertainty that the State Defendants intended to avoid by requesting a motion to stay."

He also said that the "Milwaukee and Dane County clerks' issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples this weekend creates the non-uniform result that some same-sex couples can marry and others cannot."

Brilliant argument. So if we take DP  JB's arguement to its logical conclusion, all marriages should be halted.
I'm starting to wonder if JO JB graduated from UW Law, or if he made a diploma out of a cut up Cheerios box and some crayons. You decide.

If the court doesn't issue a stay, it looks like BBW JB will be bringing a motion for injunction to the 7th Circuit, because let's face it, MILF JB is always worried about discrimination.

In case you were curious, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals falls under Elena Kagen's jurisdiction.

Anyway. I decided to give Wisconsin a new updated flag.

Congratulations to all the citizens of Wisconsin. Love has won.

Liam '14

It Goes Dark

I really wanted to analyze, heh anal, this portion of Wolf v. Walker between whiskey sessions. Good thing I don't write this blog for other people, or I would be in trouble with this post. It's long, it's graphic-less, and it's legal. But I think it is really important to point out this is how the tax dollar of the Wisconsin citizens were wasted by BJ... I mean HJ... sorry I mean A2M... damn-it... I mean AG JB Van Hollen.

I couldn't quickly find the costs for Wisconsin; however, Pennsylvania wasted $588,000 defending its now extinct marriage ban. Good job you "fiscally conservative" assholes, instead of feeding the homeless or educating the children, you gave yourselves a $500,000 moral reach-around. 

I digressed. Here is how Judge Crabb describes the States argumentation:

B. Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights 

What is perhaps defendants’ oddest argument relies on a distinction between what defendants call “positive rights” and “negative rights.” In other words, the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to be free from government interference (“negative rights”),but it does not give them a right to receive government benefits (“positive rights”).

Hey Dipshit, here is the Comity Clause: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." I learnt this in the 8th grade. And when Mr.Comity Clause met Mr. 14th Amendment, they got gay married. They continue to have interstate intercourse to this very day.

Moving on:

Defendants cite cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489U.S. 189, 195 (1989), for the proposition that the Constitution “confer[s] no affirmative right to governmental aid.” Thus, defendants say, although the due process clause may protect the right of individuals to engage in certain intimate conduct (a “negative right”), it“does not preclude a state from choosing not to give same-sex couples the positive right to enter the legal status of civil marriage under state law.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 8. 

Defendants’ argument has two problems. First, the Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.E.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). Thus, even if marriage is a “positive right” as defendants understand that term, marriage stands as an exception to the general rule.

Second, even if I assume that the state would be free to abolish the institution of marriage if it wished, the fact is that Wisconsin obviously has not abolished marriage; rather,it has limited the class of people who are entitled to marry. The question in this case is not whether the state is required to issue marriage licences as a general matter, but whether it may discriminate against same-sex couples in doing so. Even in cases in which an individual does not have a substantive right to a particular benefit or privilege, once the state extends that benefit to some of its citizens, it is not free to deny the benefit to other citizens for any or no reason on the ground that a “positive right” is at issue. In fact, under the equal protection clause, “the right to equal treatment . . . is not co-extensive with any substantive rights to the benefits denied the party discriminated against.” Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S.728, 739, 646 (1984). Therefore, “[t]he State may not . . . selectively deny its protective services to certain disfavored minorities without violating the Equal Protection Clause.”DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 197 n.3. 

That's an incredibly good point. If the State wanted to deny marriage it would have to abolish marriage. In that respect, yes, the State doesn't have to give people the privileges of marriage. At the same time this is in no way germane to the argument, because of the government cannot discriminate.

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status.Defendants make a related argument that the government should not be required to“officially endorse the intimate and domestic relationships that gay and lesbian persons may choose to enter.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 9. They cite cases in which the Court held that there is no constitutional right to subsidies for having an abortion and that the government is entitled to have a preference for childbirth. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 201 (1991); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 509 (1989). Along the same lines, defendants argue that they are entitled to have a preference for marriage between opposite sex couples.

Even setting aside the many obvious factual differences between marriage and abortion, the analogy defendants attempt to draw is inapt for three reasons. First, as noted above, the state is already issuing marriage licenses to some citizens. The comparison to abortion would be on point only if, in the cases cited, the state had decided to fund abortions for heterosexual women but not for lesbians. 

Second, abortion cannot be compared to marriage because the government does not have a monopoly on providing abortions. In other words, if the government refuses to use its resources to provide or fund abortions, a woman may seek an abortion somewhere else.In contrast, it is the state and only the state that can issue a marriage license. Thus,defendants’ “preference” for marriage between opposite-sex couples is not simply a denial of a subsidy, it is a denial of the right itself. 

Yeah they went there.We don't have to allow gay marriage because of abortion. Jesus Fuckballs! are you kidding me? This ranks highly on the stupidest shit I have ever read in an opinion. Obviously the opinion isn't stupid, it was the jack-offs defendants that were arguing that point.

This sounds like a politician's argument and pandering to the base, rather than a cogent legal argument.


Liam '14

It's a Pride Day Miracle

Today it's Wisconsin, in the form of Wolf v. Walker.

And this one is especially salacious:

Citing these changing public attitudes, defendants seem to suggest that this case is not necessary because a majority of Wisconsin citizens will soon favor same-sex marriage, if they do not already. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 40 (citing article by Nate Silver predicting that 64% of Wisconsinites will favor same-sex marriage by 2020).

Quoting Nate Silver while granting marriage equality... Hot.Obviously I have not thoroughly read this 88 page tome, but there is much more in here. Plus whiskey makes it difficult to focus.

In honor of today's victory I made this map. I think from now on I will update this when the rest of the states fall like dominoes, muahahaha!


Liam '14

The F-Bomb

That's what the other boy's called me in high school when they knocked the cafeteria tray out of my hands. My food hitting the cold rubber floor.

I felt diminutive. Disgusted with myself. How did they know? Did they really know? I didn't date; so maybe that's how they knew. Alone and gay, paying for a crime I had yet to commit. And they probably didn't even know.

But still I was suffering alone, because I didn't want to suffer alone.

My skin still crawls every time I hear that word. Every time someone else is called that word. In magazines, in newspapers, on TV. My skin crawls.

I am that fag. The one getting pushed, getting beaten, getting ridiculed. Because I don't want to be alone, I am made to feel so alone.

Whenever a coworker or a friend of a friend makes an innocuous comment that I'll soon discover my paternal instinct, I want to scream "don't you get it, I'm a fag!"

And I feel worthless, in so many different ways.

Partly because I chose that word. Partly because I am wounded. Partly because I remained silent.

I won't remain silent. I won't be intimidated. And I won't be alone.

I am a fag.

Liam '14

Happy Pride Month

Fly my pretties!!!
and don't give me any lip
about the Wick Witch of the West never actually saying that.

Go paint the world pink.
Let your fag flag fly.
Be your glorious self.

Kiss a man in public.
Kiss a man in the pubic.
Don't kiss a man's pubic in public... that's still illegal.

Dance your ass off.
And love.
Most importantly love.

Yeah, These are Still Things...

First on the list of This Shit's Still Happening

Did you think that measles were eliminated from the United States in 2000? Yeah, so did I. During my lunch break on Friday, I was greatly dismayed when I read a Washington Post article on the subject.

Lenny Bernstein in an article for the Washington Post summarizes the current measles outbreak:

The ongoing measles outbreak in the United States has reached a record for any year since the disease was  eliminated in this country 14 years ago, with 288 cases of the potentially deadly infection reported in 18 states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.

The largest measles clusters are in Ohio (138 confirmed cases), California (60) and New York (26), according to the CDC. Almost all — 97 percent — have been brought into the country by travelers, mainly Americans, who contracted the infection abroad. About half of those were people who picked it up in the Philippines, where a large measles outbreak has affected more than 32,000 people, causing 41 deaths,  since January alone, said Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Read the rest.

As I said before, measles had been eliminated from this country 14 years ago. So what gives:

In the United States, the number of people who choose not to be immunized for religious, philosophical or personal reasons has begun to become a public health problem, Schuchat said. Others are unaware of, or unable to get, vaccinations before they arrive in the United States. A small number of adults can lose their immunity over time and may need to be re-vaccinated.(Ibid.)

Blöd, blöd, blöd... Vaccinate your fucking kids. There is absolutely no reason that the measles epidemic should continue in the United States. I understand that a large number of those infected are from Amish Communities, and expecting a group that eschews technology to adopt a technology would be frivolous.But there are people in the US who do participate in the modern society who don't vaccinate. And it is completely unfounded. According to this Macalester College article, the MMR vaccine is safe and effective:

The net medical effects of the MMR vaccine cannot be understated.  "The health and resource benefits due to vaccination against measles during the first 20 years of vaccine licensure," according to a 1985 study in Pediatrics, "have been enormous.  In this period [in the United States] it is estimated that vaccination against measles has prevented 52 million cases, 5,200 deaths, and 17,400 cases of mental retardation, achieving a net savings of $5.1 billion."

And oh yes, if you are actively campaign against vaccines, you can go fuck yourself. Your bullshit is injuring people if not killing them, and it needs to stop.

Creationists on the School Board

Did you find the culture wedge issues of the Bush Era exhausting? Yeah, so did  I. Oh Johnny Walker, there is not enough of you to make this tolerable (he's also the reason why I am writing this so late in the week.)

It wouldn't be America without an idiot running for School Board, thinking that they will change the curriculum to get rid of those icky things like the Theory of Evolution, Reproductive Education, and Keynesian Economics (Mercantilism forever baby.)  According to an article by Sherese Gore in the News and Advance, this time it's in Amherst County, Virginia, which boarders Lynchburg:

Two candidates seeking appointment to the Amherst County School Board are laying out an early agenda for their time on the board, including a candidate who said he is concerned with the inclusion of evolution and human-caused global warming in the schools’ science textbooks.

Oo goodie. And how, pray-tell, did this Candidate come to his agenda? 

Olivares [...] is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

His interest in serving on the school board was sparked while serving as a substitute teacher with Amherst County Public Schools. During that time, Olivares said he became concerned with science textbooks that state that global warming is caused by human activity and those that teach Darwinian evolution. As part of the school board, he said would like to review the division’s textbooks.

When I was a substitute teacher I used my time wisely to look up gay porn on my iPhone... just kidding, I didn't have an iPhone back then.

Ok, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Why doesn't he believe in Global Warming:

“As far as the current global warming, my physicist contacts tell me that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years despite Mr. Gore’s film,” he said, referencing the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which was written by Al Gore.

Fantastic! Unsourced contacts, academia what out, we have a new scholar rising.  And now how are you totally not going to undercut your previous statement with something completely asinine:

In regards to humanity’s involvement with climate change: “As a physicist, I know better than that,” Olivares said. “I know the cause. It’s that big shiny thing that we see up there every day if the clouds are not covering it.”

Oh for fuck sake, which is it: is global warming real but cyclical, or is it a hoax? Hint, it can't be both, and it ends with neither. (Note: there are natural occurrence which are contributing to global warming; however releasing the amount of carbon dioxide at the current rate is having an adverse affect on our environment.)

I am also wondering if his physicist "contacts" aren't just a bunch of sock puppets he created that he talks to.

Backing up, I couldn't help but notice that he doesn't care to much for that there "Darwinian Evolution" thing in them learny books.  I for one am glad someone finally is taking a stand against Darwinian Evolution. Why should American Children be learning an outdated theory from 1859, which does not include genetics, DNA sequencing, and in utero epigenetics? Oh wait, I'm guessing he actually means Modern Evolutionary Theory:

Olivares said he also is concerned with Darwinian evolution “being taught as fact and settled science which it is not.” Single-celled organisms have not changed significantly through the millions of years “that they say evolution has taken place,” he said.

Err.. for one thing, no scientific theory is ever settled. Claiming complete knowledge is antithetical to science. And secondly, single celled organisms have varied greatly you dunderhead. I am just going to spitball it here, because I am not too concerned about this statement being overly accurate, but according to Wikipedia:

Following present classification, there are a little less than 9,300 known species of prokaryotes, which includes bacteria and archaea;^[147] but attempts to estimate the true number of bacterial diversity have ranged from 10⁷ to 10⁹ total species – and even these diverse estimates may be off by many orders of magnitude.^[148][149]

That's just diversity among Prokaryotes, which is minuscule when compared to the complexity and diversity of Eukaryotes.

While the article no where suggests that the Candidate's motives are driven by religious fervor, I will treat it as if it does. As I have written before, Creationism is an Insult to any god that would exist. If there is a god, that god apparently created the universe in a natural method, that includes evolution. To deny rational thought and the scientific method in favor of ancient mythology is insulting to this would be creator god.

Around Half of Americans Don't Understand Gayness

Did you think that most Americans finally understood what it means to be gay? Yeah, so did I.

This Gallup poll is slightly depressing.

Credits belong to Gallup. So go read the article and inform yourself.... I'll wait for you.... Done reading now? Good.

In concordance with this poll done by the Pew Research Center last year:

Credits belong to Pew. 

So these two polls show that around 37% of the public believes that gayness is a learned behavior that can be changed. My attraction to men is fixed. No one can change that about me. And thank fuck nobody has. I am proud to be gay. I am proud of my yellow eyes. I am proud of my brown hair. I am proud of the things I did not choose about myself, as I am sure a straight man with blue eyes and blond hair is proud of himself. 

It makes me sick to think of the millions of people wishing they could change, expecting that they can change, and completely incapable of changing.

And to anyone who thinks it is a choice to be gay, I know it's trite, but so you think you are choosing to be straight? You choose to think the waitress is attractive or the woman who sits next to you on the bus?

But what's really troubling to me is that some 37% of gay children will be raised in a household that believes they can change. Perhaps worse is the number of straight children who will be raised "straight" and that any sign of effeminacy must be beaten out corrected.  

Liam ‘14