Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

The Next Axe To Fall

It has been the "T" that is getting all the attention but this is brewing in the background!
We have two decades of evidence that marriage equality has helped millions of people across America. LGBTQ+ people want what everyone else wants, including to live in marriage with those they love.
USA Today
By Mary Bonauto and Marc Solomon
August 19, 2025


Key Points
  • A petition to the Supreme Court requests reconsideration of same-sex marriage legality, causing widespread concern.
  • More than 823,000 same-sex couples are married in the U.S., raising almost 300,000 children.
  • Public support for same-sex marriage remains high, with bipartisan approval of the Respect for Marriage Act.
  • Studies show positive outcomes from same-sex marriage, with no negative societal impacts.
As national news outlets recently picked up the story about a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the future of equal marriage for same-sex couples, both of us received a barrage of messages from worried friends and colleagues.

We understand people are concerned about their families and children, or about whether they’ll be able to legally marry in the future. In the tumult of these times, nearly everyone is anxious about how to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Let’s set the foundation about where we are. Marriage equality is the law of the land and overwhelmingly supported by the American people.
Stop and think for a moment if they did reverse it, what happens to all those marriage in states that ban it? What happen to their children... will they automatically become bastards?
Recent Gallup polling found that 68% of Americans support marriage for same-sex couples, and a survey conducted by three right-of-center polling firms tracked support at 72%, including 56% of Republicans.
Hey, but these are Republicans and they don't care about us, only the party.



Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Mini-Post: So You Think Marriage Is Scared

So you marriage equality is a done deal? Well you are talking about Trump's courts where judges are picked for their religious beliefs not their knowledge of the Constitution.
Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling


Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.

Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
Is this a backdoor in to killing marriage equality?
In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.

More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong."

"The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction."
I want you to remember just one thing... this is Trump's court system! Everything is on the table.

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

I Remember

When I was growing up I always hear that gays just hop from one bed to another... all one-night-stands. No long-term relationships.

Then when I came out as trans and entered the world of LGBTQ+, one of the first person I met was in a 30 year relationship... POP! The lies bursts! Some laughed when marriage equality push started, the right wingers, said laughing that they don't want to have any long term so why marriage?

Since then I have met so many couples in long term relationships. On the tenth anniversary of marriage equality here in Connecticut there were an awful lot of 10 yo rug rats running around. So why did the conservatives portray as bed-hopping sleaze bag? 

Back then people got arrested for being gay... so it was two old spinsters living together that just happen to share a bedroom. Wink, wink, nod. For trans people we had to have on at least three items of male clothing and socks did not count as two.

Society was dominated by Christian religious... it was against the law for two unmarried people to live together, it wasn't against the law for an unmarried woman to have a baby but society treated unwed mothers with intense stigma and shame. It was against the law for a store to be open on Sunday.

When it came to us, the conservatives portrayed homosexuality as a danger to traditional family values and as promiscuous and incapable of commitment helped paint them as deviant or immoral. To fit their fit their dogmatic propaganda against the LGBTQ+ community.

So you will be able to get married but all legal protection is stripped out of the laws so everyone can discriminate against them!

Project 2025 want to strip all of our legal protections, PolitiFact writes that Project 2025...
The document refers to heterosexual families as "ideal" and calls for the protection of faith-based federal grant recipients who do not support same-sex marriage. 
Project 2025 also pushes the tried and true dogma of  bed hopping gays and lesbians...
The document also says, without a citation, that nonheterosexual, intact marriages involve higher instability, financial stress, and poorer outcomes for children.
Looking at divorce rates between heterosexual and same-sex couples are about identical.

And their lies continue!


Thursday, June 12, 2025

This S- -ks

It is really bad down in Texas, the Republicans are going nuts! I mean this is really sick!
Of the more than 100 bills aimed at LGBTQ+ people in the state, less than 10 were approved by lawmakers this session.
Texas Tribune
By Ayden Runnels
June 11, 2025


While largely avoiding the same level of heated pushback of years’ past, Texas lawmakers passed several bills that give LGBTQ+ people in Texas, specifically transgender residents, less opportunity to receive care and maintain their identities in state records.

Texas legislators filed over 100 anti-trans bills through the session, some containing provisions that have been shot down in years’ prior while others proposed new restrictions. Less than 10 were ultimately approved by lawmakers.

The new bills that are likely to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott represent a yearslong movement from state conservatives to find new ways to restrict the presence of trans and LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates say. The bills that failed may also be resurrected by lawmakers in future sessions. Here’s what to know.
The state follows in Trumps footstep making intersex people non-existent because of the Republicans animosity toward not only us but also lesbians and gays!
Abbott released an executive order of his own shortly after Trump’s affirming the president’s directive, but did not provide his own definitions. In a May post on social media, the governor said he would immediately sign HB 229 into law.
Abbott is a Trump wannabe!

We kept on telling lesbians and gays that they are next...
Access to materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ subjects are also being restricted by legislators through two key bills primarily aimed at schools. Senate Bill 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity and forbids student clubs “based on” those subjects.

The bill would prevent clubs like Gay-Straight Alliances and pride clubs, which are often tailored toward anti-bullying initiatives in schools. Opponents of the bill claim a ban on those clubs would cut off LGBTQ+ students from communities and resources that can save lives.

“One of the deadliest things that our youth go through is experiencing the perception at least of isolation, and GSAs are a powerful way that we can combat that and make sure that our youth are getting support,” said Ash Hall, ACLU Texas’ policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights.
We told you that you would be next! You watch, next on the chopping block... your golden idol... marriage equality! Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have introduced legislation urging the Supreme Court to overturn  Obergefell v. Hodges.

Sunday, January 26, 2025

All Rise For The Honorable...

This is going all the way to the Supreme Court that is what they want with this case.

I read Martin Niemöller poem and I knew that the gays and lesbians would be next after us…
An Idaho House committee will consider a formal statement asking the U.S. Supreme Court to end same-sex marriage nationwide and allow the state to restore its ban on such unions. Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, proposed the measure that calls the 2015 decision from the nation’s highest court to legalize same-sex marriage an “illegitimate overreach.” It asked the court to reinstate the “natural definition of marriage” — saying that is between one man and one woman.
You see, now they are hoping that the Supreme Court and Trump crony judges will throw us back to the 1950s!
But the Supreme Court’s decision came by a 5-4 vote, and three new conservative justices were appointed by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term, shifting the court to the right. Two of the court’s most hard-line conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have previously written that the Obergefell decision should be reconsidered. “The purpose of this resolution is just to affirm our state authority to regulate marriage,” Scott said at Tuesday’s hearing.
You see, these conservatives are not really deep thinkers.

If they were deep thinkers then they would have realized that unlike abortions (Or rather like abortions) people can travel… so they can travel to the beautiful state of Connecticut get a marriage license and get married. But that is what's difference from abortions in a marriage there is a signed contract!

The Constitution states very plainly that…
Article IV, Section 1:

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.
That is why in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) interracial marriage became legal across the country.

But in their narrow-mindedness of all things LGBTQ+ they forget the little details like the Constitution.

Tuesday, December 03, 2024

The Hand Writing Was On The Wall.

I hate to say I told you so... but the Republicans have now began their attack on marriage equality.
By Craig Mauger
December 2, 2024
 
 
Republican Michigan state Rep. Josh Schriver said Monday that gay marriage should be "illegal again," voicing opposition to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that set the standard for the nation and spurred same-sex weddings across the country nine years ago.

Schriver of Oxford made his statement on the social media platform X, 27 days after the Nov. 5 election, in which the Michigan GOP won back control of the state House, and 30 days before their majority takes office.

Because gay marriage is legal in Michigan and elsewhere through a court ruling, Schriver can't alter the policy in his position in the state House. But his remarks likely shine light on how one member of the new majority caucus in the House will approach LGBT legislation.

"Make gay marriage illegal again," Schriver wrote Monday. "This is not remotely controversial, nor extreme."
Even though he is a state representative there are echos in Congress about banning marriage equality and that has resulted in...
Gay couples rush to marry and have children before Trump inauguration
Some wedding venues, photographers and planners are offering free services to same-sex couples before Inauguration Day.
NBC News
November 30, 2024


Ben Nelson and Adam Weinberger’s last-minute decision to elope next month was made in the heat of the moment, not only in the name of love. After being together more than three years, they were already scheduled to marry next October. But things changed, they said, once Donald Trump was re-elected.

“We kind of decided that we would take a step back and do what we think is necessary for our lives, not necessarily what our first choice was,” Weinberger, 31, a veterinarian, said.

They are one of many gay couples in recent weeks who are rushing to get married, start fertility treatments and take other measures out of fear that some of their rights might be rescinded during a second Trump administration.
Vox writes that,
In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, some couples planning same-sex weddings have begun to panic, worried they could lose the right to marry. 

[...]

The first is the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court. Same-sex marriage is protected in part by the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision. Previously, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito openly expressed that they’d like to revisit the 2015 Obergefell decision — which established a federal right to marriage equality.
And don't forget that Trump will likely appoint another Supreme Court justice!

Sunday, July 14, 2024

Read It And Weep

The Mike Howell the Heritage Foundation Executive Director of the Oversight Project at The Heritage Foundation had a hissy fit the other day.
After “Gay Furry” hackers breached the think tank behind the extreme Project 2025 agenda, its executive director is spewing venom.
The New Republic
By Talia Jane
July 11, 2024


Self-described “gay furry hackers” behind a group dubbed SiegedSec on Wednesday released text exchanges between Heritage Foundation executive Mike Howell and a member of the hacker group. The texts followed a leak of nearly two gigabytes of data from The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s blog site.

In the texts, Howell appears apoplectically humorless, oscillating between threats to expose the hackers and hopes for violence against them. Howell is a columnist for The Daily Signal, the site whose subscriber data SiegedSec leaked amid a spree of other leaks. The hacked data included the “full names, email addresses, passwords, and usernames” of people associating with the Heritage Foundation, one spokesperson of the gay furry hacktivists said, in order to shed “transparency to the public regarding who exactly is supporting” the conservative think tank.

“Are you aware that you won’t be able to wear a furry tiger costume when you’re getting pounded in the ass in the federal prison I put you in next year?” Howell asked a member of SiegedSec who identified themselves as “vio.”
I am opposed to any hacking for any reason. But I am also against the language that the ED used.

Then we had a Congressional representative who flew off the handle…
In a speech before the House that seemed lifted right out of Margaret Atwood’s dystopian classic, Rep. Glenn Grothman said he wants the U.S. to go back to 1960.
The Daily Beast
By Anna Conkling
July 12, 2024


Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) on Thursday accused “the angry feminist movement” of emasculating men and said the U.S. should “work our way back” to 1960 if former President Donald Trump wins in November.

In a House floor speech that could have been lifted from Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale, Grothman went after supporters of government-funded childcare programs and said President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty “took the purpose out of the man’s life, because now you have a basket of goodies for the mom.” He added, “They’ve taken away the purpose of the man to be part of a family. And if we want to get America back to, say, 1960, where this was almost unheard of, we have to fundamentally change these programs.”

Grothman said “the breakdown of the family” was caused by the U.S. government in the 1960s and “people like Angela Davis, well-known communist, people like the feminists who were so important in the 1960s.”
I keep on telling you that the Republicans want to talk the country back to the time of “Father Knows Best” where the wife was barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.
Grothman’s comments Thursday sounded eerily similar to the central theme of The Handmaid’s Tale—that women are subordinate to men and should take on domestic and subservient roles, and that their worth is tied to becoming mothers. Since the overturning of Roe, the women of Atwood’s fictional “Republic of Gilead” have become a battle cry for feminists who have donned the white bonnet and red cloak of the handmaids as they protest against the Supreme Court’s decision. 
Just look at what some of the Republicans want to pass…
Ban trans people from going out in public
After Roe was overturned, Atwood took to Instagram to post a picture of her holding a coffee mug that read, “I told you so.” After coming under criticism for the post, the author wrote on X: “When HandmaidsTale came out in 85, there was disbelief. I [Rep. Glenn Grothman] thought a religious-right takeover was possible in the U.S., and was Crazy Margaret. Premature, but unfortunately too close. That doesn’t make me happy.”
They want a Christian Nation.

Friday, June 28, 2024

Are You A Tradwife?

This is something right out of the Handmaid’s Tale!

You are asking, “What is a Trad Wife?” well here is a hint, it is coming our of the evangelical far-right. It hasn’t made it into a dictionary yet so here is the definition from the Urban Dictionary...
Short for "traditional wife." Used in alt-right circles to refer to women that embody traditionally feminine and wifely qualities (submissiveness, chastity, willingness to do household chores, etc).
Father Knows Best? It is all about the traditional housewife from the 1950s… barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen!
What is a 'trad wife'? These controversial women are drawing attention – and opinions
USA Today
By Ariana Triggs, Claire Hardwick, & David Oliver
July 14, 2023


Perfectly coiffed hair. A pinup dress. A gorgeous home-cooked meal on a decadent dining room table.

These images convey that of a "traditional wife," a woman you might picture as being from the 1950s.

But these women – known as "trad wives," and typically Christian conservatives – are here today and gaining attention on TikTok to the tune of nearly 187 million views. Many of their followers celebrate the life these women aim to showcase, but others worry they are idealizing a time when women enjoyed less autonomy and fewer rights than they have now − especially as we head into a heated election season.
My mother was a traditional housewife but that was in the 50s. Women could either become a housewife, a teacher, a sectary, or a nurse, those were the options my mother had when she was growing up. She was a sectary at a surveyors office and my father was one of the partners.
Journalist and author Jo Piazza believes there are aspects of the trad wife aesthetic that can be harmful to young, impressionable girls. The purported '50s sitcom lifestyle was just that: a television ideal more than a real-life one.

"It's a false nostalgia for a time that didn't exist for the majority of the population, and for a time that was incredibly demeaning, condescending and difficult for women," she says.

Piazza appreciates that women can make the choice to solely be caregivers and homemakers. Where it goes awry, she says, is that trad wives make it seem as if their choice is superior. Williams, for her part, says she's just living her life and not trying to change anyone else's.
For them they made the right choice but that doesn’t mean it is the right choice for others.

Teen Vogue had this to say about Trad Wife…
There’s been plenty of pushback against this seemingly rising tide of influencers promising women freedom in the confines of their homes, and the movement has been tied to the far-right. But there’s also a layer to these videos that some say isn’t being fully realized. Under a thin veneer of idealized homemaking are ideals pulled from often fundamentalist religious values, some of which can be mechanisms of controlling women.

“The religious underpinnings can’t be ignored,” says Jo Piazza, an author and host of the podcast Under the Influence, which in part examines the trad wife phenomenon. “The tenets of trad wives that say women should be submissive to their husbands and give up all their agency are directly tied to extreme patriarchal evangelical views.”
Can you say “Handmaid’s Tale?”
Tia Levings calls trad wife content a form of “lifestyle evangelism.” Some of these videos, Levings, a writer, ex-fundamentalist, and author of A Well-Trained Wife: My Escape from Christian Patriarchy, said, are part of an effort to tacitly recruit people to the influencer’s religion by making it seem attractive via the kind of life they live. “The trad wives take ordinary cultural elements and desires, such as motherhood and staying home to raise one’s children, and fetishize it, elevating it to a heavenly calling that renders anyone outside of their homey-warm glow as less-than at best, bound for hell at worst,” Levings wrote on her Substack. “They pit ridiculous and fictional opposites against each other, revealing the fundamentalist binaries of their worldview.”
Meanwhile, Salon has another take on it.
There's serious money in peddling fantasies of female submission online, but it may be exacerbating male loneliness
By AMANDA MARCOTTE
NOVEMBER 27, 2023


[…]

It's a neat marketing trick from tradwives to position themselves as a dangerous threat that feminists are desperate to take out. It helps sell the central, lucrative fantasy to credulous audiences: That female submission is a woman's natural desire, one that's being stolen from them by sinister feminist forces. And that you, male viewer, would be gifted with a compliant helpmeet of your very own, if not for those dastardly feminists. But these brave women of YouTube, with their picture-perfect make-up and slender-but-curvy physiques, will stand up to those bitches and restore your birthright: A smoking hot 22-year-old housewife who never talks back, never gets tired, never says "no," and never gains weight, no matter how many children she has. 

By feeding conservative audiences a largely imaginary war with feminists, the tradwives are also pulling off another sleight of hand: distracting from how their content preys upon men, especially young men, by selling them a silly fantasy as reality. In the process, they're contributing to the male loneliness epidemic, by discouraging young men from developing the skills and mindset they need to get a real girlfriend, instead of just subsisting on a steady stream of social media delusions. 
An article in an Indian news site ED Times reports,
Tradwives, spanning the political spectrum, uphold the belief that a woman’s place is in the home as a wife and mother. Whether driven by personal, political, or religious convictions, these women justify their lifestyle choices as a return to traditional values in an increasingly modernized society.

“In recent years, the identity of the tradwife has been adopted by women preferring domestic duties over the modern workforce,” notes journalist Sian Norris. “The tradwife aesthetic is soft, feminine, and sometimes political.”

[…]

Far-right tradwives epitomize a broader trend within the far-right movement, leveraging gendered narratives to promote racially focused agendas. Their advocacy for traditional gender roles and condemnation of feminism align with far-right ideals, framing women’s empowerment as detrimental to societal stability and racial purity.
It all fits nicely in with their Christian Nationalism movement and their “Father Knows Best” views. Now consider,
Bans on no-fault divorces would be unpopular, but the Republicans may be too caught up in a moral panic to care
Open Democracy 
Chrissy Stroop
7 December 2023


Republican populist Ronald Reagan was the first – and, until Donald Trump, only – US president to have been divorced. He is also the reason that Americans have been able to divorce without the imposition of an undue government burden over the past 50 or so years, having been the first US politician to sign a no-fault divorce bill into state law while governor of California in 1969.

[…]

And it’s even funnier that Trump, who is even more beholden to a Christian nationalist base, could become the president who takes the country back to the bad old days, in which abusive spouses (usually husbands) could often rely on the difficulty of obtaining a divorce to help them trap their abused counterparts (usually wives) in terrible marriages.
Do you see a trend here?
Banning abortions
Banning divorce
Traditional marriage
Banning same-sex marriages
Forcing gays, and trans people back in to the closet
Onward Christian Soldiers

*****

I don’t have any problems with a woman being a traditional wife, if it a choice I don’t have a problem but what I have a problem with if this is forced on a woman.

Sunday, May 19, 2024

First They Came After… Now It Is Marriage!

First They Came After…

Do you know what is next on the hit parade of Republican goals? Marriage! Yup you got it, they are going after divorce. They want to do away with divorce, you’re married for life!
Ben Carson Is The Latest Republican To Call For An End To No-Fault Divorce
It should be outlawed "for the sake of families," Carson argues in his new book, "The Perilous Fight."
HuffPost
By Kelby Vera
May 14, 2024


Ben Carson is joining the chorus of conservatives who want to do away with no-fault divorce.

In his new book, “The Perilous Fight,” the former cabinet member for Donald Trump writes, “For the sake of families, we should enact legislation to remove or radically reduce incidences of no-fault divorce.”

Carson, who is said to be on the short list for Trump’s vice presidential pick, continues, “The reason this matters is that no-fault divorce legally allows marriages to end much more quickly than in previous decades.”

He goes on, “When there are relatively few legal or financial consequences connected with divorce, it’s natural for people to gravitate toward that option when their marriage hits a rough patch.”

“What those people often don’t consider, however, is the harm — both present and future — inflicted on their children once a divorce is finalized.”
First they came for abortion…
Then they came for the trans kids…
Then they came for the gays…
Now they are coming for marriage on their quest for a Christian Nation.

These are a bunch of men who want to impose their “Christian values” on women and chain them in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. Can someone please tell that the Republicans are not trying to force us into the “Handmaid Tale?”
No-fault divorce is thought to have had a profound impact on the lives of women. One 2004 study found a drop in domestic violence and suicide rates for women once no-fault divorce became an option.
And it is not just him but also,
Carson is not the first Republican politician to flirt with making divorce more difficult to obtain.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), in a 2016 sermon, claimed the introduction of no-fault divorce led to the rise of a “completely amoral society.” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) also endorsed ending the option.
NBC News reported that Ben Carson said,
Ben Carson, who is often named as a potential running mate for Donald Trump, is out with a new book in which he calls for an end to no-fault divorce laws in the U.S.

“For the sake of families, we should enact legislation to remove or radically reduce incidences of no-fault divorce,” Carson writes in “The Perilous Fight,” released Tuesday.

“The reason this matters is that no-fault divorce legally allows marriages to end much more quickly than in previous decades. When there are relatively few legal or financial consequences connected with divorce, it’s natural for people to gravitate toward that option when their marriage hits a rough patch,” he adds. “What those people often don’t consider, however, is the harm — both present and future — inflicted on their children once a divorce is finalized.”
Um… he might be the running mate who has been divorced three time! Do as I say, not as the orange hair man says.
 
This is not a new idea, it has been quietly discussed in the backrooms.
The Coming Attack on an Essential Element of Women’s Freedom
No-fault divorce has improved the lives of millions. Now some extreme Republicans want to abandon it.
The Atlantic
By Kimberly Wehle
September 26, 2023
 
For the past half century, many women in America have enjoyed an unprecedented degree of freedom and legal protection, not because of Roe v. Wade or antidiscrimination laws but because of something much less celebrated: “no fault” divorce. Beginning in the early 1970s, no-fault divorce enabled millions of people, most of them women, to file for divorce over “irreconcilable differences” or the equivalent without having to prove misconduct by a spouse—such as adultery, domestic violence, bigamy, cruelty, abandonment, or impotence.

But now conservative politicians in states such as Texas and Louisiana, as well as a devoutly Catholic husband who tried to halt his wife’s divorce efforts in Nebraska, are attacking no-fault divorce. One of the more alarming steps taken in that direction came from the Texas Republican Party, whose 2022 platform called on the legislature to “rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws and support covenant marriage.” Given the Republican Party’s control of the offices of governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature, Texas has a chance of actually doing it.
And they are trying to put it into affect, they introduced a bill to end no-fault divorce in Oklahoma, the Oklahoman reported...
A bill that would abolish no-fault divorce is drawing the ire of some attorneys and domestic violence victims’ advocates.

Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, filed Senate Bill 1958 that would no longer allow Oklahomans to file for divorce on the grounds of incompatibility, also known as no-fault divorce.   

Critics say it would make it more difficult to end a marriage and make the actual reason for a divorce open to public scrutiny.
[From the picture with the article the Senator has eight children!]
They marching with their crucifixes held high in their march to a White Christian Nation… vote Blue! 
 
You freedom and life depends upon Biden winning.
 


A follow-up to last Sunday's post... The Board went through with the name change.
CBS News
May 10, 2024


A Virginia school board voted Friday to restore the names of Confederate military leaders to a high school and an elementary school, four years after the names were removed amid nationwide protests calling for a reckoning over racial injustice.

In a reversal experts believe was the first of its kind, Shenandoah County's school board voted 5-1 to rename Mountain View High School as Stonewall Jackson High School and Honey Run Elementary as Ashby Lee Elementary.

Friday's vote reversed a decision by the school board in 2020 when school systems across Virginia and the South were removing Confederate names from schools and other public locations in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.

[…]

On Friday, school board members who voted to restore the Confederate names said the previous board ignored popular sentiment and due process when the names were stripped.

Elections in 2023 significantly changed the school board's makeup, with one board member writing in an op-ed for the Northern Virginia Daily that the results gave Shenandoah County "the first 100% conservative board since anyone can remember."

That board member, Gloria Carlineo, said during the six-hour meeting that began Thursday night that opponents of the Confederate names should "stop bringing racism and prejudice into everything" because it "detracts from true cases of racism."
That is how twisted these conservatives are, they can see what they are doing is racist, they cannot see that they are disenfranchise the Black community and rubbing slavery in their faces.

Friday, February 23, 2024

Well They Are.

Marriage equality doesn’t hurt anyone, no one is bring forced into a same-sex marriage.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he'd anticipated that Americans would be called bigots unless they hid their religious views on homosexuality.
USA Today
By Maureen Groppe
February 20, 2024


Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attempted an “I told you so” on Tuesday when he criticized a judge’s dismissal of potential jurors in a workplace discrimination case because they believed homosexuality is a sin.

Alito said that’s exactly the type of outcome he warned against when, against his objections, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

Alito said he’d anticipated that Americans would be labeled as bigots unless they hid their traditional religious beliefs about “homosexual conduct.”

The court had made clear the gay marriage decision should not be used in that way, Alito said, “but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”

Alito was writing about the Supreme Court’s rejection of an appeal of a workplace bias lawsuit against the Missouri Department of Corrections by an employee, Jean Finney, who is a lesbian.
Well I don’t know how to put it to you Justice Alito but you are a bigot. When you discriminate against someone because of who they love by definition you’re a bigot. You hide behind your religion but that doesn’t mean you are not a bigot.
While Alito agreed with his colleagues that the appeal should be rejected because of other factors, he criticized the trial judge’s decision to reject some jurors for their religious beliefs.

“When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights,” he wrote.

The Missouri Court of Appeals said the questions asked of jurors appropriately focused on whether they had strong feelings about homosexuality because Finney’s sexual orientation was at the heart of her claim that she’d been harassed and mistreated.  

Other prospective jurors who identified as religious or Christian but did not express strong views on homosexuality were not eliminated.
When I had jury duty, there was a case about selling marijuana and the judge asked if we used marijuana, some brave soul stood up and said he did. The judge looked over his glasses and asked “Does that keep you from an impartial verdict?” The prospective juror said that he could hear the case impartially. The judge let him stay in the jury pool.

From what I read the judge did ask “Does that keep you from an impartial verdict?” and the prospective juror said it did.
The religious rights group Alliance Defending Freedom which has filed several successful religious appeals at the Supreme Court in recent years, had also asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.

In the majority opinion on same-sex marriage authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015, he emphasized that “religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”
If under oath they say that they can be impartial then I don’t they they can be blocked from sitting on the jury, but if they say that they can’t say they can be impartial then I don’t think they should be allowed on to serve on a jury.



More on the personhood of embryos... the long term goals of the Republican party is to make us a Christian Nation like "The Handmaiden's Tale" look how long the Republicans have been at trying to all abortions illegal.
Newsweek
By James Bickerton US News Reporter
February 23, 2024


A video of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett declining to say whether a ban on in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment would be constitutional during her 2020 confirmation hearing has gone viral on X, formerly Twitter.

It follows the Supreme Court of Arizona ruling on February 16 that frozen embryos should be considered children under state law, in a move that led Alabama's largest hospital to pause IVF treatment, citing fears this could lead to their medical practitioners receiving criminal charges.

On Thursday Kyle Griffin, an executive producer on discussion show The Weekend on MSNBC, shared a clip from Barrett's Senate confirmation hearing, adding: "Flashback: During her confirmation hearing in 2020, Amy Coney Barrett refused to rule out criminalizing IVF."

[…]

During the hearing Barrett, a Donald Trump appointee, was asked whether "criminalizing" IVF treatment would be legal by Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat.

Barrett replied: "Senator I've repeatedly said, as has every other nominee who's sat in this seat, that we can't answer questions in the abstract. That would have to be decided in the course of the judicial process.
The 19th News wrote that Nikki Haley put it this way,
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Wednesday that she sees embryos created through in-vitro fertilization as “babies,” just days after a ruling out of Alabama that fertility treatment advocates say could disrupt access to the procedure.
[...]

 Asked if the Alabama ruling could impact access to IVF treatments, Haley said “we need to be incredibly respectful and sensitive about it.” Haley went on to suggest that women and their partners should be presented with options and “make the decision that’s best for your family.” If conservative courts or legislature deem that embryos have personhood rights, fertility treatment patients could quickly lose that decision-making power.  
You know that there are many, many religions that believe life begins at birth such as the Jewish faith and what about sincerely held personal religious beliefs don't they count? Or do only the views of evangelical Christian beliefs count.

You can watch the video of the question here.

So this ban is not something that popped up out the blue, they have been working toward that goal for years.

Sunday, January 28, 2024

They Are Trying Bring It To Real Life!

 They are to bring dystopian fiction to life. First they are banning abortion now they are trying to ban divorce! You don’t believe me that they are bring the Handmaiden's Tale to life?
A newly sworn-in Senator wants to make it harder to get a divorce in Oklahoma, through a proposed bill for the 2024 legislative session.

“Ridiculous, oppressive, terrible,” said Nikki Edwards, an attorney and director of Phillips Murrah.

Senate Bill 1958 was written by freshman senator, Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, who took office in October.

[…]

His website shows he’s endorsed by conservative organizations and says “we must protect marriage and parental rights. I will fight to make sure our laws never interfere with the spiritual and economic thriving of families.”

“I believe in marriage. I believe in religion, but these two things do not should not coincide perfectly,” said McCune.
Do you believe this? Along with abortion bans this is the subjugation of women! Next they will be requiring women to walk two steps behind their husband.
The Coming Attack on an Essential Element of Women’s Freedom
No-fault divorce has improved the lives of millions. Now some extreme Republicans want to abandon it.
The Atlantic
By Kimberly Wehle
September 26, 2023


For the past half century, many women in America have enjoyed an unprecedented degree of freedom and legal protection, not because of Roe v. Wade or antidiscrimination laws but because of something much less celebrated: “no fault” divorce. Beginning in the early 1970s, no-fault divorce enabled millions of people, most of them women, to file for divorce over “irreconcilable differences” or the equivalent without having to prove misconduct by a spouse—such as adultery, domestic violence, bigamy, cruelty, abandonment, or impotence.

But now conservative politicians in states such as Texas and Louisiana, as well as a devoutly Catholic husband who tried to halt his wife’s divorce efforts in Nebraska, are attacking no-fault divorce. One of the more alarming steps taken in that direction came from the Texas Republican Party, whose 2022 platform called on the legislature to “rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws and support covenant marriage.” Given the Republican Party’s control of the offices of governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature, Texas has a chance of actually doing it.

[…]
Against this backdrop, conservative commentators today claim that no-fault-divorce laws destroy the sanctity of marriage and disfavor men. The blogger and Daily Wire host Matt Walsh tweeted this year that no-fault divorce should be abolished. He once tweeted that “no fault divorce grants one person the ability to break the contract without the consent of the other. What kind of contract is that?” The right-wing YouTube personality Steven Crowder has argued that “no-fault divorce … means that in many of these states if a woman cheats on you, she leaves, she takes half. So it’s not no-fault, it’s the fault of the man.” Elsewhere, he claimed, “If you’re a woman that comes from meager means, and you want to get wealthy—you’ve never worked, you didn’t get a degree, you have no skill set, but you’re good-looking—your best path to victory is simply to marry a man, leave him, and take half.”

Republican Senator J. D. Vance of Ohio picked up the argument on the campaign trail last September, stating, “One of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace … is the idea that, like, ‘Well, okay, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term.’”
This fits right in with the move to the far-right of the Republican party, they are becoming more and more authoritarian. It is becoming down right scary!
 
CNN also had an article about this…
 Following what some conservatives view as legal victories on the battlegrounds of abortion rights and affirmative action, a number of politicians and influencers are turning their attention to another long-held construct: No-fault divorce.

Right-wing commentators like Steven Crowder and Matt Walsh have ramped up complaints in recent months that it is too easy for people — specifically women — to get divorces. All states currently have some version of a no-fault divorce law, but Republicans in Texas and Nebraska list the dissolution or restriction of no-fault divorce in their state party political platforms.

[…]

 Newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson has been a vocal opponent of no-fault divorce, which allows couples to obtain a divorce without proving fault — and without both parties agreeing to the split. In a 2016 sermon, he claimed it turned the United States into a “completely amoral society.”

Though no-fault divorce was first legalized more than 50 years ago, it has long been sneered at in conservative circles, who see it as a danger to the sanctity of marriage and the concept of the American family.
 It does just stop at abortion and divorce, they are also targeting birth control.
Birth Control Is Next
If you look closely, attempts to restrict contraception are already in the works.
Slate
By Christina Cauterucci
April 21, 2023


At first glance, what’s happening right now in Iowa looks like a rosy vision for the future of reproductive rights.

The Republican-controlled state Senate recently passed a bill that would increase access to certain types of contraception by allowing pharmacists to dispense it to patients without a prescription. Their GOP counterparts in the state House have included a similar provision in a larger health care bill. And Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds has indicated that the legislation is one of her top priorities this session.

[…]

In other words, counter to a refrain that has taken hold on the left since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, conservatives are not coming for birth control next. They’re coming for birth control now.

Some corners of the right are already in full-blown attack mode. Pulse Life Advocates, one of the Iowa-based anti-abortion groups that is advocating against the over-the-counter contraception bill, states on its website that “contraception kills babies.”

[…]

But the Supreme Court won’t even have to overturn Griswold for conservatives to curtail access to birth control. Across the country, they are executing a game plan that rests on three strategies: Conflate contraception with abortion, claim that birth control is dangerous to women’s health, and let right-wing judges do their thing.
When the Republicans court these right-wing holier than thou this is what comes out of it… The  Handmaiden's Tale.

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

A Social Construct?

At the ten year anniversary of the passage of the marriage equality law they were a bunch of ten year olds running around. One of the people that I met there was my endo, she was with her wife and ten year old son.

When the bill was being debated and when the Supreme Court ruled marriage equality was legalized many right-wingers laughed the common narrative back then was LGBTQ+ slept around with different partners and no one wanted to marry. One couple just married after a 31 year relatinship.

When I came out one of the things that struck me was so many LGBTQ+ people were in long term relationships.

People still think this is a choice and all we do all day is f**k! They think all we do are one night stands and that we chose to be LGBTQ+.
Scientific American
By Marcia Malory
October 19, 2012


Ask this question, and you will probably receive one of two responses:

Yes. People choose to be gay. They are making an immoral choice, which government should discourage.

Or

No. Sexual preference is biologically determined. Government should protect gay people from discrimination because homosexuality is an unalterable aspect of their identity.

These two answers have something in common: With both of them, the science conveniently supports the moral decision.

[…]

We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference has a genetic component.

A gay man is more likely than a straight man to have a (biological) gay brother; lesbians are more likely than straight women to have gay sisters.

In 1993, a study published in the journal Science showed that families with two homosexual brothers were very likely to have certain genetic markers on a region of the X chromosome known as Xq28. This led to media headlines about the possibility of the existence of a “gay gene” and discussions about the ethics of aborting a “gay” fetus.
Nature or nurture?
The structure of the brain might influence sexual preference.

In 1991, a study published in the journal Science seemed to show that the hypothalamus, which controls the release of sex hormones from the pituitary gland, in gay men differs from the hypothalamus in straight men. The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was found to be more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men

This study was criticized because it used brain tissue obtained at autopsies, and all of the homosexual subjects in the study were believed to have died of AIDS.

[…]

Gay women and gay men are more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than straight women and straight men, according to a number of different studies. Some researchers have suggested that this difference in handedness – preference for one hand over the other can be observed in fetuses - is related to differences in the corpus callosum.
I notice that myself in a very dramatic way.

There was a LGBTQ+ youth conference here in Connecticut, it was the True Colors conference. We wanted to collect signatures on a petition for the passage of the gender inclusive non-discrimination bills so at the conference registration we had a number of people asking those inline to register so I was standing next to the registration desk and asking people to sign the petition. I noticed that there were an awful lot of left-handed people in line, it was very, very noticeable. It was like a half of the people inline were left-handed!
We know from studying rats that exposure to sex hormones in the womb during a critical period in brain development affects future sexual orientation. By manipulating hormone levels during this time, scientists can make rats engage in homosexual behavior later on.
I have no proof but… back when I was born the treatment for miscarriages was a form of estrogen  called DES now I don’t know for sure but I do know that my mother had several miscarriages between  my brother and me.
Even if gay people can never stop being attracted to members of the same sex, they can learn not to act on their desires.
But why would you want to deny who you are. The only reason that I can think of is social pressure.

Friday, December 23, 2022

Marriage Equality Is Not A Settled Issue

It is a burr under the Republican's saddle. A festering sore for them.

First a little background;

Cass County Republicans censure Senator Todd Young after vote on marriage bill
Kokomo Tribune
By Kirsten Adair CNHI News Indiana
December 9, 2022


The Cass County Republican Committee sent a letter of censure to denounce Senator Todd Young this week after Young voted in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, a federal bill that validates same-sex and interracial marriages in the U.S.

According to the U.S. Senate’s website, a censure is meant to express disapproval of a senator’s actions but does not involve any formal action or expulsion from office. However, censures can cause problems with a senator’s relationship with constituents and within congress.

“Your decision elicited feelings of anger, disbelief and even a sense of betrayal,” said the letter, which was posted on Twitter by CNN Reporter Melanie Zanona. “We are not just fiscal conservatives, but social conservatives as well.”

The letter was sent to Young and other Indiana Republican county chairs by Cass County Republican Committee Chairman David Richey. Richey, who worked with other Cass County Republicans to draft the letter, stated in an email posted with the letter that Cass County Republicans encourage other committees to write their own letters to Young if they are upset about his vote.

After all these years the Republicans are still having a hissy fit over marriage equality, this should tell you what their priority will be when they take over the House next month… not the economy but rather anti-trans bills, anti-marriage equality bills, and anti-abortion bills. And also investing Biden and his son*.

LGBTQ community, others respond to Cass County Republicans' letter
Pharos-Tribune
By Josh Flynn Staff reporter
December 20, 2022


There are still struggles ahead. They see that in the recent letter the Cass County Republican Party sent to state senator Todd Young, censuring him for voting in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act.

In their letter, county Republicans said same sex marriage devalued the family and would lead to churches being punished for their religious beliefs. The Respect for Marriage Act also protects those religious beliefs.

“The Republican party of Indiana endorsed you running as a Republican senator from our great state with the belief that we could entrust you with representing out values,” the letter from the Cass County Republicans said. “On this matter (regarding same-sex marriage), you had previously stated that you felt matters like this were best handled by the states, not in the federal venue. Now we find — right after we endorsed you and voted for you in November — that you’ve changed your mind.”

I went to the party at Real Art Ways celebrating ten years of marriage equality and I also was at the celebration when the law was passed… do you know what was different between the two celebrations? At the ten year anniversary there were a lot of ten year olds running around.

The Democrats said in response;

Lita Rouser, a member of the Cass County Democratic Party, asked why the Republicans didn’t instead direct their anger toward issues such as Indiana’s high maternal mortality and infant mortality rates or the state’s water pollution issues.

“Did they write a letter to Todd Young about these issues, too?” she asked. “Or is it just the two guys down the street getting married that bothers them? Hoosiers overwhelmingly support marriage equality. The Republican Party should get out of people’s bedrooms and get to work on the real problems facing Hoosiers.”

It is all smoke and mirrors for the Republicans to distract the voters from the real issues.

~~~~

*My guess is that when they bring these up items in the House for a vote it will not pass because of Republican defectors all it will take is five Republicans to say enough is enough and vote against the Republican leaders.

Friday, December 02, 2022

Is The Respect for Marriage Act Worth The Paper It Is Printed On?

I just read about the bill that passed the Senate and it looks like it was watered down to get it passed in the Senate.

What struck me as I read the what the bill covered is that it gives the states the right to legalize marriage equality and thought… “Wait a minute”, Texas and Florida and the other Republican states can not legalize marriage equality but they have to recognize other state marriages. In other words state A can not allow same-sex marriages next door state B allows it. A same-sex couple from state A can travel to state B and get married, and their marriage must be recognized by state A. My first thought was that is not quite so bad, but then I thought yeah but… what about a couple who can’t afford to travel to another state?

Pink News reported that,
How will the Respect for Marriage Act work?

The Respect for Marriage Act would protect existing unions if the right to same-sex marriage was ever struck down by the Supreme Court in the future, which LGBTQ+ Americans feared after Roe v Wade fell in June.

Should that happen, same-sex marriage rights could potentially revert to the states, of which several still ban same-sex marriage on their books despite equal marriage being the law of the land. 

The Respect for Marriage Act assures that any marriage valid in the couple’s home state is considered valid by the US government, and will be recognised [sic] by every state. 

The new bill also officially repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that specifically defined marriage as only existing between a man and a woman. The bill has not been enforceable since 2013, however, the new bill takes it off the books. 

The legislation does not legalise [sic] same-sex marriage throughout the US, however, if the Supreme Court overturned 2015’s Obergefell v Hodges decision to legalise same-sex marriage, 35 states would likely outlaw it again.
It is a step in the right direction.

The bill also…
The bill also has an amendment, accepted on Monday (28 November), which protects religious liberty, and confirms that no nonprofit religious organisation [sic] would have to provide goods, services, or facilities for wedding ceremonies or receptions.
That is overly broad exemption.

So if a Christian adoption agency is the only adoption agency in the county a same-sex couple couldn’t adopt a child unless, once again, travel to another party of the country.

Our senator said,
November 29, 2022

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday released the following statement after the U.S. Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation to protect federal marriage equality for same-sex and interracial couples and repeals the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act:
“Every person deserves the right to marry who they love. Thankfully, this is the clear consensus position in America today, and it’s why marriage equality has been the law of the land in Connecticut for over a decade. This legislation is unfortunately necessary to protect marriage equality from increasingly radical Republican judges and ensure that no one faces discrimination because of who they married.”
Yeah, I realize there is the reality to today’s political climate that they had to compromise and he wants to paint it in a “good light.”

Meanwhile most of the Republicans voted against the bill and some introduced "killer amendments" designed to scuttle the bill. Fox News wrote,
Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, introduced an amendment to the Senate gay marriage bill regarding what he says are the risks of allowing child marriages, polygamous marriages, and incest that could arise from the legislation.
[...]
"Not only does the so-called Respect for Marriage Act open the door for a weaponized IRS to target religious non-profits, but it will start a race to the bottom, forcing the most extreme marriage laws from any state onto every other state," Cruz said.

"It will only take a California, New York, or Massachusetts to legalize polygamy, incest, or child marriages to force every state to recognize these relationships as well," the senator continued.
We heard that old argument about legalizing polygamy, incest, or child marriages back a decade ago when marriage equality bills were being introduced, it wasn't true then and it is not true now. Then we have Sen. Cruz's other comment one state recognizing another state's laws, well he can't be much of a lawyer if he doesn't know the Constitution...
Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
But then the Republicans only follow laws that they like.

The Republicans may have blown it again like they did with abortion, in the decade since marriage equality was made legal the people have become used to them and see nothing wrong with marriage equality and now wonder why the Republicans are up in a tizzy over it.
The Respect for Marriage Act shows immense progress around marriage equality. It also comes against a disturbing backdrop of violence against the LGBTQ community and dangerous political attacks from influential right-wing leaders.
Vanity Fair
By Eric Lutz
November 30, 2022

It was only a decade ago that Barack Obama finally publicly expressed his support for same-sex marriage. His vice president, Joe Biden, had already gone off script and said that same-sex couples should be “entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties” that heterosexual couples enjoyed. At the time, Biden’s remarks were cast as a “gaffe” in some corners. It was during Obama’s reelection campaign against Mitt Romney, who as the presumptive Republican nominee back then had said definitively, “I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.” But the issue didn’t drag down Obama and Biden in that year’s election, as some aides had feared, and the Supreme Court would make same-sex marriage legal across the country three years later with Obergefell v. Hodges.

There’s been a major shift in American politics around marriage equality in the years since, as the Senate vote on the Respect for Marriage Act underscored Tuesday. Led by Democrat Tammy Baldwin and Republican Susan Collins, a bipartisan majority in the upper chamber passed a bill protecting same-sex and interracial marriages at the federal level, amid concerns that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority could overturn those precedents the way it overturned Roe this summer. Every present Democrat and 12 Republicans, including Romney, voted for the landmark legislation, which is expected to pass the House and be signed into law. “For millions of Americans, this legislation will safeguard the rights and protections to which LGBTQI+ and interracial couples and their children are entitled,” Biden said in a statement Tuesday, praising the lawmakers in the Senate who brought what had originally been seen as something of a messaging bill over the finish line. 
In the light of an “iffy” Supreme Court, therefore the question is; “Is a half a loaf better than no loaf?”

These are the Republican senators who voter against the bill;

Update 3:15 PM

November 29, 2022

The Senate’s Respect for Marriage Act has progressives arguing that efforts to safeguard same-sex unions remain unfinished after concessions were made to Republican demands for bolstered religious liberty protections.

The bill as it currently stands would officially repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require state recognition of legal same-sex and interracial marriages but would not codify the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex unions nationwide or prevent the high court from eventually overturning the landmark decision.

“It would be great if the bill went further, but we don’t have the votes for the bill to go further,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Changing America.

[...]

Naomi Goldberg, deputy director of the Movement Advancement Project, which tracks state and federal legislation affecting the nation’s LGBTQ community, told Changing America that the legislation was also constrained by the Constitution.

The bill “does not require that every state allow same-sex couples to marry – the federal government can’t do that constitutionally,” she said. “What the Respect for Marriage Act would say is that you must recognize valid marriages regardless of sexual orientation, national origin and race.”

“What’s important,” Goldberg added, “is that it doesn’t touch the current statutory or constitutional patterns that exist in the majority of states. Those are still on the books.”

It is a possibility that the Supreme Court could strike down both the previous Supreme Court ruling and the new law as an infringement of "States Rights" even through banning marriage equality violates the Fourteenth Amendment.


Wednesday, July 27, 2022

The Question Is “Why?”

I always knew that the Republican wouldn’t go for marriage equality but I wondered what excuse they would come up with.

Rubio fires back at Buttigieg over same-sex marriage legislation
The Hill
By Sarakshi
July 25, 2022


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) fired back at Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg Sunday after the Biden administration official called out the Florida senator for saying that legislation protecting same-sex marriage would be a “stupid waste of time.”

Rubio, in a 58-second long video on Twitter, called Buttigieg a “Harvard-educated Transportation secretary” who he said didn’t know the difference between state and federal levels.

The Florida Republican added that, on the federal level, he focuses on “federal problems that matter to real people.”

[…]

He added that he will focus on “real problems” and not on an agenda that he believes is “dictated by a bunch of affluent elite liberals” and a “bunch of Marxist misfits, who sadly today control the agenda of the modern Democratic Party.”

I guess he doesn’t think of us as “real people!”

In another Hill article…

Another Republican senator announces opposition to same-sex marriage bill
By Brad Dress
July 25, 2022


Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) on Monday announced he is opposed to federal legislation that would protect the right to same-sex marriage, joining Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in speaking out against a bill passed by the House last week.

Daines, the junior senator for Montana, said in a statement that he believes “marriage is between a man and a woman” and that the push to pass the Respect for Marriage Act is a ploy from Democrats and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“I’m opposed to this bill and believe it’s another attempt by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats to distract the American people from the inflation crisis, energy crisis and the southern border crisis they’ve created,” Daines said.

Oh I see… doesn’t passing legislation blocking trans youth from healthcare fall under the category of “...distract the American people from the inflation crisis, energy crisis and the southern border crisis they’ve created…” but that’s okay because Republicans pass anti-LGBTQ+ legislation it is okay and when Democrats try to pass legislation to protect us and countering their legislation then it becomes frivolous.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), however, has spoken out against giving Americans the broad right to same-sex marriage, arguing on his podcast “Verdict with Ted Cruz” earlier this month that the issue should be left to the states.

But earlier in the month a bunch of Republicans said that they want to pass a federal law on abortion according to another Hill article,

House Republicans are weighing what kind of national-level abortion ban legislation to pursue if they win the House majority next year, with a 15-week ban or further on the table.

But even as they cheer the Supreme Court overturning the landmark abortion rights decision in Roe v. Wade, GOP congressional leaders have made few promises on specific measures they would pursue, and some Republicans have advocated leaving abortion restrictions to the states.

Gee when it is a Democrat bill the Republicans claim “State’s Rights” but when it is a Republican bill it isn’t about “State’s Rights” does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

Sunday, June 12, 2022

A Test Case For Same-Sex Marriage?

It looks like both sides of this nasty divorce is going to the Supreme Court.

In Oklahoma a lesbian couple divorced and an Oklahoma judge ordered the child’s birth certificate changed making the sperm donor the father on the birth certificate.

Lesbian Mom Removed From Child's Birth Certificate Fights Ruling
The Advocate
By Rachel Shatto
May 23, 2022


A lesbian mother in Oklahoma, amid a contentious divorce, is fighting to reverse a judge’s ruling that removed her name from her child’s birth certificate — a decision that could create a chilling precedent for same-sex parents ending their marriages.

Kris Williams and Rebekah Wilson were married in the summer of 2019, reports local news outlet KFOR. Shortly thereafter, the couple had a son via artificial insemination. While Wilson carried the child, Williams was there for the birth, cut the umbilical cord, and was listed on the birth certificate. The couple’s son was even named after a family member on Williams’s side.

The couple has since filed for divorce and Wilson petitioned the court to remove Williams’s name from the birth certificate. Judge Lynne McGuire subsequently ruled that Williams “failed to pursue a legal remedy to establish parental rights.” According to Judge McGuire, being on the birth certificate wasn’t enough; she should have also adopted her child.

First problem with the case.

“According to Judge McGuire, being on the birth certificate wasn’t enough; she should have also adopted her child.” Well married heterosexual couples of a child born when they used a sperm donor do not have to “adopt” the child. Under the law any child born of a legal married couples is not considered to be an adoption. But it is complicated by what state the court is in and also this does not affect their divorce, but only the custody of the child.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” William’s attorney, Robyn Hopkins, told KFOR. “It’s not a question about what the divorce is. This isn’t about the divorce case at all. We’re not talking about assets. We’re not talking about marital property, separate property. We’re talking about the custody of a child that was born of that marriage.”

Accord to the IRMS’ LGBTQ+ Reproductive Medicine in New Jersey…

The recent United States Supreme Court case of Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. – (2017) did not enhance the value of a birth certificate. In Pavan, two married same-sex female couples in Arkansas sued because the state refused to put both spouses’ names on the birth certificate. Arkansas alleged that its birth certificates are for collection of biological data, although it offered no proof that opposite-sex couples were required to submit proof of biology. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas was unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples by denying them the same rights, responsibilities and benefits that married opposite-sex couples have pursuant to Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2105). 

The holding of Pavan means that every state is required to treat same-sex couples the same as they do different-sex couples and list both spouses in a marriage on the birth certificate at the time of birth. However, this decision did not elevate the value of a birth certificate to make it a confirmation of parental rights. 

Hmm… so it looks like the Oklahoma judge may have overstepped his bounds and ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling. But hold on there is a monkey wrench in the ruling; “required to treat same-sex couples the same as they do different-sex couples” because some states require that the non-biological parent to adopt the child. I do not know if Oklahoma is one of those states and if it is the other parent must adopt the child which didn’t happen.

Some of the law sites that I looked up the question says it is suggested to also adopt the child as a safety precaution, the National Center for Lesbian Rights says,

Regardless of whether you are married or in a civil union or comprehensive domestic partnership, NCLR always encourages non-biological and non-adoptive parents to get an adoption or parentage judgment, even if you are named on your child’s birth certificate. 

The Advocate goes on to say,

“The concern is if [Williams] loses, that’s going to set some pretty bad precedent in the state of Oklahoma, and possibly beyond,” Hanna Roberts, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, told The 19th. “I think that this is just the first time that there has been such an adverse ruling that is so contrary to equal protection. It’s gotten the attention because same-sex couples get divorced all the time.”

The organization intends to get involved if the case moves forward to the appellate court because of the possible wider implications of the ruling.

Once again, this case centers around parental rights and not the legitimacy of their marriage, and I do see this is going all the way to the Supreme Court.