Rachel Maddow on the Pitfalls of NOT Nominating a SCOTUS Justice

If conservative Republicans win the PR battle, and manage to stall the Supreme Court nomination process, they have a chance to have a conservative seated. But only if a Republican wins the presidential election. Even with that (for liberal Democrats) unfortunate outcome, the Republicans manage to potentially lose a lot along the way. A number of potential 5-4 decisions, some of which would certainly have gone the conservatives' way, would end in a tie. Meaning they'd lose. So in each scenario where it was that tight, liberals effectively win. This is a huge dice roll for the GOP.

One of Rachel Maddow's biggest strengths is her ability to supply context and history to subjects like this, and tease out the many and sundry implications. One of her best monologues was on this subject on Monday night. Take a look.

Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

Image from Wikipedia

Wow. I have this short list--very short list--of people for whom my compassion runs so low, that mustering even a modicum of sympathy for their passing, timely or otherwise, is very difficult. You could throw a couple of Cheneys in there, maybe a Schlafly and a couple of televangelists. But Antonin Scalia, long-serving Supreme Court Justice is on that list. I'm reminded that he was very good friends with fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so I'll keep that in mind, and remember that he's got a family, and they might have had warmer feelings for him than I do. Maybe. So, I'll give them all my sympathy But I'm going to have difficulty working up a tear.

FOX "News" was in such a hurry to get this story out,
that they only managed a sentence, and a faulty headline.
Scalia was not "Chief Justice."

Now, all eyes will turn to the nominating process, and whether or not the US Senate will try to run out the clock so that President Obama doesn't get a third justice on the bench. I think it would be tremendously bad form, for there is absolutely no reason they should stall other than playing politics.  But the stakes for the presidential election just shot through the roof. And the delicacy of the language that the candidates, pundits and other politicians use around the situation could prove daunting. I say, wait for Donald Trump to say something crass before saying anything but the most boilerplate statements. Then, carefully guide the issue to one of fairness, justice, the American way. Don't play politics, the Senate must do its duty, etc., etc. Force the Senate to do their jobs.

We'll see.

[Excerpt]

Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court justice, dies at 79

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died at the age of 79, a government source and a family friend told CNN on Saturday.Scalia died in his sleep during a visit to Texas. . .

Read more at: CNN

Donald Trump Would Nominate SCOTUS Justices to Overturn Gay Marriage Decision

Okay, here's yet another story where Donald Trump simply doesn't understand how the United States works. He's "not a fan" of the way the Supreme Court ruled in the Obergefell decision that rendered same-sex marriages legal across all 50 states, but he doesn't really have a clue about the issue. He says he'd want the decision overturned, and have it decided in the states.

It was left to the states. The states made a series of anti-gay amendments to their individual constitutions. These amendments were challenged. They worked their way up through local and state courts, to appeals courts to federal courts and ultimately to The Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS ruled them unconstitutional. Individual states (and their people) cannot legally enact unconstitutional laws.

THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

Donald Trump fundamentally does not understand that, apparently. Nor does he seem to remember that as recently as a year ago, he called the whole thing a dead issue. He is clearly some combination of clueless, bullshitter, panderer and ignoramus. I'll let you decide on the percentages.

[Excerpt]

Donald Trump Says He Wants Supreme Court To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage

Donald Trump says he isn't a fan of the way the Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage. 
"I would have much preferred that they ruled at a state level and let the states make those rulings themselves," Trump told Fox News. . .

Read more at: Newsy

Justice Scalia Proves Himself Unfit for the Bench

Image from Washington Post

I got a bit of a snicker out of hearing that Justice Antonin Scalia still has his face all in a scrunch over the Obergefell gay marriage decision. I mean, the man is such a harumphy sourpuss, it's hard to not take a little joy when he's extra pissed about something.

But Scalia goes a bit beyond whining about the result, and finger-wagging at the other justices. No, in my opinion, when he reaches for something so stupid as to say that the decision goes against a lot of peoples' religious beliefs? That my friends, is where the man proves himself unsuited to his own job.

Why? Because he apparently is unclear on the separation of church and state, which is rather important for a justice whose job is to help decide the constitutionality of things. But even more than that, Scalia also seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Obergefell was about in the first place.

So listen up, Tony, you demented little religious tyrant: The entire marriage equality movement has been about--has always been about, and only been about--civil marriage. Not holy matrimony. Not church weddings. Religion DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE EQUATION. Even if for some bizarre reason, a person thinks a civil contract between two citizens is against a third party's religion, it does not matter. There is no religious component to a civil contract, any more than there is for a business license or a building permit.

I can't believe he's stupid, and he has no need to pander to any constituancy. So, I can only think he never really grasped the fundamentals of the cases before him.

[Excerpt]

Justice Scalia Is Still Hopping Mad Over The Gay Marriage Ruling
 
With less than two weeks before the start of the new Supreme Court session, Justice Antonin Scalia is still lamenting Obergefell v. Hodges, the June ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. At a Tuesday speech at Rhodes College, which his grandson attends, the justice blasted the decision, calling it the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants," according to The Associated Press. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

BREAKING NEWS: Kim Davis to be Released from Jail

Image from source, Qweerty

Okay, this should be interesting. Kim Davis, the infamous court clerk from Kentucky, is being released from jail on one condition: that she not interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses by her clerks.

This shouldn't be a problem for her. Her name isn't going on them. It has even less to do with her religion than it did before (though I'd argue that it had nothing to do with it anyway). If she interferes, it's back to jail, do not pass go.

If she raises any sort of stink now, it will blow whatever shred (and it's in tatters) of credibility she has left. It will become clearer that this is about denying gay people civil rights acknowledged by the Supreme Court, and not about her "sincerely held beliefs" being violated.

Even more interesting: what happens to Mike Huckabee's jailhouse rally?

[Excerpt]

BREAKING: Kim Davis To Be Released From Jail

U.S. District Judge David Bunning just ordered that Rowan County clerk Kim Davis be released from jail, reports The New Civil Rights Movement. On Thursday, Bunning placed Davis in contempt of court, ordering her to stay in jail until she agreed to do her job and give marriage licenses to same-sex couples or leave her position. . .

Read more at: Qweerty

The Kim Davis Cellblock Tango (Randy Rainbow Song Parody)

Tremendous! A trifle harsh, except that this story is one that deserves a little counter-punch. Kim Davis' quest is much more than her misguided quest to protect her alleged "sincerely held beliefs." She's a deliberate test case, an early phase in an attempt to squelch the practical application of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision. The sheer disingenuousness that surrounds the case, from Davis' own mouth, her husband's out-sized one, and her (even according to FOX "News") relentlessly stupid lawyers from Liberty Council, is more than enough to justify a little over-the-top schadenfreude. And this is so well done--beginning to end--I couldn't resist.



Hat tip to The Other Half's cousin Geralyn for the link!

Faux Christian Martyr Kim Davis in Jail, Conservative Twitterverse in Full Outrage Mode

Image from source, Boston Globe.

Yes, the Kounty Klerk from Kentucky has refused to do her job, issuing marriage licenses (to either gay or straight people), all the way to jail. She's flat-out wrong in her assertions that religious beliefs trump the rights of her constituents, or that they have any relevance whatsoever to her job duties. She honestly has no legal leg to stand on, and this is clear if you know even basic civics, and have a working, functional brain, unclouded by "truthiness" or overpowered by religious fervor.

Overwhelmingly, public sentiment (at least most places I've frequented in my admittedly unscientific studies) seems to be against Kim Davis and her quixotic quest. But a vocal (and very loud) contingent of conservative keyboard commandos is in full outrage mode. And so are several politicians and pundits, including some GOP presidential aspirants.

Now, while many of these people are crazy, there are sane, smart people among them. I may have a visceral distaste for some of them, like Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee, but I don't think any (okay, most) of them are stupid people. So that leaves a few options here:

1. They are genuinely confused by the difference between "holy matrimony" and civil marriage, and/or ignorant of the fact that they are legally not the same thing.
2. They haven't thought through the ramifications of allowing a county-level politician to choose which laws to follow, or the consequences of giving religious exemption to a religious clerk over which laws they should enforce.
3. They are ignorant of the premise of the separation of church and state in the United States.
4. They are so blinded by homophobia, that it stunts their thinking processes.
5. They are pandering to the prejudices of the base conservative voter, either for their votes or to other ends (such as chipping away at the already earned right for same-sex couples to marry).

I'm betting on a mixture of 4 and 5. Ted Cruz can't really believe this is persecution for religious belief. It isn't. Ms. Davis' religious beliefs are intact, no matter if she issues legal documents or not. She is not a pastor or church official, she's civil servant. Her beliefs have nothing to do with the issuance of marriage licenses, anymore than it does with hunting licenses, gun licenses, driver licenses, business licenses or building permits.

She is 100% wrong, and anyone defending her now, or alleging some phony "War on Christianity" is either seriously confused about the facts of the case, is too invested in religion-based bigotry to see the facts clearly, or is being disingenuous. Period.

[Excerpt]

Kim Davis follows the footsteps of George Wallace
 
Kim Davis is in jail for contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but make no mistake: this uncivil civil servant isn’t a religious freedom fighter. She’s a homophobe, pure and simple. “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” said Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.” Davis, county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, will be released when she complies with the law and issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples. . .

Read more at: Boston Globe

Rachel Maddow Interviews Rick Santorum

Obviously, within the context of a couple of segments of her nightly show, Rachel Maddow was unable to get to every point we'd like her to ask Rick (don't Google me) Santorum. But this segment did a couple of newsworthy things: it undoubtedly gave Santorum a little bit of buzz, evidenced by the fact that the story is currently trending on Twitter. Secondly, Santorum fans might just discover that Maddow is a different breed of cable pundit. I can't imagine a similar interview of a Democratic candidate on Hannity, for example.

 

HOAX The Gay Thing: President Obama Calls for June 26 to be "National Equality Day"

THIS STORY HAS BEEN REPORTED AS A HOAX.  So, good one, pranksters. I guess. It wasn't particularly funny, but you got me as well as several legit news outfits, so score one for you.  

June 26th was a day of great importance, and has featured three major civil rights victories at the Supreme Court for gay rights. Though I'm doubtful that the current Congress will vote for a national holiday, it would be nice to get Representatives and Senators on record. And it would also be interesting to see if a future Republican president would have the temerity to revoke Obama's Executive Order.

Of course, even with gay rights at the root of Equality Day, the notion of civil rights equality wouldn't be confined to that specific issue alone. This is a tremendous idea.

Image from source, USAToday

[Excerpt]

President Obama to Declare 6/26/16 National Equality Day

President Obama called the Supreme Court decision requiring states to recognize same-sex marriage “a victory for America.” Now the Commander in Chief is set to honor those who fought for marriage equality by issuing an executive order declaring 6/26/16 National Equality Day. . .

Read more at: USA Today

The Gay Thing: Explaining Where "Gay Marriage" is in the Constitution

Yes, The Gay Thing again. Get used to it, it's probably going to be newsworthy for a few more days, at least.

One of the counter-arguments I've heard most from anti-marriage equality folks is that there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution. They say this rather triumphantly, which is rather odd. I mean, it's kind of plain to me as a case of equal treatment under the law. Straight couples get scads of legal rights, benefits and responsibilities by getting married, and gay couples didn't. That's pretty simple.

But if that doesn't convince you, this clip is extremely instructive, and not just a little entertaining. This guy knows his stuff, speaks clearly and concisely, and would be very, very difficult to argue with.
 

Proud to be an American: White House in Gay Pride Rainbow Light

Yessssss.

[Excerpt]

The White House Is Decked Out in Rainbow Colors to Celebrate Gay Marriage

The Obama administration blanketed the front wall of the White House in rainbow-colored lights Friday night in a show of support for the Supreme Court decision released earlier in the day that made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. . .

Read more at: National Journal

 

The Gay Thing: Marriage Equality Arrives in All 50 States (Plus DC, Puerto Rico, etc., etc. . .)

Wow, where to start? In this space a couple of days ago, I detailed my thoughts on the then looming big Supreme Court decisions. I was optimistic, but nervous, and figured the Supremes would find a way to "split the baby." As it turns out, nope. We just won.

We won.

Finally. I mean, I know we've made such rapid progress over the last couple of years, it seemed "too fast" to people. But this is a battle firmly rooted in the movement started almost 50 years ago at Stonewall. And Stonewall itself didn't spring fully-formed from nowhere, there were smaller, less visible efforts before that. So, no, it wasn't too fast. Or too soon. And to people it affects, and people who have been involved and following this? It was long overdue.

The good Supremes, in this case, anyway. Image from Huffington Post.

Chief among the tactics of the anti-gay marriage side was delay. If you can't win, delay, and delay some more. Stays and appeals were requested and often attained, even when it was obvious they'd be denied. Anything to drag it out just That. Much. Further. And of course, the process itself has built-in delays. Justice just doesn't move quickly. My mother was surprised I complained about how long it's taken, because again, from her perspective this has been dizzyingly fast, this cultural revolution.

But, even this last stretch has seemed tediously slow. I got married seven years ago tomorrow. We were determined to get in under the wire, during California's initial 2008 marriage legalization. We knew that conservatives would try to shut it down. And naturally they did, crushingly on the same night we elected our first African American president. I followed every part of the process, through the Perry case, through the appeals, and to the last time the issue was before SCOTUS. All of that took five years, nearly to the day. SCOTUS kicked the can down the road, leading up to today, this time exactly two years later.

Admittedly, the past two years have been more fun to follow. One by one (and sometimes much faster than that), we watched the pro-equality states fill up the map. Once powerful groups like The National Organization for Marriage became more and more impotent and desperate. With very few setbacks, we watched the tide turn in our favor. That part was a rather stunning and relatively fast occurrence.

Image from Huffington Post.

I was on pins and needles awaiting the announcement this morning, even not knowing if the announcement would come today or Monday. The butterflies in my stomach were ravenous. Then the announcement came, and I burst into applause. Phone calls rolled in. I scanned Twitter and Facebook and flipped the TV channels. It was awesome! Rainbow flags and happiness all over! Well, not all over. . .FOX "News" was talking nothing but negatives, and the conservative blogosphere has officially lost its freaking mind. My ravenous butterflies have been feasting on their sweet, sweet SADZ ever since.

The huge squadron of GOP candidates for president are almost uniformly talking smack about SCOTUS, some shooting their mouths off about openly defying the court. A bunch of hot air. Sour grapes, personified. And already, we're old news, with one of the New York escaped convicts shot dead. Which--yay, okay, woohoo, you got him--but he's dead. What more is there to say?

Anyway, conservatives, do not expect gay folks and their supporters to calm down that quickly. Don't expect us to stop celebrating and turning metaphoric cartwheels. Don't expect us to be respectful of your "sincerely held beliefs," or to tone down our enjoyment of those of you who are having a hard time with this. This is too big. This is SCHADENFREUDE on an unprecedented scale for our movement. Most of us couldn't tone it down if we tried. If it bugs you, unplug for the weekend. Or the week. Because I will make no apology. I've waited too long for this.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that it is legal for all Americans, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, to marry the people they love. The decision is a historic victory for gay rights activists who have fought for years in the lower courts. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia already recognize marriage equality. The remaining 13 states ban these unions, even as public support has reached record levels nationwide. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

ObamaCare Survives Another Round at SCOTUS

Image from source, MSN

What does it all mean!?!

That's where I am with the trickle of SCOTUS decisions happening this month. The decision on the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) was kind of a no brainer, but a no-brain decision was what I was fearing would happen, given the shocks we've gotten in the past (Voting Rights Act, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby). But, whatever you think about the specifics of the ACA, the case was bollocks, and SCOTUS agreed. Good for them.

But given this big liberal victory, what does it say about the still-to-come decision on gay marriage? Or does it say anything at all? Before today, many were confident that SCOTUS would rule in the affirmative for marriage equality, but that the ACA decision was decidedly more sketchy.  That should be heartening, since the tougher of the two went the right way. But what if there was some sort of trade with the conservative justices? I'll give you your ObamaCare, but we get our way on marriage? It could happen. But I hope not.

Nervous and tired of waiting.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court upholds nationwide health care law subsidies

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans. . . 

Read more at: MSN

Behind the Blogger: Waiting for SCOTUS, and The Other Half

I've resigned myself to blogging much more sporadically than I used to. Discovering--after eight years of doing this--that I'm under no obligation to post anything if not motivated has been kind of liberating. A strong argument could be made for giving up the venture, it being an unpaid, generally unacknowledged effort in the first place. But I enjoy having my own tiny corner of the internets, a place to shout out to the universe about whatever is on my mind.

Though I have much more time this year and this summer to blog, I'm finding that time isn't really the issue. It's a changing world, with social media making it so much easier to consume data, interact and comment on what's going on, and frankly, making it more difficult for me in particular to focus on a single subject at a time. I'm a multi-screen, multi-tasking, fragmented, near-ADD level media consumer these days. I spend far too much time doing all of the above, and with the freedom to do so, I'm still struggling with the whens, the hows, and the whys of having my butt planted in a chair in front of my screens when I could be doing something else.

Even when I force myself to change my venue, going out to get exercise, running errands, working on projects, I find myself with my screens (smart phone, touch-screen car media center) and my headphones, still consuming, still taking in data, stimulation. You'd think that this would spur more blogging activity later, not less. But I have often taken to commenting right there in Facebook, Twitter, the comments section, the letters to the editor. I've found my butt back in that chair when I didn't mean to, and the blog still gets ignored. Sorry about that, dear reader (if you actually exist!).

Summer has begun, and I've got some social obligations on the horizon, so the ramping up of chores and events and errands is about to hit in earnest. The Other Half--currently an absentee around here, as he's still commuting for an indeterminate time--returns after a lengthy time away, at the same time that friends and family are converging at our new home. Also, the Supreme Court of the United States is set to announce life-changing and politically explosive decisions in the space of the next week. Obamacare (of which I may soon be a consumer) and marriage equality (of which I've already consumed!) cases will be decided either Thursday, Friday or Monday.

When The Other Half and I moved to Ohio, we left a state where we were (only recently recognized as) legally married, fully equal to any other married couple, and to a state where we were not recognized. We will also soon be moving into a world where we don't have secured health insurance, with his retirement. So, both decisions are huge for us. It feels odd having such large question marks looming (especially since the question of future careers also loom in front of us), to be decided rather arbitrarily by nine people. Or even one person, if these cases come down to a 5-4 SCOTUS split.

For the most part, I'm relatively optimistic that both cases will be a win for the "liberal" side. I think the ACA/Obamacare case hinges upon a rather obviously partisan, paper-thin argument. A conservative win there would be just as transparently a political decision, more than a well-reasoned legal argument. On the marriage equality argument, a win seems even more certain, with virtually every indicator pointing toward 50-state legal equality for gay couples to marry. But SCOTUS has shocked us before.

Citizens United, Hobby Lobby and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act are all cases that stomp around the edges of my certainty. All of those decisions were WTF moments for people who look at things logically, not just because they were losses for my "side," but because the arguments for them seemed so bad, and the ramifications so obvious. Whenever I see someone say that the court wouldn't decide on my two cases in the conservative affirmative, because of the legal chaos it would create? I think of these other cases, where the chaos was either ignored, or even predicted by SCOTUS as "not going to happen."

If the ACA case goes to the conservatives, millions of Americans could lose their insurance, and people will die, directly because of the decision. That's relatively indisputable when you realize that nobody has a Plan B. If the marriage equality case goes to the conservatives, tens and tens of thousands of gay couples' rights are thrown into question, and the equality of unmarrieds seeking to marry becomes more of a patchwork than it already is. More chaos. But let's face it, would Scalia care?

Still, I'm optimistic. Though the court has in the past made manifestly political decisions, I'm hopeful that with these two decisions, legacy is the more important factor. For some of these justices--given their ages--legacy has got to be important. As they head into the sunset of their careers, do they really want to have deciding negatively on either of these huge cases as the thing they're remembered for? For the relatively youthful Chief Justice, does he want preside over negatively deciding them, only to have to revisit each issue again, and potentially have them overturned, or to have them overturned by the next guy? Either of these scenarios would cloud their legacies. So, that's one hope for me.

Another hope is that both cases will actually be decided on their merits, on legal precedent, and on simple logic. That may be a high hope, but if it happens, we win again. The case against marriage equality is just weak, weak, weak. I've followed this closely for its entire existence, and the one constant is just how bad the legal arguments are against equality. And the ACA case, as previously stated, comes down to intent versus semantics, and there is ample precedent that intent should win out over political sentiment over what "the state" means.

Timing over how these things are released adds to my suspense and frustration, and you have to wonder how much of the SCOTUS calendar is engineered by necessity, and how much is for dramatic effect. From my perspective, gay rights cases in general have been dragged out for as long as is possible by nearly every court. Though it seems like an incredibly fast progressing issue to many, when you follow it, it is glacially slow. But SCOTUS seems determined to wait until as late as they possibly can to tell us their decision. The wait is excruciating. And the timing is going to be momentous either way.

See, religious objectors? Not married in church, but at this
awesome city hall in Palm Springs. No Jesus, no "holy
matrimony." So, chill out.

The Other Half and I got married during the 2008 marriage equality "window," the time period between legal same-sex marriage in California and when Prop 8 shut it down. For five long years, I followed every legal wriggle, and watched the marriage equality progress in other states (including in Nevada where I then lived, and Iowa, The Other Half's home state). And finally, one day before our five-year anniversary--which we were spending back in California with our wedding party in tow--we were fully legal again, thanks to SCOTUS. Now, two years later, I'm waiting again for my home state to join the other two-thirds of the country in recognizing my marriage. And I'm waiting for The Other Half too!

If SCOTUS announces on Thursday or Friday, it will be just ahead of our anniversary again, and right before NYC's gay pride festivities. If it announces on Monday, it will be immediately after The Other Half's return. A positive announcement (hopefully in both cases) will provide a very jubilant summer. A mixed bag is going to hurt, no matter what. My best guess is a slightly mixed bag. I have a feeling we're going to get a mostly liberal victory on both of these things, but somehow tempered by the conservative justices.

With the ACA case, I'm not enough of an expert to know how they'd split the baby. But I'll bet they'll try. With the marriage equality case, I'm betting we get 50 state recognition with--at a minimum--recognition of marriages performed in other states, but possibly leaving in-state marriage up to the states. This would be a loss for our side, but would still have the practical effect of legalizing same-sex marriage everywhere. And that last domino would likely eventually fall. More likely, we'll even win on the "can get married anywhere" side, but conservative justices will muddy the win by tacking on some sort of BS "religious protections," or other minimizing language to coddle the conservatives a bit.

In short (I know, too late), I'm betting that the liberal side gets plenty to celebrate, and a little bit to bitch about, and the conservative side will be dealt big losses, but have a few nuggets to cling to. I hope that my prediction is at least what comes to pass, and that it actually comes out better. A worse case scenario is likely to drag down my summer, and drag me back to some blistering blogging.

Either way, I'm optimistic, but nervous.

The Gay Thing: Texas Continues Assault on Gay People (and the Constitution)

It's no secret that the climate for liberalism in general and gay people in particular is not a friendly one. You could set a Google Alert containing the words "anti-gay" and "Texas," and you'd likely get news just about every day. But it is difficult to take seriously when you see stories like this one.



Cletus McGoober Cecil Bell

Here, you have state legislators passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional, and ridiculous on their face. They wear their animus completely openly, right up front. And the man leading the charge looks like a cartoonish villain, straight out of a B movie. Cecil Bell is his name, and even that sounds invented. "All hat, no cattle" seems to have been invented for him as well.

I'm sorry for my Texan gay friends and family that you have to put up with these indignities. But at least they give it to you with huge doses of comedy.

[Excerpt]

Texas Lawmakers Advance 'Pastor Protection Act,' Continue Full-Fledged Assault On Same-Sex Marriage

Last week, we told you how witnesses compared same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia when they testified in support of a bill that would prevent churches and pastors from being forced to participate in gay weddings. On Monday, the Texas Senate responded by advancing the bill in a 21-10 vote, with one Democrat joining the chamber's 20 Republicans. . .

Read more at: Towleroad

Nightly Show: SCOTUS Gets All Gay

Since I've been away at family events, a rather large thing happened, one that I can't just leave to one or two posts. The Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in the United States. Big, right? So, I thought I'd start with an easy post. Here's a clip from Thursday night's The Nightly Show, where host Larry Wilmore lays out what happened in a succinct (and entertainingly funny) way.

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

Right Wing World On an Anti-Gay Legislating Blitz (And Why it's B.S.)

Let's get this out of the way right at the beginning: The argument that salespeople, shopkeepers, cashiers, clerks, bakers, photographers, caterers, florists, dress sellers, tuxedo renters and the like should have the "religious freedom" to refuse service to a class of people in order to protect their right to "sincerely held beliefs" is bullshit. Straight up bullshit. We've been down this legal path before, with religious justifications behind attempts to wiggle out of civil rights era legislation. It didn't work then, it shouldn't work now. The similarities are unmistakable, and unsurprisingly, those behind these arguments are doing their best to point out why that kind of discrimination was wrong, but this kind of discrimination is legitimate and necessary.

But think about that for a second. Proclaiming your religion and beliefs in cherished, sacrosanct terms, and then using them to justify discriminating against a group of people. What a thing to hang your religion on.

Now that marriage equality is poised to become a 50-state-wide reality (assuming the Supreme Court rules in that direction), religious conservatives have been in a full-blown, desperate panic over how to limit or stall it. Two major legal strategies are spreading like wildfire. One of those is to initiate legislation that effectively ignores or attempts to trump the Supreme Court, but refusing to--and in some cases punishing other legislators and judges who--follow the law. This tack is virtually assured to fail, and serves only to cast  major doubt on these legislators' grasp of the Constitution, and on any claims they may have of "fiscal conservatism." Quite simply, they're going to lose, and they're going to cost their states lots of money in legal fees.

The other tack is to create legal exemptions and loopholes for religious people. This tells the religious person: you don't have to follow Law X because it is against your religion. And this is where writing about this subject starts to get difficult. This is where it hits a tangent prism that confounds me as a writer, as to which direction of wrong to tackle first, and how to tie it all into a bow. So, I'm going to try a bullet-pointed list of problems with why this sort of legal strategy is fraught with problems. This is by no means a comprehensive list, either.

• Religious beliefs need no evidence or justification. They don't even need scriptural citation. For example, there is no implicit Biblical commandment for being against abortion or against selling products or services to gay people. A person could claim a "sincerely held belief" to almost anything. In Hobby Lobby, the beliefs in question didn't even need to match scientific fact that contradicted the beliefs, all that mattered was the belief.
• Though so far, the topic has pretty much been limited to the wedding industry, and the subject of marriage itself, what legal reasoning could restrict these exemptions (or this complaint) to marriage? Why would it only apply to weddings? It isn't hard to conceive that granting special exemptions to this industry and subject would be a foot in the door for exemptions for all sorts of other things. And while this may sound like a slippery slope logical fallacy, I have seen no argument that would restrict these laws in any way to this specific subject.
• Christianity is not the only religion whose beliefs would need to be respected if such a set of laws were passed. It would apply to all religions, presumably major established ones, as well as cults, and brand new, just-born religions. Given that no evidence or scripture is even needed to claim religious belief, an enterprising individual could invent his own religion on the spot, in an attempt to skirt the law.
• Gay marriage, homosexuality and the wedding industry are by no means the only category of law that could be claimed in conflict with "sincerely held belief." The fact that this category is claiming most of the attention in the news right now shows the transparent nature of the push: though they'll go to great pains to avoid mentioning gay people or same-sex marriage in legislation, it's that purposeful avoidance of naked animus that will make these exemptions so vague as to have trucks driven through them.
• The obvious cause of this new flurry of legislation is religious opposition to same-sex marriage. But these are civil marriages, legal contracts. Not "holy matrimony." These are not marriages in the name of the religions objector's church, or in the name of the objector's God. They are, legally, no more religious in nature than a business contract or a building permit, unless the participants attach their religious beliefs to it. The religion of the formal occasion professional, or the government clerk servicing the civil contract are utterly irrelevant.
• Selling goods or services to a wedding party have not--prior to the advent of same-sex marriage--been seen as endorsement of, or participation in the event the goods or services were used for. If they had been, we'd have already seen "sin checklists" that quiz brides and grooms about infidelity, religious compatibility, prior divorces, and countless other attempts to root out sin. Such a thing would have been seen as outrageous and preposterous in the industry, until now. Which should be telling.
• There is an inherent irony involved in a religious push that simultaneously attempts to shield one group of people from violating their "sincerely held beliefs," while barring other people from following their own. These laws would ignore the customer's beliefs, by trumping them with the business person's (or civil clerk's) beliefs. It forces the customer to follow the seller's religion, or to be refused service. That the people behind such laws are very likely the same people who would be most paranoid about "Sharia Law" ought to be another red flag.
• All of this legislation effectively ignores religions that are in favor of same-sex marriage, and/or gay people in general. These religions do exist, and are growing in number.

 

Anti-gay Texas legislator and cartoon

character, Cecil Bell.

There is so much more that is wrong about what's going on here, that I could double or triple the length of this article. I'll continue to try to get more succinct in future attempts, believe me. Unfortunately, the "truthiness" behind this kind of legislation is succinct. It's simple, to be more precise, and strikes a chord. Or a cord, actually, a safety cord on a parachute that gets anti-gay religious conservatives safely around having to acknowledge that gay people are attaining civil equality in any area. People who have a knee-jerk desire to stamp out these kind of gains very often--nearly always--are blind to the unintended consequences of their proposed legislation. They simply want to stop it, or barring that, delay it as long as possible. But the reality is, this isn't just a Pandora's Box they're opening, it's a series of them. A series of nesting Pandora's Boxes. And it makes their opposition to Sharia Law untenable. A better writer than me should focus on that last part. Maybe then, we could show them why this path would be a huge mistake, not just for gay people, but for those with "sincerely held beliefs."

Here are a few stories going on right now, regarding attempts by religious conservatives to legally discriminate against gay people:

Texas: Anti-Gay Marriage Bill Scrutinized in Committee
Indiana: Tech leaders to Pence: Veto 'religious freedom' bill
California: California Seeks to Head Off Initiative to Execute Gays


 

The Gay Thing: Oklahoma Bills Seek to Punish Dissent, Block Gay Marriage

Now that same-sex marriage has pretty much become inevitable in the United States, and is indeed reality in the majority of states, a frantic backlash has begun to emerge. New proposals, bills and laws--filled with obvious, naked animus--have been popping up like weeds. The fact that these proposed "fixes" to the perceived problem are quite obviously extremely mean spirited, anti-American, and blatantly unconstitutional doesn't seem to stem the tide.

Doesn't she look pleasant?
Rep. Sally Kern (R-Obviously)
Image from source, TulsaWorld

At the root of all of this is hatred, which has been wrapped in religion, excused by it, in fact. These legislators and their supporters will steadfastly insist that this is "different" from the way interracial couples used to be treated. They'll rhapsodize about how wrong it was to treat different races with discrimination, and then excuse the very same behavior toward gay couples. They drag God and religion into the mix, when in fact, this has nothing to do with their religion at all. It's a manufactured, phony, artificial complaint. Only knee-jerk, fact-free "truthiness" gives it an air of credence at all.

Here's the deal: civil marriage isn't a religious issue in the first place. Though there are religions that are supportive of it (and hey, legislators, what about them?), religion is utterly beside the point. Civil marriage is a legal contract, as religious in nature at the clerk level as is a building permit or business license. The clerk's, officiant's or civil servant's participation in this contract hasn't got any more religious component than whatever the couple themselves bring to it (if any). It can't be against their religion, because it doesn't have anything to do with their religion.

It's not different. The hatred is the same.
Image from America.gov.

Even less can be said for any wedding/formal industry professional selling a product or service. They are not participating in the event at all, they're selling a cake, a dress, renting a tux or reception hall, taking pictures or recording video. That's not "participating in," or "celebrating." It's doing their jobs. Moreover, there is no Biblical verse (and we're usually talking about Christian objections in this country) against selling a product or service to "sinners." By that book, we are all sinners, and by being in that industry, there is a 100% chance of selling to people who are not of the same exact faith as the seller.

The disingenuousness is really starting to make me crazy. For decades, centuries even, people have been getting married in all faiths, no faiths, mixed faiths. There are re-marriages, open marriages, marriages of convenience, shotgun weddings. In some states, cousins marrying, minors marrying, death row convicts marrying! But--horrors--gay people marrying? All of the sudden, bakers are so religiously delicate, they get the vapors at baking a cake for a customer. It. Is. A. Bogus. Issue.

It's a newly invented argument, to allow certain people to legally discriminate against others. And it's being disguised as "religious freedom." It doesn't hurt that it doubles as the fulfillment of the martyr complex many religious people seem to have. But to see elected officials trot out ridiculous legislation that seeks to fire people, punish people, and scream to the rafters "you're not the boss of me, US Supreme Court!?" Well, it takes balls, I'll give 'em that. But they're going to lose, they're going to lose big. And they are going to look really awful in retrospect. History will treat them like it treated the worst bigots of the Civil Rights Era.

[Excerpt]

Bills targeting same-sex marriage advanced by Oklahoma House panel
 
Bills discontinuing state marriage licenses and forbidding state and local government employees, including judges, from complying with federal rulings on same-sex marriage advanced from the Oklahoma House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. . .

Read more at: Tulsa World

Scott Walker Comment Might Save ObamaCare from The Supremes?

Oops. Image from source, Think Progress

Interesting theory. It would be icing on the cake if The Affordable Care Act was cemented by the offhand, callous comment of an extra-douchey conservative hero.

[Excerpt]

How A Stray Remark By A Republican Governor Could Save Obamacare From The Supreme Court
 
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) plan if the Supreme Court reinterprets Obamacare to take health care away from hundreds of thousands of his constituents is to “do nothing,” according to a local news report, even though he and his fellow Wisconsin Republicans have the power to save these individuals from that fate. This may not be a particularly surprising revelation, as Republican elected officials throughout the country have done little to conceal their disdain for the Affordable Care Act, yet Walker’s willingness to admit this fact could have the ironic result of saving Obamacare from the justices. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

The Gay Thing: Gay Marriage Comes to Kansas; Ban Struck Down in South Carolina

When the 6th Circuit Court (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee) decided to uphold the bans on same-sex marriage in their jurisdiction, anti-gay forces got a rare boost. Except for two or three outlier decisions in the last two years, marriage equality has racked up dozens of wins, culminating with four Circuit Courts ruling in their favor, and the Supreme Court electing to leave it that way. Then came the 6th. While many, if not most of the court watchers on both sides figured a Circuit split would happen, it didn't stop the sting on one side and the jubilation on the other.

Image from source, Yahoo!

But it turns out, the 6th hasn't changed things in other marriage equality cases. Gay couples can now marry in Kansas. And in South Carolina--barring an extraordinary occurrence--will have it soon. We are soon to be left with the Deep South (which somehow has spread upward all the way past Ohio to Michigan), the Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska and Texas. And some of those could topple at any time.

The smart money is on the Supreme Court taking the 6th Circuit cases (though some say they'll send it back to an en banc review), with some sort of decision by the end of June, 2015. Meanwhile, some of these individual states will go into the "win" column, and at least one other Circuit could rule, probably siding with the 6th. But by the time that happens, the Supremes may very well have ruled. Just about everyone I've read seems to think our chances are good at SCOTUS, though not assured. With over 2/3 of the states now experience marriage equality, it is difficult to imagine that SCOTUS will shut it down. Especially since it was their actions that gave us a large chunk of those states.

[Excerpt]

Gay marriage advocates get victories in Kansas, South Carolina
 
Gay marriage advocates won another two victories on Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Kansas to become the 33rd U.S. state where same-sex couples can wed and a federal judge struck down South Carolina's ban. . .

Read more at: Yahoo! News