Given Ken Mehlman's (former RNC chair) recent announcement that he is gay, I thought this might be a good time to take stock of some of the supporters of marriage equality, and then a few key opponents.
Supporters:
Ken Mehlman Dick Cheney Bill Clinton Laura Bush Al Gore Arnold Schwarzenegger Jerry Brown Michael Bloomberg Ed Koch Howard Dean John Kerry Lincoln Chafee Harold Ford Jr. Ted Olson Nancy Pelosi Elizabeth Hasselbeck Mary Matalin The American Bar Association The AFL-CIO The Anti-Defamation League The American Academy of Pediatrics
Most of the above supporters once opposed marriage equality, or at least were silent.
Opponents:
Sarah Palin John McCain Bill O'Reilly Barack Obama
The President is on the wrong side of history with this one.
I've been thinking a lot about hatred and bigotry, in light of the comments on this post. It seems that we all have some latent, if not blatant, inherent bigotry. Last night, Scott posted a link to Ron Paul's comments about why Park51 should be allowed near Ground Zero. Scott picked one quote, I pick this one:
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam--the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
I have been thinking about my lifelong, absolute, defense of First Amendment rights. In case you have forgotten, there are five:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And yet, I am somehow disquieted. It's because of the Preamble to the Constitution, which says:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (emphasis mine)
What do we say about religions, and religious "idealism" that deny liberty to those amoungst us? How do we balance the right to practice one's religion when members try to force some parts of that religion down other people's throats?
There was never a question that the Prop 8 case would end up in front of the Supremes at some point in time. A facet appeared last winter over whether cameras could appear in the courtroom, and the Supremes voted no. This week, Judge Walker's decision will be in front of the 9th Circuit, as the homophobes endeavor to keep the marriage ban in place pending appeal. If the 9th Circuit doesn't intervene, the homophobes may go to the Supremes for a stay. This week.
The question for the Supremes will be the standing of the petitioners. The Supremes would not be ruling on the merits of the case: not the findings, not the judgment. Just strictly on the basis of whether or not the petitioners (aka the homophobes) are damaged by gay marriages being allowed to be performed in California.
The homophobe standing comes from the fact that they sponsored the ballot initiative, and therefore were declared "defendant-interveners". But they would have to show the Supremes that they would suffer harm, and this in light of the fact that both Governor Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown have said that they have no interest in preventing gay marriages. The irony is that "standing" is least likely to be accorded, in general, by the most conservative members of SCOTUS. Therefore, while they may find the idea of gay marriage abhorrent, they will need to deny the stay to be in conformity with the legal precedents they have applied to previous cases.
I don't understand how the homophobes would be harmed by gay marriages being performed in California. I honestly don't understand. Do they think that if they drove past a reception they'd get pelted with wedding cake slices? In a state besieged by economic woes, do they believe they'd be irreparably harmed by the monies collected by the state in licenses and taxes? Especially taxes paid on all those other money-generators: halls, caterers, bakers, clothing, hotels, rental cars, florists, invitations, photographers, disc jockeys/bands, jewelers, GIFTS!!! Not to mention the dollars spend from out-of-area guests who will likely stay a few days and spend even more dollars. Are these haters somehow harmed if the gay couple living down the block for the past 10 years is suddenly married?
I intellectually understand that there are haters in this world who are opposed to gay marriage. But can someone PLEASE explain to me how they are directly harmed?
First, an apology. It seems I jumped the gun yesterday on the gay marriage issue. AS Leah and Tmess rightly pointed out, gays cannot marry in California until next week, leaving time for the wingut homophobes to appeal. I was at work, found it on my Facebook feed, and was so overcome with joy that I didn't check it out. I believe the tide is turning, though, and a few years from now gay marriage will be legal everywhere except Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming and Texas.
Champagne corks are popping in the Golden State. A federal judge in California has lifted a temporary stay of his landmark decision striking down Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that put a halt to weddings.
Same-sex couples across the state are expected to begin lining up for wedding licenses again nearly two years after voters narrowly approved Prop 8. Still, it’s unclear how long couples will be able to take advantage of the restored right to marry. Prop 8 proponents who are appealing the Prop 8 decision are also likely to appeal today’s ruling on resuming marriages to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. - Gay Politics
The Kentucky Senate, reacting to a divisive comment by Republican Rand Paul, has adopted a resolution declaring any form of discrimination to be inconsistent with American values.
Louisville Democratic Sen. Gerald Neal introduced the resolution Friday during a special session on the state budget. It was adopted without objection in the predominantly Republican chamber.
What comes to my mind as fitting for Rand Paul is the scene in NYPD Blue where Arthur Fancy takes Andy Spiowicz out to dinner at a rib joint.
On to California and education. The State Senate passed, 25-5, a piece of legislation that I cannot imagine will have a problem in the State Assembly, nor getting Ah-nold's signature. It's SB 1451, and you can read it here. Best part:
This bill would require the state board, upon completion of the social content review, to inform the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Education, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Education, and the Secretary of Education of content that it interprets to be as a result of a specified action by the Texas Board of Education. The bill would also require the state board, upon the next adoption of the History-Social Science Curriculum Framework, to ensure that the framework is constituent with specified standards governing instructional materials.
The biggest problem with the Texas changes to text books is that they buy so many that often publishers cater to Texas, and then other states are somewhat forced into that group of books. However, California buys a similar amount of text books, and now, Texas can stand alone in the evangelical wilderness.
Which brings us to health care and Vermont. In the Health Care legislation enacted by the Feds, states are allowed to set up their own systems. Vermont is going to try to take them up on it. Note: they are going to get sued by every insurance company, drug company, medical device company and related types doing business in the state, but Vermont has made its stand. Full legislation here. Note that the governor opposed it, but allowed it to pass without his signature.
First paragraph, first page:
Subject: Health care, universal access, reform; department organization
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to establish the goal of universal access to essential health care services in Vermont through a publicly financed, integrated, regional health care delivery system, provide mechanisms for cost containment in the system, and provide a framework, schedule, and process to achieve that goal.
The original bill was sent to committee, and the next 43 pages were x-ed out. But just look at where they picked up:
(1) It is the policy of the state of Vermont to ensure universal access to, and coverage for, essential health services for all Vermonters. All Vermonters must have access to comprehensive, quality health care. Systemic barriers must not prevent people from accessing necessary health care. All Vermonters must receive affordable and appropriate health care at the appropriate time, in the appropriate setting, and health care costs must be contained over time.
(2) The health care system must be transparent in design, efficient in operation, and accountable to the people it serves. The state must ensure public participation in the design implementation, evaluation and accountability mechanisms in the health care system.
I'm a fan. It seems from my reading of the legislation that they're going to be putting the details together with a lot of input and help. My plan is to find out how one becomes part of that process. I'm willing to move to Vermont. And once the plan is in place, like many others who retired from medicine still young enough to pick another career, I'd gladly go back to practice. Back to a patient-centric practice where I could provide care without spending half of every day fighting insurance companies. PURE BLISS!
UPDATE 12:30 pm: Open Left is reporting that Ben Nelson is now a YES.
Irrespective of the House vote, or the White House position, to get to the Senate floor, DADT repeal has to get past the Senate Armed Services Committee. Using data from Open Left and The Advocate, here's where the list stands at this moment: ONE VOTE SHORT. (Democrats in blue, Republicans in red)
YES
Daniel Akaka (HI) Evan Bayh (IN) Mark Begich (AK) Jeff Bingaman (NM) Roland Burris (IL) Susan Collins (ME) Kay Hagan (NC) Ted Kaufman (DE) Carl Levin (MI) Joe Lieberman (CT) Claire McCaskill (MO) Bill Nelson (FL) Jack Reed (RI) Mark Udall (CO)
NO
Scott Brown (MA) Richard Burr (NC) Saxby Chambliss (GA) Lindsey Graham (SC) Jim Inhofe (OK) George LeMieux (FL) John McCain (AZ) Jeff Sessions (AL) John Thune (SD) David Vitter (LA) Jim Webb (VA) Roger Wicker (MS)
Update: Kendrick Meek's campaign is asking if Crist and Rubio would end DADT. He has a petition to end Don't Ask Don't Tell here.
On Monday, the White House announced it would back a vote to repeal the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which has prevented gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military for nearly two decades. In the past, both Governor Crist and Speaker Rubio have stood with the far right and opposed the repeal of this discriminatory policy that dishonors our men and women in uniform.
"Floridians deserve to know - Would Governor Crist and Speaker Rubio vote against the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" pending in Congress right now? Since 1994, over 13,000 service members have been discharged under this law. For years, Kendrick has stood with our brave service members and fought to repeal this discriminatory policy. Now, Kendrick is the lone progressive running against two conservatives. Do the governor and Speaker Rubio still stand with the far right instead of our men and women in uniform?" asked Adam Sharon, Kendrick Meek For Florida communications director.
A Gallup poll released earlier this month found that 70 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
In a major breakthrough just in time to energize the Democratic voter base for the fall, the White House has given its blessing to a compromise repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military. The measure, which could face a vote this week, would allow the Pentagon to move forward with its review of the best way to end the Clinton-era policy.
The change would come in the form of an amendment to the defense spending measure, a process which the White House's Office of Management and Budget said late last night it will support. The Pentagon also backs using this method while it completes the review, OMB Director Peter Orszag said in a letter to Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is working on the issue on the Senate side. Orszag said the amendment would allow for "comprehensive review, enable the Department of Defense to assess the results of the review, and ensure that the implementation of the repeal is consistent with standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention." Democrats on the Hill accepted the compromise last night.
Patrick Murphy should introduce today, with a vote on Thursday.
For those expecting the Obama administration to make legitimate progress on the gay rights front, surprise! For the rest of us, well, it's not like the signs indicated anything different. Start here:
Robert Gates serves at the pleasure of the President, there is no doubt that this is the administration position. This means that the administration will not push for Congressional action this session, and won't reintroduce until at least next year, although likely later, in an environment that will most likely be less receptive then the current Congress. Likely, we're looking at 2013 at the earliest.
Here's where the train comes off the tracks: if Congress were to repeal DADT this year, there would still be time for the military to determine and implementation plan. It's one of the things the current study is considering. Both the study and the legislation could proceed simultaneously on dual tracks. Congress could, within the repeal, set a date for implementation that allows the military to determine their implementation plan, and therefore give them an extra six months.
Face it, when Harry Truman integrated the US military by Executive Order in 1948, implementation took a while. But it was possible to START. (Shout out to the Tuskegee Airmen.)
When a major change: like integration, or Voting Rights, or anything else where the moral attempt to overcome the objections of the haters, it takes time and goes in fits and starts. But there is something worthwhile about standing up for people with fewer rights: things like "morality" "decency" "ethics" and (oh yeah) the part of the Constitution that's called the 14th Amendment. A lot of us stand for these things NOT because they benefit us directly, but because we believe that Americans are Americans: not black Americans nor gay Americans, just plain Americans and we don't understand why they don't have the same rights as we, straight whites (or whatever) do.
Obama spoke in his inaugural address about how his dad couldn't get served within walking distance of the Capitol. Those horrid days are gone now (except in Arizona) - gays should have the same rights. ALL of them, including the right to openly and proudly serve our country.
What about the woman on the right? She's the daughter of the woman on the left.
The woman on the right will be the keynote speaker at National Equality Week at George Washington University next month. She's also been outspoken in her support of gay rights. Her mother, not so much. Until now.
These photos are from NOH8, the anti-prop 8 group in California.
The two women offered to pose for the photos, in a show of absolute support, and to have them used by NOH8.
The woman on the right is Meghan McCain, the woman on the left is Cindy McCain. Daughter and wife of John McCain. Yes, that John.
On Monday morning, January 11, 2010, Chief U.S. DistrictJudge Vaughn Walker will begin arguments in what will most assuredly be the definitive case in same-sex marriage.
Arguing the case for the plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo will be an interesting legal duo, attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies. You may (or may not) recall that these two men argued opposite sides of the Gore/Bush case which decided the 2000 election. Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson is known as a rock-solid member of the conservative legal movement. But sometimes, the Constitution trumps political ideology...
They stated in a press release right after the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8:
“Yesterday, the California Supreme Court said that the California Constitution compels the State to discriminate against gay men and lesbians who have the temerity to wish to express their love and commitment to one another by getting married,” Olson said. “These are our neighbors, coworkers, teachers, friends, and family, and, courtesy of Prop 8, California now prohibits them from exercising this basic, fundamental right of humanity. Whatever discrimination California law now might permit, I can assure you, the United States Constitution does not.”
“Mr. Olson and I are from different ends of the political spectrum, but we are fighting this case together because Proposition 8 clearly and fundamentally violates the freedoms guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution,” Boies said. “Every American has a right to full equality under the law. Same sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights as straight couples. Any alternative is separate and unequal and relegates gays and lesbians to a second class status.” . . .
Today’s lawsuit argues that the California’s Constitution -- as amended by Proposition 8 -- violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a provision with which all state laws must comply. Relegating gays and lesbians to “separate but unequal” domestic partnerships violates the U.S. Constitution, the suit states. California’s domestic partnership law is not an adequate substitute for access to the State’s institution of civil marriage, the suit states, because domestic partnerships do not provide all of the legal and government benefits and protections that marriage does.
“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.
The trial is going to be televised live to several courthouses in California, Oregon, Washington, and New York. Video of the trial will be posted on YouTube several hours later. This, of course, has the Defendant-Intervenes reeling and prompted a last-ditch effort to Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court to halt the cameras.
Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign stated, “Many supporters of Proposition 8 who are being dragged into this case are fearful about being questioned about their personal, political and religious believes on the stand and having that televised.”
The American Foundation for Equal Rights - which has brought the case on behalf of the plaintiffs - stated:
“Those who want to ban gay marriage spent millions of dollars to reach the public with misleading ads, rallies and news conferences during the campaign to pass Prop. 8. We are curious why they now fear the publicity they once craved,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Apparently transparency is their enemy, but the people deserve to know exactly what it is they have to hide.”
One defendant-intervene, Hak-Shing William Tam, petitioned the court to remove him after petitioning the court to include him. "I dedicated the majority of my working hours between January 2008 and November 2008 toward qualifying Proposition 8 for the ballot and campaigning for its enactment," he told the judge in May in urging to be named an official party to the lawsuit.
He didn't mention cameras, though, as his reason ror wanting to be removed. It is more likely he fears that his anti-gay bias will harm the case. It seems that Tam wrote a letter to his church members stating:
"One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hands ... Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals."
Really. "Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex." Every child. He said that.
But Ted Olson sees it differently.
In a column by Michael Smerconish in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Olson rightly pointed out during our conversation that "society suffers no benefit" from outlawing same-sex marriage. There isn't any "real basis," he said, for the belief that legalizing such relationships would invite the deterioration of heterosexual marriage or encourage polygamy. Nor does his case compel Christianity - or any other religion with conflicting tenets - to recognize gay marriage.
"What we're arguing does not prevent a religious organization from having their own rules or their own standards or their own principles," Olson noted. "But we're talking about a civic relationship recognized by the state, and it should not be denied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation." In other words, Olson is motivated by principles of limited government as well as individual freedom.
What the suit charges is that Proposition 8:
Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.
Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”
Discriminates on the basis of gender.
Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
And through Proposition 8, California distinguishes its residents into 4 separate and unequal groups:
Opposite-sex couples who have full marriage rights
Same-sex couples who have no marriage rights.
Same-sex couples who were married between June and November 2009 whose marriages are recognized by the state; however, they have no right to remarry if divorced or widowed.
Same-sex couples married in another state who may petition for state recognition of their marriage.
It's interesting to note that while one of the stalwarts of the conservative legal movement advocates for gay marriage, our elected officials are - not surprisingly - silent on the issue.
In doing a search on Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives website, the last mention she had of 'gay marriage' was Thursday, May 15, 2008 when the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was constitutional. She was pleased. Harry Reid has never put the two words together.
President Obama supported gay marriage when he was running for the Senate in Illinois.
In a candidate survey in 1996, he responded to a question by writing "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." He was also asked if he supported a document called The Marriage Resolution, which states "RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage." In his own hand he wrote: "I would support such a resolution."
And then he found religion and decided he wasn't for gay marriage after all.
Oh well.
At least it's comforting to see that true conservatives actually understand the concept of government intervention into our lives and of the separation of church and state.
Barry Goldwater said it best:
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
The reality is, denying civil rights should not be put up to popular vote or legislative mood. The case is now rightly where it belongs - in the courts.
Our elected leaders will stay in the background and fully support or sadly shrug 'oh well' at whatever the final result is.
While a lot of our attention, as Americans, has been focused on health care and the economy, there is something pretty ugly going on relative to gays halfway around the world.
As an aside, if you're angry at the most recent Senate legislation, sign this petition, you'll feel better when you add in a personal note.
Now, on to the horror show. Uganda is trying to pass legislation that would impose a death sentence for people who are gay, imprison their friends and family for up to 7 years for not reporting them, and sending landlords to jail for up to 3 years for renting to gay people.
This is horrible and tragic on its face, but is made worse by the support it is getting from a branch of the United States Republican Party. No lie.
We've written before (includes must-see video) about "The Family" and their C-Street house. This is a group of men (yup, no women), who are predominantly Republican (with a very few token Democrats), predominantly evangelicals (with a few Catholics), and whose most famous members are current or ex-members of Congress. They work towards a world that fundamentally discriminates against everyone except rich white guys of the "right" religions.
Let's name some of them (not an inclusive list): Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Sam Brownbeck, Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, Mike McIntyre, Heath Shuler, Mark Pryor, and even the anti-choice pair of Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts.
You might be interested to know that David Bahati, the Ugandan official ostensibly behind the legislation, did not come to this idea on his own. He has both direct help (in the form of Family emissaries) and financial help from the Family boys. Sometimes they even travel around the world on government money (yup, as usual, YOUR tax dollars) to help spread the word on discriminating against all the rest of us.
Jeff Sharlet wrote a book on The Family, and derived his information from living amoung them. He recently granted an interview to NPR, and you can read it here. It details everything I've written above. And more. When you read the interview, you'll see the relationship of members of "The Family" to the "work" of Hitler, amoung others. Their words, not mine.
I hope you will read the interview, especially if you haven't read Sharlet's book.
I am heartbroken over health care. There is an incredible amount of blame to go around. But the Democrats who failed at health reform are nowhere near the class of the Republicans (and, sadly, yes, their few Democratic allies) who would hang someone for having been born gay. They are unable to sell their direct murder venom in the US. Yet. They rely on baby steps of DOMA and voting down gay marriage and more covert forms of repression against gays, women, minorities...you know the list. You may think that this is a world away and cannot happen here. That's what people have said historically as murder, ethnic cleansing, holocausts, inquisitions and the rest start spreading.
So while I, and many others, rail against our fellow Democrats for their failures, we need to remember that the alternative is far worse. Murder because of how someone is born is a crime against humanity, and these people must be stopped. I don't know how, but calling Susan Rice ((212) 415-4062) to see about bringing UN action against Uganda if they pass the legislation is probably a place to start.
So there you have it, people were fired from CHOP for their refusal on religious grounds from taking the seasonal flu vaccine.
Interesting from several perspectives. First, what rights do employers have when their employees won't follow the rules? It's not just a vaccine, it's the taxi drivers at airports who refused to take fares if the passengers had liquor in their baggage.
Second and more specifically, in a hospital environment, what right do employees have to endanger the patients with whom they come in contact? Without a vaccine, a hospital worker can easily infect already ill people (in this case children) when they are infectious but asymptomatic. An acute infection could be fatal to a sick child: should the concern of the hospital be the safety of their charges, or the religious freedom of the employees?
My opinion is after the jump, but before that, what's yours?
We haven't written anything about gay marriage since the Maine vote early last month. A lot has happened, so let's catch up.
First, there was a ruling in Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service. It was a narrow ruling, but basically upheld that gay public employees who were married in other states needed to be granted spousal benefits in New York State. It was narrow in that it did not cover full recognition of these marriages.
Next, the anti-DOMA lawsuit we've all be waiting for has finally be filed:
The lawsuit was brought by seven gay couples and three widowers, all of whom were married in Massachusetts after it became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage in 2004.
In court documents filed Tuesday, the couples say the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because it denies them access to federal benefits given to other married couples, including pensions, health insurance and the ability to file joint tax returns. They argue that the law "eviscerates" the historic power of the states to establish criteria for marriage.
About time this was filed, and based on the 14th amendment, it has a good chance of winning. Section 1:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Then, we have Barbara Ann Radnofsky, candidate for Attorney General of Texas, and a lawyer. She contends that a clause in the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has some bad ramifications for married straight people. Subsection B reads:
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages. [...]
Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.
"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said. "Yes, I believe the clear language of B bans all marriages, and this is indeed a huge mistake."
In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling, which came in a divorce petition involving two men who were married in Massachusetts in 2006.
And finally, from California, we have a petition drive to get a ballot initiative in front of the people which would ban divorce. This sign explains it all:
You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone
The idea, put forth by John Marcotte, is founded on the ideal that if marriage is so sacred, let's make sure it is SO sacred you can't get out of it. Or as he said:
Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more.
I love this as a, um, shove to all those hypcrites who believe in legislating against others but live in the "do as I say, not as I do" world.
There was never a question that the Prop 8 case would end up in front of the Supremes at some point in time. A facet appeared last winter over whether cameras could appear in the courtroom, and the Supremes voted no. This week, Judge Walker's decision will be in front of the 9th Circuit, as the homophobes endeavor to keep the marriage ban in place pending appeal. If the 9th Circuit doesn't intervene, the homophobes may go to the Supremes for a stay. This week. 
See the picture on the left? 
