Gay Rights

by

Indiana’s “Religious Freedom” law is different

The outcry over Indiana’s new law allowing discrimination is valid. Arguments that “other states have similar laws” is not.

Many states have religious freedom laws, and they’re good laws. They prohibit the government from interfering with one’s religious practice, as provided for in the 1st Amendment.bigots For instance, such laws protect a Catholic school that only wants to hire Catholics to teach their classes. That makes sense, doesn’t it? It’s the same concept that says a church cannot be forced to perform a marriage they disagree with. These laws often apply to various non-profit charities and businesses where it makes a difference who gets treated and/or employed. Charities often have religious foundations, for instance.

Indiana’s law is different.  Indiana’s law explicitly allows for-profit businesses to have these same rights. Thus, Jim-Bob’s restaurant is allowed under this law to discriminate when it violates Jim-Bob’s personal religious views. “Sorry, my religion says no coloreds can sit at my lunch counter.” (This, of course, is exactly what we predicted would happen when the Supreme Court decided the terrible Hobby Lobby case, giving corporations a religion.)

This is unprecedented. Here in Pennsylvania, for instance, our “religious freedom” law specifically prohibits for-profit businesses from doing this.

If you want to open a business, you need to open it to everyone. Don’t give me that tired libertarian argument that the marketplace will solve this. It didn’t do that for a hundred years before civil rights laws were passed, and clearly it is not doing that now or else we wouldn’t even be discussing this. In some small communities, there may only be one store within close distance, so don’t go arguing that this is a minor inconvenience.

Bigotry has no place in our laws, and the government should be supporting the people who are being discriminated against, and not those who wish to discriminate.

by

But Sharia Law Wants the Same Thing…

Not too long ago, Alabama residents passed a law saying that Sharia Law will never become part of Alabama’s laws, by gum, despite the fact that it would never happen anyway and such a thing is already prohibited by the Constitution which, you know, has been around for 225 years or so. There’s that very first amendment which clearly prohibits the establishment of any religious law in the country.  MOORE TEN COMMANDMENTS

But gosh darn it, the Founding Fathers didn’t mean to include Christian law! That’s a whole ‘nother thing! (Secret answer: Yes they did, in very specific terms.)

Judge Roy Moore is a shining example of how one can graduate law school and still be as stupid about the law as the day you go in. He’s the guy you may remember who was slapped down by the federal courts and lost his job because he installed a huge monument to the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

Down there in Alabama, however, they’re still fighting the Civil War. They won’t acknowledge that the Constitution applies to them. So they said “screw you, yankees” and surrounded Judge Moore with the traditional flag of Traitors to This Country (the Confederate one) and praised him mightily. They then elected him to the Alabama Supreme Court, where he now is telling people that despite the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, they don’t have to accept gay marriage in Alabama because God’s law supercedes the Constitution.

He just don’t learn, do he?  “This power over marriage, which came from God under our organic law, is not to be redefined by the United States Supreme Court or any federal court,” Justice Moore told “Fox News Sunday.”  This raises an important question: Is organic law free-range?*

The federal courts have said “Nuh uh” and many of the lower courts in Alabama are now allowing people in love to get married, despite statues of Jesus weeping all over Montgomery. Moore still insists that his god told him to hate gay people, and that was more important than a federal judge.

I can’t wait for the Contempt charges to be filed against this guy. Pass the popcorn!

The ironic part of all of this? Sharia Law also prohibits gay marriage. So it’s not the result of the law that is important to them — it’s which god gets to decide it.

 

*Trick question!  There is no such thing as “organic law” except what Judge Moore pulled out of his ass.

by

Idiot Who Wants to Swear Oath to Constitution Has Never Read It

Dr. Ben Carson, who has never studied Constitutional Law in his life but has studied medicine and still thinks life begins at conception, recently declared that Congress has the Constitutional authority to remove judges just because they don’t like them.

Most Americans aren’t aware of this Congressional power “because they don’t know the Constitution,” he said.  Exactly where in the Constitution is this power? He didn’t explain. Probably because it’s not there, I dunno.    Obamacare-27

Anyway, Bennie here thinks that judges who rule in favor of gay marriage should be removed because they made an unconstitutional decision. Let’s see, who decides whether a law is unconstitutional according to our Constitution? Is it the judicial branch? No, of course not. It’s Dr. Ben Carson.

Carson, who also believes Obamacare is Unconstitutional, has previously spoken about how wonderful it would be if Congress loved the Constitution like they used to. He then cited Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd as shining examples of people who loved the Constitution — you know, those two senators who were members of the KKK and believed that the Constitution only applied to white people. Those guys. (Yes, you can now do some psychoanalysis on Dr. Ben if you wish.)

And this guy is on the short list of Republican Presidential possibilities.

I am not making this up.

by

Man in Dress Says Gay Marriage will Harm his Non-marriage

A man wearing a dress in Italy today declared that even though he has never had sex and is not married, allowing all people to be able to marry the person they love will destroy families.

Citing the supernatural, the man argued with a straight face that if people in love create loving, caring families, that such a thing would cause loving, caring families to be ruined.  papa

Surprisingly, his audience did not laugh him out of the room.  Perhaps they were just being kind to the old fellow, dressed as he was in a flowing white gown and a quaint little cap, which he said was required by the aforementioned supernatural being who spoke to him in his head and which no one else could hear or see.

Ironically, in other areas the man was completely coherent and spoke passionately about the evils of unbridled capitalism, the importance of caring for those less fortunate, and how we should all love each other no matter what.  Apparently, the magical being who speaks to him said, “Whoa there, kid, let’s not go too far.  Sure, love them all but don’t let them love each other if you know what I mean.”

 

 

by

The battle is over

One of my most common posts was the “State Joins the 21st Century” whenever another state reached marriage equality, but it’s been happening so quickly now that I’ve missed quite a few.map

As I said way back when, this is inevitable.  Admittedly, I didn’t expect it to happen so fast, but I’m glad it did.

Hopefully, the reactionary Supreme Court won’t ruin everything.  It’s doubtful they will, since it was their decision in striking down the “Defense of Marriage Act” that led to this … but I am a pessimist when it comes to the Court, which seems determined to help turn our country into a religious oligarchy.

In general though, the battle is over.  Republicans have given up arguing about it except for the most radical religious nuts who think that allowing people in love to get married will lead to the apocalypse.

by

South Carolina joins the 21st Century; Senator Graham has the vapors

Upon learning that his home state of South Carolina would be forced to allow gays and lesbians to marry, Senator Lindsay Graham waved his hands before his face, said “Goodness gracious me!  I think I have the vapors!” and then fainted.  He suffered minor injuries as he hit his head on the closet in which he resides.  Lindsey-Graham

For the rest of us, it was a day of cheering, as yet another federal court has ruled in favor of equality, leaving just the one that decided that no, the Constitution doesn’t say what every single other federal judge in the entire country has said it says.

The South Carolina Attorney General vowed to appeal to the 4th Circuit Court — the same Circuit Court that has already ruled in favor of gay marriage not too long ago.  In other words, Republicans once again will be using taxpayer money to fight another futile battle against equal rights, because Jeebus. Or something.  (Certainly not the law.)

 

by

Judicial Activism knocks down Marriage Equality

A three panel federal court upheld anti-gay marriage laws yesterday.  Two Bush-appointed judges ruled that, despite the precedents set by the US Supreme Court and every single other federal court that has ruled on this issue, telling citizens they can’t get married is something perfectly fine.  “The voters should decide,” they argue.   gay+marriage+generic081612

Just like they did back in the days when laws prohibited people of different races from getting married, right?

The rest of the opinion was filled with the normal crap those against equality posted:  If we allow this, then we have to allow polygamy, and then the next thing you know people will want to marry their toaster.  You know, the kind of ridiculous arguments that those against equality have always spouted, going back to Dredd Scott.

This decision only applies to those states under the court’s jurisdiction:  Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

An appeal can be filed to the entire bench (an “en banc” appeal) to reconsider this decision, but it is just as likely that it will instead go directly to the US Supreme Court where this issue was ultimately heading anyway.

 

by

The sanctity of marriage

A Las Vegas chapel that performs Elvis-themed weddings is refusing to marry gays because it would destroy the sanctity of marriage.

I am not making this up. 

Apparently, the Christian owner of the theme chapel says that this “violates God’s law” and therefore she will not allow gay marriages.  elvis101

While other chapels are busily advertising that Vegas welcomes the extra business gay marriages will bring to the state, this particular place refuses on religious grounds — which would be a valid objection if they were a religious organization.

You see, a church can refuse to perform marriages for anyone.  You don’t have a right to be married by a church.  If the church doesn’t want to perform gay marriages (or interracial marriages or marriages between different religions or anything else that they think violates their beliefs) there’s nothing you can do about it.

But a Vegas Elvis chapel is a business.  They do not have the power to discriminate.

Remember that bakery that refused to make wedding cakes for gay couples and ultimately ended up closing down?  Yeah, it’s like that.  Business owners can’t tell gays they don’t have the right to sit at their lunch counter no matter how much their religion tells them it’s OK to discriminate.

So the Elvis weddings will either obey the law or close down — or maybe, like the bakers, be forced out of business through lawsuits.   The owner — a hard-headed woman — will be all shook up.  There will be crying in the chapel, but in the end, we will all sing Viva Las Vegas!

 

by

Arizona and Wyoming join the 21st Century

The good news is that soon there won’t be any states left for me to write “X joins the 21st Century” posts any more.

This map was done today, and became old just 10 minutes ago when Wyoming also joined us.

This map was done today, and became old just 10 minutes ago when Wyoming also joined us.

 

by

Alaska joins the 21st Century

A federal judge just ruled that Alaska’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, making it what, the 34th state to now have marriage equality?  gay-marriage-generic-jpeg

“Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws are a prime example of how ‘the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational,’” the judge wrote. “Refusing the rights and responsibilities afforded by legal marriage sends the public a government-sponsored message that same-sex couples and their familial relationships do not warrant the status, benefits, and dignity given to couples of the opposite sex.”

Alaska can now appeal to the 9th circuit court.  You know that court.  They’re the ones who just struck down the gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada.  Good luck with that one.