Showing posts with label Prop 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prop 8. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Everybody is Being Assaulted

Well, at least according the GOP candidates.  Well, not that they are talking much about the real victims of assault, however. In all of the GOP debates (all 1 million of them) "poverty and the poor has rarely come up."  (ParagouldDailyPress.com)  So, it really comes as a surprise that these guys would talk about the victims of any assault without mentioning the poor.  But then again, who are the victims here?


First there are the "Religious Groups."  With the Affordable Care Act's rule that "requires all employers to cover birth controls for their workers," the guys have the panties in a ruffle:

  • MITT ROMNEY, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Remarkably, under this president's administration there is assault on religion
  • NEWT GINGRICH, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Many of you may have noticed that the Obama administration has declared war on the Catholic Church
Rick Santorum wasn't so much thinking that religion was under attack as much as he was worried the "elitist" government was going to take away his freedoms.  (FoxNews.com)

And speaking of freedoms. Santorum, who said last week he doesn't believe gay couples "benefit society", was all worried that the 9th Circuit Court "ripping" away the 7M California voter's rights in finding Prop 8 unconstitutional.  Romney says this:  "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California."  Newtie wants to "end judicial supremacy."  So, in this case 7M California homophobes are the victims.  And it is the supreme, unelected judges who are assaulting them.  (Gay.net)

Not sure exactly why these guys get to decided on birth control or proper marriage - especially Newtie on that one.  But gee, there are 9 more months of campaigning, and who knows how many million more debates, and we are stuck listening to these 3.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Maybe it's Good News?

The Associated Press tweets today that Maggie Gallagher, the chair of the National Organization for Marriage, has been replaced.  So that may be good news, the Magster will have to stop her bigotry and hate.  Maybe.  The replacement may not be too much better.  The failed Attorney General wannabe for California, John Eastman.  He attempted to have the repeal of Prop 8 overturned while the Gov (Ahnold) was out of the country.  (JoeMyGod)

One would wonder, why was Maggie let go?  Did she need to stay at home and be the good wife?  Or has she changed her stance on equality?  She did attend the reading of Dustin Lance Black's play "8", which re-enacts the Prop. 8 trial.  She maybe now playing with the enemy, as the ticket dollars went to "AFER and Broadway Impact to secure full federal marriage equality."  Or maybe it is just her eating habits.  Obviously she has been through the buffet line a few too many times, and she did munch on some loud food during the reading. (TheAtlanticWire.com)


Now, she says she is going to finish her book "Debating Same-Sex Marriage".  But it probably is more for being the good wife and over-eater.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

What exactly would be impartial?

So, the Prop 8 supporters are all up in arms because the judge that struck down California's gay marriage ban is actually --- a gay man.  Judge Walker, a 67-year-old Republican appointee, declared Proposition 8 to be an unconstitutional violation of gay Californian's civil rights last summer. He retired in February.  This month he told "courthouse reporters about his 10-year relationship" with a man.


Lawyers for Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8, filed a motion in San Francisco's U.S. District Court, arguing that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case or at least disclosed his relationship status because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."  (CBSNews.com)


But, what would be impartial?  If a married, straight, religious or conservative judge sat on the bench for the appeal, would that be impartial?  Well, Protect Marriage probably wouldn't have a problem with it.


All asexual judges please report to the appellate court.  Thank you.