Jeb Fumbles On Same-Sex Mariage ... Again and Again

That darn Jeb Bush; he’s oh-so-presidential, or at least he’s trying to be.

As governor of Florida, he was against same-sex marriage even though he withheld his enthusiasm, and support, for the state’s 2008 campaign to rewrite the Florida Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman; but that was only because he left office in 2007.

However, in 2012, during a PBS interview, Jeb suggested that gay parents could be … could be … held up as role models, even as he added that “traditional marriage is what should be sanctioned” by the government. See, he was saying that The Gays are “okay” as parents but, you know, marriage? Oh hell no.

But last year, in a speech to some Republican group, Jeb warned against the GOP being a party seen as against too many things … as in against everything … including being “anti-gay” because, you know, they might look like haters.

And so that fumbling and flip-flopping and saying nothing at all leads us to today, as Jeb thinks about thinking about running for President, and we find him still fumbling on the idea of The Gays getting married, especially, in Florida:

"It ought be a local decision. I mean, a state decision. The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it's been overturned by the courts, I guess."

A local decision? Oh, if the locality is the state; and what’s with the ‘I guess’? Doesn’t he know what’s happening in Florida, or maybe Jeb is reading the same newspapers that the Mama Grizzly Bore™ used to read.

So, so presidential; that darn Jeb. And because he came off as if he had no idea where marriage equality stood in Florida, and because his statement on Sunday made him sound less presidential and more like his idiot brother, his people decided that they needed to try again to have Jeb talk about same-sex marriage and try to come off less baboonish and cartoonish. So, Jeb sat down again, this time with the New York Times, to talk about The Gays and marriage again:

“We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law. I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue – including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty.”

See what he did there? He basically said the same thing he said on Sunday; he’s not at all a fan of same-sex marriage but that people should respect those pesky gays and lesbians who want equality as long as The Gays respect religious liberty.

Better? No. It’s just Jeb Bush trying out his message for his run at the White House in 2016, coming across as somewhat okay with marriage equality — if that’s what The Gays want — but making sure we all know that he’s not especially for it, and wants to keep religion at the forefront of the discussion.

He’s kissing asses and pandering to his base at the same time, y’all, and we have 22 months left of it.

via NCRM

Another Christmas Asshat: Stacey Clueless Dash

Stacey Dash used to be an actress. She was marginally successful in Clueless — which was, perhaps, an omen of her future life — but she’s really just a bit part actress  looking for a line to read.

Then came Mitt Romney vying for the White against Barack Obama, and Dash, an African American woman, Tweeted her support for the Republican; as is her right. Lotsa folks jumped on the Dump Dash bandwagon but then Fox News got a brilliant idea, why no augment our white old men, white blond women line-up of pundits with an actual woman of color and suddenly Stacey Dash was the newest addition to the news channel which everyone with half a brain knows lies nearly all the time.

And Dash fit right in.

I have no idea what qualifications she has to be a Fox correspondent or to be called an expert on the channel, because she’s really just an unemployed bad actress before she got the call and became the darling of the wingnuts from the network; like when she said this about Republican opposition to same-sex marriage:

“We [Republicans] are for equal marriage. We’re not against that at all. We believe that everyone should have the same right.”

Well, we all know that’s a load of hooey, because look at every single lawsuit filed against states where same-sex marriage is legal and you will find that they were filed and supported by Republicans.

See, Stacey’s dumb. 

Of course, then she tried a different tack when she was asked about that blatant open in-your-face opposition among many Republicans towards the legalization of same-sex marriage:

“That’s just propaganda, it’s not true. You know? That’s just a certain amount of people. You can’t just throw a blanket over everyone because certain people have one opinion.”

A “certain amount of people” that all identify as Republicans. But that isn’t why Stacey Dash, failed actress, and future failed “news’ pundit is our Christmas asshat. No, she took an extra dose of stupid recently when discussing  a recent Census Bureau report showing that 65% of American children are living in a home receiving some sort of government assistance, she whipped out the “slavery” anecdote” and then whipped out her less-than-smart statements:

“This is the Democratic party’s new version of slavery to me, I am a believer in the American dream. But as long as you are told where you have to live, what you have to eat, what you have to wear, where you have to go to school, you will never know the true meaning of expression. And, the power and value of self achievement. You’ll never know what that is.”

Okay, let’s hold up. She doesn’t think children should be told where to live, what to eat and what to wear and where to go to school? Isn’t that why most children have parents because children do not make those decisions for themselves?

Stacey? You’re dumb.

And Stacey? Stop playing the “slavery” card because the only thing that is like slavery is actual slavery.

I think I was wrong; Stacey Dash isn’t stupid, she’s an asshat, and just in time for Christmas.
ForwardProgressives

A Tale of Two South Carolina's

Boy, there are days when South Carolina surprises me, and days when South Carolina acts like, well, I think it has always acted, and so now I’ll present to you A Tale of Two South Carolina’s.

In the first one, we have Republican — you read that right — State Senator Larry Martin, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who is pushing new legislation bringing sweeping reform to the state’s domestic violence laws by creating a tiered system of offenses, increasing penalties and barring batterers from possessing guns.

Yes, people, gun control, of a sort, in South Carolina.

The bill, if adopted, would change the state's domestic violence laws for the first time in a decade, and, among other things, it would:

Restructure criminal domestic violence laws into a tiered system of degrees based on the severity of the crime, with escalating penalties ranging from 30 days in jail to 10 years in prison.

Bar those convicted of domestic violence offenses or facing protective orders from possessing firearms or holding a concealed-weapons permit. Batterers would face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $1,000 if caught with a gun.

Require those charged with criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature to attend intervention programs and bar them from having firearms or ammunition as a condition of bail.

Allow courts to grant permanent no-contact orders to prevent abusers from harassing victims. Police could arrest violators without a warrant and the offender would face a felony carrying up to five years in prison.

This bill is in response to state statistics that show over 300 women have been killed in the last decade from domestic violence — one murder every twelve days. South Carolina currently ranks Number Two in the nation for the rate of women killed by men, and has topped the list three times in the past decade, most recently in 2013.

Now, because it’s South Carolina, the gun provision will likely face the stiffest opposition in our GOP-dominated Legislature, with many Republicans saying the issue is already addressed by federal law and a state measure is an unnecessary duplication that could infringe on gun rights.

Or is it just the rights of men who batter women to carry guns? See, while federal law bans those convicted of domestic violence from buying or possessing guns, South Carolina has no legislation to enforce that prohibition, meaning, yes, batterers can keep their guns, and conceal their guns. And let’s keep in mind that the overwhelming weapon of choice in domestic killings is a gun; guns have been used in 65% of all domestic homicides of women. But let’s worry about infringing on the batterers right to bear arms, and not on the rights of victims of domestic violence not to die.

Still, in South Carolina, of all places, it’s nice to see anyone, much less a Republican, put forth any kind of legislation that might be called gun control, even one that makes sense like this one.

On the flip side of Reasonable Republicans in South Carolina, we have Republican State Senator Lee Bright — the name does not suit him at all — who is on a mission to expand the right of South Carolinians to discriminate against LGBT people.

In keeping up his cred as a bigot and hater and, well, a moron, Bright filed a bill last week that would exempt any employee who works for the State of South Carolina … the State of South Carolina … from having to do their job by issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple.  If Not-So-Bright’s law passes, those state employees, aka Bigots Who I Pay With My Tax Dollars, merely need to say they have a sincerely-held religious belief against same-sex marriage and they can deny the license.

Now, to be fair, that gay couple can simply walk to another window, or wait for a more enlightened, educated, humane, truly Christian person to issue their license, but the point is that a state employee will be allowed to not do their job because they hate The Gays.

That gets me thinking that maybe I’ll get one of those jobs, then declare myself a Satanist and deny issuing licenses to religious couples because of my deeply held, sincere religious belief. Or, better yet, go in as an Atheist and deny licenses because there is no God y’all. Man, watching those Baptists heads explode might be worth it.

But here’s the deal, plain and simple: you people who work in a state licensing department work for the state, which means me, and so if you wanna deny me the right to legally do what I am entitled to do because, you say, your God don’t like no gay marriages, then step out of your office and head to unemployment and get on line looking for new work.

Same-sex marriage is legal, marriage is not a religious institution, and you cannot inflict your religious perversions on me just because you feel like.

Now sit down and keep quiet.

SC Senators Propose GunBan, Stiffer Domestic Violence Laws

SC Senator's Bill Would Legalize Religious Anti-Gay Discrimination

Phillip and Sandy Unruh Say Same-Sex Marriage Is Theft Of Opposite-Sex Marriage

The battle for marriage equality, while moving full-steam ahead with more and more states joining in on equality, still has some fights to win, one of them in Kansas.

A lawsuit has been filed in federal court in Kansas seeking to overturn the state’s marriage ban, and that has lead to all sorts of wingnuts crawling out of the woodwork and wading into the fray; like the Westboro Baptist Church [WBC] which is trying to intervene in that case citing fear of God’s wrath if the court rules in favor of the right of gay couples to marry.

The WBC doesn’t seem to realize that marriage in this country is not a religious thing but a civil thing, so they, and God, really have no part in it.

But the WBC isn’t the only kind of crazy stepping forward to fight equality. No, let’s throw in Kansas criminal and family lawyer, Phillip Unruh, and his wife Sandy, who filed suit to join the battle to keep The Gays from marrying because they say that allowing same-sex marriage is “theft of property rights” — the  property being their marriage, or any other opposite-sex marriage in general.

In a motion filed in United States District Court, the Unruh's say that if same-sex couples are legally allowed to marry in Kansas, "the meaning of marriage will be so fundamentally and profoundly changed that the Unruh’s will experience a taking of their property rights in marriage without due process of law.”

Huh? Of course, in addition to calling their marriage property — and I guess that means Phillips owns Sandy — the Unruhs have also trotted out the Bible references, like Genesis 2:24, and that age old argument that only straight folks can marry because only straight couples can produce children which is the sole intent of marriage.

Huh; I guess the Unruhs aren’t aware that men and women, married to one another and unmarried to one another, gay and straight, have been producing children for thousands of years.

The Unruhs also claim that same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage are as different "as apples and oranges," and claim property rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

“The Unruhs have a [sic] inalienable property right in their marriage that is protected by the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Kansas Constitution and related Kansas Statutes."

They also have an inalienable right to not understanding grammar or spelling, as is evidenced by this other little snippet from their lawsuit:

If I were the judge reading this argument, my first ruling would be to give it a grade of C and ask them to try again when they learn proper English. But I’m not the judge in this case; that would be U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree who ruled last week Phillip Unruh and his wife Sandra, have no legal right to join the lawsuit.

Crabtree concluded the Unruhs’ interests are already represented by the Kansas attorney general’s office, which is defending the ban, so maybe they should just sit down. He did, however, say that although they cannot be parties in the suit, they could write an amicus brief, meaning their opinion would be heard.

The Unruhs began writing that brief Sunday morning and let’s hope they busted out the dictionary.

via:

NCRM
LGBTQ Nation

I'm In A Marriage State Of Mind: UPDATE: West Virginia Goes Equal UPDATE: Nevada Won't Fight it

Man oh man, do I have marriage on my mind these days, and not just my own—have I mentioned on here at all that Carlos and I are becoming Mr. and Mr. next week? I wasn’t sure ….

Anyway, the way things stand in South Carolina right now is this: Governor Nikki Haley — soon to lose an election and any chance at a political future, fingers crossed — and Attorney General Alan Wilson have decided that the Supreme Court’s announcement this week to let the 4th Circuit Court’s ruling that marriage bans are unconstitutional stand doesn’t affect South Carolina — even though it does — and they have vowed to go down in history as a couple of the last hold-outs fighting against equality.

That’s quite a footnote to an already not-so-illustrious career, Nikki. Just sayin’.

The judge in our case — Bradacs v Haley, South Carolina — wants to hear arguments next Tuesday, and may make a ruling next week. If we win, and it’s quite likely we will because the Great and Powerful 4th Circuit Court has spoken, I imagine Nikki will dig her heels in further and try to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court who might just look at her and say, “Bitch, please! We already decided this, It’s done. Get back on your broom and get outta here.”

Marriage licenses for same-sex couples were issued yesterday in both Charleston and Richland counties, but Attorney General Wilson asked that the state Supreme Court demand that the licenses be stopped; for now.

Or something; but it’s more than South Carolina; it’s also Nevada and Idaho.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Nevada’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage imposes “profound legal, financial, social and psychic harms” on many of its citizens and overturned it, as happens quite often these days; the ruling also overturned Idaho’s ban as well.

In Nevada, Clark County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples yesterday, and up there in Idaho more than a dozen same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses, only to be turned away after US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stay the 9th Court of Appeals’ ruling; he also stayed a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Nevada.

So, it was on in Nevada and Idaho and minutes later it was off, but then, right after staying the ruling keeping the ban on marriage equality in Nevada and Idaho, Kennedy said that same-sex marriages were allowed in Nevada because his earlier order only applied to Idaho.

See, it turned out that no one in Nevada asked to halt the same-sex marriages, so Kennedy had no choice but to let them continue. It was on, then it was off, then it was on, and seems to be staying on now.

UPDATE I: The issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is on hold due to pending motions in the courts. The 9th Circuit is currently considering whether to recall the mandate to the District Court requiring an injunction. The state had anticipated accepting marriage license applications from same-sex couples today, but now it seems to be in limbo.
UPDATE II: The same-sex marriage opponents have decided not to fight; marriage is back on.

Okay, so what’s next?

UTAH Same-sex marriage is legal. Republican Governor Gary Herbert said the announcement "may be not satisfactory for some, but it is the law of the land."

KANSAS Chief District Judge Kevin Moriarty directed the district court clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; same-sex marriage is legal.

OKLAHOMA Same-sex marriage is legal, though Governor Mary Fallin — a veritable Nikki Haley clone, though she’s a divorced Christian adulteress — said that “the will of the people has been overridden and that the rights of Oklahomans had been trampled by an arrogant, out-of-control federal government." Boo hoo, Mary.

WYOMING No marriage equality; Governor Matt Mead and his attorney general will continue to defend Wyoming's constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman, with their slated for a hearing in mid-December.

COLORADO Same-sex marriage is legal.

VIRGINIA Same-sex marriage is legal; Governor Terry McAuliffe called it "a historic and long-overdue moment for our commonwealth and our country."

NORTH CAROLINA A federal judge issued an order telling lawyers on both sides of the case challenging North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage to submit documents supporting their arguments. Each party involved has 10 days to file.

UPDATE: A Judge has lifted the stays and it appears that same-sex marriages will begin today!

WEST VIRGINIA No marriage equality; a lawsuit challenging the state's ban was delayed by a federal court in the that the Supreme Court would rule on the issue which means that, for now, same-sex couples cannot apply for marriage licenses.
UPDATE: West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey says his office will no longer fight a court challenge to West Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages.

INDIANA Same-sex marriage is legal; Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has ordered county to comply with a mandate from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered that all obstacles to same-sex marriage be removed.

WISCONSIN Same-sex marriage is legal; same-sex couples married in June will now have their marriages recognized and same-sex couples who want to marry now can do so whenever they wish.

ALABAMA No marriage equality; lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed in each of the state's three federal court districts, but judges have yet to rule.

 ALASKA No marriage equality; a federal judge is hearing arguments tomorrow in a case filed by five couples challenging the state's ban.

 ARIZONA No marriage equality; lawyers in two pending federal lawsuits challenging Arizona's ban are expected to urge the judge to take note of that ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and immediately strike down the ban.

ARKANSAS No marriage equality, in May, a state judge struck down the state's ban, but the state Supreme Court halted the marriages, and is weighing state officials' appeal.

FLORIDA No marriage equality; a federal judge declared the state's ban unconstitutional, joining state judges in four counties, but he issued a stay delaying the effect of his order.

GEORGIA No marriage equality; a lawsuit challenging the state's ban was filed in federal court, and the state wants to dismiss the suit, but the judge has not ruled.

KENTUCKY No marriage equality; two Kentucky cases were among six from four states heard in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealst; rulings are pending on recognition of out-of-state marriages, as well as the ban on marriages within the state.

LOUISIANA No marriage equality; a federal judge's ruling which upholds the state's ban has been appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A state judge ruled in a separate case that the ban is unconstitutional, a ruling that has been suspended while the state attorney general appeals to the state Supreme Court.

MICHIGAN No marriage equality; their ban was overturned by a federal judge in March following a trial; the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments and a ruling is pending.

MISSISSIPPI No marriage equality; the state Supreme Court has been asked to hear arguments on a woman's effort to get her marriage in another state recognized in Mississippi for purposes of getting a divorce.

MISSOURI No marriage equality; the state attorney general won't appeal a state court order that Missouri recognize marriages from in other states, but two other cases are pending.

MONTANA No marriage equality; four couples challenged the state's ban in a lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court. The decision by the 9th Circuit to strike down Idaho's ban likely means Montana's voter-approved ban also will be declared unconstitutional.

NEBRASKA No marriage equality; the state's ban remains intact. A federal judge struck it down in 2005, but an appeals court reversed the decision.

NORTH DAKOTA No marriage equality; seven couples sued over the state's ban; a U.S. district judge now must decide whether to rule or hear oral arguments.

OHIO No marriage equality; two cases were argued in the 6th Circuit Court and a ruling is pending.

SOUTH DAKOTA No marriage equality; six couples sued over the state's ban, and arguments are being scheduled in U.S. district court on the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

TENNESSEE No marriage equality; the 6th Circuit Court heard arguments as to whether Tennessee's refusal to recognize a valid marriage from another state is constitutional and a ruling is pending.

TEXAS No marriage equality; a federal judge declared the state's ban unconstitutional, but the state is appealing to the 5th Circuit Court, which is soon expected to set a date for arguments.

And so there you have it; good news by the boatload, but still many fights to be fought, and won, before we all have the right to marry who we love, where we live.

The march goes on ….

Review Journal

Idaho Statesman
The Advocate: Idaho
The Advocate: Nevada
ABC News

Haley and Wilson Won't Give Up ... Even When They've Already Lost

First, some back-story: in August 2013, Katie Bradacs and her wife, Tracie Goodwin-Bradacs, filed a lawsuit against Nikki Haley and the state demanding that South Carolina recognize their same-sex marriage — performed legally in Washington DC. Now, since there was already a case in Virginia before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, both sides in South Carolina agreed to wait and see what happened in that case before moving forward.

And what happened was that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the same-sex marriage ban in Virginia was unconstitutional. And when a bunch of folks demanded that the Supreme Court hear their request to appeal that ruling, SCOTUS basically said that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals was right in saying that marriage bans in Virginia, and by association, Maryland — which has already passed marriage equality, North Carolina, West Virginia and South Carolina, are unconstitutional.

So, Nikki Haley, and Attorney General Alan Wilson, stopped their fight, right? Katie and Tracie, as well as any number of same-sex couples married in other states would now see their marriages recognized in South Carolina, right? Well, not if Governor Haley and Alan Wilson have anything to say about it.

See, some people need to be told more than once that the fight is over, that they’ve lost, that they need to put down their protest signs, and their rhetoric, and their out-date — and kind of untrue — arguments, call it a day and go home. And some folks, when being told that by any number of people, from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to the United States Supreme Court, still don’t get it.

But both Haley and Wilson said — as soon as the announcement was made — that they would keep fighting the Bradacs lawsuit, with Alan Wilson saying:

“Our case has not yet been decided. Until the courts rule on the matter, South Carolina will seek to uphold our state constitution.”

For an Attorney General, he seems ignorant of the fact that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, and the Supreme Court stands by that ruling, that marriage bans against same-sex couples are unconstitutional … even the one in South Carolina.

And naturally, Nikki Haley, a darling of the illiterate Teabag set, sent one of her Flying Monkeys out with a statement:

“Governor Haley agrees with Attorney General Wilson – our voter-approved state law should be followed until a court rules on it directly.”

Nikki Haley apparently needs to be hit over the head with the facts before she sees them, but then, as a Republican, she has little use, little need, for facts.

So, for now, Haley and Wilson are digging in their heels, and sealing their fate, all because they don’t want to be seen as the ones who allowed this to happen; instead, they’ll be seen as the ones who don’t know when they’ve lost and continue to cry foul.

Marriage equality is coming to South Carolina; get used to it.

Wilson, for his part, does have a way out of this mess; he could say that to continue this fight would be a waste of taxpayer money and he cannot allow that. As a lawyer, you’d hope he would realize that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, and the subsequent announcement by the Supreme Court, applies to South Carolina; he knows equality is coming, yet he won’t give up. He’ll keep squawking about traditional marriage, and activist judges, and he’ll keep saying the case hasn’t been decided because it hasn’t gone to court yet.

As for Nikki, and why she won’t give up when it’s quite clear she’s lost, it’s because she wants to appease her base of Teabagging loons and Rightwingnut Goosesteppers; but again, how can she say she’s a fiscal conservative, and then allow the lawsuit to continue when it’s clear to everyone with a brain that fires on more than one cylinder, that the fight is over.

Of course, as with politics, it’s all about elections, and the party, and your side, and, sometimes, not at all about what’s right, and fair, and agreeing to abide by what has already been decided.

Haley’s opponents in the upcoming race for governor are also weighing in on the decision, and the Democrat, a local Camden boy, and State Senator, Vincent Sheheen, seems to want to play both sides of the fence, releasing his own statement after the SCOTUS announcement:

“Further litigation on this issue will be a waste of time and precious taxpayer dollars.”

But then he seemed to also suggest that Haley and Wilson should continue the battle in the 4th Circuit Court. See, as a politician, and one who wants to get into the governor’s mansion — and, for the record, I’d prefer him there over Haley … go figure — I wish he’d stop speaking out of both sides of his mouth. You cannot have it both ways; you cannot say it’s a waste of time to continue to fight and then also endorse the fight.

The other  candidate for Governor, a Republican running as an Independent, Tom Erwin, though, has said:

“The Supreme Court has made its decision and further action by the state is a poor use of resources.”

Boom. Done. Simple.

And it is simple, and done; let me make this part clear: the judge in the case of Bradacs v Haley, South Carolina, et al, is Michelle Childs and she is bound by Virginia’s Bostic decision and she must rule against Haley and Wilson. And when she does, Haley and Wilson will most likely take their case, all foot-stomping and head-snapping, to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already ruled that marriage bans are unconstitutional.

It’s over, and yet only Nikki Haley, Alan Wilson, and rightwingnut, Teabagging, conservatives don’t get it.

It’s over.

via The State

Today in Not Christian Love: Priest Demands Gay Couple Divorce

After that story this morning, of that parent, that very religious parent, that very religious parent who is a pastor no less, and his stance on having gay children, I was all tingly inside about religious folk, and hoping for a change.

Then I read this …

Paul Huff and Tom Wojtowick have been a couple for over thirty years, and have been very active in their local church, St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Montana for more than a decade. That may change now that they’ve gotten married, simply so that they can make medical and financial decisions for each other as they grow older.

Samuel Spiering, the new parish priest, found out about the marriage, and instantly sent his Flying Monkeys out to the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, as well as Bishop Michael Warfel, to fix this horrific situation.

Christian love, y’all.

Spiering, Warfel, and some big-shots from the Diocese decided that these two men would be forced to write a "restoration statement," declaring their support for the Church's teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. Sadly, they agreed to make that statement, and Tom explained it like this

"It was not our intent to challenge that (concept), but to have the rights of civic protections in our old age." 

Oh, but that wasn’t all; it wasn’t good enough to force these two men, who loved one another for thirty years, to kowtow to antiquated Catholic thinking; no, Father Spiering also told them that they would need to stop living together at once and that they needed to get a divorce.

And that's when Tom and Paul said no. 

The couple has declined to comment further because they have a scheduled meeting with Bishop Warfel to, ahem, "discuss how church teachings apply to the situation." Tom and Paul seem to think the Bishop will relent on his decision, while I seem to think it's time to bend over and tell the Bishop, the Priest, and the whole Diocese to kiss their gay asses.

Bishop Warfel says he likes Tom and Paul, and likes that they kept their shameful secret, you know,  getting married and all, but once word got out about the two queers being married and being Catholic, he had no choice but to tell them to condemn their relationship, divorce one another and live separately because, well, God.

He then says he isn’t punishing gay folks, he’s simply taking a stand against same-sex marriage, something only gay folks can do, you know. He seems to miss the irony there.

Father Spiering, for his part, isn’t playing the Double-Speak Game of Love the Sinner, hate The Sin of Same-Sex Marriage, he’s just keeping his yap shut, saying it’s a private matter.

For their part, Paul Huff hasn’t returned to St. Leo’s though Tom Wojtowick attends half the Mass, leaving before Communion is offered, though they have consulted with lawyers who believe that St. Leo’s the Great Catholic Church may have violated canon law.

They certainly violated the laws of Christian love. Perhaps the Priest, the Bishop, and the whole damn Diocese needs to have a good long sit down with John Pavlovitz and listen to him speak about The Gays and religion.

On the up side? Well, attendance at St. Leo’s has plummeted since Tom and Paul were told to divorce, and the pastor at the local Episcopalian Church says the couple is welcome, married and all, to take Communion there … and even sing in the choir.

source

Connie Wilson Can't Be Connie Wilson In Texas

Last year in California, Connie married Aimee, cuz it’s legal and all, you know, and good, too. And after the wedding, Connie took Aimee’s last name, Wilson, as her own; Connie and Aimee Wilson. And she changed her name to Wilson on her Social Security card, her driver’s license, and on all their financial and medical records.

Connie Wilson. Say it with me, Texas. Connie Wilson.

See, this past summer, Connie and Aimee Wilson, and their three children, moved to Houston, and since her California driver’s license was about to expire, Connie Wilson went a DPS [Department of Public Safety] office to get a Texas license. But when a DPS employee saw that Connie Wilson‘s name on her California driver’s license didn’t match the name on the birth certificate, Connie Wilson showed her marriage license … to Aimee Wilson.

Uh huh.

“Her only words to me were, ‘Is this same-[sex]?' I remember hesitating for probably 10 seconds. I didn’t know how to answer. I didn’t want to lie, but I knew I was in trouble because I wasn’t going to be able to get a license.”—Connie Wilson

So she answered truthfully, that even though it didn’t make a difference in California, she was indeed married to a woman.

The DPS worker told Connie Wilson she couldn’t get a license; she needed something else to “validate” her last name — apparently a marriage license, Social Security card, and all the other papers she had weren’t enough — and then she told Connie Wilson,  “the name doesn’t belong to me.”

Now, we all know, and Connie Wilson knows, that Texas has a state statute and a constitutional amendment that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states, but is Connie Wilson asking them to recognize her marriage, or is she just applying for a driver’s license?

See, it doesn’t end there; because it’s Texas; Connie Wilson won’t be able to drive once her California license expires; she won’t be able to fly, either, and she won’t be able to purchase anything requiring a photo ID. Also, since she won’t have a photo ID, she and her family might not be able to close on a home they’re hoping to buy, and they may not be able to obtain disability benefits for one of their children, who has both autism and Down syndrome.

And that’s ridiculous.

To add insult to injury, the DPS employee, who turned out to be a supervisor, suggested that Connie Wilson apply for a driver’s license using her maiden name, except that she can’t do that either because she lacks the necessary documentation to do so. The supervisor then suggested she could apply for a Texas license if she obtained an order from a state court changing her name to Wilson.

Well, that’s $500 Connie Wilson would have to pay that straight couples who marry don’t need to be bothered with, and, even if she did so, there is no guarantee she would be successful because she’s changing her name to that of her, yes, same-sex spouse, and this is Texas and, well, Texas. Plus, as Connie Wilson says, her name is already federally, legally recognized as Wilson so she’s not sure a judge would see the point in granting the name change.

Connie Wilson — who says she now knows “what it feels like for a person who is undocumented” — has contacted Equality Texas, which is now working with Houston Senator Sylvia Garcia’s office on the issue.

Paul Townsend, general counsel for Garcia, is awaiting a written explanation of the agency’s position before issuing a formal response, but he does notice that the DPS website says existing Texas residents cannot use same-sex marriage licenses from others states to update their licenses, but there is no policy whatsoever regarding new Texas residents whose names have already been changed elsewhere.

Connie Wilson will not give up, though; she says she will get a valid, accurate Texas driver’s license even if it means suing the Department of Public Safety, not for money, but just for the right to have her legal name on her driver’s license.

And for all other same-sex couples — just the ones married legally in other states … for now … since Texas is just one of the states being sued to recognize same-sex marriages—to have the same rights as anyone else.

via  Texas Observer

photo credit SF Gate

W.W. Bridal Boutique Is A "Straights Only" Business

First it was the bakers, who refused to bake cakes for same-sex couples to celebrate their weddings. And then it was the florists, who said ‘Hell no’ when it came to supplying flowers for a gay couple’s ceremony. So, is it really any surprise that Victoria miller, owner of W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, where same-sex marriage is legal, has refused to sell a wedding dress to a same-sex couple?

Not really surprising, though it isn’t any less frustrating.

Two women — who wish to remain anonymous — called W.W. Bridal Boutique to schedule a fitting for herself and her partner. She was reportedly placed on hold for several minutes, and then told, “Unfortunately she would not be able to schedule an appointment for us because they currently do not service same-sex couples — it’s just not something they do.” She was told that servicing a same-sex couple by selling them a couple of dresses would be a violation of their “religious beliefs.”

Wait. W.W. Bridal Boutique, a business, an inanimate object, has “religious beliefs”? Of course it doesn’t; the beliefs are those of the owner, Victoria Miller, who says that "providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God's law."

Now, the Bloomsburg Town council is involved, saying they will consider whether to propose legislation to ban businesses from refusing to serve gays and lesbians. Miller, for her part, spoke through her attorney to say that she has a "liberty interest" in refusing to take part in a process that would violate "firmly and honestly held religious beliefs."

Let me make this perfectly queer for you, Victoria Miller: you are not being asked to take part in the ceremony; you are not being asked to condone the wedding; you, naturally, would never be invited to the wedding. What you are being asked to do is to open your business, your public business, to everyone and to make a sale.

But if you don’t want money from The Gays then please post a sign in the window of W.W. Bridal Boutique that tells the world that you are a bigot and a homophobe and hiding behind some notion of religious belief in running your business. And please be ready to have The Gays and The Gay Friendlies take their business elsewhere. But do not, when your business fails because of your intolerance, complain that The Gays did this to you.

You did it to yourself.

via Raw Story