Can be found here. Really fascinating stuff. Makes me want to read the book it’s based on.
The Gays Archive
Okay, so I’m a 100 minutes behind the Prop 8-ball here, but it was worth it, since according to SCOTUSblog (via Ben), the Ninth Circuit Court has
struck down “Proposition 8,” the ban on same-sex marriage adopted by California voters in November 2008. The panel majority did not uphold a broad right of gay couples to wed, saying it was enough for now to rule that it was unconstitutional to take away a right to marry only for one minority group, when everyone had the right before. The 128-page ruling can be read here.
The majority summed up its ruling this way: “By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution]. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.”
It added: “We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts. For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. The judgement of the district court is confirmed.”
SUCK IT, STR8TS! (Err, you know, metaphorically speaking. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
According to their Advance Notice of Opinion Filing (pdf):
The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Tuesday, February 7) by 10:00 a.m. in Perry v. Brown, case numbers 10-16696 and 11-16577, regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the denial of a motion to vacate the lower court judgement in the case. A summary of the opinion prepared by court staff will be posted along with the opinion.
That’s Cali time, mind you, so assuming everything’s on schedule, things should start popping off around 1:00 pm EST. Check back then(ish).
Update by Tom: Unconstitutional.
Washington State could be less than a week away from becoming the “seventh state to allow same-sex marriage.”
Even more remarkably, the individual responsible for casting the deciding vote in the senate is none other than self-confessed Christian traditionalist, Mary Margaret Haugen. Her statement explaining her decision is so reasonable, so decent — so goddamn human – that I’m going to go ahead and quote it here in its entirety:
“For several weeks now, I have heard from the people of my district. They’ve shared what’s in their hearts and minds.
“I have received many letters, emails, phone calls, very heartfelt, from both sides of the issue. I’ve also received a number of very negative comments from both sides.
“For some people, this is a simple issue. I envy them. It has not been simple or easy for me.
“To some degree, this is generational. Years ago I took exception to my parents’ beliefs on certain social issues, and today my children take exception to some of mine. Times change, even if it makes us uncomfortable. I think we should all be uncomfortable sometime. None of us knows everything, and it’s important to have our beliefs questioned. Only one being in this world is omniscient, and it’s not me.
“I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It’s not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.
“But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.
“For as long as I have been alive, living in my country has been about having the freedom to live according to our own personal and religious beliefs, and having people respect that freedom.
“Not everyone will agree with my position. I understand and respect that. I also trust that people will remember that we need to respect each other’s beliefs. All of us enjoy the benefits of being Americans, but none of us holds a monopoly on what it means to be an American. Ours is truly a big tent, and while the tent may grow and shrink according to the political winds of the day, it should never shrink when it comes to our rights as individuals.
“Do I respect people who feel differently? Do I not feel they should have the right to do as they want? My beliefs dictate who I am and how I live, but I don’t see where my believing marriage is between a man and a woman gives me the right to decide that for everyone else.
“I’ve weighed many factors in arriving at this decision, and one of them was erased when the legislation heard today included an amendment to clearly provide for the rights of a church to choose not to marry a couple if that marriage contradicts the church’s view of its teachings. That’s important, and it helped shape my decision.
“My preference would be to put this issue on the ballot and give all Washingtonians the opportunity to wrestle with this issue, to search their hearts as I have, and to make the choice for themselves. But I do not know that there are the votes to put it to a ballot measure. So, forced to make a choice, my choice is to allow all men and women in our state to enjoy the same privileges that are so important in my life. I will vote in favor of marriage equality.
“I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That’s neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different. I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy.
“This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor.”
I’ve touched on religiosity in sports in the past (and am clearly enamored enough with Carlin’s take on Christian athletes to embed the clip twice without remembering I’d already done so), so why not go there a third time, right? This week’s Yahweh blah-weh comes, surprisingly, not from the Denver Broncos and their Mile-High Messiah (aka, the 1.6 Kilometer-high King of Kings), but from my very own (as in, I have nothing to do with them in any material sense whatsoever) New England Patriots.
Via the Boston Globe:
Patriots defensive end Andre Carter will be placed on injured reserve, ending his season, a league source confirmed last night.
Carter injured his left quadriceps on the final play of the first quarter of Sunday’s 41-23 win in Denver and will require surgery.
The 11-year veteran took to Twitter last night, tweeting, “God is great. Thank you for showing me and my family support this season. It’s been a blast. Wouldn’t change it for anything.’’
Really, Andre? You wouldn’t change it for anything? You wouldn’t, say, change it if God offered to heal your goddamn leg?
I hope you and Adrian Gonzalez have a gay old time this offseason reminiscing about not the playoffs. (Not like that though: we already know God’s take on The Gays.)
(No, not that one. Althoooooooough…)
Apparently, the network mentioned the repeal
just 16 times yesterday between 12 a.m. and 11:59 p.m., according to a ThinkProgress search of Critical Mention. Comparatively, CNN and MSNBC covered the repeal 66 times and 84 times respectively:
Guess they’re still waiting for the inevitable implosion of our armed forces.
It looked totally gay.
Rick Santorum: “I’m a lawyer, I’m Rick Santorum, I’m running for president, God hates fags.”
College student: “You’re a fucking idiot, go read some science, you fucking idiot.”
Rick Santorum: “Science is just what a bunch of gay scientists say it is.”
Everyone sane: facepalm.
I’m not a huge fan of David Gregory, to put it mildly. But this set of questions for Rep. Crazypants endears me to him a little bit. In a healthy democracy, politicians should regularly squirm before journalistic interrogation. Indeed, I’d argue it’s integral to quality the project of political journalism itself — make the bastards uncomfortable. So I suppose it’s a sign of progress that media Village icons feel emboldened to defend the rights of the LGBT community in 2011. I’ll take what I can get these days.
Plus, that feigned “I-can’t-believe-you’re-pressing-this-hard” smile of Bachmann’s? Have I mentioned how much I relish watching that bigot squirm?