The Walking Dead - 4x08 " Too Far Gone" : Sneak...
Q3 Do you think high school students should beIt is somewhat bizarre to juxtapose these two symbols since the Stars and Bars is a symbol of racism and oppression and enslavement of African-Americans while the Rainbow flag is a symbol of the diversity of sexual expression.
allowed to wear confederate flags to school, or
Think they should............................................ 43%
Think they should not...................................... 37%
Not sure .......................................................... 19%
Q4 Do you think high school students should be
allowed to wear gay pride flags to school, or
Think they should............................................ 28%
Think they should not...................................... 57%
Not sure .......................................................... 15%
Q5 Do you think it’s more appropriate for high
school students to wear gay pride flags or
confederate flags to school?
Gay pride flags................................................ 9%
Confederate flags ........................................... 38%
Not sure .......................................................... 52%
Folks, the Confederate flag is no better than a Swastika. It is a symbol of white supremacy, hate and oppression that has no place in American political discourse. That Kanye West wants to co-opt the rebel banner is as noble as it is futile. Meanwhile, the rainbow that is the gay pride flag symbolizes inclusion and acceptance. Oftentimes, usually in other countries, the words “pace” or “peace” can be found emblazoned on it. The rainbow flag is the very antithesis of the Confederate flag. That the latter is deemed more acceptable than the former is deplorable.It is NOT a coincidence that the state flag of Mississippi still contains the stars and bars of the Confederacy, while the state flag of Arkansas contains motifs (white stars on blue diagonal stripes) which come from the stars and bars. Both Florida and Alabama have official state flags which retain the X shape from stars and bars. There have been long-standing and ongoing controversies over public displays of the Confederate flag.
Three federal appeals courts around the country have struck down the contraception coverage rule, while two other appeals courts have upheld it. That "circuit split" made a Supreme Court review more likely. Among the plaintiffs is Hobby Lobby, Inc. a nationwide chain of about 500 for-profit arts and crafts stores. David Green and his family are the owners and say their Christian beliefs clash with parts of the law's mandates for comprehensive coverage. They say some of the drugs that would be provided prevent human embryos from being implanted in a woman's womb, which the Greens equate to abortion. The privately held company does not object to funding other forms of contraception -- such as condoms and diaphragms -- for their roughly 13,000 employees, which Hobby Lobby says represent a variety of faiths. Companies that refuse to provide the coverage could be fined up to $1.3 million daily.David Green frames the argument this way:
"This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”The Friendly Atheist responds:
On that matter, this isn’t just a war on Green’s “religious conscience.” This is a war on science and sex. Green doesn’t care that the FDA has said birth control pills don’t cause abortions — rather, they prevent abortions from happening, which you would think he’d totally support — but he believes they cause abortions. So there. And it’s hardly a surprise that an evangelical would be opposed to women having sex that doesn’t lead to a child, though Green has no problem paying for his employees’ Viagra pills…
David Green thinks his religious beliefs ought to trump those of his employees. He doesn’t want them making their own health care decisions; he thinks he knows better than they do.
There’s another issue here, too: If the Supreme Court rules in Green’s favor, where is the line drawn? What if a business owner is a Jehovah’s Witness who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions? Or a Christian Scientist who believe in the power of prayer over medicine?
That the Supreme Court thinks this is a case worth hearing is frightening. That they could rule in the religious owners’ favor is a disaster in the making.What if a business owner believes AIDS is God's punishment and that their religious beliefs would be violated if they paid for HIV treatment? Should businesses be allowed to not offer health plans that cover treatments for sexually transmitted infections if their religious beliefs say that sex outside of marriage should be punished?
Hopefully, Casey will serve as a role model for other players on the WTA tour to feel comfortable enough to come out proudly about their sexual orientation. I'm talking to YOU, Samantha Stosur!
A civil court jury on Monday returned a $1.1 million verdict against the City of Los Angeles, finding in favor of a black firefighter who said he had been discriminated against during a nearly three-decade career because of his race.
The verdict comes after 16 days of deliberation — and six years after another jury ruled against Jabari S. Jumaane, who alleged a pattern of racial bias, harassment and retaliation in the Los Angeles Fire Department when he worked as a fire inspector. That decision was overturned after an appeals court granted a new trial, agreeing that there had been jury misconduct in the original case.
According to a 2012 report by the city’s office of the independent assessor on fire department litigation, Jumaane’s allegation of jury misconduct included a declaration by a juror who “claimed to have witnessed racially motivated misconduct by fellow jurors.”And "Judge accuses UCLA police of brutality":
The retrial jury’s ruling is a blow to a department that has found itself accused of systematic discrimination — particularly against black firefighters — in the past.
David S. Cunningham III is a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, former president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, and a onetime federal civil rights attorney.
But on Saturday morning, he found himself handcuffed in the back of a UCLA police car. Officers had pulled him over as he was driving his Mercedes out of his Westwood gym — because, the police said, he wasn't wearing his seat belt.
What happened next is a matter of dispute, but it ended with the African American judge yelling to a growing crowd in the heart of Westwood Village about police brutality.
Cunningham, 59, has now filed an excessive force complaint with the university, and his attorney said Monday that he believed race was a factor in how the judge was treated.
"Do you think this would have happened if he was a white judge?" said the attorney, Carl Douglas.
UCLA officials said the officers handcuffed Cunningham when he disobeyed their order to stay inside his car while they checked his driver's license and registration.Do you see the common factors between the two stories?
These are very interesting results. It is curious how people could support the right for same-sex couples to get legally married but in the same breath do not think those same couples should be able to adopt kids!According to a Parametria survey conducted in July, 52 percent of respondents support gay marriage, while 44 percent remain opposed. Fifty-two percent of Roman Catholics are also in support. That's a thirteen point increase in support from a previous poll conducted in December of 2012.Fifty-seven percent of Mexicans (60% of Catholics) support gay troops serving openly in the military.Openly gay politicians are supported 49-45 percent.Eighty-nine percent of respondents said that gay people in Mexico should be treated equally, but 9 in 10 acknowledged that discrimination exists in the nation.However, a large majority of Mexicans (70%) are opposed to gay couples adopting children, a 4 point drop from last year's survey.And when asked to choose either a statement in support of same-sex unions as a testament to a free society or a statement in support of marriage remaining a heterosexual union, only 36 percent chose the former, a ten point increase from 2004, while 51 percent chose the later.
I would vote against this initiative if it qualified for the ballot, but I'm not sure that I am completely against a carveout in public accommodations law to allow religious people an exemption related to marriage equality ceremonies. However, I would only support an exception limited to this one area. The problem is that I am sure the religious extremists who are circulating this initiative would make the argument that if you are willing to exempt religious people from public accommodations law for the purpose of marriage ceremonies, why not also do so for other areas like housing or other "intimate" services like manicures, massages, etc.? Once you have a carve out for one area of public accommodation how would you prevent the accommodation from being extended to various other areas?
Congratulations to Magnus on his victory!
When Obama came into office, Republican appointess held 59.4% of the filled judicial seats. But just this month, Democrats took a one-seat edge and now hold 50.06% of the seats.
(The shift was little noted in the media. USA Today flagged that Democrats reached a tie on November 1. Soon after, the Senate filled two vacancies, while one new vacancy was createdwhen a Democratic judge moved to “senior” status.)
But while Dems now hold that paper-thin edge, there are 93 vacancies on the table. (Plus another 18 judges have announced they will vacate their seats in the near future.)
If Republicans dare Democrats into scrapping the filibuster for judicial nominations, President Obama can move to fill all those vacancies, which would give Democrats control of more than 55% of the judiciary.It would indeed be a great thing if the federal judiciary actually was occupied by people who thought it was their job to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and enforce constitutional liberties and civil rights instead of the fraud of "original intent."
"As the first American woman in space, Sally didn't just break the stratospheric glass ceiling, she blasted through it," Obama said of Ride. "And when she came back to Earth, she devoted her life to helping girls excel in fields like math, science and engineering. 'Young girls need to see role models,' she said, 'you can't be what you can't see.' Today, our daughters -- including Malia and Sasha -- can set their sights a little bit higher because Sally Ride showed them the way."It's nice to see that members of the LGBT community are being recognized at the highest level, now perhaps soon we can start recognizing people before they die. People like Mary Bonauto, Larry Kramer and Phill Wilson would be on my short list of future possibilities.
Ride, who became the first American woman to travel to space in 1983, died in July 2012 after a 17-month battle with pancreatic cancer. Ride devoted much of her life to advancing science education and the U.S. space program.For Rustin, who died in 1987, Obama said final recognition for his role in the civil rights movement was part of a broader struggle for equality."For decades, this great leader, often at Dr. King's side, was denied his rightful place in history because he was openly gay," Obama said. "No medal can change that, but today, we honor Bayard Rustin's memory by taking our place in his march towards true equality, no matter who we are or who we love."Rustin was an advisor to Martin Luther King Jr., helped organize the early "freedom rides" and played a key role in organizing the 1963 March on Washington.
Naegle and O'Shaughnessy, who had never met before, were alphabetically seated next to each other during the ceremony presenting a resonant image. Both said they believed their presence as the gay partners of two Americans being awarded the nation's highest civilian honor would not go unnoticed."I think having Walter and me onstage for our partners sends a huge message to the world and that feels good," O'Shaughnessy said.
A California pastor says he found the Bible filed under “fiction” at a Costco store near his home.
Pastor Caleb Kaltenbach said he made the discovery Friday while shopping for a present for his wife in Simi Valley.
“All the Bibles were labeled as fiction,” said Kaltenbach, pastor at the nondenominational Discovery Church.
“It seemed bizarre to me.”
The pastor said he checked the shelf for other Bibles, and he told Fox News’ Todd Starnes that each copy had a sticker that said: “$14.99 Fiction.”
Kaltenbach said none of the Costco employees he found would answer his question about the Bibles, so he took a photo of one and posted it on Twitter.
“People are pretty shocked and upset,” Kaltenbach said. “We are supposed to be living in an era of tolerance, but what Costco did doesn’t seem too tolerant.”
The pastor said he doubted the Washington-based company would have labeled a Koran as fiction and took the label personally.
“If they don’t believe in the Bible, that’s fine – but at least label it as ‘religion’ as some bookstores do, or ‘inspiration,’” he said. “On the one hand Christians should not yell out.’ We aren’t living in Iraq or Iran. But on the other hand, I believe that we do need to stand up for our faith and we need to be vocal about our concerns.”
A spokeswoman for Costco told Starnes the Bible was mislabeled as the result of human error at a warehouse,” and that the issue had been resolved.It doesn't seem surprising to me that the Bible should be labeled as fiction. Where did he want it to be put, Biography? Of course, Costco should have just labeled it as "religion" but I wanted to blog about the story, which of course is now being picked up by Faux News and the conservative blogosphere, as an example of how controversy is manufactured in this country.
Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same-sex couples.. It protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people.This is simply astonishing. Previously Fallin was one of eight governors identified by the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel as being in violation of military policy. Curious how the other 30-something states that have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage didn't interpret their laws in such a virulently homophobic way. I wonder why not? Tulsa World goes on to explain the context of Fallin's statement, which is today's Queer Quote.
Although Oklahoma owns most of the state's National Guard armories and training centers, the facilities were built almost entirely with federal funds.
The federal government provides about 90 percent of the budget for the Oklahoma Military Department, which includes the National Guard.
Toby Jenkins, executive director of Oklahomans for Equality, blasted Fallin, saying, "The governor is sending the message that Oklahoma desires to be an island of prejudice and continues to uphold laws crafted out of fear and drafted by bigots and hypocrites.
"Once again she has insulted our citizen soldiers who daily stand in harm's way for the people of Oklahoma," Jenkins said.
The current controversy began in early September, when the Defense Department said it would recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in states where such unions are recognized. This followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that all legal marriages, regardless of the spouses' genders, must be honored by the federal government.Some people really don't understand the concept of "equality for all"!
|Mary Bonauto of GLAD is viewed by some as the lawyer most |
responsible for the current state of marriage equality in America
Ten years after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered that the state become the first in the country to allow same-sex couples to marry, the once-feared concept has gained mainstream popular support, is recognized by the federal government, and is now the reality in 15 states and Washington, D.C.
Without Mary Bonauto, however, marriage equality might never have happened.
The lawyer brought marriage equality cases in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. She argued the case to the justices in Massachusetts who brought marriage equality to the United States. She won the first decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act’s federal definition of marriage, and the first appellate decision too — a ruling that forced the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. If there’s been a big moment in marriage equality’s long march to reality, Bonauto was probably there.
And it’s no secret either: The movement’s other leading lawyers openly credit Bonauto for making the success possible.
After losing at trial, the case advanced to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where Bonauto argued for legal marriage equality on March 4, 2003.
“Before the argument, I went up to this … law library that I used to go to all the time,” she says. “I just went in there and I was just trying to steel myself, thinking, Mary, you know, you are right. You’re right. This is correct. You are on the right side here.”
Bonauto had just 15 minutes before the court.
“I think the first question was, ‘Why should we do something no one else has ever done?’ — which is a fair question, and I said, ‘Because marriage is a fundamental right, [this is] sexual orientation [discrimination], and this is the right thing to do.’”
The court agreed.
“The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals,” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the court’s landmark decision, issued on Nov. 18, 2003. “It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.” The government, the court held, “has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.”Happy Anniversary, Massachusetts!
Nixon said he was making the change because state tax law is linked to federal tax law.
After the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the Defense of Marriage Act in June, the IRS ruled that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for federal tax purposes, no matter where they live.
At a news conference in his Capitol office, Nixon told reporters he will issue an executive order today telling the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept the couples’ joint state returns if they file joint federal returns.Think Progress explains how the legal situation for same-sex couples has changed since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor:
When the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, it opened up the possibility for same-sex couples to file their federal tax returns jointly for the first time. In the past, such couples living in states that recognized their marriages could file jointly at the state level but had to file separately at the federal level. The situation is now switched, so any couple who legally married in one state but then moved to another that didn’t recognize their union can file jointly for federal taxes, but will still have to file separately for state taxes. Missouri will become the first exception to this.As I have been saying, we are running out of blue states to make advances in marriage equality and the next frontier in ending discrimination against LGBT people will be occurring in conservative red states. The only remaining blue states that do not have marriage or civil unions are Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. It's curious that these are some of the most populous states in the country and currently all of them (except Virginia) have Republican governors but have gubernatorial elections in 2014. Virginia is the location of a high profile federal marriage lawsuit, and there are active lawsuits in many of the other states as well. Blue states which are expected to have enacted marriage equality in the foreseeable future are New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado and Nevada.
Prior to this year, three openly gay people had served as U.S. Ambassadors (Jim Hormel, Michael Guest and David Huebner). Just this year, five openly gay people have been confirmed as Ambassadors (Brewster, along with John Berry in Australia, James Costos in Spain, Rufus Gifford in Denmark, and Daniel Baer as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe). It is a testament to President Obama and the U.S. Senate that the sexual orientation of these ambassadors is irrelevant to their qualifications for their posts. All Americans should be proud to have these fine public servants representing the interests of the United States.Of course one might notice that all five LGBT individuals are white gay men, which is not indicative of the diversity of the LGBT community, but is representative of the people who get rewarded with ambassadorships through political appointments!
It must be repeated that this statement is simply not true, and that if Speaker Boehner really believes this is a true statement, then he must be an idiot. The fact is that 29 states do not have laws that protect LGBT people from being fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Since it is probably not the case that Boehner has risen to be second in line to become President of the United States while being an idiot, one can only conclude that Speaker Boehner is deliberately repeating a lie in order to deflect attention from the call to allow a vote on ENDA.