- This WSJ article is so on point. | What Annoys Us Most About Gadgets and Apps in 2016 wsj.com/articles/tech-… 1 day ago
- RT @jasonbourne: Here’s your first look at @jasonbourne, in theaters this July. #Bourne amp.twimg.com/v/38b72647-ca7… 4 days ago
- Team "I Touch My Felt" has another perfect week in @StonewallBllrds. 5-0 two weeks in a row! 4 days ago
- RT @DailyCaller: MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry: Dem Presidential Field Is ‘Whiter Than The Oscars’ [VIDEO] trib.al/eiypyXm https://t… 5 days ago
- Congrats to the Denver Broncos and fans! I always support the NFC team, but a good win is a good win. 5 days ago
Politics & Pop Culture from a homocon.
Tag Archives: marriage equality
January 9, 2013Posted by on
Funny, I don’t hear the gay left demanding to know where Log Cabin got the money for this add in the The Hill newspaper. LCR_THE_HILL
December 15, 2012Posted by on
This newspaper applauds the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear arguments in two same-sex marriage cases — one on California’s Proposition 8, which bans such marriages, and one regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriage has been percolating at the state level for several years, leading to a patchwork of laws that create more confusion than clarity. The court can undo that confusion by determining the constitutional parameters of this issue.
We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the right of gay couples to marry based upon the fundamental American ideal of equality before the law. It is critical that the court also make clear that such a ruling won’t require churches whose doctrines oppose same-sex marriage to perform such ceremonies.
Debating the reversal of centuries of views about the institution of marriage cannot be considered without upheaval, and we recognize that the notion of gays and lesbians marrying can divide families, friends and, especially, generations. But the growing support for same-sex marriage, including within families whose gay members have changed the way these unions are seen, makes the embrace of gay marriage less of a radical shift.
Polls show that American attitudes have shifted dramatically on the subject. Surveys by organizations such as Gallup reveal that half or more of Americans support the concept of gay marriage. Equality in marriage laws is particularly embraced by younger Americans, including some younger evangelicals.
Even leading conservatives favor gay marriage. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is among the most notable. So, too, is former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, who will lead the team arguing in favor of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.
Olson contends that the federal government lacks the right to deny gay couples the opportunity to marry. He also will argue that the ban denies gay couples the right to due process. As the Republican wrote in Newsweek, “This bedrock principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike.”
We respect that some religious traditions see same-sex unions as an affront to their canons, scriptures and traditions. The First Amendment protects such places of worship from being compelled to conduct same-sex marriages. Additionally, the justices should take care to carve out strong and significant protections so that the institutions’ religious liberties, for instance their tax-exempt status, are not circumscribed.
In 2004, this newspaper opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We have backed efforts to outlaw discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. Now, we believe that the Supreme Court should conclude that equality under the law includes the right of gay couples to wed.
What’s at stake before the Supreme Court is how a secular society should respond to the growing demand for same-sex marriage. That is where Olson’s arguments seem so persuasive. How can a secular government grant marriage rights to some but not others?
June 29, 2012Posted by on
|FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:||Contact: Robert Turner|
|June 29, 2012||(XXX) XXX-XXXX cell|
DC Becomes First GOP State Committee to Add Inclusion to Platform
|WASHINGTON, DC – Yesterday, the DC Republican Committee (DCRC), the DC equivalent of a state party, became the first Republican state party to insert inclusive language into its party platform leading up to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.Under the heading of ‘Family and Marriage,’ the DCRC added, “We, the Republicans of the District of Columbia support the belief that all individuals, without regard to sexual orientation, are entitled to full and equal protection under the laws and the Constitution and that everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect.”
Robert Turner II, President of the DC chapter of Log Cabin Republicans and a newly elected member of the DCRC praised the work of the committee saying, “We are excited to be a part of a state party who understands that inclusion wins! Marriage equality is settled law here in the District. All citizens, including LGBT citizens should be treated equally.” Turner testified before the Platform Committee earlier this month and offered language that was similar to what was officially adopted. “We didn’t get the exact wording we had hoped for, but we are extremely happy with the outcome. We commend Chairman Bob Kabel on his efforts in putting this document together,” Turner concluded.
Log Cabin Republicans is a national organization started in 1977, with state and local chapters nationwide, which believes in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin Republicans educates our party about why inclusion wins and that opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP’s core principles of smaller government and personal freedom. The DC Chapter holds monthly meetings, supports inclusive local Republican candidates, and sponsors monthly social gatherings. For more information, please visit www.dclogcabin.org.
– 30 –
May 31, 2012Posted by on
“To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans livein states where that is the law today,” the decision states. “One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.”
– U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals
May 10, 2012Posted by on
Well then. There have been lots of fireworks over the past week about marriage equality. First, the Vice President went and stepped in it by announcing his support for marriage equality. Then Jay Carney, the President’s press secretary tried to contort his way out of those comments and not place them on Obama. Next we had the state of North Carolina pass a constitutional marriage not only making marriage legal between one man and one woman, but also prohibit any legal recognition of unmarried couples, gay or straight.
Finally yesterday, Mr. Obama officially evolved through a myriad of pressure from his base, both public and private. Excerpts of the text and video of the interview was released as so to stop the death by a million needle pricks.
People and groups reacted differently. I re-posted the press release that was sent out by national Log Cabin, and many of you went apoplectic.
But now that everyone has had a chance to take a breath, let’s evaluate some of the finer points. Can anyone honestly say that Obama would have made such an announcement were it not for Biden? And why wait until the day after an election in a swing state that had marriage equality on the ballot?
As a very good friend of mine pointed out, I have often said that a president should not involve himself in a state-level issue. But that’s easily remedied by coming out for marriage equality while reassuring one’s belief in the Tenth Amendment, as former Vice President Dick Cheney did.
That being said, don’t be foolish enough to ask when is Mitt Romney is going to come out in support of marriage equality. He’s not! Would I like him to? Absolutely! But he’s courting a base. And regardless of whether Log Cabin Republicans endorse him or not (my thoughts on that next week in the Blade), our coalition is not yet big enough to command that attention. But we will get there. It won’t be today, or this year, but it’s in the near future.
As you look around the country, a few conservatives each and every day are showing their support for marriage equality. Again, Cheney is a great example of this. And while many on the left chided him for doing it AFTER he left office, they were the same people who applauded former President Bill Clinton for doing the same, AFTER he left office.
We still have many closed-minded people in our party. I will not deny that. But my mission, as is that of Log Cabin Republicans is to change hearts and minds one day, one person at a time.
October 18, 2011Posted by on
This morning at a campaign stop in North Carolina, President Obama said he wants lawmakers to be “crystal clear” on where they stand on individual pieces of the jobs bill.
My response to you, Mr. President, is that I want you to be crystal clear on where you stand on marriage equality!
December 23, 2010Posted by on
Yesterday, President Obama held a press conference to show his blissful happy dance (hat tip: @colocelt) about all that was accomplished during this lame duck session of Congress. To be sure, much good was accomplished, including tax cut extensions for all Americans, food safety legislation, and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Jake Tapper of ABC News stood up and asked the President “Is it intellectually consistent to say that gays and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country, but they should not be able to marry the people they love?”
Obama said that his feeling about marriage equality is constantly evolving. “I’ve struggled with this,” he said. He says that his baseline is a strong civil union that provides them (us) the protections and legal rights that married couples have.
I give it a year before he has totally come on board with married equality.
February 28, 2010Posted by on
On either March 9th or 10th, depending on who’s calendar you go by, gays and lesbians here in the nation’s capital will be able to legally wed one another.
The final potential obstacle to this historic pending law came and went last Friday, when the DC Court of Appeals denied Bishop Harry Jackson an injunction request to block the law from taking effect.
According to the DC Agenda, “The three-judge appeals court panel also held that Jackson and others who have joined him in requesting the injunction failed to show that allowing the marriage law to take effect would cause them irreparable harm.”
This is an important fact because opponents of marriage equality often say that by extending marriage rights, they harm traditional marriages. So let’s ask the straight married people in Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Vermont if their marriages have been harmed in any way.
We all know what the answer to that one is.