Pro-Marriage Bill Passes in MD Senate, Heads to the House
Just in, from The Post:
There's a long discussion there, lots of quotes. Let's see how it goes. House hearings are tomorrow. The Nutty Ones are gearing up to make a spectacle of it; in the Senate hearings they were very successful at alienating members and turning the vote in favor of equality. Here's hoping they do the same tomorrow.
Here's How the Md. Senate voted on same-sex marriage
The Maryland Senate narrowly approved legislation Thursday that would legalize same-sex marriages after a day of emotional and often personal debate laced with references to religion and civil rights.
The 25 to 21 vote sent the bill to the House of Delegates, traditionally the more liberal chamber on social issues. But supporters acknowledged Thursday that they still were a couple of votes shy of the majority needed for House passage. Maryland Senate approves bill on gay marriage, but House passage not ensured
There's a long discussion there, lots of quotes. Let's see how it goes. House hearings are tomorrow. The Nutty Ones are gearing up to make a spectacle of it; in the Senate hearings they were very successful at alienating members and turning the vote in favor of equality. Here's hoping they do the same tomorrow.
Here's How the Md. Senate voted on same-sex marriage
posted by JimK at 9:02 PM
25 Comments:
PRESIDENT OBAMA and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. declared on Wednesday that the Justice Department would no longer be an advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
The administration has given Congress fair warning that it should step forward to defend the statute if it so desires. But there are potential pitfalls for how the president and the attorney general chose to advance these principles.
The Justice Department is institutionally tasked with defending duly enacted congressional legislation. This does not mean that Justice Department officials must believe in the wisdom of the law or its policy implications, only that there are good-faith and reasonable arguments to be made in its defense. It is, in short, a very low bar. That is the approach taken by former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson in robustly defending a campaign finance reform law that citizen Olson - a conservative Republican - would surely have rejected.
The Obama administration's tactic could come back to haunt it. What would the president say, for example, if a conservative Republican administration in the future attempted to sabotage the Obama health-care initiative by refusing to defend it against constitutional attack?
The best way to eliminate DOMA is to work with lawmakers to erase the law from the books.
always humorous when Jim starts calling other people "nutty"
"lunatic fringe gay supporters acknowledged Thursday that they still were a couple of votes shy of the majority needed for House passage"
sounds like the Dems have one last chance to avoid a referendum
that would be too bad
Maryland needs a discussion and a vote!!!
come senators and congressmen
please heed the call
don't hide out in hotels
don't hide at all
for he who gets hurt
will be he who has stalled
there's a battle outside
and it's ragin
it'll soon shake your windows
and rattle your walls
for the times
they are a-changin'
"MADISON, Wis. - Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly took the first significant action on their plan to strip collective bargaining rights from most public workers, abruptly passing the measure early Friday morning before sleep-deprived Democrats realized what was happening.
The Assembly's vote sent the bill on to the Senate, but minority Democrats in that house have fled to Illinois to prevent a vote. No one knows when they will return from hiding. Republicans who control the chamber sent state troopers out looking for them at their homes on Thursday, but they turned up nothing.
"I applaud the Democrats in the Assembly for earnestly debating this bill and urge their counterparts in the state Senate to return to work and do the same," Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, said in a statement issued moments after the vote."
"Maryland needs a discussion and a vote!!!"
bring it on, House
pro-family forces want to discuss this with a player you're ignoring:
the voters
If the matter ends up in a referendum, then the discussion will continue.
The true pro-family forces -- those who believe that ALL of our families should have access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage regardless of sexual orientation -- will make their case. They (we) will be up against a well-funded attack by conservative forces who will try to argue that expansion of marriage rights will somehow undermine the marriage rights of those who already have them.
It would be a shame if we have to spend nearly a year and half (and huge amounts of money that could otherwise be spent raising our families) justifying gay families to everyone in the state, but if that is what needs to be done to secure equality, then that is what we will do.
don't hide out in hotels
don't hide at all
There are a couple of GOP Governors who disagree with that sentiment.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a potential GOP presidential candidate, calls the Democratic tactic of denying Republicans a quorum “perfectly legitimate” and even saluted them for using approach. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is trying to push changes in collective bargaining law that fall well short of Walker’s proposal, also defended the Democratic tactic, saying that when he was in Congress he might have tried something like that himself depending on the circumstances.
Excerpt from Where Wisconsin governor leads, few are following
"It would be a shame if we have to spend nearly a year and half (and huge amounts of money that could otherwise be spent raising our families) justifying gay families to everyone in the state"
money well spent
"There are a couple of GOP Governors who disagree with that sentiment"
and?
"The new White House social secretary is Jeremy Bernard -- the first man and first openly gay person -- tapped for the job.
Bernard, 49, is the Obama administration's third social secretary.
The Washington Post is reporting that Bernard was a major Obama fundraiser whose former partner, Rufus Gifford, is currently the Democratic National Committee finance director. The White House East Wing confirmed to Politics Daily that Bernard and Gifford were business partners in a political fund-raising and consulting firm.
Bernard at present is a Senior Advisor to the U.S. French Ambassador in Paris.
Before that, he was the White House Liaison to the National Endowment for the Humanities from 2008 to 2010. He has been a regular White House visitor and on Oct. 1, according to White House visitor records."
scandalous
Sounds like Ken Mehlman who chaired the RNC during the Bush Administration, except Bernard is honest about who he is while Mehlman hid in the closet until 2010.
Being gay and working for a President is only "scandalous" to a homophobe.
"It was only a single billboard, raised high above the streets of Manhattan, with a photograph of a black little girl and the kind of message the city's residents don't often see:
"The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb."
The ad was sponsored by a Texas-based anti-abortion group, which said there is a particularly high abortion rate among black women and that it wanted to show them there are other options. The billboard sparked outrage in liberal New York City.
Abortion-rights groups say they are facing an increasingly hostile political environment and fighting a sudden surge of legislation across the country aimed at restricting abortion.
Hundreds of such bills are introduced in state legislatures every year but abortion-rights advocates say this year is different.
Janet Creeps, deputy director of the U.S. legal program for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the group has already tracked 300 anti-abortion bills so far this year nationwide, up from 150 for the entire year of 2010.
"They are emboldened by the results of the midterm election," she said."
Even the 9th Circuit has rejected Holder’s nonsensical claim:
— In High Tech, the Court refused to afford sexual orientation suspect classification. 9th Cir. explained that while “homosexuals have suffered a history of discrimination,” they do not meet the other criteria: “[h]omosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from traits such as race, gender, or alienage . . . .” 895 F.2d at 573.
couldn't have said it better meself
btw, for all the TTFers on psychotic meds, here's the latest proof of global warmin':
"Hilly areas of San Francisco got a rare light dusting of snow, the National Weather Service said Saturday.
Snow fell briefly late Friday and early Saturday on the city's Twin Peaks neighborhood and some other areas with higher elevations, meteorologist Mark Strobin said.
"A little bit up in the hills," Strobin told The Associated Press. "It snowed down to about 400 feet."
The city last saw snow on the ground in 1976, when an inch fell."
I was surprised to hear this
I've been in Frisco in July and freezed me arse off
still, it's another indication of how chilly global warming is making our planet
if you're going, be sure to wear some icesicles in your hair
MOAMMAR GADDAFI'S deadly grip on Libya appeared to slip further on Friday - but the tyrant still had plenty of fight left. After his troops opened fire indiscriminately on crowds emerging from mosques after Friday prayers, Mr. Gaddafi appeared in the center of Tripoli to deliver another speech laden with bloody threats to make his country "a living hell." The aim of the outside world ought to be to stop him from delivering on that vow and to hasten what is now the inevitable end of one of the world's worst dictatorships.
Libyans, above all, understand the urgency of acting. A large part of the Libyan diplomatic corps has defected in recent days, including the delegation to the United Nations. At the Security Council on Friday, ambassador Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgam wept as he pleaded for international intervention. "Gaddafi is telling his people either I rule over you or I will kill you," he said. "Please U.N., save Libya." Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called for "decisive action," saying there had been massive violations of human rights.
Sadly, there was little sign that such action was under serious consideration by President Obama. Among the NATO allies, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the most determined. "France's position is clear: Mr. Gaddafi must go," he said. France, joined by Britain, began pushing for a U.N. Security Council resolution that would impose an arms embargo on Libya as well as financial sanctions and ask the International Criminal Court to bring Mr. Gaddafi and other leaders to justice.
There was, however, no action by NATO and no move toward establishing the no-fly zone that Libyan diplomats requested, other than some preliminary planning in Brussels. The military support for insurgent leaders suggested by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) seemed out of the question. That's largely because the nation that has always led such initiatives - the United States - was standing back.
At a news conference on Wednesday, President Obama said his administration was considering "the full range of options" for Libya. But by late Friday the most notable measure he had announced was the dispatch of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for a discussion at the feckless and discredited U.N. Human Rights Council - on Monday. His spokesman said unilateral U.S. sanctions were being prepared. While China has sent a frigate to Libya to protect the evacuation of its citizens, no U.S. naval operations are underway.
Mr. Obama has spoken only once in public about the Libyan crisis. He has yet to condemn Mr. Gaddafi by name. He has not called for an end to the regime. He has expressed concern about protecting U.S. citizens - most of whom were evacuated from Libya on Friday - but has showed no intention of protecting the Libyans whom Mr. Gaddafi is slaughtering. The White House appears content to allow France and other nations to take the lead. But the reality is that as long as the president of the United States remains passive, the help Libyans are begging for will not come.
With respect to the High Tech case Anon cites, please note that it was decided in 1990 -- prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the logic of which seriously undercuts that court of appeals precedent. Moreover, scientific evaluations since that decision show that the premise of High Tech is factually incorrect.
Many people (including myself) elected Obama into office hoping he'd get us OUT of wars in the Middle East, not involve us in more of them.
If the Libyans manage to get rid of Gaddafi, (and it looks like they will, eventually) the government they set up will be far more legitimate than anything we can try and create over there. Also, they will have a vested interest in maintaining it, after having spilled their own blood for it -- not unlike we did after getting rid of the British.
Other countries in the area will have more respect for us as well, as we keep talking about spreading democracy and self-determination, but for decades have supported repressive regimes in order to serve our own oil interests. There are still some folks over there that respect the ideals our country stands for, but they don't want our country trying to run theirs.
Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, we really can't afford to get involved in yet another war.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"Moreover, scientific evaluations since that decision show that the premise of High Tech is factually incorrect"
your statement is factually incorrect
"Many people elected Obama into office hoping he'd get us OUT of wars in the Middle East, not involve us in more of them"
he doesn't need to get us into a war
a few strategic strikes would make the difference
we have drones you know
"If the Libyans manage to get rid of Gaddafi, the government they set up will be far more legitimate than anything we can try and create over there"
I wasn't suggesting we create anything
"they will have a vested interest in maintaining it, after having spilled their own blood for it -- not unlike we did after getting rid of the British"
they already have a vested interest, I don't think a lot of bloodshed will be a big positive, you wicked hag
"Other countries in the area will have more respect for us as well,"
you should read wikileaks
they secretly want us to intervene
"as we keep talking about spreading democracy and self-determination,"
we do a lot more than talk
"but for decades have supported repressive regimes in order to serve our own oil interests"
support?
we've made the best of a bad situation
"There are still some folks over there that respect the ideals our country stands for, but they don't want our country trying to run theirs"
nobody has any interest in running Libya
"Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, we really can't afford to get involved in yet another war"
we could launch a few strikes with the money we save defunding PP
"Have a nice day"
stick a white hot needle in your ear and tickle your "brain"
Anon surmised:
“he doesn't need to get us into a war
a few strategic strikes would make the difference
we have drones you know”
Yes, I do know we have drones. Recently I helped re-design the power distribution system for one that the Navy wants to use. They told me it didn’t carry weapons though, it is just used for reconnaissance, which I hope is true. I do not feel comfortable working on weapon systems.
“they already have a vested interest, I don't think a lot of bloodshed will be a big positive,”
I don’t think bloodshed is ever a big positive, especially if we start lobbing missiles into Tripoli (a city with over a million people) to try and get rid of Gaddafi. Our shedding of Libyan blood will only serve the militant Muslim propagandists’ notion that we are out to destroy their culture and religion. If Libyans do themselves, Al-Qaeda will not be able to spin it against us. They’ll also know that Libyans are capable of standing up for themselves and probably won’t fall victim to a Taliban style take-over like in Afghanistan.
The drone themselves are relatively cheap by military standards, but you can’t just fly a drone over there – there’s an entire cadre of people and equipment behind them supporting any drone operation. How many millions of dollars per day does that cost? Cruise missiles could be used instead, at a cost of about $600,000 to several million dollars a piece. How many of those do you think we’d have to launch before we’d manage to hit Gaddafi? How many innocent civilians would die in the process? How many new friends will we make from that? Why don’t we use one on that Osama Bin Laden guy? Or will they just want to throw shoes at our president?
“you wicked hag”
You’ve been posting here long enough Anon to know that I’m not baited by you calling me infantile names. Besides, I’m an Evil Cyn, not a wicked hag, at least not after I’ve had the chance to do my hair in the morning.
“stick a white hot needle in your ear and tickle your "brain"”
When you first started posting these kinds of comments I thought you were just having difficulty getting the concept of the “positive close” down, but I gave you credit for at least trying.
However, after several like this one:
“go skinny-dip in a lava floe” (sic)
(From: http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2010/12/fall-of-rome.html )
I have to ask, do you really think that exposing your sadistic fantasies about seeing me naked and dead on a public forum really do anything to promote your argument?
Have a VERY nice day.
Cynthia
Anon surmised:
“a few strategic strikes would make the difference
we have drones you know”
cynco responded:
"Yes, I do know we have drones. They told me they don’t carry weapons though, which I hope is true. I do not feel comfortable working on weapons."
personally, I don't study war no more but I thought I keep reading about how Obama has escalated the use of "drones" in Afghanistan to kill Taliban and al-Quaeda leaders since he became commander-in-chief
I assumed that just looking at them didn't kill them
cynco, again:
"I don’t think bloodshed is ever a big positive,"
glad to hear you've rethought your position
you had been callously acting like spilling blood would have benefits for Libya's future
"especially if we start lobbing missiles into Tripoli. Our shedding of Libyan blood will only serve the militant Muslim propagandists."
I wasn't actually talking about "lobbing missiles" into Tripoli
I was actually suggesting destroying warplanes and airfields under Gadaffi's control to prevent him from attacking innocent people
Libyans, including diplomats and military leaders are asking for this assistance
fortunately, McCain and Lieberman are today calling for us to impose a no-fly zone
too bad we don't have a leader in the White House but at least someone in America is promoting John Kennedy's vision of America:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
cynco:
"If Libyans do themselves, Al-Qaeda will not be able to spin it against us."
well, they may not have any more success than the Chinese students in the square, faced with vicious brutality
let's do what's right and take the chance that some lunatic might "spin it against us"
"They’ll also know that Libyans are capable of standing up for themselves"
easy for you to say watching cable and eating bon-bons in your condo but freedom-seeking Libyans would suffer the consequences of your trite little cliches
"How many millions of dollars per day does that cost? Cruise missiles could be used instead, at a cost of about $600,000 to several million dollars a piece."
I'm telling you, the PP defunding will cover this limited assistance
"How many of those do you think we’d have to launch before we’d manage to hit Gaddafi?"
wouldn't be our aim
we simply have to give his many potential executioners a fighting chance
"How many innocent civilians would die in the process?"
probably none except, regrettably, those forced to serve in Gadaffi's military
"How many new friends will we make from that?"
I not sure the exact population of Libya
"Why don’t we use one on that Osama Bin Laden guy?"
we don't know where he is
"I’m not baited by you calling me infantile names"
those who argue that someone will be better off with more bloodshed deserve an epithet
that's not infantile and, indeed, it's morally indefensible to ignore such a comment
"After several like these, I have to ask, do you really think that exposing your sadistic fantasies about seeing me naked and dead really does anything to promote your argument?"
hmmm...I only suggested skinny-dipping in lava once
I think I've also suggested you french-kiss a rabid Doberman and hug a hornet's nest, among other humorous antidotes to your seventies-style platitudes
but, whatever, I'll try to go a little easier on ya
"Have a VERY nice day"
yeah, go smother yourself in a rainbow-colored bin of Care Bears!
"ZAWIYA, Libya -- Hundreds of armed anti-government forces backed by rebel troops who control the city closest to the capital Tripoli prepared Sunday to repel an expected offensive by forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi surrounding Zawiya.
The Gadhafi regime, eager to show foreign reporters that the country is calm and under their control, took visiting journalists to Zawiya, 30 miles west of Tripoli. But an Associated Press reporter on the tour confirmed the anti-government rebels are in control of the center of the city of 200,000. They have army tanks and anti-aircraft guns mounted on pickup trucks deployed.
On the outskirts of the city, however, they are surrounded by pro-Gadhafi forces, also backed by tanks and anti-aircraft guns."
jim, half of my brilliant retort to cynco didn't post
Anon, I did not find anything brilliant in the spam folder, but there was one stupid comment that I published, mainly to embarrass you.
JimK
"oainting (sic, I assume) rainbows?
You have proved on quintillion postings on this site that you are indeed an IMBECILE! Get thee to an asylum.
Anon claimed:
“those who argue that someone will be better off with more bloodshed deserve an epithet”
I have never argued for “more bloodshed,” anywhere. In college when I took ROTC classes I GPA boosters I signed the forms indicating I was a conscientious objector. I still am.
Try re-reading the post. There are plenty of ways the Libyans can resolve their issues with less, not more bloodshed. It is their choice. I fear however that history will repeat itself and the most likely course is indeed more bloodshed. But there is no reason for that to be on our hands.
Have a frabjous day.
Cynthia
Typo correction:
"ROTC classes I GPA boosters" should be "ROTC classes as GPA boosters"
Cynthia
Mother demands apology from anti-abortion group for using daughter's image in ad aimed at African-Americans
Mother demands apology from anti-abortion group for using daughter's image in ad aimed at African-Americans
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
-Mother said she was both devastated and furious when she found out about the ad
-She wants assurance that her six-year-old's image will not be used for the pro-life group again
-Billboard has since been taken down due to pressure from officials, groups and activists
The mother of the child whose image was used on an anti-abortion billboard has spoken of her horror when she learned the photo was used without her consent.
Tricia Fraser, from New Jersey, said she was furious when she heard that her six-year-old daughter Anissa's face was featured in the controversial Life Always poster.
Though it has since been taken down, she is demanding an apology.
She said: 'I was devastated that they portrayed her like that. 'I'm happy that it's been taken down but at the same time I am concerned that they can use it again.'
Speaking to both Fox News and the New York Daily News she revealed that she had taken all her children to a modelling agency to be photographed two years ago and signed a release form to say the images could be sold for stock images.
But she never expected them to be used for something like that.
She said: 'I would never ever endorse something like that. Especially with my child's image. I want an apology.
'I know what I went into that shoot for. And that's not what I agreed to. I want them to take it down.'
Up until last night, the image of her daughter loomed large over Sixth Avenue in Soho with the words: 'The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb,' above it.
But from the moment it went up, pro-life group Life Always were inundated with complaints to take it down, which they did, after only one day.
But the advertising company that manages the billboard site denied that the decision to take down the ad was related to its controversial content.
Instead, the company referred to problems for people living or working in the area.
boring
Post a Comment
<< Home