Video Sunday: What Matters Most

Tylenol, Norman Rockwell, and a blended family....

SCOTUS to consider whether to decide

As we all know by now, the Supreme Court doesn't grant a hearing to all appeals put before it. They consider them in a conference, and then decide whether to decide. Box Turtle Bulletin:

The Supreme Court has scheduled January 9, 2015, as the date on which to consider whether to hear appeals in five marriage cases. The states from which these cases originate are Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana.

In Louisiana a federal judge ruled to uphold the anti-gay marriage ban, and the other four are in the Sixth Circuit, where the appeals court overturned federal judges who had ruled for equality.

We will not know until next month whether SCOTUS will hear any marriage appeals, but if they do so, it will only be those which are requesting that marriages be allowed. In other words, the court has not scheduled for hearing any appeals which could reverse a state’s current practice of allowing same-sex marriage.

Since there's a split in the circuits (with the 6th ruling against equality), the Court is likely to step in.

Let's hope we have a happy new year!

A broadway Christmas (Video Sunday)

Marc Solomon on how we got here (Video Sunday)

Talking to a gay person can change minds

Why we have to keep coming out and telling our stories.

Some anti-gay voters in California changed their minds five time faster than their neighbors on gay rights, according to the new study. The secret? Openly gay activists went door to door, engaging these conservative opponents in “heartfelt, reciprocal and vulnerable conversations” about what marriage meant to them, according to a press release about the study. The activists didn’t just push gay marriage, they made a point of listening to their opponents' concerns and experiences, the release said.

 The other thing is, the effect lasted.

Religious Freedom redux

 Last week Michigan's legislature passed a sweeping "religious freedom" bill that allows one to refuse service on religious grounds to Teh Gay:

While Bolger insists the bill is meant to protect, say, the Muslim butcher who wants to prepare food in line with halal practices, or the Jewish mother who doesn’t want an autopsy performed on her son, civil liberties advocates warn it could be used as a defense for the landlord who wants to evict a gay tenant, or the pharmacist who doesn’t want to provide birth control, all because of sincerely held religious beliefs. 

This emboldened Kansas to revive its own bill:

Last session’s religious freedom bill extended to public employees, meaning that county clerks, for example, could refuse to serve same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses. Some attorneys read the bill as being broad enough that it would have extended to all public employees, including police officers, who could theoretically refuse to help a same-sex married couple based on their religious beliefs.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article4336207.html#storylink=cpy

As one person commented,

“Take out the word ‘gay’ and put any other word in there and is it acceptable? Put ‘Muslim,’ put ‘African American,’ put an ‘interracial couple’… does it sound better? Does it sound worse?” she said. “We’re not talking about churches. We’re not talking about forcing a minister to marry someone in a church. That’s protected.”

 Everyone who supports this so-called "freedom" which is really religious privilege, should be forced to put a sign in their window:  We don't Serve Fags.  I wonder how good their business would be if they had to own their bigotry.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article4336207.html#storylink=cpy

The boy in the dress (video Sunday)

No marriages in Mississippi yet

I know, Mississippi, right? 

The Federal District Court over turned the MS anti-equality law on the 25th, but today the 5th circuit denied the effort to combine this with the TX and LA cases scheduled to be heard in January, although they fast-tracked the schedule  They also stayed the marriages.

But these words from the opinion are great:

In reviewing the arguments of the parties and conducting its own research, the court determined that an objective person must answer affirmatively to the following questions:

• Can gay and lesbian citizens love?
• Can gay and lesbian citizens have long-lasting and committed relationships?
• Can gay and lesbian citizens love and care for children?
• Can gay and lesbian citizens provide what is best for their children?
• Can gay and lesbian citizens help make their children good and productive citizens?
• Without the right to marry, are gay and lesbian citizens subjected to humiliation and indignity?
• Without the right to marry, are gay and lesbian citizens subjected to state-sanctioned prejudice?

Answering “Yes” to each of these questions leads the court to the inescapable conclusion that same-sex couples should be allowed to share in the benefits, and burdens, for better or for worse, of marriage.

ThinkProgress also notes the poor argument that equality should be left up to the democratic process :

[Judge] Reeves was not compelled by the idea that the law should wait for people to come around, citing a 2011 survey that found that nearly half of Mississippi Republicans still oppose interracial marriage. “If the passage of 50 years has had such negligible impact on the public’s opinion of interracial marriage in the Deep South,” he wrote, “it is difficult to see how gay and lesbian Mississippians can depend on the political process to provide them any timely relief.”