I really like and admire Michelle Obama. I think she is an incredible representative of this country: Smart, passionate, committed, educated and strong. But much as I hate to admit it, France has one on us, because their First Lady also has a successful recording career she hasn't put on hold because of her marriage to Sarkozy. Would Americans accept a First Lady who pursued her own non-political career while her husband was in office? I'm not sure how the French perceive her music, but I do think the video itself plays like a slick advertisement for a travel company or feminine product.
Whose Marriage Is It? by Mark Fiore. Correction to this cartoon, the Alabama state constitution was changed by the voters to allow interracial marriage in 2000, not 1967.
The Supreme Court Monday blocked a broadcast of the trial on California's same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.
The federal trial was scheduled to begin Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.
The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue.
It said that Monday's order will be in place at least until Wednesday.
Opponents of the broadcast said they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.
The San Francisco proceeding is the first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage.
The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks, involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008.
Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.
The decision sided with proponents of Prop. 8, who claimed that their witnesses would feel a "chilling effect" on their testimony. With all due respect to the Supreme Court, if you feel the presence of cameras in the courtroom for a delayed broadcast on YouTube chills your testimony against gay marriage, maybe that should tell you something about the strength of your argument.
HBO's Big Love returns tonight and if you haven't seen it, the show is a blast. It's the show that the Mormon church never wanted hitting the airwaves. It takes place in Utah and focuses on Bill Paxon's independent polygamist family structure as well as their ties to the polygamist cult called UEB in Juniper Creek. He's a successful businessman with three wives and eight kids and they live in fear that the LDS will catch them violating the ban on polygamy. One of his wives is the daughter of the "prophet" from the fundamentalist cult that he was once part of but had been kicked out of because the leader feared him as a possible future "leader' of the cult.
"The pro-polygamists think it's too dark," Mr. Olsen said. "The anti-polygamists don't think it's dark enough. I think we've split the baby down the middle." The men said they spent almost three years researching the show, talking to experts and reading everything from sociological tracts to official Mormon records.
Mr. Scheffer said future episodes would explore some of the darker aspects of polygamy, like the abuses of patriarchy. There are already hints in the early episodes: Roman has at least one teenage bride.
The show also exposes teachings and history of the Mormon church that the church would rather not see put on public display and was especially not happy that a "Temple" scene was included in last years finale.
The acting is off the charts great with very good story lines that keep you engaged week to week. I'm not trying to analyze it for you from the point of view that it either makes polygamy seem more normal or less normal or that the Mormon religion is bizarre or typical of religion in general, but that the writers have plenty of material to work with to produce a very entertaining series. The rest is up to you.
A reminder that Zappadan, the annual blogswarm in honor of Frank Zappa, ends tomorrow, December 21 (Frank's Birthday). Read links and updates at the blogswarm's home, Fried Green Al Qaedas.
Guest round up by Blue Gal; Mike returns tomorrow -- send tips to finnsagain AT aol DOT com.
This is hilarious, it's also for real. Activists in California are taking the Prop 8 stupidity to its very logical conclusion: ban divorce in California for everybody. Want defense of marriage? Sign here.
NPR:
Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.
Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.
Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.
As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.
But it's so very practical to keep marriage illegal for gays and lesbians. What a crock.
So even though the Maine results are depressing, let's look at some real progress over at the western part of the country:
Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, keeping a law that expands state benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.
The tally Thursday afternoon saw the vote to approve R-71 widening its lead 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.
That lead now appears insurmountable. The Secretary of State's Office estimates another 500,000 to 600,000 ballots statewide are still outstanding, with about half expected from King County, where the measure is being approved by slightly more than 2 to 1.
"Voters across the state listened to the personal stories of lesbian and gay families and the challenges they faced and sent a strong message that we want to see all families treated equally under the law in our state," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which worked for the measure's approval.
But opponents of R-71 were not conceding Thursday afternoon.
Larry Stickney, head of Protect Marriage Washington, which worked for rejection of R-71, said: "There are a lot of votes out there still. We continue to have some hope that the votes cast later will move in our direction."
Philly2Philly: This post is from June, but we thought the White House needed a reminder that Fox News won the right to LIE TO THE PUBLIC in a 2003 appellate court decision.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1338)
PLAYS: (2363)
David Shuster reporting that David Vitter is refusing to comment on the justice who refused to marry an interracial couple in Louisiana. Shuster wonders if the Senator is worried about losing support from his base.
Although both Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) have publicly condemned Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell for refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, Sen. David Vitter (R) has stayed noticeably silent. (ThinkProgress contacted his office, but we did not receive a response.) Blogger-activist Mike Stark caught up with Vitter and asked him about his position. “Have you commented? What did you have to say about it?” asked Stark. Vitter simply smiled, stepped into the elevator, and allowed the doors to close.
Update: Greg Sargent finally received a response from Vitter's spokesman, but the senator still refuses to condemn Bardwell's actions: "First, Sen. Vitter thinks that all judges should follow the law as written and not make it up as they go along. Second, it would be amazing for anyone to do a story based on this fringe, left-wing political hack’s blog — he’s been handcuffed and detained in the past over his guerrilla tactics."
Shuster said MSNBC called Vitter's office three times asking if the Senator supported the statements by the justice and that they would still not comment.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1940)
PLAYS: (3648)
Nope, no racism to see here. Nothing to see...move along now. Unbelievable. What year does this guy think he's living in? Now that the couple is married the good judge doesn't think he's done any harm.
The Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry an interracial couple said on "The Early Show" he doesn't see what the problem is with what he did now, because the couple is already married.
"I'm sorry, you know, that I offended the couple, but I did help them and tell them who to go to and to get married," he said. "And they went and got married, and they should be happily married, and I don't see what the problem is now."
Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in southeastern Louisiana, wouldn't issue a license to or preside over the nuptials for Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay, of Hammond, La., who is black.
The two were later married by another area justice of the peace.
Bardwell, who's held his post more than 30 years, said he refused to perform the ceremony because of his concern for the future of the couple's children.
Bardwell told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith, "I've had countless numbers of people that was born in that situation, and that they claim that the blacks or the whites didn't accept the children. And I didn't want to put the children in that position."
Bardwell also said he does not issue marriage licenses, he just performs the ceremonies.
"I recused myself of performing the ceremony. A judge is legally -- can recuse himself of hearing a case or marrying people," he said.
However, according to Humphrey, Bardwell wouldn't issue them a marriage license. Humphrey says she initially spoke to Bardwell's wife, who said her husband would not issue the license because they are an interracial couple.
Humphrey said, "I was just completely shocked. I had no words."
McKay added, "He's not going to marry us because your black, and I'm white. ... It's 2009."
Bardwell denied on "The Early Show" that he broke any laws.
"The law says that I cannot deny mixed race marriages," he said. "And that means prevent them from getting married. And I did not prevent them getting married."
But would Bardwell refuse anyone else a marriage ceremony?
Initially, he said he would not refuse a couple on any other grounds, but then corrected himself, saying, for example, he would refuse to marry a couple if one -- or both of them -- was intoxicated.
"I can recuse myself and tell them to come back when they're sober," he said. "That's legal."
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.
"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Yeah, he's a regular humanitarian. Not sure if this guy is up on his history or legal precedents but Loving v. Virginia made this kind of government interference illegal in 1967.
He might think he's not racist, but he sure as hell is being bigoted and needs to step down. As you might expect, the ACLU has picked up this case and will pursue it for the couple.
In 19 days we will know whether we beat back NOM and the Catholic Dioceses and protected marriage equality for Mainers, or took yet another step backwards at the ballot box for equality. 30 states have had votes on marriage equality since 1998 and the right-win has won in all 30 of them. We are going to stop that streak in Maine, but we can't do it without the resources to fuel a massive get-out-the-vote operation.
Today at midnight is the last major financial reporting deadline and it also marks the first day of early voting. If you were planning on giving to No on 1 and haven't yet, or have the resources to give again, today is the day to do it. Luckily, we at Blue America have a little sweetener, courtesy of Howie:
Meanwhile we have something nice to offer to donors today. The first 9 people who kick in at least $30 at the Blue America '10 page each wins a special DVD of Barbra Streisand's spectacular 1966 television special Color Me Barbra (which includes a rare poster). And if that wasn't fabulous enough, we also have something pretty mind-blowing for the person who donates the most by 6AM (PT) tomorrow. The picture is above. It's a gorgeous Joan Osborne RIAA custom double platinum award for both Relish and "One of Us." It's rare, collectible, unique and... well, what a gift it would make for anyone who you happen to know who went bonkers over the song below! And, more important, what an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of our brothers and sisters in Maine!
I take you back to 1997 when, after nine attempts spanning 20 years, the Maine legislature finally passed a basic civil rights bill preventing discrimination in employment, housing, credit and public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation. Governor Angus King signed it. The law was put on hold while the religious conservatives---trying to marginalize our very existence by denying us any official state recognition---launched a war to repeal it by a citizens veto referendum, very similar to the kind they're waging now. They got the signatures they needed and the fight to take away our newly-won civil rights was on.
The polls had our side up by several points. The result? The 1998 referendum passed. The fundies won. The final vote: 51.9% to 48.1%. It's one thing to feel disappointment when your favorite candidate loses. It's quite another when you are the one being voted on by your neighbors, and a majority of them agree that, yes, it should be legal for a Maine business owner to pull you aside and say, "I don’t want no faggots workin' here. You're fired." It took another seven years to finally make that against the law. To this day I still get a knot in my gut when I think about what happened 11 years ago.
The only way we stop this from happening again is to make sure that we can get our voters out to the polls. The No on 1 campaign needs your help to make sure they have the resources to execute their field plan. So give today and maybe take home a platinum Joan Osborne album, or a rare Barbara Streisand poster and DVD.
The Courage Campaign is sending me back to Maine in a week or so. Expect more reports from on the ground there on how your generous donations are being spent. I was there a couple weeks ago and can assure you, the campaign is a tightly run ship, simultaneously on the offense and firing back at the lies spewed from the other side. No on 1 is IDing and turning out their voters, relying on thousands of in state volunteers and assisted by out of state phone bankers from around the country. They know how to win in Maine "and can do it with your help.
Yesterday, the No on 1 campaign released this great new ad, featuring a Catholic mom who wants nothing more than for her gay son to have the same rights as everybody else.
“Everybody knows the Catholic Church is opposed to counterfeit marriages. The Church believes marriage is a natural institution, vindicated by common reason that serves both men and women, and the needs of children. The Church defends marriage as a civic institution believing marriage and family to be the fundamental unit of society,” explained Burch.
“For homosexual groups to suggest that the Catholic Church believes otherwise is disingenuous, dishonest, and an insult to the intelligence of Catholic voters in Maine,” said Burch.
We are on offense here in Maine, pushing back at the Catholic Church which has raised over $214k for Stand for Marriage Maine last quarter.
But the campaign needs your help to win this election, to be the first to protect marriage rights at the ballot box, to keep the momentum up that we have gained since Prop 8. And they need the resources to do it.
We are launching a "moneybomb" for Maine, with a big push to get as much cash in the door for No on 1 by Oct 15th, the last major financial filing deadline and the first day of early voting.
After that date money in the door just isn't as useful for the campaign. They need to figure out their budget for the last few weeks of the campaign.
Give now if you can on Blue America's ActBlue page. Maine is a cheap state. Here's a breakdown of what your donation will "buy".
$1,000 we can blanket the state with radio ads for 1 day
$800 pays for one field organizer for a week
$720 would fund 20 canvasses in key counties around the state on a Saturday
$550 pays for one channel of cable for a day
$420 pays for one much needed field organizer for a week
$330 is 2 radio commercials to beat back their lies
$210 pays for 70 $3/day cell phones to talk to targeted voters
$186 about the cost of 1 radio commercial
$137 will buy supplies for 4 door-to-door canvasses
$108 buys about 100 yard signs for visibility
$72 will pay for signage for visibility for one weekend on a targeted campus
$66 pays for about 20 $3/day cell phones to talk to targeted voters
$54 buys 50 yard signs for visibility
$36 will fund supplies for one door-to-door canvass
Civil Rights advocates and LGBT Americans herald new legislation to overturn one of the nation's most discriminatory laws
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), with a total of 91 original co-sponsors to date, introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples.
The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.
The Respect for Marriage Act, the consensus of months of planning and organizing among the nation’s leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples. Read on...
This legislation is long overdue. Three cheers for Rep. Nadler and the other Democratic co-sponsors in the House! Pam's House Blend has a list of responses from the LGBT community. You can read them here.
