To create permission, a rationale for committing acts of violence

My Sunday movie was the first episode of Tales of the City on Netflix. The ten episode series is based on the stories of Armistead Maupin. Many years (maybe a couple decades) ago I read the original set of stories of a house in San Francisco with several apartments, each with LGBTQ characters living there, a place where they could truly be themselves and create their own community. These stories were over several books and there were probably a couple books more after I thought I was done. I don’t remember much from the stories. In the same way there were several Tales of the City series – 1993, 1998, 2001, and this one from 2019. It looks like Olympia Dukakis played Anna, the matriarch of the house, through the whole series. Alas, in all of that, this is the only episode I’ve seen. While it was an enjoyable hour it presents a quandary. I obviously came into the middle of the story. I think I caught enough of the backstory so I could go on from here. But that’s another nine hours. I could start at the beginning – the 1993 series – to understand the full story. And that’s a lot more hours. While this episode was enjoyable I’m not sure it was enjoyable enough to go the full distance, or even another nine hours (even if this one ended in a cliffhanger). My schedule today had an unexpected addition, crowding into my evening viewing time. Since there are still news stories of Netflix perhaps cracking down on password sharing I wanted to focus my viewing there. Back in January I pulled some ideas from a list of LGBTQ movies on Netflix. My first choices for this evening I found are not actually on Netflix. By the time I got that sorted out a single hour of something was about all I had time for. So I chose this. I recommend the Tales of the City books to any LGBTQ person and ally out there. These series could also be an enjoyable companion (or substitute). I’m not so sure I want to tackle it all now. I have not watched the long-running reality TV show The Bachelor and from the description I have no desire to do so. It may then seem weird that I enjoyed the book The Charm Offensive by Alison Cochrun, very much based on the show. What makes it worth reading is that during this season Charlie, the bachelor, realizes he’s gay and very much attracted to his handler Dev, also gay. Of course, the book version has some differences (not many) from the TV version. The book version is called Ever After, the bachelor is called Prince Charming, and at the end of each episode he passes out crowns instead of roses. The book also shows how such a show can be manipulated – each woman has a handler who can suggest how she might proceed, such as coaching one of them to be a villain. Nearly every romance novel has the expected ending (which is why we read them). It is obvious from the start, with sections alternately focusing on Charlie and Dev, where this is going. I began to predict what the climactic scene would be like. Fortunately, the book’s ending was much better. The story was also much deeper than I expected with both men struggling with how their love affects the show (which means Dev’s job) and what they expected out of life. This is a good one. I downloaded Michigan’s COVID data, updated yesterday. It looks like the low plateau that started in mid January is holding. The peaks in new cases per day for the last few weeks are 863, 1046, 1011, 800, and 681. The number of deaths per day for the last few weeks has been mostly 15 and lower, down into the single digits. All good! Interested in the national divorce that Marjorie Taylor Green has been talking about? CyberMindGirl of the Daily Kos community wrote:

Turns out Russia has formulated a plan for “ideological immigration” targeting European and American Conservatives. Think your country is going too “woke”? Can’t stand all the rights and freedoms being granted to LGBTQ+ people? Want to find a safe space from all the “woke” liberals around you? You’re going to LOVE Russia, a place where “Don’t Say Gay” is enforced at gunpoint and where “woke” liberals are sent to die a violent death on the front lines.

There is now a Russian governmental office for the Coordinating Headquarters to assist immigrants from NATO countries. They hope 7 million people would accept the offer. Each migrant would get ten hectares of land. Hunter of Kos added:

You'll note that the enticement there is 25 acres of what Russia has the most of: land. You'll note that there's no promise that your new plot of land will come with a shelter, or electricity, or an outhouse. We've been seeing more and more of late that highlights the lifestyles of most Russians who live outside the major cities, but conservative Russia-backers may or may not be aware that in modern day Russia, toilets are considered a luxury item. There's a reason that not just toilets, stoves, dishwashers, and washing machines but even the most trivial of home appliances are being looted in bulk from Ukrainian homes "liberated" by Russia and delivered back to the homeland. It's because stealing those things is the only way for the average non-connected Russian to get them. If you're a Tucker Carlson conservative who's looking to emigrate to a place that oppresses all the people you want them to, you'll have either dig your own poop-pit or import your own toilet. You'll have to import a dozen, in fact, because the odds of any one of those toilets reaching you through the theft-rampant national postal service is something close to zero.

Russia is making this offer because of the large numbers of people they lost from COVID, from the war in Ukraine, and from people fleeing to avoid conscription. They’re not giving exact numbers (or even estimates). But will the new migrants be willing to be conscripted?

Getting rid of up to 7 million of the most authoritarian-minded cranks in the United States and Europe sounds like a deal Western governments could all get behind; if Russia was proven to be serious in its plans to court our most militant and racist dregs, our own government could likely arrange for 7 million toilets to be delivered free of charge. It doesn't look like 7 million people are going to take Russia up on that offer, though. It doesn't look like 7,000 will either. It's one thing to wave guns around and bellow about the indecencies to be found in library book collections; it's another to put yourself at the mercy of the sort of autocratic nationalist government you claim to want.

Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Kos quoted an article from Bolts Magazine that says aspects of Obamacare implemented by the states is providing a way for women to sue to overturn abortion bans. For example, back in 2012 voters in Wyoming approved a Right to Healthcare Access amendment to the state constitution that says in part, “Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.” It is now a weapon against abortion restrictions. Joan McCarter of Kos wrote that, amazingly, when a government department is adequately funded it can actually do what the law says it should do. Her example is the IRS. It got a big boost in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act passed last summer and has been quick to put the money to work. This tax season the IRS is answering 90% of its phone calls (I don’t know what it was last year, perhaps less than 20%). It has processed 99.7% of returns filed already this year. It’s backlog of paper returns is down from 24 million (it rose that high during the pandemic) to 2 million. And it has enough money to upgrade its computers. Some of it’s current technology dates to the 1970s. Which is the way Republicans wanted it. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported that Jon Stewart, on his program The Problem of Jon Stewart, hosted Oklahoma state senator Nathan Dahm, a Republican. Dahm wanted to raise his profile by saying the Second Amendment can never be infringed upon. There can never be any sort of law that that puts any sort of limit on gun ownership. It didn’t go as Dahm had hoped.

Stewart isn’t having it, pointing out that Dahm opposes getting rid of laws that might protect people from guns, while instituting laws that would ban drag show readings to children. Stewart gets Dahm to lock into the logic that Dahm says he believes, which is that the government has the right to protect children. Of course, as Stewart very deftly explains, there is one thing at the top of the list of things that kill children in our country, “And I'm going to give you a hint. It's not drag show readings to children.” Dahm responds, “I’m presuming you’re going to say it’s firearms.” And Stewart says, “No, I'm not going to say it like it's an opinion. That's what it is. It's firearms. More than cancer, more than car accidents. Angry Stewart is the best Stewart, and he finished Dahm off with true righteous vengeance. “And what you're telling me is you don't mind infringing free speech to protect children from this amorphous thing that you think of. But when it comes to children that have died, you don't give a flying f--- to stop that, because that shall not be infringed. That is hypocrisy at its highest order.”

A couple weeks ago David Neiwert of Kos wrote of the arrest of a Lost Angeles man who had been shooting people as they left their synagogues. Fortunately, only two men were struck and their injuries were not life threatening. The shooter was definitely motivated by hate. Which prompted Neiwert to write:

The whole purpose of eliminationist rhetoric, as I’ve often remarked, is to create permission: a rationale for committing acts of violence and intimidation against a targeted scapegoat. This is how stochastic terrorism—the kind we’ve seen directed recently at the LGBTQ community, for instance—has always worked. Someone with a megaphone demonizes the target group and encourages violent expulsion, and someone listening makes that their excuse for acting on it. So like night following day, the recent spate of eliminationist antisemitism spewing from cultural figures like Kanye West and enabled by social media moguls like Elon Musk is already generating a fresh round of terrorist violence directed at the Jewish community.

Mike Luckovich tweeted a cartoon with the caption, “Why a citizen needs an assault weapon.” It shows a man walking a dog in a park and seeing a rabbit, deer, squirrel, and goose each with guns.” Bill Bramhall of the New York Daily News tweeted a cartoon of a teen reading Best U.S. Colleges Ranked by Number of Mass Shootings. Mark Sumner of Kos reported that many Republicans fear Special Counsel Jack Smith and his investigation into the nasty guy. That fear is because Smith appears to be moving quickly and has subpoenaed the big names on the nasty guy’s team, such as Mark Meadows and the vice nasty. Many claim executive privilege, but those who talk face wide-ranging questions on the nasty guy’s election claims and his document stash. But others, who are not Republican, worry that those broad questions indicate a man trying to write a thorough report, not a special counsel called on to indict someone. Will Smith’s report have the same minuscule legal effect of the Mueller Report? Or the two impeachments? There appears to be plenty of evidence to bring charges. So far no one has and there is good reason to think Smith won’t either. An Associated Press article chosen by Kos staff reports that in the more than 35 years since the Chernobyl nuclear accident dogs have been living in the exclusion zone. Yes, they manage to survive, still find food, and to breed. Genome researchers have been doing DNA tests of the dogs. It is a great opportunity to examine what long term radiation might do. They can identify how far particular groups of dogs live from the power plant. Their analysis is now looking at DNA changes and trying to determine in the fifteen generations since the accident what changes are from nuclear mutation and what are from evolutionary adaptation. Einenkel wrote about a recent Republican pronouncement that is getting a lot of deserved snarky replies. The GOP Twitter account tweeted: “Government should be so small you don’t even realize it’s there.” Some of the replies: Katelyn Burns: “So small it fits in your pants” Steven Blum: “Except for book banning, taking away the rights of women and LGBTQ+, and Social Security and Medicare that we’ve paid for, right?” Tim Fullerton: “So small it can’t do anything about a rail derailment am I right?” Hanjaro: “You mean so small there’s no oversight to keep you frauds in line.” Machine Pun Kelly: “So when I call the police, or the fire department, I shouldn't know it's there? When I retire, I shouldn't know I have social security? The military should be invisible?” Hunter of Kos has a lot to say about a Washington Post article about Joe and Jill Biden going to a restaurant and both of them ordering rigatoni, the specialty of the house, though that seems to defy some unwritten rule that groups at a restaurant should order different things so everyone can taste a bite of each. That leads to Hunter asking such questions as: Why did WaPo spend time reporting on this when there are so many more consequential issues the paper – and American society – should be discussing? Guns? The demise of democracy? Train derailments? Well, maybe...

The problem, then, may simply be one of font. Our papers of record could instead put news of attempts to overthrow the United States government in Times New Roman, but analysis of a president's tan suit might be presented in Papyrus or Comic Sans. There'd be differentiation there; you would know, at a glance, whether the Post or the Times or Forbes meant this to be a serious story, bearing the full weight of their journalistic brands and histories, or a goofy story meant to cleanse the palate between fascist coup attempts. The font would set the tone.

Pursue any recourse you believe is available

Back in January I told about a United Methodist Church in Alexandria, Indiana that ousted its gay choir director. In response 80% of the church left. That particular church will close at the end of this year due to falling attendance, membership and financing problems. The pastor, who did the ousting, says the closure "is not due to that situation whatsoever." Rather it is due to a general "downward spiral" across the whole United Methodist denomination. Commenters think the pastor has a bad case of denial. Even with falling membership not many churches lose 80% of their membership in a year.



Back in October Gov. Matt Mead of Wyoming conceded the legal landscape in states in the 10th Circuit and declined to appeal when the state's ban on same-sex marriage was struck down. Who was he going to appeal to? The 10th Circuit that had already struck down bans in Utah and Oklahoma? The Supremes, who refused to hear those two cases?

No matter. GOP leaders in Wyoming are still in a snit. They wrote a letter to the Gov. slamming him for not filing an appeal.

Mead, who was re-elected last month, said this group of leaders is "free to pursue any recourse they believe is available. Interestingly, when I was fighting the case in Wyoming federal district court and a separate case in Wyoming state court, I did not hear from this group."



OutSports lists 109 sports people who came out in 2014. This sets a record, topping the count of 77 last year. The list includes athletes, coaches, officials, administrators, and media people at the high school, college, and professional levels. Most of those on the list are Americans, though there are many from other countries. The sports at the top of the list are swimming, football, and track & field, though 34 sports are in the list.



A new analysis from the Pew Research shows the wealth gap between the rich and the middle class has set a new record. The rich have 6.6 times the wealth of the middle class. Back in 2010 the multiple was 6.2 and in 2007 was 4.5. The ratio between the rich and poor is now 70.

The background question is what defines rich or upper-income. That appears to depend on the number of people in the family, similar to the federal definition of poverty. A single person is upper-income at $66K a year and a family of four is upper-income at $132K.

Melissa McEwen of the blog Shakesville wrote:

This is not justice. The people who keep collecting more and more, hoarding vast amounts of wealth, cannot keep pretending that they "deserve" it on the basis of "hard work." They can't keep pretending that they're just generating more wealth, instead of stealing it from the lower classes.

Well, they can, but the situation is untenable. This system can't be sustained; it will collapse under the weight of need or revolution.

Gay marriage makes my marriage yucky

Marriage news of the week...

The governor of Wyoming officially notified the federal district court that he will not appeal the ruling that overturns the state's same-sex marriage ban. Marriages have begun (a few photos here). Some of the first were in Laramie County. That has some significance because that was where Matthew Shepard was murdered for being gay 16 years ago.

Kansas is the only state in the 10th Circuit that doesn't have marriage equality yet. A straight couple has filed a suit at the federal district court level to make sure it stays that way. Their suit claims that allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow defiles their marriage and makes it worthless. They got a lawyer to fill out and submit the motion, but that doesn't mean there is a smidgen of logic to it. I didn't waste my time to read it.

The Utah Supremes have lifted their stay against adoption by same-sex parents. Five months ago adoptions were put on hold by the state. Officials wanted to wait until it was clear same-sex marriage would be legal.

The governor of Idaho has asked the 9th Circuit for an en banc hearing of the state's same-sex marriage ban. The Gov is fuming over the statements that marriage equality would harm nobody. But a wedding chapel in Coeur d'Alene is claiming harm. The owners say their religious freedom would be violated if they must marry same-sex couples but the city's antidiscrimination ordinance doesn't exempt them because they aren't a legitimate nonprofit religious organization.



A federal district judge in Puerto Rico has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the island's same-sex marriage ban. Some of his reasons:

Same-sex marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

Back in the 1970s the Supremes refused to hear a same-sex marriage case. While circuit court judges say times have changed and that refusal no longer applies, this judge says it still does.

Circuit courts have been basing their arguments in favor of same-sex marriage on the big *Windsor* case from a year ago that struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act. This judge, reading a lot from the dissents in that case, says states maintain the right to define marriage.

He bought the conservative stories that procreation and tradition apply and that there is that big slippery slope.

All those other judges are just wrong.

The case has been appealed to the 1st Circuit. That is an interesting situation because all the states in the 1st Circuit (Maine, Mass., NH, RI) have equality and none of them got it through a federal ruling. So the 1st Circuit hasn't yet taken up the issue.

Arizona and Wyoming!

Another round of the status of same-sex marriage...

A judge in Wyoming said he would issue a ruling on Monday. It came out yesterday. The judge wrote that "Wyoming cannot deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples." The ruling is stayed until the four defendants say whether they will appeal. So far Gov. Matthew Mead says he will not, nor will Debra Lathrup, Laramie County Clerk. The other two are members of Mead's administration and should follow the boss's lead. Lifting the stay likely won't happen before Monday.

The 9th Circuit had put a temporary stay on the ruling in Alaska to permit time to appeal to the Supremes. The Supremes did not receive an appeal request so declined to extend the stay.

Magistrates in North Carolina were ordered to perform same-sex marriages as part of their duties. John Kallam, Magistrate of Rockingham County decided to resign instead.

The AG of Arizona admits all those court rulings that strike down same-sex marriage bans probably applies to his state too. But he won't allow marriages to happen until all the legal details are properly in place. But a district judge said there is no reason for delay because appeals to the 9th Circuit "would be futile." So get cracking. Marriages supposedly began yesterday.



I had an interesting thought today, though have no evidence to back it up. Suppose you were a judge on the 6th Circuit and really didn't like same-sex marriage. How could you prevent it, or at least slow it down? If you rule that bans are permissible those for equality will dash to the Supremes and would likely be heard. But what if you didn't rule at all? What if you just let the case sit on your desk? Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee can't do anything about equality until you act. So you accomplish your goal by not acting.



Ian Millhiser of Think Progress says there is a way the Supremes could rule against same-sex marriage. Before he gets to that he agrees the current set of justices have been very clear they won't stand in the way of marriage equality. There was that original refusal to hear cases at the start of the month (sheesh, only 11 days ago!) and consistent rulings since then to not continue stays and not hear appeals. Then Millhiser reminds us that rulings on same-sex marriage have a basis in the Constitution while that nasty Hobby Lobby case does not. So why haven't the justices ruled? Millhiser says that if these nine justices don't hand down a definitive decision then a later court could rule in the opposite way. We have three progressive justices age 76 and older and it is quite possible when any of them leave the court a conservative White House or Congress would push for a conservative justice. And our gains could be overruled.



Paul Waldman of The American Prospect says same-sex marriage could lead to major headaches for the GOP leading up to the 2016 elections. I like when the GOP has headaches. I've reported before that most members of the GOP have been mighty quiet about the Supreme Court ruling that started this month's flurry of activity (Ted Cruz the noisy exception).

But the first three GOP primaries are in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. There are likely no issues in NH, but the Iowa GOP still has a strong and active anti-gay component. I don't have to say much about SC. A candidate looking for an edge could proclaim his anti-gay credentials to make it an issue in the race. And if the party leaders try to change the subject the religious and Tea Party base might feel betrayed by elites "who are perfectly happy consorting with sodomites." Get out the popcorn. This could be an entertaining show (alas, damaging too).

Never piss off the judge

Now that I have time to get to the marriage news of the week...

A judge in Wyoming will issue a ruling on Monday on whether the 10th Circuit rulings for Utah and Oklahoma for same-sex marriage apply to Wyoming as well.

By today the AG of Arizona was to file a brief with the 9th Circuit on whether or not the 9th Circuit's rulings on same-sex marriage should apply. The Arizona AG seems to concede that it does.

The AG in South Carolina rants that "I'm only for the rule of law." Well, since the 4th Circuit has declared bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, isn't that now law? Lambda Legal has filed a suit to hurry things along.

The ACLU asked for summary judgment in Montana. That's a request for a ruling when the facts are so obvious no trial (or lengthy proceedings) are needed.

Lots of same-sex couples were married in Idaho. Photos here. There's still a bit of fear their joy might be taken away because the Gov. said marriages may take place "for now."

The GOP Gov. in North Carolina says he'll now defend the right for same-sex couples to get married. Commenters note the other nasty things he has done – cut unemployment, opt out of Obamacare, etc. – and aren't impressed.

The 9th Circuit issued a temporary stay of same-sex marriages in Alaska to give the state time to appeal to the Supremes.

The AG of Florida had asked that the various cases in that state be put on hold until the Supremes have their say. Well, the Supremes decided to say nothing (in a rather loud voice). So the AG has asked the state Supremes to rule on the issue "once-and-for-all." Some speculate that means she sees her crusade against same-sex marriage coming to an end. And, yes, the state Supremes can rule against an article in the state constitution. Does it conflict with the national constitution? Does it conflict with other clauses in the state constitution?

The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada filed suit against the 9th Circuit. The three judges for any particular case are supposed to be selected randomly. The CPM analysis says that one particular judge has appeared on way too many 3-judge panels for cases involving sexual minority rights for it to be purely random. Therefore the ruling in the Nevada same-sex marriage case should be thrown out and the case heard again with a panel of all of judges of the circuit. Those versed in statistics say the analysis is wacky. Those versed in legal matters say this suit violates the first rule of litigation: Never piss off the judge.

In an article printed in Between the Lines Lisa Keen asks why the Supremes refused to hear those same-sex marriage cases on the first day of the term? That court doesn't need to rush. They could have waited until the 5th or 6th Circuits ruled to see if there was a conflict in the rulings. But they didn't. If the Supremes were seriously thinking of taking another case down the road with the possibility of the mess of all these marriages happening in the meantime, they would have waited for the right case. That rush to refuse these cases is what prompted Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to declare the issue "resolved."



The anti-gay mob is furious that "unelected judges" can overrule the will of the majority. As part of that fury Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (a fancy name for a hate group) pulled out the old slogan that children do best with a mom and a dad. John Greenberg of PunditFact tackles that and the ten claims the FRC uses to support it.

Five of the ten claims have nothing to do with children. They say opposite-sex marriage promotes domestication of men, paternal commitment, sexual fidelity, "gender-typical" roles, and links between marriage and procreation. Ah, a guide to fathering, which is rather nice of them (though that "gender-typical" roles thing sets off some red flags), but not related to any scientific study.

A sixth claim is about how children conceived through artificial insemination "hunger" to know about their fathers. Likely true, but not proven and not a reason to ban same-sex marriage.

A seventh claim cites studies where a father is absent. But those studies examine single parent households, not same-sex households. An eight claim says children need mothers. But the studies cited don't compare same-sex and opposite-sex households.

Claims nine and ten say that studies of children growing up in same-sex households are flawed – were not "conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." This is called cherry-picking of findings.

There is a great deal of research that shows kids of same-sex parents do just as well as those raised by straight parents. Therefore the claim that Perkins made is rated as false.

But we knew all that and are rather tired of going through it all again.

Virginia is for all lovers

Yes, on this Valentine's Day we can say Virginia is for lovers. Well, almost. Federal District Judge Arenda Wright Allen declared that Virginia's constitutional ban on same-sex marriages violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the federal constitution. Alas, she also issued a stay -- though if she didn't, the Supremes would.

Allen did something unusual. On the cover page of the ruling she put a quote from Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia fame. Then in the conclusion she quotes Abraham Lincoln:

It can not have failed to strike you that these men ask for just. . . the same thing–fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they, and all others, shall have.

Mother Jones has a beautiful excerpt from the ruling and also the whole 41 pages.

Law professor Ari Ezra Waldman summarizes what it means. No, this isn't a new right. We only want to exercise an existing right -- like everyone else. Children don't need a mother and father, they need loving parents and studies have shown this. Tradition is not more important than rights. Yes, states may make their own laws, but cannot contradict the federal constitution.
http://www.towleroad.com/2014/02/bostic.html

The core of the judge's argument, as Waldman tells us, is this:

We see clearly where Judge Wright Allen's true sympathies lie: marriage is a fundamental right and bans on same-sex marriage interfere with that right. Period.

The case goes on to the 4th Circuit Court. Then the Supremes? There is now speculation the Supremes may ignore the issue as long as circuit courts keep coming down on the side of equality. However, marriage equality cases have been filed in Texas and Louisiana, which will eventually go before the "deeply conservative 5th Circuit." And with some Circuits approving marriage equality and one denying it, only then will the Supremes have to step in.



Sigh. And then there is Wyoming. Rep. Cathy Connolly of Laramie is lesbian and wants to marry her partner in her home state. So she introduced a marriage equality bill. Alas, the state House rejected it 41-17. Is there a marriage equality lawsuit in the works there?



There is also a lawsuit filed in a district under the 11th Circuit. Paul Hard married David Fancher in Massachusetts. They lived in Montgomery, Alabama. Alas, Fancher died in an auto accident. Hard is suing the trucking companies involved in the wreck. Though Fancher died with a will giving everything to Hard, Alabama state law says any money from a wrongful death suit are disbursed according to the rules that are normally used when there is no will. Because Alabama doesn't recognize their marriage, if the suit is successful, Hard would get nothing. That's the reason for the suit.

Culture wars over?

Yeah, another busy week with class and preparation for it. Some tidbits that accumulated during that time.

Rich Miller of the Chicago Sun-Times says that the GOP in Illinois want the marriage equality battle to be over quickly. And the only way to do that is to allow the Dems to pass it. They know a delay will hurt them. So, fine. Get it out of the way. On to the next battle.


Alas, that argument didn't work so well in Wyoming. The bill for marriage equality died in committee. The domestic partner bill got to the House, where it lost 24-34. A non-discrimination bill got to the Senate floor, where it lost 13-15. Supporters are actually encouraged by the closeness of the vote.



Zofie Mandelski, a teen (kids are so impatient now) in Colorado, has filed a ballot proposal to amend the Colorado constitution to permit marriage equality. Gay marriage was banned through an amendment in 2006. The results this time are likely to be different.



David Kochel, former Romney advisor, admits, "The culture wars are over. And the Republicans, largely, lost."

I relish the thought, though my friend and debate partner would caution doing the happy dance too soon.



A New York Times editorial says that if Obama is serious about the marriage equality thing he said in the Inaugural he can prove it by submitting a brief in the gay marriage cases before the Supremes this spring.

For the administration to be missing in action in this showdown risks conveying a message to the justices that it lacks confidence in the constitutional claims for ending gay people’s exclusion from marriage or that it believes Americans are not ready for a high court ruling making marriage equality the law of the land — impressions strikingly contradicted by legal precedent, the lessons of history and by the president’s own very powerful words.

Rev. Irene Monroe is a black lesbian and does an occasional column for Pam's House Blend. She says that many in the black community are miffed with Obama's equating gays with their own civil rights battles. Part of it is the continuing homophobia in black churches. Part of it is the sentiment, Hey dude, you're the black president — why have the living conditions for gays improved more in the last four years than those of blacks?



The NPR show On Point did an episode on Gay in America yesterday. The host, Tom Ashbrook, discussed the current situation with two gay men and a lesbian. Callers posed questions and provided insights. The consensus is we've come a long way, but we're not done yet. There's still discrimination out there. I'm glad they did it, though I can't say it is worth 45 minutes of your time.



Even Stephen Colbert agrees we've come a long way. In the first of two videos Colbert takes a look at the Defense of Marriage Act now before the Supremes. The House Republicans have authorized $2M to defend the law (your tax dollars at work) and Colbert pokes big holes in their defense of DOMA. In the second video, Colbert comments on a study that showed straight men are a lot more stressed out than gay men. Enjoy the fun.

Maybe if we don't talk about it…

The National Journal polled some of who they call "political insiders" -- politicians, consultants, and strategists. They asked about 100 from each party. Their responses to the question, "Which statement comes closest to your views on gay marriage?" are quite interesting. 97% of the Democrat insiders say "My party should support it." Yay! It wasn't all that long ago when the response would have been, "My party should avoid the issue."

On to the GOP:
27% -- My party should support it
11% -- My party should oppose it
48% -- My party should avoid the issue
14% -- Other

Yup, more than twice as many want to support marriage equality than want to oppose it. Big progress there. Also interesting, nearly half of them don't think it should be discussed, presumably because they don't think the party is ready to support it yet they don't want to be seen as anti-gay. That they are even concerned about that image is big progress.



Amazingly, a marriage equality bill has been introduced in Wyoming! Yeah, they are also introducing a civil partnership bill, but at this point we'll take what we can get. Another report here.



Last year Tracy Thorne-Begland was nominated to be a judge of the General District Court in Virginia. The GOP legislators, who had to approve him, refused. Not because the nominee was gay, nosiree, but because he was "openly aggressively gay." Thorne-Begland was installed through a recess appointment, annoying the GOP.

That recess appointment must now be reconfirmed. And the GOP is singing quite a different tune. A joint House and Senate panel unanimously voted to send his confirmation to both chambers.

Perhaps they saw the handwriting on the wall?

A comment on this post implies Thorne-Begland was confirmed -- after 12 of 20 GOP legislators walked out. I'd rather have abstentions than no votes.