Boycott Everyone!

This news made me smile because I knew that World Net Daily commenters were going to have a hissy fit: 379 different corporations that do business within America filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) stating that the bans on marriage equality should be voided as unconstitutional. WND reported it in a 3-paragraph snippet from Huffington Post entitled, “379 Companies Urge Supremes to Support ‘Gay Marriage.'” I can guarantee you that the “Gay Marriage” in scary quotes was not in the original. Actually, they reworded the original title, which was “Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage.”

Just for fun, let’s list them:

• A.L. Nella & Company, LLP, CPAs
• A.T. Kearney
• Aardema Whitelaw, PLLC
• Acacia Home LLC
• Accenture
• Aetna Inc.
• Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
• AJ Leo Electric and Solar
• Akamai Technologies, Inc.
• Alaska Airlines
• Alcoa Inc.
• Amazon Services Inc.
• Amazon.com, Inc.
• American Airlines Group Inc.
• American Apparel
• American Express Company
• American International Group, Inc.
• Aparicio-Mercado Law, L.C.
• Apple Inc.
• AppNexus Inc.
• Aramark
• Arbor Brewing Company, LLC
• Arnold & Porter LLP
• Aspen Skiing Company
• Assemble Sound LLC
• AT&T Inc.
• Atlas Cut Stone
• Atticus Circle
• The Austin Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• Avanade Inc.
• Bain & Company, Inc.
• Bakehouse Art Complex
• Baker & McKenzie LLP
• Bank of America
• The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
• Barclays
• Barnes & Noble, Inc.
• bebe stores, inc.
• Becton, Dickinson and Company
• Belcampo Inc.
• Ben & Jerry’s
• Big Duck Studio, Inc.
• Bigelow Villa LLC
• Billy’s Farm
• BlackRock, Inc.
• Bloomberg L.P.
• Blue Apron, Inc.
• Blue Heron Ventures
• Blue Moon Hotel / Winter Haven Hotel
• Blume, Faulkner & Skeen, PLLC
• Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Boston Community Capital, Inc.
• Boston Consulting Group
• The Boston Foundation
• Boston Medical Center Corporation
• Boston Scientific Corporation
• Brady Mills LLC
• BrandQuery LLC
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
• Broadcom Corporation
• Brocade
• Cablevision Systems Corporation
• Capital One Financial Corporation
• Captain Wendell’s Marine Services LLC
• Cardinal Health, Inc.
• Care Resource
• CBS Corporation
• CEB
• Central Physical Therapy and Fitness, PSC
• CGI
• Charlotte Business Guild
• The Chubb Corporation
• CIGNA Corporation
• Cisco Systems, Inc.
• Citigroup Inc.
• City Catering Company
• City Lites Neon, Inc.
• The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Civitas Public Affairs Group
• Clean Yield Asset Management
• CloudFlare, Inc.
• CMIT Solutions of Seattle Downtown
• The Coca-Cola Company
• Cohen & Associates
• Colgate-Palmolive Company
• Columbia FunMap, Inc.
• Comcast Corporation
• The Computer Butler
• ConAgra Foods, Inc.
• The Corcoran Group
• Corner Brewery, LLC
• Corning Incorporated
• Cox Enterprises, Inc.
• Crazy Misfits Pet Services
• Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
• Cummins Inc.
• Cupcake Royale
• CVS Health Corporation
• Dallas Voice
• Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc.
• Danaher Corporation
• David J. Jarrett, P.C.
• David Kosar Insurance Agency
• David Mack Henderson Income Tax Preparation
• DCI Group AZ, L.L.C.
• Deloitte LLP
• Delta Air Lines, Inc.
• Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
• The Desert Business Association
• Deutsche Bank AG
• Diageo North America, Inc.
• DIRECTV
• DocuSign
• Domini Social Investments LLC
• The Dow Chemical Company
• Dreamcatcher Arts and Publishing Ltd.
• Dropbox, Inc.
• DuPont
• eBay Inc.
• Edelman
• Eldercare Consulting
• Electronic Arts Inc.
• EnduringHydro, LLC
• Ernst & Young LLP
• The Estée Lauder Companies Inc.
• Event Rents
• Everything Real Estate LLC
• Express Movers Inc.
• Facebook, Inc.
• Farella Braun + Martel, LLP
• Fastsigns
• Fenwick & West LLP
• First Data Corporation
• 1st Security Bank
• 1stdibs.Com, Inc.
• FIT Technologies
• Flanery CPA
• Full Court Press Communications
• G.A.W., Inc.
• The Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Nevada
• General Electric Company
• General Mills, Inc.
• Gensler
• Gilt Groupe Holdings, Inc.
• GlaxoSmithKline LLC
• Gleason & Associates Claims Services
• Go Factory, Inc.
• Goethel Engelhardt, PLLC
• The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
• Google Inc.
• Goulston & Storrs, P.C.
• Great Officiants LLC
• The Greater Connecticut Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• Greater San Diego Business Association
• Greater Seattle Business Association
• Greensulate
• Grossman Marketing Group
• Group Health Cooperative
• Groupon
• Growing Hope
• Harrell Remodeling
• The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
• Healthline
• Hewlett-Packard Company
• Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
• Holdredge Wines
• Homeward Pet Adoption Center
• Horizon Air Industries, Inc.
• House Packard LLC
• HSBC
• Ikard Wynne LLP
• The Independence Business Alliance
• The Inland Northwest Business Alliance
• Insala, Ltd
• Inspirato, LLC
• Integrated Archive Systems, Inc.
• Integrity Law Group
• Intel Corporation
• Intuit Inc.
• INUS Group, LLC
• Jackson Hole Group LLC
• Jagod Designs
• Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Jenn T. Grace International LLC
• Jennifer Brown Consulting
• JetBlue Airways Corporation
• The Jim Henson Company
• Johnson & Johnson
• Johnston, Kinney and Zulaica LLP
• Jonathan L. Bowman, Attorney at Law, PS
• JPMorgan Chase & Co.
• Julian Chang Consulting, Inc.
• kapchur.us photography
• The Kathy A. Janssen Foundation
• Kazan, McClain, Satterley, & Greenwood, PLC
• Keir Jones Agency – State Farm
• Keker & Van Nest LLP
• KEO Marketing Inc.
• Kimberly-Clark Corp.
• Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC
• Kollmar Sheet Metal Works, Inc.
• Kotzan Chiropractic
• KPMG LLP
• Lambda Business Association
• Laparoscopic Institute for Gynecologic Oncology
• Larson Marketing & Communications LLC
• Laughton Properties
• Law Offices of Joel L. Sogol
• Law Office of Lisa E. Schuchman
• Law Office of Lorie L. Burch, PC
• Law Offices of Robin L. Bodiford, P.A.
• The Law Office of Susan K. Fuller, PLLC
• Levi Strauss & Co.
• Liberty Burger
• Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
• Life & Love Celebrations
• Link in the Chain Foundation, Inc.
• Littler Mendelson, P.C.
• LNT, Inc.
• The Long Beach Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• Lori Karbal et al
• Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge Trust, LLC
• The Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• Main Street Hair Shoppe Ltd.
• Marriott International, Inc.
• Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
• Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
• McGraw Hill Financial, Inc.
• McKesson Corporation
• McKinsey & Company, Inc.
• Merca Property Management
• The Miami-Dade Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• Microsoft Corporation
• The Mid-America Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• Miller & Olson, LLP
• Miller Shelton Group, LLC
• MillerCoors LLC
• Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
• Mona Smith PLLC
• Moody’s Corporation
• Morgan Miller Plumbing
• Morgan Stanley
• MWW Public Relations
• NAMI Dallas, Inc.
• The Nashville LGBT Chamber of Commerce
• The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
• Neumann Capital Management, LLC
• The New England Patriots
• New Leaf Columbus
• New York Life Insurance Company
• Nifty Hoops, LLC
• NIKE, Inc.
• Nixon Peabody LLP
• North Texas GLBT Chamber of Commerce
• Northrop Grumman Corporation
• OBOX Solutions
• Office Depot, Inc.
• The Ogilvy Group, Inc.
• Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
• ONE Community Media, LLC
• 1 Source Consulting Solutions
• Oracle America, Inc.
• Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.
• Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
• Outerwall Inc.
• Pakmode Publications, LLC
• d/b/a Pakmode Media + Marketing
• Pandora Media, Inc.
• PATH
• Peabody & Arnold LLP
• Pepper Hamilton LLP
• PepsiCo
• Pfizer Inc.
• Pixelligent Technologies LLC
• Plexus Education Foundation
• Plexus LGBT and Allied Chamber of Commerce
• Portland Area Business Association
• PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
• PrideFest
• The PrintingWorks
• Pro-Tec Data, Inc.
• Procter & Gamble
• ProTrials Research, Inc.
• Prudential Financial, Inc.
• Puma Spring Vineyards
• Qualcomm Incorporated
• Quorum
• RAFI Architecture and Design
• Rainbow Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley
• Ralph’s Regal Weddings
• Ray Holley Communications
• RBC Capital Markets, LLC
• Replacements, Ltd.
• Restaurant Management Concepts
• Reverberate! Marketing Communications, Inc.
• Rising Tide Brewing Company
• RJR Photography
• Robert H Stutz Jr CPA
• Rockwell Automation, Inc.
• Rotella & Hernandez, LLC
• The Sacramento Rainbow Chamber of Commerce
• Sadek Bonahoom PLC
• The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
• The San Francisco Giants
• The Seattle Lesbian, LLC
• Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
• Sempra Energy
• Seyfarth Shaw LLP
• Shingles Roofing LLC
• Sidetrack, Inc.
• Simon, Schindler & Sandberg LLP
• Skellenger Bender, P.S.
• Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
• Sleeves Up Productions, LLC
• Sōw
• Spectra Law PS
• Spry Vision, Inc.
• St. Jude Medical, Inc.
• Staples, Inc.
• Starbucks Corporation
• Starrtek LLC
• State Street Corporation
• Steven Graves Insurance Agency
• Stonewall Behavioral Health
• Stonewall Columbus
• Stuffed Cakes, LLC
• Sun Life Financial (U.S.) Services Company, Inc.
• SunDaily
• Support.com, Inc.
• Sweet Dixie Kitchen
• Symantec Corporation
• Taber Food Services, Inc.
• dba Hobee’s California Restaurants
• The Tampa Bay Rays
• Target Corporation
• TD Bank, N.A.
• TD Securities (USA) LLC
• Tech Data Corporation
• TestTracks
• Thinking Cap Communications & Design
• Third Point LLC
• Thomson Reuters
• Tiwary Entertainment Group LLC
• TNT Promotions, LLC
• TOCA Events, LLC
• TravelOut, Inc.
• Tutta Bella Neapolitan Pizzeria
• Twitter, Inc.
• 206 Inc.
• UBS AG
• The Ultimate Software Group, Inc.
• United Air Lines, Inc.
• United Therapeutics Corporation
• Uptown Physicians Group
• VCB Consulting & Accounting Services
• Verizon Communications Inc.
• Viacom Inc.
• Visa Inc.
• VitaPerk
• VMware, Inc.
• W. M. Martin Advertising
• W.W. Grainger, Inc.
• W/S Development Associates LLC
• Walsh Wellness Center
• The Walt Disney Company
• Wasserman Media Group
• Wells Fargo & Company
• Whey Natural! USA LLC
• Wisconsin LGBT Chamber of Commerce
• Witeck Communications, Inc.
• The Workplace Equality Index
• Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
• Xerox Corporation
• Xfund
• YES DESIGN GROUP
• Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority
• Zausmer, Kaufman, August & Caldwell, P.C.
• Zingerman’s Community of Businesses
• ZoomSystems
• Zynga Inc.

It’s a lot. And the story has garnered 255 comments. The top-rated comments are all about how they now have a list of 379 companies they will be boycotting, such as “Just Me” who wrote quite literally that: “I have a list of 379 companies I will be boycotting.” Others are perhaps more peripheral, just generally ranting about The Gays getting married.

But what’s funny about this is that you cannot possibly live in modern society and boycott all these companies.

Do you own a computer? Well, you cannot run Windows or Mac operating systems or even Chrome. I guess you’re stuck with Linux or Unix. And that’s ignoring the hardware. Obviously Apple is still out, but so is Intel (which makes most CPUs) and Hewlett-Packard. (Make sure your printer isn’t an HP!) Social networking is also out, for both Facebook and Twitter are on the list.

What about a smart phone? If it’s an iPhone, throw it away, you’re stuck with something like Samsung, but make sure it doesn’t have an Intel CPU.

Does your job use any sort of computer security? Chances are it’s Cicsco-based, so you have to stop working because Cisco is on the list. They also make much of the equipment that runs the internet.

Television? The biggest television providers are on the list, including Comcast and Direct TV.

What about air travel? Delta, United, American, Alaska Air, JetBlue … they’re on the list.

What about a credit card? Visa and American Express are both on the list, so you’re stuck with MasterCard, Discover, or some less recognized company, but be careful about the bank it’s through because Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley are both on the list, as is even the Deutsche Bank.

If you’ve managed to convince yourself you can still use a computer and the internet, well, you won’t be able to use the largest internet stores: Amazon and eBay are both on the list.

Office supplies needed? Well, Office Depot, Staples, and Target are on the list.

You may even be forced to throw out some of your clothes, for companies like American Apparel and Levi are on the list.

So, that’s what you’re faced with if you want to be a bigot today and boycott all the companies that support allowing gays to be married. And I just barely touched the list, but I tried to think of things that most people do. In general, though, you’re screwed.

Another Update on The Gay in Alabama: State Supreme Court “Overrules” Federal District Court

Sigh. To me, this is neither a conservative, nor a liberal issue at this point. (Though maybe it is? State supremacy = conservative cause?) Here’s the latest from Alabama, just in Sunday night (so less than 12 hrs old): “Alabama Judges Ordered to Halt ‘Halt’ Weddings.” It’s by Cheryl Chumley, who I haven’t seen before on WND.

And let’s be very clear: It’s not the weddings at issue, it’s the issuance of marriage licenses.

Anyway, the decision was 7 to 1 with Roy Moore recusing himself (probably the only thing he’s done right in this, in my opinion). The dissenting judge effectively told his co-justicies: “WTF, are you high?” He actually that he didn’t think the case was properly filed, the court had any jurisdiction, and that public interest groups could sue in Alabama’s name, since it was outside groups and not the Governor, Legislature, nor Attorney General who sued.

The issue for me is that second one: Jurisdiction. Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution clearly says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Most people I know interpret this to mean that federal laws and courts have supremacy over state. In other words, the Federal District Court Judge’s ruling has supremacy over a state Supreme Court.

This is besides the fact that I think this is a ruling meant to uphold a hugely discriminatory law. Or, as God put it today:

God Tweets on Alabama Supreme Court

Surprising Stories that WND Hasn’t Talked About, Part 2: Alabama’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Applies to All Counties

I posted once and twice last week about the developments in Alabama. World Net Daily happily covered the drama and the Christian Soldiers (mainly Roy Moore) fighting against marriage equality and for judicial nullification (which is odd, considering that Roy Moore is a judge).

What happened on Thursday is that the plaintiffs in one of the counties where a probate judge was following Moore and not the federal ruling is that the US District Judge Callie Granade clarified her ruling and stated it applied to all probate judges. Most counties fell within a day or two, but there are still about a dozen holdouts praying that Moore is right.

What’s surprising to me is that there was nary a peep out of WND about that development. Nothing. After all their coverage in the week before it, there was not a single article nor news snippet about this for the past five days.

Judicial Recusal: If Ginsburg and Kagan Are Recused from Marriage Equality Case, Scalia and Thomas Need to, Too

Skeptics or logicians reading the title of this post may recognize an inherent logical fallacy, the tu quoque (literally, “you, too”). This is an informal fallacy which means that the logic is flawed, but that doesn’t mean the conclusion reached is flawed.

Many on the far right wing over the past several months have pointed to the fact that both Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have presided over same-sex marriage ceremonies. Therefore, the thinking goes, they have pre-judged any same-sex marriage case that would go before the Supreme Court and therefore they should recuse themselves. I wrote about this once before back in 2013. Since I wrote about it before, I’ve generally ignored follow-up WND posts on it.

But, I decided to knock out an easy one today and let you know that it’s still A Thing over at WND, such as this latest story by Bob Unruh quoting the vehemently anti-gay Brian Brown of the National Organization for (straight-only, two-people-only, God-fearing-only) Marriage (NOM) (who also has a WND column): “Calls for Ginsburg to Drop Out of Marriage Case Escalate.”

The issue of judicial recusal is a tricky one. I don’t understand all of the details, but I do know that it is often very much up to the jurist to decide their own conflict of interest and make that determination themselves. I also know that it has long been held that a jurist’s makeup (such as gender, race, sexual orientation, political affiliation) is not grounds for recusal.

Public statements specific to the case? Perhaps. I’m not sure. In which case Ginsburg – who stated this week that people need to get over it, same-sex marriage is going to happen (that’s me paraphrasing) – might be considered as someone who should recuse herself.

That said, if she does, then Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also must recuse themselves. Interesting that I don’t see WND or anyone else on the right pointing this out.

Why do I say this? Because of the tu quote or, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” While Kagan and Ginsburg have both made their general personal position on marriage equality fairly clear, so have Scalia and Thomas. Thomas has been a bit more cagey in his remarks, but as a strict textualist and very much a person seeking to limit the federal government, his opinions have pretty much always sided with restricting individual rights when those are rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. And, he’s seen as one of the most conservative members of the Court and voted against the majority opinion in the decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws. As for Scalia, he has been very outspoken against same-sex marriage and made his opinions on the issue very clear. He has been the primary dissenter in any legalization or striking down of anti-legalization of pro-homosexual issues, including the anti-sodomy laws and DOMA. In addition to that, both Scalia and Thomas frequently associate with vehemently anti-gay groups.

Do I actually think any of these four will recuse themselves? No. But if you call for one side to do so, you must call for the other. But, WND and its ilk want to stack the deck and know that the ruling this year is likely to be a 5/4 decision, but if both Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves, then the Court will uphold marriage equality bans.

Surprisingly, at the moment, the top-rated of the 147 comments on the 18-hrs-old WND story is by “BobSF_94117” and he points this out: “Scalia goes around the country offering his opinion on SSM and, far worse, his legal opinion of it.” You have to scroll through many, many other comments (when ranked form “Best” on down) to find one expressing similar ideas.

Recap of First Day of Marriage Equality in Alabama: Legal Maneuvering while Loving Couples Left Waiting

As I said in my post two days ago, Monday would be interesting in Alabama with all the legal stuff (and, I would argue, illegal stuff) going on. I think the headlines are what really tell much of the story.

From World Net Daily, we have these, all written by Anti-Homo-in-Chief Bob Unruh (all comment counts are preliminary since these are less than 24 hours old):

• “Alabama Begins Marrying ‘Gay’ Couples*” –Bob Unruh (February 09, 2015), 595 comments
• “Judge Roy Moore Defies Feds: ‘Law Is Very Clear'” –Bob Unruh (February 09, 2015), 888 comments
• “Federal Judge Refuses Sanctions in ‘Gay Marriage’ Case” –Bob Unruh (February 09, 2015), 35 comments

*This story has gone through at least four different headlines. The first was, “Drastic Measure Taken on ‘Gay’ Marriage.” The second, I didn’t copy down. The third was “Supremes Won’t Stop ‘Gay’ Marriage,” and the last one I saw was “Alabama Begins Marrying ‘Gay’ Couples.”

And, I have lots of headlines from other news outlets, including many from blogger Joe Jervis at “Joe.My.God” or “JMG” for short. These are in temporal order, starting late Sunday night, and by reading the headlines, you’ll be able to tell a lot of what happened.

• “BREAKING: Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore Orders Officials Not To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses” –Kim Chandler via ABC News / AP
• “Alabama Judge Defies Gay Marriage Law” –Alan Blinder via New York Times
• “Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Orders Probate Judges Not to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses” –Hemant Mehta via The Friendly Atheist
• “Alabama’s Chief Justice Refuses to Allow Same-Sex Marriages” –Neal Broverman via Advocate
• “Is Roy Moore protesting too much?” –Kyle Whittier via AL.com
• “Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Same-Sex Marriage in Alabama” –Reuters via The Raw Story
• “Alabama AG Luther Strange Has the Sadz” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Same-Sex Couples Wed in Alabama Despite Efforts to Block Them” –Eliott C. McLaughlin via CNN
• “Read the Supreme Court’s Order Allowing Same Sex Marriages in Alabama” –Mark Berman via Washington Post
• “Alabama Chief Justice Orders State Judges to Defy Federal Court Judge. State Judges Defy Alabama Chief Justice” –Dale Carpenter via Washington Post
• “ALABAMA: Majority Of 67 Counties Are Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Same-Sex Marriages Proceed in Parts of Alabama, Amid Judicial Chaos” –Alan Blinder and Richard Pérez-Peña via The New York Times
• “Why Roy Moore’s Gay Marriage Gambit Isn’t Just Alabama Being Alabama” –Phillip Bump via Washington Post
• “Alabama’s ‘Ten Commandments Judge’ Defies the Feds Over Gay Marriage” –Josh Sanburn via Time
• “ALABAMA: Governor Refuses To Take Any Action Against Probate Judges” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Justice Roy Moore Has The Sadz” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “ALABAMA: Plaintiffs File Federal Contempt Motion Against Mobile County Judge” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Alabama Was a Final Holdout on Desegregation and Interracial Marriage. It Could Happen Again on Gay Marriage” –Aaron Blake via Washington Post
• “A National Right to Same-Sex Marriage Is a Done Deal” –Orin Kerr via Washington Post
• “Alabama’s Chief Justice Is Trying to Stave Off Gay Marriage. Welcome to the Last Stand” –Hunter Schwarz via Washington Post
• “The ‘Ten Commandments Judge’ Has Lost — Same-Sex Couples Are Getting Married in Alabama” –Reuters via The Raw Story
• “ALABAMA: Number Of Counties Refusing Same-Sex Licenses Grows Dramatically” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Roy Moore: I’m No George Wallace” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “ALABAMA: Federal Judge Denies Contempt Order Against Mobile County Judge” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Roy Moore Will Stop Alabama from Turning into Sodom and Gomorrah” –Brian Tashman via Right Wing Watch
• “WATCH: Alabama Officials Continue Attempts to Stop Marriage” –Matt Baume via Advocate
• “Alabama, Where Same-Sex Marriage Remains Deeply Unpopular” –Nate Cohn via New York Times
• “ALABAMA: Plaintiffs Sue Everybody” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “REPORT: Roy Moore to File Charges Against Judges Who Issue Licenses” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “ALABAMA: Three Counties Relent” –Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Alabama Gov. Won’t Defy Gay Marriage: ‘I’m Trying To Move This State Forward'” –Kim Chandler and Jay Reeves via Talking Points Memo
• “ALABAMA: Where Things Stand Today” –a Joe Jervis via Joe My God
• “Alabama’s Roy Moore: I blocked gay marriages because father-daughter weddings were next” –David Edwards via The Raw Story
• “Alabama Gay Marriage Advocates Renew Legal Push for Licenses” –Richard Pérez-Peña and Richard Fausset via New York Times
• “Alabama activists seek court leverage amid standoff over same-sex marriage” –Sandhya Somashekhar via Washington Post
• “For Alabama Chief Justice, Soldiering in Name of God Is Nothing New” –Richard Fausset via New York Times
• “Supreme Court Undercuts Alabama Chief Justice’s Argument to Delay Same-Sex Marriages” –Erik Ekholm via New York Times
• “Clarence Thomas faults Supreme Court for refusing to block gay marriage in Alabama” –Robert Barnes via Washington Post

That is a lot of news coverage. To try to summarize for y’all who don’t want to even skim that list, there was a basic sequence of events:

1. Judge Roy Moore on Sunday night sent a letter to all probate court judges telling them NOT to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He stated in the letter that the Governor could take action against them if they did, though the Governor’s office said they had no idea what Moore was talking about. Because, you know, The Bible. And Icky Stuff.
   

   “The U.S. district courts have no power or authority to redefine marriage. Once you start redefining marriage, that’s the ultimate power. Would it overturn the laws of incest? Bigamy? Polygamy? How far do they go? A lot of states in this union have caved to such unlawful authority, and this is not one This is Alabama. We don’t give up the recognition that law has bounds. I disagree with standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent blacks from getting equal education. We’re talking about a constitutional amendment to preserve the recognition that marriage is one man and one woman, as it has been for centuries.” – Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, speaking this afternoon to NBC News.

2. This created a patchwork of counties in Alabama that were offering licenses to everyone (few), offering licenses only to opposite-sex couples (more), or none at all (most).
   

   Alabama Counties Status of Marriage Licenses, February 10, 2015

3. The Governor came out and said that he wasn’t going to do anything against probate judges who followed Moore’s directive or who followed the Federal court’s directive. But he did NOT want to be compared to Gov. George Wallace who, half a century ago, stood in the way of National Guard troops after the Federal courts ruled against desegregation. (This comparison was being made a lot yesterday.)
   

   Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican and a Southern Baptist, said he believes strongly that marriage is between one man and one woman, but that the issue should be “worked out through the proper legal channels” and not through defiance of the law. The governor noted that Alabama is about to be in the spotlight again with the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was passed after civil rights marchers were attacked and beaten in Selma, Alabama — events chronicled in the Oscar-nominated movie “Selma.” “I don’t want Alabama to be seen as it was 50 years ago when a federal law was defied. I’m not going to do that,” Bentley said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press.

4. Some judges refusing to comply with the the Federal order were mocked.
   
   

   Alabama Probate Judge Refusing to Follow the US Constitution

5. Others were sued, but the Federal judge did nothing:
   

   Probate Judge Don Davis is not a party in this case and the Order of January 23, 2015, did not directly order Davis to do anything. Judge Davis’s obligation to follow the Constitution does not arise from this court’s Order. The Clarification Order noted that actions against Judge Davis or others who fail to follow the Constitution could be initiated by persons who are harmed by their failure to follow the law. However, no such action is before the Court at this time.

6. So, the actual plaintiffs are now suing.

That’s kinda where we are today, or as of noon today. I could talk about a lot of issues here. Including Judge Moore making many of his arguments on Facebook, and then deleting them, like the one below.

One of Roy Moore’s Rants on Facebook that Were Deleted

Or that this is a huge case of judicial activism, which I thought conservatives were against. Or questions about authority, and whether Moore actually has any authority over probate judges. Or the apt or inapt comparisons to George Wallace. Or that in the refusal of the Supreme Court of the United States to grant a stay of the Federal judge’s order could be interpreted (by Justice Thomas’ own remarks) as the tacit admission that that is how the Supreme Court will rule later this year.

Instead, I think I’ll just point out the real effect here: In all this posturing, to try to uphold their religion (and let’s be honest: There is no reason to be against this other than religion, and it’s what’s been the focus of all Moore’s (and others’) arguments), they are hurting real people. People who love each other and just want the recognition of the state that opposite-sex couples have always enjoyed. This isn’t just some vague issue. It’s a real one with real victims.

Judge Roy Moore and His Flagrant Disregard for the Law, Again, Due to The Gays

This is a long post, and a developing situation at that. I first became aware of Judge Roy Moore, the “Ten Commandments Judge,” a decade ago when I was in college. He refused to comply with a court order to remove a massive monument of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse, and because of that, he was stripped of his judgeship.

For this, he was made both into a martyr for the cause and something of a minor celebrity among the far-right who are über-religious.

Then, a little under a decade later, the (adjective removed) people of Alabama decided to elect him yet again to be the Supreme Court Chief Justice (of Alabama). Seems to me that a man who refuses to follow the ruling of the courts has no business being a judge.

And, he’s at it again. Specifically, the Federal court in Alabama ruled as every single other court (except the 6th Circuit) has for the past few years: the state ban on issuing marriage licenses to two people of the same gender is unconstitutional. Moore is all about nullification.

This post is made from several WND posts:

• “Roy Moore Ignores U.S. Ruling on ‘Gay’ Marriage” –News Snippet (January 28, 2015), 98 comments
• “State’s Chief Justice: ‘Marriage’ Case Already Decided” –Bob Unruh (January 28, 2015), 143 comments
• “State Chief Justice: Don’t Bend to Feds on ‘Gay’ Marriage” –Bob Unruh (February 03, 2015), 118 comments
• “Marriage Fight Pits Court v. Court in Alabama” –Bob Unruh (February 06, 2015), 261 comments

It is also made from several posts on other sites:

• “ALABAMA: SPLC Files Judicial Ethics Complaint Against Judge Roy Moore” –Joe My God (January 28, 2015)
• “ALABAMA: Federal Judge Clarifies Ruling, All Counties Must Issue Licenses” –Joe My God (January 28, 2015)
• “ALABAMA: Probate Judges Cave, Agree To Issue Marriage Licenses After Stay Ends” –Joe My God (January 28, 2015)
• “Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Encourages Defiance on Gay Marriage Ruling” –Jonathan Kaminsky via The Raw Story (January 29, 2015)
• “Anti-LGBT Groups Cheer On Roy Moore’s Standoff With Federal Courts” –Miranda Blue via Right Wing Watch (January 29, 2015)
• “Meet Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Son, Lover Of Poon, Hoes, And “Niggas”” –Joe My God (January 29, 2015)
• “Alabama on a Collision Course with the Supreme Court Over Gay Marriage” –Amanda Holpuch for The Guardian via The Raw Story (January 30, 2015)
• “Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore Doubles Down on Pledge to Defy Marriage Equality” –Matt Baume via The Advocate (January 31, 2015)
• “Roy Moore: ‘Institution Of Marriage That God Ordained’ Is ‘Under Sustained Attack From Federal Judges'” –Miranda Blue via Right Wing Watch (February 02, 2015)
• “ALABAMA: Justice Roy Moore Tells State Officials Not To Issue Marriage Licenses” –Joe My God (February 04, 2015)
• “ALABAMA: HRC Petitions State To Take Action Against Chief Justice Roy Moore” –Joe My God (February 06, 2015)

Really, that first news snippet lays out the entire initiation:

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has released a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that he intends to continue to recognize the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and urging the governor to do so.

Moore’s office released the three-page letter that was delivered to the governor this morning in response to a federal judge’s ruling Friday striking down the ban.

“As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment,” Moore wrote.

The problem is that legally (by court precedent, by federal law, and, well, the results of the Civil War), federal law trumps state law. Federal courts trump state courts. Federal Constitution trumps state constitution. There’s something called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution about this. But, Moore seems to think that only the Supreme Court can void a state law: “Moore said court precedents from throughout the state’s history make it clear that only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn the highest court decision in the state system, so Granade’s decision, and a temporarily delayed order implementing it, was out of line.” FYI, this particular District Judge was an appointee of former President George W. Bush.

Pretty much everyone disagrees with him. For example: “Ronald Krotoszynski, a constitutional law expert at the University of Alabama School of Law, said Moore’s words carry little legal weight, as federal constitutional law trumps that of states. “There is no credible legal argument that an order from a federal judge with jurisdiction over a matter isn’t binding on a state government,” he said.””

As a side bar, Moore founded a group called the Foundation for Moral Law. It’s now run by his wife. Officially, the group has not responded to Moore’s letter to the governor, though it has said this:

“Alabamians approved the 2006 Sanctity of Marriage Amendment by 81% of the vote,” she said, “and the will of the people should not be lightly discarded in favor of an alleged right that is found nowhere in the Constitution.” She added that the Foundation bears no animus toward the plaintiffs in this case or in any other: “Jesus loves them, and He died for their sins as well as for mine. But homosexual conduct is still sin, and we must stand firm for what is right.”

As another (completely gratuitous) side bar, Judge Moore’s son isn’t as clean-cut as his papa, as JMG pointed out on January 29. His Twitter feed was quickly made private, but that was after people grabbed screenshots of him writing such illuminating things as: “Happiest of days to you my man @Tcopeland4 may much poon come your way #birthdaybash2014” or “I would love to meet the folks who think they go harder than these niggas #thecrew @Tcopeland4 @woods457 @JLHrastamon @Kyul_Landers” And lots of pictures of him with lots of alcohol.

Back to the story … In response to Moore’s letter urging the Governor to ignore the federal court ruling, the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) has filed a formal judicial ethics complaint against Judge Moore:

over his public statements urging the governor and Alabama judges to defy federal law and enforce Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriages. The complaint was filed with the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama, which could recommend that Moore face ethics charges in the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. That court removed Moore from the office of chief justice 12 years ago after he refused to comply with a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building.

“Moore is once again wrapping himself in the Bible and thumbing his nose at the federal courts and federal law,” said SPLC President Richard Cohen. “As a private citizen, Moore is entitled to his views. But as the chief justice of Alabama, he has a responsibility to recognize the supremacy of federal law and to conform his conduct to the canons of judicial ethics.”

JMG points out, “It was the SPLC’s 2003 complaint that first got Moore booted off the Alabama Supreme Court. He was reelected in 2012.”

At the same time as this, probate judges in Alabama were hoping for what the county clerks of Florida did, as well, but ultimately didn’t get: That maybe the Federal judge’s ruling would only apply to those particular plaintiffs and/or that particular county. No such luck, as the second JMG post I linked to points out: “Federal Judge Granade today clarified her ruling from last Friday, stipulating that it does indeed apply to all Alabama counties. […] Granade’s clarification cites federal Judge Robert Hinkle’s similar ruling in Florida.”

And, “The Alabama Probate Judges Association said it would follow her judgement.”

Moore, however, is not backing down. In response: “Alabama’s chief justice is telling probate judges that they are not required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite a federal judge’s decision overturning the state’s gay marriage ban. Roy Moore sent a letter Tuesday to probate judges, saying the judge’s decision isn’t binding on them.”

And, in response to that, the SPLC filed another ethics charge against Moore.

Besides interviews to such fair and balanced outlets as World Net Daily, he’s been on radio programs such as with Tony Perkins’ “Washington Watch” (Perkins is president of the Family Research Council), and with Sandy Rios on the American Family Association’s show. These may not help him if he is brought up, again, on ethics charges. This quote deals with his appearance with Perkins:

His latest appearance may turn out to be a gift to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which earlier this week filed a complaint against the Chief Justice after he first pledged to ignore pro-equality rulings. SPLC pointed out that Moore’s declaration constitutes numerous ethics violations, such as commenting on a pending case and encouraging lawlessness.

In his conversation with Perkins, Moore also lamented that the country no longer arrests and imprisons gays and lesbians, approvingly citing the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick, which legitimized anti-LGBT harassment by police. The FRC filed an antigay brief in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the Bowers ruling.

But, it’s not just the SPLC that is getting into this. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has started a petition that demands the Judicial Inquiry Commission take action against Judge Moore.

I’m getting this post out today because tomorrow, Monday February 9, the stay on Judge Granade’s order is lifted, and probate judges must begin to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or be in contempt of that court order.

Yet Another Fake Story from FOX “News” that WND Posts, Part 7: Oregon Anti-Gay Bakery Fine, WND Commenters Advocate Christian Jihad

I was waiting for this one since I read it on the Raw Story site earlier today: “Oregon Officials Rip Fox Contributor Todd Starnes for ‘False’ Reporting on Anti-Gay Bakery.”

The story on WND is found in Michael Brown’s “It’s High Time to Push Back Against Gay Activism.” Oh, and it specifically contradicts the actual potential fine reported yesterday by WND in “Bakery to Pay Same-Sex Couple Up to $150,000.”

The real story is this:

A state agency in Oregon called out the Fox News contributor’s erroneous reporting on a discrimination complaint filed by a same-sex couple who were denied service by a bakery.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found Monday that Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated the state’s anti-discrimination law because it is not a registered religious institution.

The Portland bakery’s owners might be ordered to pay fines up to $75,000 to the women – but Starnes got some facts exactly wrong in his Fox News report, “Christian bakers face government wrath for refusing to make cake for gay wedding.”

Starnes incorrectly reported that bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein could face $200,000 in fines and damages – which an official with the BOLI flatly denied in a statement to Media Matters.

“Todd Starnes is writing that the bakery owners face fines of up to $200,000 in damages. That’s false,” said Charlie Burr, the agency’s communications director. “In fact, it’s the Kleins who have asked for $200,000 in damages from our agency for our enforcement of the Equality Act.”

An administrative judge rejected the couple’s request to dismiss the case and award them damages, court costs, and attorneys fees.

In other words, Starnes reported that the bakers were getting fined $200k, when in fact that was what THEY were trying to sue for. They may be fined up to $75k for each person they discriminated against, for their discrimination was ruled to be illegal because they violated the non-discrimination rules in their city/state.

Michael Brown, however, missed the memo:

On Tuesday, it was announced that “An Oregon administrative law judge ruled on Jan. 29 that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa did, in fact, discriminate in 2013 when they declined to provide a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because it would have violated their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage.”

The bakers could potentially be fined $200,000 for holding to their Christian convictions. $200,000!

I don’t think anything more needs to be said about this.

But, comments, well … it’s a bit early to judge what may happen, but as I write this, there are 7 comments. The top-rated is by “MichaelVWilson” and he wrote this diatribe:

Push back. How nice. What a bland, unimaginative, inoffensive phrase.

As an ex-Marine I’m a little more direct in my approach. 50 men, 25 with rifles to act as guards; 25 with sledge hammers as the wrecking crew. Go to a homosexual bar or bathhouse, destroy it with the sledge hammers, find a second homosexual business, rinse and repeat until none are left.

Christians are in a war against evil. Let’s act like it!

Can someone please, please tell me how this is any different from what many über-conservative, right-wing Christians in American argue against in terms of Islamic jihad? This man is literally calling for Armed Christian Soldiers to destroy property owned by people they disagree with for religious reasons, or operated along an ideology they disagree with for religious reasons. The only difference I see in this particular comment is that he does not seem to be advocating violence to people, only their property. Though the rifles and sledgehammers make me wonder what would happen if someone tried to block them.

The only kind voice currently has zero up-votes, by “RichardMcCarthy”: “Yes, indeed! Jesus did say “Push back!” Or, maybe, He forgot to say that? I’m pretty sure He did say “Love one another” – including your enemies and fellow sinners as He loved us (not so that they know they’re going to Hell).”

Update on Demon-Caster-Outer, Lesbian-Obsessed Disgraced Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt

Lots of travel in the next two weeks, so expect me to try to catch up on some posts while 35,000-40,000 ft in the air.

First up, we have an update on Gordon Klingenschmitt. I tried to capture the idea behind the man in the title of this post. He is a religious bigot of the extreme kind, having been fired from the Navy chaplaincy program due to his statements and actions against homosexuals and non-Christians. Well, that and this: “It was in 2006 when WND reported Klingenschmitt was dismissed from the Navy when he insisted his religious-freedom rights allowed him to pray “in Jesus name,” which conflicted with Navy policy requiring chaplains not to reference Jesus in their prayers.”

He runs a weekly radio program that spouts his beliefs including statements about how gays are demon-possessed (but don’t worry, he is able to cast those demons out and cure lesbians).

And, he was voted into the Colorado statehouse as a Representative in our last election. During his candidacy, he wouldn’t even agree to meet with concerned prospective constituents unless they paid for body guards because he was afraid of attack. So much for representatives being accessible.

Okay, so that takes care of Michael Carl’s WND story from November 8, 2014: “Navy Chaplain Who Fought for Prayer Elected in Colorado.”

That aside, the story a month later came from Bob Unruh: “Lesbian Judge Takes on Jesus in Court.” Ummm …. huh? That headline is just stupid and gives you no idea what’s going on. In fact, I only found it after reading Right Wing Watch’s story: “WND: Klingenschmitt Lost Because the Judge Was a Lesbian!” Okay, now at least I know what the real point of the story is.

But here’s how Bob (who gets most of the anti-gay stories on WND) decided to spin it. Starting from the beginning:

An openly lesbian federal judge whose appointment was opposed by dozens of U.S. senators has ruled against a Christian former Navy chaplain who alleged his superiors engineered his dismissal from the service because he was not “ecumenical.”

The decision by Elaine Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected the allegations of former chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who recently was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives.

He had routinely prayed “in Jesus name” as part of his work as a chaplain.

The next five paragraphs are about how the Judge was opposed “by 35 GOP senators” and more about her being a lesbian. Oh, and almost inconsequentially, the next paragraph states, “Klingenschmitt told WND he likely will appeal the decision.”

This story has 1028 comments, with the highly rated ones being as you would expect for fear of The Gays. And I do mean fear, which I don’t normally use when I disagree with other people. But, when you have “El_Sluggo” writing, “Let’s face it. The entire LGBT movement is a demonic ideology based purely on the rejection of and a hatred for God.” Well, I’d say that’s fear of the demonic and fear of rejecting this particular person’s particular interpretation of the Christian God.

The Titles of Research Grants, Out of Any Context, Makes Taxpayers Angry

I had a 1700-word post all ready to go, and then WordPress decided to delete it. Sigh. Here’s my attempted reconstruction of this highly informative topic:

Federal research grants are important. They provide money for a huge range of scientific research that otherwise would not be done. We, as a society, have decided that they are good, though both the left and right and everyone in between may disagree about specific programs.

Because they are public, certain laws and regulations exist whereby the public gets to know what their tax money is going to. And, there exist many website that will let you search them. Here’s one that I have found useful because it links to the search forms for what looks like all federal research funding agencies.

What information is shown is somewhat variable, but in general, you will find: The funding agency, the PI (principle investigator), the PI’s institution, Co-Is (co-investigators), the date the funding starts, the date the funding ends, the amount of funding, and an abstract that describes the research that was provided within the proposal. You won’t find the actual proposal because it contains proprietary information — not only sometimes classified information, but also the ideas and methodology behind the proposal (so the team doesn’t get “scooped”), and even the layout and style of the proposal itself (trust me, there are many ways to write a proposal, and some of them are very effective, while others are very ineffective).

The problem with this information is that to a non-expert, and without any of the broader context of the many pages explaining what the proposal may do and the implications for it beyond the immediate research, the proposal easily looks like a waste of money to the average person. And, despite a tiny fraction of the federal budget going to research grants, various bloggers, reporters, and even congresspersons will often pull up a random title and claim that it’s an amazing example of government waste.

Such seems to have been the case with a Free Beacon article titled, “Feds Spent $532,000 Studying Gay Hookup Apps” with the subtitle, “NIH project studied ‘arousal’ of gay men when using Grindr.” The image is of two men, ostensibly gay, laying on each other and smiling.

The World Net Daily subtitle is the same, but they slightly modified the title: “Feds Spent $432,000 Studying ‘Gay’-Hookup Apps.” See, they added a hyphen and put “gay” in “quotes” because “gay” is scary and fake and a choice, because it’s WND.

There are three distinct problems here, and I don’t know if there’s a good solution to any of them: (1) There is no context, making it easy to complain; (2) titles of proposals are often whimsical; and (3) people don’t realize that less than half of the money goes to the actual researcher(s).

The first issue is that when we write grant proposals, we write them at a level where someone in our field or closely related field can understand them. When I write a crater-related proposal, I try to generalize the abstract to explain to a general person familiar with planetary geology what I plan to do and why. I then spend several pages within the proposal giving background information so that someone who models the interiors of planets would be able to understand why I want to do an observational study of impact craters.

I don’t write my abstract so that someone who has a 9-5 job working for a law firm, or working retail, or who works in Congress, would understand it. That would simply require “dumbing it down” too much. I don’t mean to imply that those people are dumb; rather, we have a very limited amount of space to explain why we want to do the research, how we’re going to do it, the broader implications, the proposal team, the management structure, and justify the budget. If we also had to write it at a level that anyone could understand it, we’d never be able to get into details.

Therefore, what makes it into the abstract that would be made public should I win the grant will rarely make sense to a general person just picking it up randomly.

Similarly, we often write titles to try to stand out to the review panels. Something fun and whimsical, for example, to make someone smile. For example, one might entitle a proposal, “Studying Martian ‘Holes in One.'”

A congressional staffer or random blogger may pick that up thinking, “Wow, why is NASA funding something about golf on Mars?” In reality, my proposal is about studying meter- and decameter scale craters in a broad statistical study to try to understand where they are most common, how dense they are, and therefore what the likelihood is that a a future spacecraft may inadvertently land in one. This happened with the MER Opportunity when it landed on Mars eleven years ago. It turned out to be good because the crater’s walls let Opportunity see a lot of otherwise buried layers, and it was able to get out of the crater. But if the crater were a little steeper, or a little smaller, then the rover would not have been able to escape or it may have fallen over and not have been able to righten itself.

Now it seems much more important: You send a half-$billion craft to Mars, you’re going to be more willing to fund a $300k study into impact crater hazards for landing, right? But, a layperson may never get past the title and flag it for government waste.

And that leads into the third issue: We don’t get that money. On a proposal I wrote several years ago, just as an example, the total budget for the three-year proposal was $328k. Salary was $127k, a little over one-third of the total amount. That was my salary as a graduate student half-time for 1 year, and postdoc half-time for 2 years, and my then-advsior for 1 month each year. What did the other money go to? The vast majority was institutional overhead, which covers administration staff salary, budget office salary, building rent, lights, computer support, custodial staff, etc. Then there were benefits, like health insurance, life insurance, and retirement. There was also money in there for a new computer and software licenses so I could do the work. About $10k was travel to conferences and another $6k was publication costs: After all, I could do the most ground-breaking study ever, but if I never told anyone about it, then what’s the point?

So, while a study may look like it costs a lot, and overhead rates vary considerably across different institutions (and are generally higher at private companies versus public universities), a very very general rule-of-thumb is to divide the total amount by 3, and that’s salary.

That brings us back to the article in question. Now that you have all that in mind, let’s look at it. Using the NIH (National Institutes of Health) search form, here’s the grant, awarded to Dr. Karolynn Siegel, entitled, “Use of Smartphones Applications for Partnering Among MSM.” MSM is “men who have sex with men” (since many men are unwilling to identify as bi or gay but do have sex with other men).

While Free Beacon doesn’t seem to have much of a spin, and it does not allow comments so I can’t quite tell which end of the political spectrum it’s on, WND clearly does have an agenda: This study is a waste because who cares about gays (or “gays”) hooking up? What benefit could there possibly be!?

Well, take a moment and think more broadly about it from both a social and medical standpoint: Smartphones and GPS-enabled devices have drastically changed how we interact, so from a social standpoint we need research to better understand that phenomenon. From a health standpoint, it’s dramatically increased the ease of casual sex, especially among gay men where there is still a stigma of trolling the bars or streets for a partner. Heterosexuals have their own app (Tinder), and so the findings from a study of gay males hooking up could have implications for straight men and women, too. And, casual sex will increase the risk of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). So, from a public health standpoint, understanding a strong new vector for how diseases spread is the first step to trying to determine ways to minimize that risk. Both for straight and gay persons.

If the blogger or WND had bothered to read the abstract on the NIH site, they would have found that (emphasis mine):

The study aims are: 1. Examine how and why smartphone applications are used for sexual partnering, the situations and locations in which they are used, in order to gain insights into how these use patterns might contribute to sexual risk behaviors. 2. Investigate the process by which MSM use smartphone applications to find sexual partners (i.e., who they look for, how they present themselves, how they communicate, extent of safer sex negotiation,and disclosure) to gain insights into how this process may contribute to sexual risk behaviors. 3. Investigate the sexual and emotional states (e.g., more/less urgency, arousal, impulsivity) that MSM experience when seeking or meeting sexual partners using smartphone applications and gain insights into how these states may contribute to sexual risk behaviors. 4. Examine the perceived need and acceptability of a smartphone delivered intervention and assess what MSM perceive as needed components for a smartphone-based sexual risk reduction intervention.

It also contains a public health relevance statement (likely unique to the NIH, since I don’t have to do that for NASA).

Meanwhile, the cost – $432k – may seem high. But, divide by three, and we’re down to around $150k salary. For a medical researcher, working for two years, at maybe half or a third of their time on this particular grant, that doesn’t seem very high anymore. Especially if most of it is given to graduate students who will be conducting the actual interviews with the 60 MSM in the study and Dr. Siegel is there for a month a year to supervise and then more at the end to crunch the data. In medical studies, there’s also money that is sometimes paid out to participants as compensation (I have no idea if that’s the case in this study, but I know it happens in others).

And so, we went from a sensationalist headline that clearly is meant to drum up a specific reaction (government waste! who cares about gays!?) but that’s because it leaves out any form of context as to the broader implications of this kind of study and why it’s being done. It also completely ignores that the amount of money in the federal budget for government-funded scientific research is somewhere around 3.4%. (FY2015 budget is around $3.97T, but science is $135B, and just under half of that is defense, leaving 1.8% for non-defense.)

And, World Net Daily got that reaction. In the 22 hours the article on their site has been posted, they have gotten 42 comments. They broadly fit into saying that President Obama is gay (which is another odd conspiracy they’ve been floating for years, and remember that being gay on WND is bad), that this is government waste of tax money, and that the study is stupid because it’s about The Gays.

Ignoring the first, some examples of the second are:

• dan690: “The government says there is no room in the budget for cuts. Here is an excellent example of where to cut and there are thousands more.”
• Tomas Cruz: “And they wonder why we reject every call for more taxes for this or that because it ends up with this nonsense.”
• James Frost: “What the hell is going on with our officials? They spend our money on conducting such stupid research. But what`s the use? They`d better spend money on veterans, poor families, security measures. This gays have too much public attention!”

And examples of the third are:

• Sharknado: “A government of perverts…just great…thanks a lot.”
• ThoLawn: “What was the purpose to spend (waste indeed) half of million dollars to interview all that gays? What they’re going to do with that “research” results? Would it help to solve any problems? What a stupidity…”
• HardCorePress: “Talk about in your face government sponsored hommoman wanna pump a guys *** pervertedness. This type of blatant sin has been seen by God and God will send his wrath upon this country. May it be nuclear fire to cleanse the cancerous mass of homosexuality (the pinnacle of debauchery and Obamanibale hedonism).”

A Token Ease on Blood Donation Pisses Off Everyone

Ever since the start of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that became briefly (and still in homophobic circles) known as the “Gay Plague,” the US FDA has banned every homosexual man (who admits it) from donating blood. Period.

This has long been viewed as discriminatory, especially these days when HIV is not a “gay plague” but affects all groups and genders and people of all sexual orientations. It also did not make sense that you could be a hight promiscuous adult prostitute and yet still give blood while gay men who had never had sex could not. As soon as you flip that li’l gay switch, your blood is tainted. Apparently.

And so, unsurprisingly, there has been pushback. Not only from LGBT rights advocates, but by doctors. Finally, it seemed, the FDA was going to lift its ban. And WND was not happy, publishing a full (though unattributed) article on December 24, 2014, entitled, “Blood-Donor Rules Bent by ‘Politics.'”

I find it ironic that “Politics” here is in quotes because politics is the only thing that’s keeping the ban in place.

The policy change, however, has been condemned not just by the far-right, but also by the left: The policy change is such that gay men may donate blood if they have not had intercourse for one full year. Which eliminates most men.

It would eliminate most straight men, too, if that were the policy for straight persons.

Even though HIV can lay dormant for years in a human body.

So, this is a token step in the correct direction, but it’s clearly political.

Meanwhile, the WND article is quite lengthy and ranting about misleading statistics (their statistics they give to bolster their claim are misleading).

If you want to have a sound blood donation policy, you need to look dispassionately at all races, all genders, all social factors, all occupations (i.e., my example about sex workers) and determine who has the highest chances of HIV infection. Then, you look at the screening process for blood and how good it is. Then you look at the statistics for what the chances are, given the screening tests, of any given group having a donation that is both HIV-positive and is missed in screening. And then you set your bans that way.

Just banning gay men for life, or banning gay men who have had sex more recently than a year ago, is just political and unscientific.