Posts Tagged ‘same-sex marriage’

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.
  •, 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  •, 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
  • 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.

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

God Tweets on Alabama Supreme Court

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.

I was waiting for WND to do this post, since it actually happened yesterday (Tuesday, July 1): “Judge Tosses Kentucky ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban.” It comes courtesy of the Courier-Journal as opposed to any of pretty much ALL the news outlets yesterday that talked about it.

Here’s why I wanted to talk about it: Because the Federal Judge (Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II) pulled no punches with his ruling, calling the state’s defense “bewildering and irrational.” From The Raw Story:

“In America, even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted,” Heyburn wrote in his ruling.

The judge sharply rejected the only justification for the ban offered by Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear’s lawyers – who argued that traditional marriage contributed to a stable birth rate and the state’s long-term economic stability.

“These arguments are not those of serious people,” Heyburn said.

“Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why,” Heyburn continued. “Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.”

…“The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in ‘ensuring humanity’s continued existence’ are at best illogical and even bewildering,” Heyburn wrote.

That’s right, Christians: “Even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted.”

And that’s right, Christians: If gays get to marry, it’s not going to suddenly cause all the straights to stop having children.

Most WND commenters of course disagree. Take “pi10107” who wrote, “Another activist judge without an IQ high enough to understand the Constitution. Judges do not have the right to overturn the votes of the people just because it does not go along with that judge’s personal desire. Our country is being ruled by an illegal alien Muslim ignoring our laws and our Constitution and the judges are in his pocket.” That’s actually true (that a judge can’t do something just because of their “personal desire”). But the rest is hogwash. A role of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority when the majority is violating the minority’s rights. Hence, this ruling. And, hence throwing out one of the lamest defenses ever offered against marriage equality (that it will lower birthrates among heaters).

I’m writing this post as comments are being posted to the very newly-posted WND snippet, and this response was just posted by “sirjonk” and I fully expect it to be deleted by a moderator: “lol. Harvard Law educated judge selected by Mitch McConnell, appointed by GHWB. And his IQ is low, and you, the anonymous internet poster, is the intelligent one. HAHAHA” (Update a half hour later, though still before this post goes up: Yes, his comments have been deleted.)

“American Tax Payer is a world of crazy:

Whatever State legalizes “gay marriage” will see an influx of homosexuals and then they will start demanding the “Right” to be parents (adopting) and then they will start demanding the “Right” to be propelled into positions they’re not qualified for just because they’re homosexual like the non-whites do with their Affirmative Action.

The problem is, homos are never happy. First they said they just wanted the same “Rights” so we gave them Civil Unions. Then they said they “needed” to take our word, “Marriage” from us so they could be “equal” and next, they’ll demand the “Right” to adopt our children so they can trick uninformed normal people into believing they can actually procreate like normal people can.

The threat to the Population of Kentucky comes in the form of Heterosexual Flight. It works the same way White Flight does.

I would actually argue that “[Christians] are never happy;” fully recognizing that most Christians are perfectly happy living and let living, I’m talking about those on the über-right wing. Those Christians won’t be happy until “God” is plastered on public buildings, the Bible is mandatory reading in schools, every public assembly/meeting starts with a prayer, and Biblical law is followed. If you think I’m exaggerating, read RightWing Watch for a week, and you will see that I’m not.

“Homos” won’t be happy until they have equal rights. It’s really that simple. The patronization to say that “we gave them Civil Unions” just says it all, and gives further credence to the need of at least one branch of government to tell this majority to STFU.

Maybe “Leonard Corwin” would be disappointed to learn who appointed the judge: “Toss the judge. The fool is incompetent and not fit to serve on the bench. Which screwball democrat appointed him?”

Ahem: “On the recommendation of Senator Mitch McConnell, Heyburn was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on March 20, 1992 to a seat vacated by Thomas Ballantine, Jr. as Ballantine went on senior status. Heyburn was confirmed by the US Senate on August 12, 1992 on a Senate vote and received commission on August 17, 1992.” —Wikipedia. Hardly a conservative or conservative-appointed jurist. But facts never get in the way of righteous indignation, with “Frank” asking, “so who bought off this judge?” and “Patti_Mi” responding, “He’s probably an Obama plant.”

Of course, there are a few commenters who agree with the ruling, such as “Dancewithme”: “I guess my (heterosexual) parents wouldn’t be allowed to get married in Kentucky since my mom can’t have kids and thus they can’t procreate….what a b*llsh*t argument by the govener!!!!” “Dancewithme” also responded to “Frank”‘s indignation: “Making a bad case in court doesn’t really equate to buying someone off…if you present a crappy case in court you’ll most likely loose.”

This past week, there were two more rulings on the side of marriage equality: Within about half hour of each other, a US District Judge Richard Young in Indiana ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional (and did not stay his ruling), and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Utah’s ban on marriage equality as being unconstitutional.

WND had about two stories on it, and surprisingly, none specific to the Utah ruling. The first was a three-paragraph snippet from the Indianapolis Star (“Judge: Indiana ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban Unconstitutional”), and the second was an actual story published on June 27, written by Greg Corombos: “Same-Sex Marriage Headed Back to Supreme Court.”

In the former story’s comments, which right now number 208, it appears as though it has been hijacked by WND’s non-standard fare, with several of the top-rated comments being pro-marriage-equality. It’s only when you scroll through probably the first half do we get things like this, from “Demmi Greene”: “A banner day for wickedness lndeed, but God”s kingdom ‘will win out’ in the end. We have his oath.”

Greg’s story takes a bunch of quotes from Matt Barber, who posts on WND frequently, and whose latest stories that I’ve talked about include how porn is satanic and that being liberal violates all of the Commandments (you know … THE Commandments).

Granted, Greg’s article came out less than a day ago, but it only has 86 comments. Not horrible, but not great for a WND hot-button issue. While most of them are vile and repugnant, I wonder if WND commenters are starting to get weary of loss after loss.

In the month hiatus from the blog that I took (there’s something wrong with that word order, but, oh well), the march towards marriage equality has continued. No less than four judges ruled that state bans violate state or federal constitutions, and are therefore struck down, though each ruling was either immediately stayed or stayed by that court or a higher court pending appeal. Specifically, we’re talking Arkansas, Idaho (who da ho?), Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And it was ordered that Utah must recognize the marriages performed in its state for the few weeks it was legal.

WND published many, many stories about this, and of course the comments have been overwhelmingly negative. What I find fascinating is that the commenters keep complaining about “activist judges.” At what point does an unbroken string of court decisions, in the same way, by liberal and conservative jurists, stop becoming “activist judges?”

Otherwise, the comments have all been religious (“But my ancient book says I should be against this!”) or icky (“Icky!!”). If you think it’s icky, don’t think about it! I’m convinced that many anti-equality people think more about the act of same-sex sexual acts than people who are homosexual. At least man-on-man. Women-on-women, you never hear about. Because for some reason, many straight guys fantasize about lesbians having sex, for reasons I cannot comprehend.

Meanwhile, there have been generic columns published, as well. Among them are:

Star’s column is an attempt to reassure readers that marriage equality isn’t going to win out. She cites polls that say only 32% of Republicans support it, and that The Gayz’ analogy to the Civil Rights movement is rejected by “black pastors” that she’s talked with or seen or heard.

The AP snippet, meanwhile, is quoting a conservative Republican Senator admitting that they’re losing: ““Let’s face it: anybody who does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn’t been observing what’s going on,” said Hatch, a seven-term Republican senator who has been a proponent of keeping marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.” Listen to the man, Star.

Of course, many of the 287 comments oppose this, with comments from “Rob” like: “Yea…let’s all give up and let the homos have the country and our children’s minds and our life liberty and pursuit of happiness. I dont want my children taught this is ok.”

Meanwhile, the FOX “news” snippet is an attempt to drum up the base and show that it’s the demoncrats who are behind all this and show the influence that presidents have on the court system.

And finally, Keyes’ argument – based on my brief 45-second skimming – appears to be entirely based on what we call the “Genetic Fallacy:” “The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.” At least, I think that’s the fallacy here. Might also be a form of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

What he argues is the baby-makin’ thing, that because two men who have sexual intercourse, or two women who have sexual intercourse, can’t produce a child together, it’s not really sex, therefore it’s bad for humanity and should be banned. I’d like to see him tell that to every infertile couple out there that when they couple, it’s bad for humanity and not really “sex.”

And there you have it. Keyes’ column is the only one where the sane people have dominated in the comments, generally pointing out his false analogy.

I predict that WND commenters and columnists are going to continue to whine and scream for the duration, though, representing that small group in society that longs for the old days when blacks knew their place, women were subservient to men, no stores were open on Sunday, and … wait– why don’t they just go live in a theocratic society, like Pakistan?

A short post based on a short snippet: “Same-Sex Couples Get Expanded Federal Benefits.”

In case you missed the news a few weeks ago:

The federal government will soon treat married same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples when they file for bankruptcy, testify in court or visit family in prison.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was preparing to issue policies aimed at eliminating the distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex married couples in the federal criminal justice system, according to a speech given at a Saturday event organized by a prominent gay-rights group.

“In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder’s said.

For purposes of this post, remember that the Executive branch of government is the one in charge of implementing and enforcing laws. Also remember that the Supreme Court struck down (effectively) the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which means that now the Federal government must recognize marriages performed by the states, including same-sex marriages. Also remember that, enshrined in federal law, there are certain rights and responsibilities of married couples, such as joint tax filing, hospital visitation, can’t force testimony in court, that kind of stuff.

So, this seems like a logical step that should have happened sooner by the federal government. World Net Daily commenters don’t seem to understand that.

For example, “Virginia Vapig” (6 up-votes) wrote: “Another lawless act by this administration. They don’t have the authority to make such a “proclamation.”” Um, no. You would not pass high school civics.

In fairness, it looks like many of the commenters are not WND-faithfuls, “ClearThinkingUSA” pointing out exactly what I just did above. Or, a guest writing in (what I assume to be) parody: “Soon you will see goats divorcing their same sex partners and getting awarded everything ! even the automobiles! Goats driving automobiles, Imagine that!” Or even MacQ who got 6 up-votes for it: “Personally, I think that in the eyes of the government, sexual orientation should not determine a person’s rights.
The government has no business trying to regulate peoples’ affiliations.”

Of course, there are other WND commenters who just go back to Jesus, like “gardeninggal1”: “I have to wonder how much longer the grace of God will last for this country.”

Is it even worth doing these posts anymore? On this blog, I’ve covered pro-same-sex marriage rulings, laws, and acknowledgements in at least four states (Hawai’i, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah) and at the federal level. Add Virginia to the list: “‘Gay’-Marriage Ban Struck Down in Virginia.”

Every court battle on the issue, since the Supreme Court struck down parts of DOMA last year, has sided with same-sex marriage proponents. And, as I’ve pointed out numerous times on this blog, the only defense of the conservatives seems to be that The Gayz make baby Jesus cry. And gay sex is icky (they seem to think about gay sex a lot more than gays do).

I’m wondering – at this point – if it’s even worth going over these more on this blog given the inevitable response by WND commenters. There’s nothing really new on it, and if WND’s actual staff writers or commenters don’t write the article themselves, then there’s no real interest in doing so under my founding purpose of this blog.

Though I suppose it bears a side-mention that Dennis Prager, who does have a column, did write a column on this general “issue” a few days after the Virginia decision: “Judges, Hubris and Same-Sex Marriage.” His rational? Religion:

Walker: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

“No rational basis”? This is hubris. What he is stating is that for all of Western history – and contemporaneous non-Western history – there has not been a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of a man a woman. Vaughn Walker is convinced that he thinks more rationally than every moral leader and thinker in history, not one of whom advocated same-sex marriage. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Enlightenment – all were irrational regarding same-sex marriage, according to Judge Walker.

I doubt the founders of those religions also did not advocate driving cars, using the internet, or having an MP3 player, yet we seem to have adapted to those fairly well (at least in most first world countries).

Perhaps Prager forgot that we don’t live in a theocracy. All because a religion discriminates doesn’t mean that a rational society should.

I had fun with that title. Or, I’m sleep-deprived. Today’s edition of Homo Hate™® comes from WND’s HomoHater Bob Unruh: “Ten Commandments Judge: ‘Gay Weddings A ‘Travesty.’

I haven’t talked about Roy Moore before, so if you don’t know who he is, I recommend perusing his Wikipedia page. The reason he’s called the “Ten Commandments Judge” is that he was the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he had a multi-ton granite copy of the Ten Commandments placed in the Alabama Judicial Building, he was court-ordered to remove it by a federal judge, and on November 13, 2003, the “Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from his post as Chief Justice.” After a failed political career for the next 10 years, he was re-voted in as Alabama Chief Justice. I weep for Alabama.

So, you can imagine that he has a small group of very VERY vocal supporters who eat up every word he spews out of his various orifices. The latest is that he’s on a personal crusade to outlaw same-sex marriage, writing to every state Governor (damn well better not be on official Alabama stationary) to get together and have the states amend the Constitution to illegalize it … ’cause, you know, Jesus, and gays are icky:

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was returned to the top judicial post in the state after he fought with bureaucrats over the message of the Ten Commandments, is now adding his voice to a campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage.

“It’s a travesty,” Judge Roy Moore told WND on Monday about the move toward judiciary-imposed same-sex “marriages.” “The courts are exercising wrongful authority over this country.”

… The campaign is alive online under the “I Stand With Judge Moore” headline and proposes the Constitution be amended to state: “Nothing in this Constitution or in the constitution or laws of any state shall define or shall be construed to define marriage except as the union of one man and one woman, and no other union shall be recognized with the legal incidents thereof within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

In addition to the online presence, the campaign mailed letters to governors of all 50 states urging them to get their legislatures to call for a convention to add that amendment to the Constitution.

Many commenters weighed in on the issue, echoing Moore’s learned, measured, and polite thoughts, with their own. 135 comments to-date, most of them supporting Moore, several of them quoting the Bible, some of them supporting what’s going on in Russia with the “don’t say gay” law there.

Oh, and of course, “Black Racism” had the nuanced insight, “No one is preventing gay men from marrying lesbian women.” He got 16 up-votes and 1 down-vote.

This is an interesting story and an interesting concept/phenomenon. In the US, every state has a State Attorney General (AG). Might be elected, might be appointed … I think the former but I’m too lazy to look it up right now. One of the jobs of the state’s AG is to defend the state’s laws against court challenge. So what happens when the AG thinks the law is inherently unconstitutional?

Well, in the past, regardless of political affiliation, AGs have refused to defend those laws. Usually the fringe that supports the clearly unconstitutional ones yell and scream and demand resignation or impeachment. This happened in late January in Virginia with Attorney General Mark R. Herring. Virginia is one of those states that has a ban on same-sex marriage. It was being challenged in court. AG Herring refused to defend it:

“After thorough legal review, I have now concluded that Virginia’s ban on marriage between same sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on two grounds: marriage is a fundamental right being denied to some Virginians, and the ban unlawfully discriminates on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender,” Herring said.

WND had three articles on it, the first from the AP, “Virginia AG: ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban ‘Unconstitutional,’” and the second by some unattributed WND writer(s), “Alarming Trend: Attorneys General Refuse to Defend Laws.” The third article came out weeks after the first two, being published on February 7, 2014, “‘Dereliction of Duty’ Charge Leveled Against Virginia AG” (it was written by WND’s anti-homo-in-chief, Bob Unruh).

In the second, WND laments:

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver is outraged at Herring’s decision and told WND Virginia’s attorney general doesn’t seem to approach law enforcement much differently than President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

“This is unfortunately the consequence of elections and you’ve got someone who is lawless. You really trace that back to President Obama and Eric Holder, when they decided to pick and choose, through the Department of Justice, which laws they wanted to defend and which ones they wanted to not just step aside but actually intentionally undermine.
“They did that with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and now we see on the state level with this new attorney general, he does the same thing,” said Staver.

… Herring is hardly the first official to declare he would not defend traditional marriage laws. In addition to Obama and Holder at the federal level, attorneys general in Pennsylvania and Illinois and the governor of Hawaii all unilaterally declared they would not defend state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

But, as the Washington Post points out (and to their credit, WND quotes but then dismisses):

And while Democrats have generated plenty of news when it comes to gay rights, Republicans have also made a point of refusing to argue in court for laws they consider unconstitutional. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller (R) declined to defend a portion of that state’s immigration law after the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in Arizona’s immigration law. Herring’s predecessor, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, decided last year he would not defend one of Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s key education reforms on the grounds that he believed legislation allowing the state to take over failing schools did not pass constitutional muster.

… What does this mean going forward? Groups on both sides of key domestic policy fights — including gay marriage, abortion and immigration — are likely to target attorney general races in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico and Nevada this year. If they needed any more incentive to get off the fence and become more involved in these campaigns, Herring just gave it to them.

WND’s first clip article got no ratings and 46 comments, the top-rated one by “BobTheConcerned” having 14 up- and 0 down-votes stating, “Homosexual “marriage” equals unholy “marriage.” An abomination.” As I’ve said before, when your only defense of something is a religious one, you’re going to lose legally, in this country, where we do not live in a theocracy.

The second article got 74 votes with 4.95/5 stars (might be a record for ones I’ve seen with that many votes). It also got 143 comments. The top-rated comments are, as I prophesized (spelling on that?) at the beginning of this post, lamenting the AG “not doing their job.”

The third article got 314 ratings (4.83/5 stars) and has 407 comments as of this writing. As is typical these days, the only defense of the law appears to come from religion, which – as I’ve said before – means that we’re going to win because the US is not a theocracy, despite what some of these people would like to think. For example, “17_tparty_patriot76” wrote, “In the bible God says marriage is the union between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Until God says differently, THAT IS THE WORD!!!!! I don’t know who the Pres. thinks he is BUT HE CERTAINLY IS NOT GOD !!!!!!” She (judging by the avatar) got 44 up-votes and none down.