14 wins in a row!
Pennsylvania (Federal), John Jones, 5/20/14, George W. Bush appointee, Full Marriage Rights
Oregon (Federal), Michael McShane, 5/19/14, Obama appointee, Full Marriage Rights, No Stay/No Appeal
Idaho (Federal), Candy Dale, 5/13/14, Panel appointment, Full Marriage Rights, Stayed/Appealed
Arkansas (State), Chris Piazza, 5/9/14, Direct Election, Full Marriage Rights, Stayed/Appealed, but over 200 Marriages in the 7-day legal interim before the Stay
Ohio (Federal), Timothy Black, 4/14/14, Obama appointee, Out of State Marriages, Stayed/Appealed (except for the original plaintiffs)
Indiana (Federal), Richard Young, 4/10/14, Clinton appointee, One Out of State Marriage, the Plaintiffs
Michigan (Federal), Bernard Friedman, 3/21/14, Reagan appointee, Full Marriage Rights, Stayed/Appealed, but 323 Marriages in the 1-day interim before the Stay
Tennessee (Federal), Aleta Trauger, 3/20/14, Clinton appointee, Out of State Marriages, Stayed/Appealed, only applies to the three plaintiffs
Texas (Federal), Orlando Luis Garcia, 2/26/14, Clinton appointee, Full Marriage Rights, Stayed/Appealed
Virginia (Federal), Arenda Wright Allen, 2/13/14, Obama appointee, Full Marriage Rights, Stayed/Appealed, had 3 judge appeal hearing in the fourth circuit on 5/13/14
Kentucky (Federal), John Heyburn II, 2/12/14, George H.W. Bush appointee, Out of State Marriages, Stayed/Appealed
Oklahoma (Federal), Terence Kern, 1/14/14, Clinton appointee, Full Marriage Rights, Stayed/Appealed
Utah (Federal), Robert Shelby, 12/20/13, Obama appointee, Full Marriage Rights, Stayed/Appealed, 1360 Marriages in the 17-day interim before the Stay
New Mexico (State Supreme Court), Unanimous Decision by Court, 12/19/13, Direct Election (3) or Gubernatorial appointment (2, Bill Richardson), Full Marriage Rights, No Appeal/No Stay
h/t HuffPost
41 comments:
Ben Carson may be a talented surgeon, but he's also a political crackpot:
"Dr. Ben Carson's shoot from the lip, crackpot quips, digs, and insults at women, blacks, Democrats, and especially President Obama are fast becoming the stuff of legend. This time he almost outdid his past inane cracks with the zinger that the Affordable Care Act is the worst thing since slavery. Carson has parlayed his zany potshots into a plum spot as a Fox News Network commentator. This is the sorry case of a man who at one time had the respect of many for his moving, inspiring story of overcoming hardships to become a highly respected medical professional and who now has prostituted himself to grab a quick headline from a soundbite-driven, titillation media that hungrily eats up anything that someone like a Carson dishes out.
But it's also the case of a man such as Carson and his ilk that serve a calculating purpose. They get attention for the GOP. While they are zany, they also touch a deep, dark, and throbbing pulse among legions of ultra-conservatives who think that Obama and many Democrats are communists, gays are immoral, and that the health care reform law is exactly what Carson likened it to "slavery," meaning the tyrannical intrusion by big government into their lives. Carson actually went even further than the slavery dig and likened the health care law to the old communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union run by Lenin."
Take away Carson's medical career and all you have left is another Alan West.
"meaning the tyrannical intrusion by big government into their lives"
Funny - actually not funny at all - how Tea Party Republicans have used the levers of government to limit reproductive rights and voting rights, gerrymander districts, and give an employer the right to pry into your medical records - all in the name of religious freedom.
Hyperbole, hypocrisy and projection all rolled into one.
The pace of progress on this issue these days is amazing. No one could have anticipated this ten years ago.
Judge Jones in the Pennsylvania case is the same one who ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover, one of the most important separation-of-church-and-state cases in modern history. It's nice to see that some Republican judges apply the law properly despite the party's general craziness these days.
Love the color pattern on the state names.:-)
So Anon, I take it you disagree with this educated and respected man of medical science on the social, political, and governance issue of the day and wish he would just shut his mouth.
well, at last SOME progress for basic human rightgs has been made.
Now to undo some of the drastic measures curtailing women's health rights.
.....and reverse the trend of suppressing voter rights.
....course, I am still in favor of banning marriage between Green Bay Packer fans and fans of the Chicago Bears. I mean, thing CAN go too far, right?
course....I started thinking....with fourteen wins in a row...does that mean the Gay team gets a bye in the first round of the Worls Cup?
Yeah okjimm, you're right. Hopefully the marriage of a kielbasa and chourica will forever be banned. It would ruin both.
My comment says nothing about hoping Carson shuts up. In fact I hope he continues to let people know his extremist views on gay people and his other Crack pot blather.
Interesting how you call him educated and respected man. President Obama is educated and respected too but wingers insult him on a daily basis and in the most degrading terms.
It's hard to see that side of things when you're a partisan isn't it.
Note Anonomous the qualifier medical. As to Obama, yes, he is educated and he should not insulted in degrading terms.
Carson will continue to voice his beliefs and he will continue to have no shortage of admirers. Isn't freedom wonderful? Both you and he can continue to express your deeply held beliefs without fear of imprisonment or worse.
Why not let the voters decide if the want gay marriage legal in their State. Allowing a federal judge to determine something that is a States right gives the federalists more control over what a state can do.
You got that wrong, stud. Equal protection is the issue. States cannot opt out of the Constitution. You apparently have a tenuous grasp of the laws of this country .
That should say "skud" not "stud". I have no personal information if "stud" is the better noun
RN:
"Carson will continue to voice his beliefs and he will continue to have no shortage of admirers. Isn't freedom wonderful? Both you and he can continue to express your deeply held beliefs without fear of imprisonment or worse"
Yeah. Carson will continue to make a fool of himself over political matters. He's a Bagger extremist. So he's a hero with the crackpots on the right. He'll never be president. He should stick to what he's good at: separating conjoined twins
I look forward to reading this on a wing nut blog. Some asshole is copying and pasting my comments. Just what they do to Miller. They are a strange breed of nuts. .
As you will continue to do the same
I'm sure you do look forward to that Anonomous.
They aren't the only ones.
I think that the most important constitutional issue here is the pursuit of happiness. I understand that these words are taken from the Declaration of Independence. But don't we all hold them to be sacred as Americans? Only Blue Meanies hate on people for trying to be happy.
RN: "So Anon, I take it you disagree ... and wish he would just shut his mouth."
In attributing words that were never spoken, your comment is so infuriatingly obtuse, I sometimes wonder if you have full command of the English language or a grasp of logical reasoning.
In essence, you seem to confuse "criticism" with "censorship." You infer that any criticism of Carson's remarks is tantamount to wanting him silenced, which is NOT what Anonymous, nor any reader herein, said.
When a public figure engages in hyperbole, pandering, and over-the-top demagoguery, it doesn't mean critics should leave critical thinking and free speech rights at the door just because you think their comments have a certain "partisan flavor."
"Free speech for me but not for thee" is the gist of your comment. Cynicism and snark is not a rational argument - especially from someone who thinks of himself as "rational."
No Octo I confuse nothing. As to my grasp of the English language, I do fine. Perhaps it s you who should look deeper.
Let me put it bluntly, I am tired of listening to BS. Say whatever you wish, same for Anon everyone. I will respond as I choose to respond.
It is not I who would limit free speech.
Scud: “Why not let the voters decide if the [they] want gay marriage legal in their State.”
History has shown: Human rights, equal rights, and civil rights cannot be left up the states. If we let states decide on matters of human rights, there would still be slavery. If we let states decide on matters of civil rights, there would still be Jim Crow laws and segregation. In case you haven’t noticed, the Bill of Rights is very clear on this subject: “All men are created equal …”
Now, looky here, boy, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is equally clear:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Your Southern ‘boy,’ neo-Confederate attitude WAS, IS, and will ALWAYS BE on the wrong side of history.
Don’t like my calling you ‘boy?’ Lets just say, what goes around comes around.
Shaw,
I appreciate the compliment but I have never read in the constitution where gay marriage is mentioned.
We are seeing less States rights and more federalist control. There are those who believe in more State control. Over the last several decades the federalists have proven they are totally incompetent.
Funny, people cry free speech on a blog that does not practice free speech. Just another liberal hypocrite blog.
Skid you obviously don't understand the meaning of " equal protection under the law." Or as (o)CT(O)PUS so eloquently and accurately stated: "all men are created equally". That means under the law. It's a founding principle for this country, even though the Constitution had to be amended in order to be faithful to that principle -- freeing the slaves and enfranchising both former slaves and women. Enforcing that very American principle is what the federal judges are doing. That's not "legislating from the bench'" as people like you complain. That's called following the Constitution. Remember. That's the document the TeaPublicans fetishizes, except when it interferes with their bigotry.
Anon, commenters are free to submit trolliish remarks, and I'm free to not publish them. You are another one who idolizes the Constitution without knowing what it means.
Fit hat should be "Skud". I'm replying via an iPad that interjects unwanted auto-corrections. Sorry.
Oh damn, stupid auto-correct again, THAT. SHOULD,
RB: "I am tired of listening to BS."
And I am tired of double standards and hypocrisy! This puts me in a very bad mood.
Skud, no, gay marriage is not in the Constitution.
And neither was marriage between black people and white people, which up until the early 70's was still illegal in many states.
Are you saying the Supreme Court erred in the Loving case that struck down those laws?
Skud no doubt the Feds are expanding their reach.
You conclusion as to whether or not that is bad, I believe is wrong. Certainly in an organism as big as the fed is, there will be significant waste, and sometimes bad policy, but the states rights people certainly cannot believe that is not a local issue too.
There seems to be this romanticism that at the state level, the errs of government do not happen.
What happens is more akin to locals getting their way, certainly a powerful incentive. But we learned long ago that might does not always make right.
You still have to deal with the reality that when the states had a strong hand in this debate, they essentially misbehaved, enforcing brutal laws that have decimated certain segments of our society.
Remember, not one state that practiced systemic racism affirmed the right of the Feds to force them to do the right thing.
Why was that?
Anon... the free speech clause of our Constitution limits the Federal government, not private citizens.
Do you allow people into your house to insult your mother or family? Of course not.
Same principle.
Now go publish my comments elsewhere...
Anon (at 11:14am)
For your information, here is what the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no laws …”
The Constitution says nothing about a corporation, a news reporter, the thought patrol, or a poor, pathetic and persecuted little troll such as yourself. The Constitution does not require a kiosk to stock copies of the Communist Daily Worker. It does not require Shaw to post any comment. The Constitution gives you NO RIGHT to be here; and if Shaw chooses to post your comment, it is merely to expose you as a fool (and you were dumb enough to take the bait).
Freedom of speech does not include an obligation upon someone else to provide a platform. Shaw is not interfering with anyone's freedom of speech by deleting their comments; they're still free to say it elsewhere. It's amazing how many blog commenters fail to understand this.
Similarly, free speech does not mean immunity from criticism. No one is calling for Ben Carson to be silenced. We are making fun of him for being ridiculous, as is entirely appropriate. The proper response to speech is more speech.
Legs,
I have no issue being call stud, boy or skid for that matter. I do prefer the endearing name of stud that shaw gave me but....
Unless you missed the class, the bill of rights is not the constitution and how does equal protection apply to gay marriage?
Are they being lynched or being run out of town on a rail?
Personally I don't care if gay marriage is passed in all states but I do think it is a states rights issue not a federalist.
I don't believe the democrat inspired Jim Crow law would still exist because we are not the same society and conservatives have occupied the South making it harder for racial injustice to prevail.
As to the being a Southerner, I stand proud.
Dave,
We do agree on some things and your statement that the feds are an organism is very descriptive. It just keeps growing and not sure anyone can stop it.
(O)CT(O)PUS, Sorry you are in a bad mood. So am I.
PS: It's RN
Scud: “I do prefer the endearing name of stud …
The Bill of Rights, also known as The Preamble, is an “entrenched” declaration of rights - meaning matters of Natural Law and a philosophy of governance that cannot be modified or repealed through normal legislative means.
If you used your eyes instead of your balls, then you should read this language one more time:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Better yet, write the entire 14th Amendment on the blackboard 500 times to make sure you get it. The phrase “any state” means your state; and the phrase “any person” means ANY PERSON (but not “studs” whose anatomical parts are less than whole persons).
Your comment, “democrat inspired Jim Crow law,” is a mischaracterization of history. Dixiecrats boycotted the Democratic National Convention of 1964, a moment witnessed by me in person because I was there. In due course, Dixiecrats, opposed to racial integration and wanting to keep Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of federal intervention, drifted into the Republican fold during the 1970s and 80s and now comprise the hardcore Tea Party Confederacy of today’s GOP.
Speaking of Gee-Ohh-Pee, for a Scud who prefers to be called “Stud” (and whose grossly deformed dud hangs sharply to the right), you can’t tell the difference between coming or going.
"... conservatives have occupied the South making it harder for racial injustice to prevail."
Really Skud? I'm sure there are many conservatves in the South with high ethical standards. Unfortunately it appears they are not the majority in the south.
Remember JFK, RFK?
skud....''conservatives have occupied the South making it harder for racial injustice to prevail."
well, dkud, you lost the point of the post...sexual equality is the same basic right as racial equality...it is HUMAN equality....and the conservatives in the south have been very vigourous in attempting to deny thouse basic equal rights to women and gay people. You can quibble and nit pick what the words of the constition and bill of rights SAY in words...but the prevailing meaning and intent is there.
but, carrying on RN's guffaw at your statement of conservatives ending racial injustice.....are you fucking nutz? c'moppn...you are smarter than that.
Legs,
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property"
Thank you for confirming that marriage is not covered by the constitution or bill of rights unless you consider a spouse property.
When Jim Crow was enacted they were in fact democrats. Your running from that issue does not make it change.
RN, I didn't know RFK and JFK were from the south.
Conservapedia, which was started in 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly and written from an American conservative and fundamentalist Christian point of view, says, in regards to "the gay life of libertine sexual promiscuity", that "in the late twentieth century, homosexuality advocates chose to reclaim the word gay as a badge of honor, implying that promiscuity and immorality were acts of courage deserving approval from the mainstream".
Get that... being gay is "immoral" and gay people know it. Not only that, they wear it as a "badge of honor". And I guess being gay by definition means being in a monogamous relationship is simply something you aren't capable of (straight people have a monopoly on that). If you're one of those who (wrongly, in my opinion) "continue to condemn [homosexuality] on Biblical grounds" I think you're going to keep fighting... even if marriage equality is "unstopable", they will continue to try to stop it.
As for Dixiecrats drifting into the Republican fold during the 1970s and 80s and now comprising the hardcore Tea Party Confederacy of today's GOP - I agree... although the proprietor of another blog strongly disagrees, calling this a "hackneyed Leftist assertion".
JFK and RFK were not. Made my point.
skudrunner
DudRunner: “... marriage is not covered by the constitution or bill of rights ...”
There is no accounting for gross illiteracy, eccentricity, and juvenile egocentricity from one who thinks he is smarter than 13 Federal Judges and 1 State Supreme Court Judge in the above mentioned judicial decisions.
Post a Comment