Asshat of the Week: Pennsyvania Governor Tom Corbett

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett doesn't think The Gays should be allowed to marry and, yes, he's entitled to his opinion, no matter how much of a neanderthal that makes him. But, you know, when you wanna argue your anti-equality stance maybe you ought to use a valid argument and not the kind of mindless, brain-numbing stuff that spewed from Corbett's mouth recently.

Up there in Pennsylvania, Montgomery County is letting The Gays get married so this past week Governor Corbett's administration filed a brief in defense of the state's ban on same-sex marriage and is seeking to halt the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But, in the brief that Corbett's Hellhounds filed, they compared The Gays getting married to--no, not people marrying dogs or their children--but to allowing twelve-year-olds, who are also barred from marrying, the right to wed:

"Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to 12-year-olds in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each 12-year-old . . . is entitled to a hearing on the validity of his 'license'?"

Of course, this bit of lunacy masked as idiocy masked as policy got folks all riled up and now Corbett is backtracking on his comparison of adult gays and lesbians being allowed to marry and twelve-year-olds marrying one another.

Speaking for Corbett, who is conveniently on vacation down here in South Carolina of all places, spokesman Nils Hagen-Frederiksen said the analogy was being taken out of context through a campaign of misinformation by the governors detractors. The reference to 12-year-olds was only meant to illustrate one group that is prohibited from marrying under state law, and Nils said that while the governor acknowledges the analogy, he does feel it was inappropriate; oh, and yeah, the governor didn't write it, he just signed his name to it, or had his Hellhounds ink their names in blood.

Now Corbett wants to clear his name and wants the public to know that he doesn't agree with it and he thinks it was an inappropriate analogy and he didn't write it or say it or mean it or think it.

The Democrats in Pennsylvania have a simple way to make all of this go away, short of just saying The Gays have every right to marry in Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman Jim Burn says, "Tom Corbett needs to remove every single person who signed off on this bigoted, disgusting brief from his office today."

Of course he won't, because he's on vacation, and he didn't say it or write it or think it.

He just asshatted it.

Read More

The March Goes On And South Carolina Has Become A Battleground

Well isn’t this interesting?

Last week the Obama administration declared that the federal government must recognize all same-sex couples’ marriages for tax purposes, regardless of the states in which they live. This will, in effect, force all states — even those without equality — to recognize the legally married same-sex couples living within their borders.

Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, said the decision is “going to make things more complicated for the states.” Before DOMA was struck down married same-sex couples in states like Massachusetts had to file as unmarried at the federal level because “people were treated as married for state purposes but not federal ones,” he said. Now, those difficulties are reversed — with same-sex couples being treated as married by the federal government but not by many state governments.

And it looks like that fight for equality has come to South Carolina.

This week, two Lexington County women, S.C. Highway Patrol Trooper Katherine Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin, who were legally married in Washington, D.C., filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s Defense of Marriage Law and a 2006 amendment to the state Constitution that banned same-sex marriages. The suit was filed in federal court because it raises federal questions. 

“Although plaintiffs Bradacs and Goodwin were legally married in the District of Columbia on April 6, 2012 . . . they are treated as legal strangers in their home state of South Carolina,” their lawsuit says. 

The lawsuit states that the U.S. Constitution guarantees Bradacs and Goodwin the same rights as married heterosexual couples and that South Carolina’s exclusion of same-sex couples “adversely impacts the plaintiffs and same-sex couples across South Carolina by excluding them from the many legal protections available to spouses.”

The lawsuit cites the Supreme Court decision and says that court “made it clear” that “neither tradition nor moral disapproval of same-sex relationships or marriage for lesbian and gay couples is a legitimate basis for unequal treatment of same-sex couples under the law;” excluding same-sex couples from marrying is “not a legitimate government interest.”

The lawsuit not only takes aim at South Carolina state law, and it’s Constitution, but it confronts South Carolina’s deeply religious and politically conservative roots, where many in the state oppose any kind of LGBT rights.

“This suit is really about equal treatment of all South Carolina citizens under the law,” said John Nichols, who represents Bradacs and Goodwin. “We should value people who want to live in a committed relationship, regardless of gender.”

The lawsuit also asks Judge Anderson, who will be hearing the case, to grant an injunction prohibiting South Carolina from enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act and the section of the state Constitution that bans same-sex marriages; sadly, our state Constitution also prohibits same-sex marriages that are legal in other states from being recognized in South Carolina.

No hearing has been set but a precedent certainly has and so ….

The march goes on ….

source

Read More

I Prefer My Outrage Shaken, Not Stirred

I had a really good night's sleep last night; a pleasant dream, Carlos wasn’t snoring, MaxGoldberg lying by my side so I could rest an arm on his comfortable fur. Nice. Then, this morning, I wake up, complete my morning ablutions, and head into the office to check the email and the morning news. 

Now, imagine my surprise to find a picture of our president, Barack Obama, and the caption 'New Photo of Obama Stirs Outrage;' and the accompanying picture is that one up there.

I looked at it, pored over it, practically pixel by pixel, and scoured it completely, before reading the article, to see what the 'outrage' was all about. And then I read it: his foot is :::gasp::: on the desk.

This stirs outrage among the right? This pisses off the Teabaggers? This makes John Boehner's normal orange face go pale and Eric Cantor's sphincter tighten even further?

Um, people, and by people, I mean those of you who criticize every single thing Obama does, now, apparently, even putting a foot on a desk, grow the eff up. This isn’t about Obama, the President, disrespecting the actual office of the president by leaving a scuff mark on a desk. 

This is about a Black man in a White house putting his foot on the furniture when those people should know better. I mean, we just gave 'em the vote not so very long ago, and we gave them Civil Rights a few decades back, and yet they think they can mosey into our White House and put their feet on the furniture?

I am outraged. I am outraged that this causes outrage. I’m outraged that this sparks more Tweets than starting a war with Syria ... than global warming .... that fires out west and rain and floods in the east and tornadoes nearly everywhere else. I am outraged that this is outrages anyone.

I am outraged that this is news, that this is Twitter-worthy. I ask you Teabaggers and rightwing conservative Republicans, where is your outrage that your elected officials have a pension for life and the best healthcare that you can buy for them when you may not have a pension or even your own healthcare" Why does this anger you so?

I ask you where your outrage was when Gerald Ford -- arguably one of the least effective presidents ever -- did it? I ask where your outrage was when George W. Bush did it himself? Is it because he was a Republican? Is it because he's white? Is it because he was too busy trying to pull the wool over your eyes in his war against terrorism for oil that you just didn't care?

But let Obama put his foot on a desk and the world stops short and gasps in outrage.

Grow the eff up. There's a Black man in the White House -- and has been for the five years and the next three -- and be outraged over policy and politics and human rights and war and climate change and crime and human suffering, but get over this feigned outrage because the soles of a man's shoes rested on a desk.

I'll leave you with this thought, if Ford, Bush and Obama their feet on the desk, just imagine what Bill Clinton might have put there. Where's your outrage now?

Read More

Darren Manzella Has Died

You don’t know who he is, or was?

Darren Manzella was on the front lines in combat and on the front lines here at home in the fight to end DADT. A combat medic, counselor, U.S. Army sergeant and, as of just last month, a newlywed, Manzella died last week in an automobile accident.

Manzella publicly challenged the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — on national television, no less — and in doing so became the face gay servicemen and women. For his courage in speaking out, Manzella was discharged from the military in 2008 for publicly discussing his sexual identity. When DADT finally gasped its last breath in 2011, Manzella reenlisted as a reservist.

Driving on a highway in Pittsford New York, last Thursday, Manzella’s car sideswiped another car. Manzella stopped his car, got out and began pushing it from behind when another car rear-ended Manzella’s car, pinning him between the two vehicles.

He was pronounced dead at the scene.

But let’s not remember how Darren Manzella died, but rather how he lived, and he fought, both here and at home for the freedoms of all Americans, gay and straight.

In December 2007 60 Minutes interview Manzella came out publicly as a gay soldier — which violated that 1993 policy that barred gay servicemen and women from disclosing their sexual orientation; a few months later, he was discharged.

And he began to fight harder and stronger for the rights of gay men and women to serve their country in the military, and to serve openly, like everyone else. Even his family stepped into the fray.

In 2010, Darren’s mother Nancy asked for the repeal of DADT:

“My husband and I live in rural western New York where we have made our home at a grape vineyard and have raised three wonderful sons. We now have beautiful daughters-in-law and grandchildren. We are proud to say that we are the all-American family. As parents, this law offends us deeply. ... Our sons and daughters should be judged on their performance, loyalty to country and bravery, not their sexual orientation.”

And that same year, Darren Manzella wrote his own letter to President Obama:

Dear Mr. President,

It was spring 2004. I had just arrived in Baghdad. We’d been there all but four days. Then it happened. It was an ambush. It ended with my good friend shot dead. I was overwhelmed by emotions of anger and sadness, but also confusion.

At that moment, my perspective on life changed; I wondered, what if I had been killed in action and had never come to terms with who I truly was and, even worse, never had the chance to share it with my loved ones? There comes a point when acceptance is your only salvation—my return from Iraq was my moment.

I served two tours of duty in the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Soldier in the United States Army. I was promoted to sergeant, was a team leader of a medical squad, and conducted over 100 12-hour patrols in the streets of Baghdad, treating wounds and evacuating casualties of sniper fire and roadside bombs. I applied for Officer Candidate School under the recommendation of two generals in my chain of command. But, today, instead of protecting my fellow Americans, I sit working in a university development office because I was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

When I came out, the first people I told were comrades, with whom I had just spent 12 months in Baghdad. To be honest, I was scared of their rejection more than the mortar and rocket attacks, ambushes, or roadside explosives. But, they showed immense understanding of what I had been going through and offered unconditional support. The response from my brothers and sisters in arms proved that the military is a family—no matter if you are man, woman, black, white, transgender, gay, or straight. What truly matters is whether you can trust the person next to you. And how can trust be built around a lie?

One day, I received an email from a Soldier I had never met; it said I was being investigated under DADT and that I would be stripped of my rank and pay and eventually discharged. I tried to ignore it, but the emails continued and became more derogatory. Soon, I began receiving similar phone calls at work.

Unsure of who to trust, on edge every second, and losing more and more sleep each night, I approached my supervisor. I was a Soldier who lived by all seven of the Army values, including honesty. I refused to have someone else end my career. He offered a sympathetic ear before reporting me to the legal department.

After an investigation into my statements and the harassment, I was told I was an exceptional Soldier and to “drive on” with my work. It was a great a relief to break the silence. My colleagues suddenly understood why I had always been so detached and began asking me to join them in activities outside of work.

Later that year my division deployed again and I served the entirety of the deployment as an openly gay Soldier. I no longer had to lie if someone asked if I were married or had a girlfriend, I didn’t have to write my emails in “code.” I no longer feared being “outed.” I finally was able to be honest.

After arriving in Iraq for the second deployment I was promoted once again and served my division as the medical liaison officer in Kuwait. It was there that I participated in an interview with Leslie Stahl for 60 Minutes with the focus being on a out gay Soldier working in a combat zone.

I gave voice to the tens of thousands of men and women who serve everyday under the fear of DADT. The interview also ended my career. I was honorably discharged on June 10, 2008.

While I sit in a safe and comfortable civilian office, former comrades and friends continue to serve, leaving their families for a third, fourth, or even fifth deployment. Why am I not able to stand in the place of my battle buddy who has left his wife three times to deploy and missed the birth of his new born child? Why are exceptions being made to enlist individuals with subpar mental and physical standards? And why are serious convicted felons granted waivers to serve while I was pushed out the door?

Mr. President, last year you restored my hope that this discriminatory law will be repealed, but I must admit that my spirit has been shaken because DADT still exists. Every day, we lose dedicated and capable service members while other Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Coastguardsmen sacrifice more than their share. My experience demonstrates what matters most is competence, trust and ability. Why then should we wait another year or another decade to do what is right?

Sincerely,

Former Sergeant Darren Manzella

United States Army

New York Senator Charles Schumer, who opposed DADT, remembered Darren Manzella upon his death:

“We will always remember Sgt. Manzella as someone who had the courage both to fight for his country and to change it.”

Darren Manzella, after being discharged form, the military for saying he was gay, moved back to Rochester, New York and began working at the Canandaigua V.A.’s crisis call center. He married Javier Lapeira-Soto there on July 5.

He fought for us on battlefields here and abroad, for the rights of all Americans to be free.

RIP Darren Manzella.

You fought the good fight.

The march goes on ….

Javier Lapeira-Soto and Darren Manzella

source

Read More

Maryland Delegate Arrested For Drunk Boating Driving

Maryland lawmaker Don Dwyer has done it again, y’all.

Last summer he was cited for drunk boating, after he and a, ahem, male companion, crashed Dwyer’s boat into another boat, injuring four children; Dwyer pleaded guilty to the charges and appealed a 30-day jail sentence. He is scheduled to be resentenced in that case in October. See post HERE.

Lotsa folks said Dwyer should have resigned, but he refused, and now he’s gone and done it again, only this time on a highway and not a waterway.

See last week, Dwyer was charged with drunk driving after a police officer saw his car swerving across the road at least four times while driving 70 mph in a 55 mph zone. After he was pulled over, Dwyer told the officer he was coming from Baltimore, where he had had the requisite “two beers”; the officer said Dwyer had glassy red eyes and smelled of alcohol, so he tested the politician. Dwyer struggled with the coordination and balance tests and was subsequently arrested. Again.

At the police station Dwyer refused a breathalyzer test, and was taken before a judge who released this twice-charged drunk on his own recognizance. Dwyer was charged with infractions that included driving while impaired by alcohol, reckless driving and displaying expired tags.

Maryland Delegate Nicholaus Kipke, the House minority leader, issued a statement with fellow Republican and House Minority Whip Kathy Szeliga saying they were "grateful that the police were able to intervene before anyone was harmed. We urge Delegate Dwyer to seek treatment immediately."

House Speaker, and a Democrat, Michael Busch criticized Dwyer for his "conduct and indiscretion" but said the arrest does not alter his status as a member of the General Assembly.

Not even a second arrest for the same type of offense.

Busch, in fact, said, "Delegate Dwyer's future in the legislature will be decided by his own conscience as he considers whether he can effectively represent his constituents or, ultimately, by the voters of District 31."

Leaving it all up to Dwyer’s conscience, which he apparently does not have, or the voters.

Naturally, Dwyer is not commenting on his latest brush with the law and his need to drink and operate boats and cars, and even his attorney, who knows a losing battle when he represents one, won’t talk.

But, here’s the part I don’t get: after his boating accident, many suggested Dwyer resign and he refused and even said he would run for reelection. Now, those same folks are asking him to resign again, but it seems like he won’t, and he is even required to resign. This latest drunken-driving charge is considered a misdemeanor and, even if convicted, Dwyer would not be required to resign.

Yes, folks, our lawmakers whom we elect to represent us in government, and then who break the law at least twice that we know about—with their first time resulting in injured children—gets to keep his job even if he’s convicted a second time of driving a vehicle while drunk off his ass.

Maryland, do you really want this man representing you in any way shape or form? Will you want him if he drinks and rives again and kills someone?

source

Read More

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The First Justice To Officate A Same-Sex Wedding

Well, knock me over with a feather … boa.

This past Saturday history was made, and don’t be surprised to find out that Brian Brown, Bryan Fischer or Maggie Gallagher’s heads imploded, because Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the first member of the Supreme Court to officiate a same-sex marriage ceremony when married Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and economist John Roberts at the Kennedy Center.

For her part, Justice Ginsburg seems thrilled to be conducting a same-sex wedding:

 “I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship. … It won’t be long before there will be another [performed by a justice].”

Ginsburg, herself, has another wedding ceremony to conduct this month when she officiates at the marriage of David Hagedorn and Michael Widomski.

Ginsburg had believed that she and her colleagues had not been previously asked to conduct a same-sex ceremony for fear it might compromise their ability to hear the issue when it came before the court, but as soon as the decisions came down last June, she was ready to help a same-sex couple say I do.

I say Thanks Justice Ginsburg for standing up, in the courts, and in the weddings, for equality, and, well, the snarky side of me has to giggle when I think of how Justice Antonin Scalia reacted to the news. I’m somewhat certain he raced home, put on a pair of thigh-high silk stockings and a pair of dagger-heeled stilettos, fixed himself a Cosmo and had a good cry.

Just sayin’.

source

Read More

Happy Labor Day

Since I labor, I'm taking the day off .... Happy Labor Day, y'all!

The History of Labor Day

How it Came About .... What it Means

Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

Labor Day Legislation

Through the years the nation gave increasing emphasis to Labor Day. The first governmental recognition came through municipal ordinances passed during 1885 and 1886. From these, a movement developed to secure state legislation. The first state bill was introduced into the New York legislature, but the first to become law was passed by Oregon on February 21, 1887. During the year four more states — Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — created the Labor Day holiday by legislative enactment. By the end of the decade Connecticut, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania had followed suit. By 1894, 23 other states had adopted the holiday in honor of workers, and on June 28 of that year, Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of each year a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories.

Founder of Labor Day

More than 100 years after the first Labor Day observance, there is still some doubt as to who first proposed the holiday for workers.

Some records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a cofounder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those "who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold."

But Peter McGuire's place in Labor Day history has not gone unchallenged. Many believe that Matthew Maguire, a machinist, not Peter McGuire, founded the holiday. Recent research seems to support the contention that Matthew Maguire, later the secretary of Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, N.J., proposed the holiday in 1882 while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York. What is clear is that the Central Labor Union adopted a Labor Day proposal and appointed a committee to plan a demonstration and picnic.

The First Labor Day

The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday just a year later, on September 5, 1883.

In 1884 the first Monday in September was selected as the holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a "workingmen's holiday" on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.

A Nationwide Holiday

The form that the observance and celebration of Labor Day should take was outlined in the first proposal of the holiday — a street parade to exhibit to the public "the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations" of the community, followed by a festival for the recreation and amusement of the workers and their families. This became the pattern for the celebrations of Labor Day. Speeches by prominent men and women were introduced later, as more emphasis was placed upon the economic and civic significance of the holiday. Still later, by a resolution of the American Federation of Labor convention of 1909, the Sunday preceding Labor Day was adopted as Labor Sunday and dedicated to the spiritual and educational aspects of the labor movement.

The character of the Labor Day celebration has undergone a change in recent years, especially in large industrial centers where mass displays and huge parades have proved a problem. This change, however, is more a shift in emphasis and medium of expression. Labor Day addresses by leading union officials, industrialists, educators, clerics and government officials are given wide coverage in newspapers, radio, and television.

The vital force of labor added materially to the highest standard of living and the greatest production the world has ever known and has brought us closer to the realization of our traditional ideals of economic and political democracy. It is appropriate, therefore, that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation's strength, freedom, and leadership — the American worker.

Read More