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

Random Musings

We have certain rules in our house:

1] I take care of what goes into the cats and Carlos talks care of what comes out of them—no matter which end.

2] Carlos kills the bugs. Now, I will kill a bug if Carlos isn’t around, but if he’s home, well, I call on him.

Now, apparently, I am in charge of snakes. The other night, after dinner, Carlos took Ozzo out to the backyard. I was in the living room when I heard him say, loudly, ‘Bob.’

‘What?’

‘There’s a snake out here.’

I go out onto the deck and look down at Carlos standing on the lawn and pointing about a hundred feet away from where he saw a foot-long snake—although I think it was smaller because Carlos tends to exaggerate snake size, ifyougetmymeaning.

He wanted me to get a shovel and scour our 1-acre-plus lot at night for a small snake and kill it. I refused, and simply suggested he come inside and let it go, but his fear, albeit real, was trending toward the irrational.

‘There might be hundreds out there.’

‘What if they come in the house?’

‘We have to move.’

Luckily I didn’t have that shovel or ….

Down here in South Carolina, where it’s not the heat, it’s the stupidity, some folks, most folks, just love Senator Lindsey-Not-Gay-Graham.

But, the GOP senator is facing a tough primary from a number of Republican challengers who believe he is too 'liberal' … Let that sink in … and one in particular, Nancy Mace, has taken to ‘gay baiting’ the 58-year-old lifelong confirmed bachelor.

Mace has called Lindsey a ‘Nancy Boy’ in a recent Tweet, which she then attempted to delete but, being from South Carolina, was too dumb to realize that once a tweet is sent out it is out there for the public.

But don’t worry about Miss Lindsey. She apparently has some $6 million in the bank and a comfortable lead, but that don’t stop folks from a’talkin’ ‘bout her.

So Beyoncé got her hair cut.

That’s news? 

Apparently it is these days, though, I think, the story shouldn’t have been that she got her hair cut but that she had her weave removed.

The International Olympic Committee [IOC] has a long-standing rule about political demonstrations and they have confirmed that they will likely enforce that rule at Sochi should any pro-gay protests be made by the athletes. 

Under rule 50 of the IOC’s charter: ‘No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.’ The penalty for violating Rule 50 can be "disqualification or withdrawal of the accreditation of the person concerned without appeal."

Yup. If you say ‘gay’ in Russia, you could be jailed, and if you say ‘gay’ and the IOC gets wind of it, they will disqualify you and strip you of your medals.

It’s good to be gay, no?

I am in love with Downton Abbey, though I was heartbroken when the dreamy Matthew Crawley was suddenly killed last year. 

So, this year, in an effort to mend my wounds, it seems the producers have lined up some serious Man Candy for my amusement; from top to bottom: 

Julian Ovenden plays aristocrat Charles Blake, while Gary Carr is set to play American jazz singer Jack Ross, and Tom Cullen plays Lord Anthony Ginningham.

Like I said: Man.Candy.

After the demise of DOMA we are learning all the ways in which those same-sex couples will be affected by the changes.

One, well, I don’t like it, is that new policy guidelines established by the Social Security Administration will limit benefits to only those same-sex couples who live in states with marriage equality. 

So, those of us who marry, legally, yet live in a state that does not yet offer full equality, will not be entitled to Social Security Benefits.

But, in response to the DOMA death, a majority of federal agencies — such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management — have chosen to look to the laws of the state in which a couple was married as opposed to the state of the couple's residence in order to determine marital status.

So…the march goes on.

Last week the winner of Food Network Star was announced after an hour-long clip-show; I felt no need to recap that.

The winner was milquetoast Damaris Phillips. She was the most mainstream of the three finalists, and one destined to be groomed to take Paula Deen’s place but ….

The Food Network aired the results show at midnight, Eastern Time, which says to me, even they aren’t that thrilled by the outcome.

Ten weeks of trials and challenges and the news comes out in the middle of the night.

Things have gotten so bad out there in San Diego for Mayor, and :::cough cough::: ALLEGED sexual harasser Bob Filner that several business in the downtown area have posted signs in their windows saying the mayor is not welcome in there establishments.

The latest business to follow suit: Hooters.

And that is no joke. In a statement posted on Twitter, the company said restaurant acted on its own: "Our Hooters Girls in San Diego have spoken. Not a corporate gig, but we support our girls."

Hands off, Mayor.

Oh, and you Obama Haters?

Yeah, the government has reported a $97.6 billion deficit for July but noted that the country remains on track to post its lowest annual budget gap in five years.

July's figure raise the deficit to $607.4 billion, but that is 37.6% below the $973.8 billion deficit for the first 10 months of the 2012 budget year.

The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] forecasts the annual deficit will be $670 billion when the budget year ends September 30, far below last year's $1.09 trillion. It would mark the first year that the gap between spending and revenue has been below $1 trillion since 2008, AKA the W Years.

Snap. Oh, and shut up.

Ebony magazine created a series of covers following the Not Guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trail and lotsa conservatives were all up in arms about it, threatening to boycott the magazine and cancel subscriptions.

Ebony magazine was nonplussed:

Read More

Same-Sex Married Couples To Get Military Benefits

Department of Defense officials estimate there are some 18,000 same-sex couples in the active-duty military, National Guard and the Reserves, though it’s unclear how many of those are married.

But, those who are married could get health care, housing and other benefits by the end of this month under a proposal being considered by the Pentagon; earlier plans to provide benefits to unmarried same-sex couples may be reversed.

A Defense Department memo from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the department might instead provide up to 10 days of leave to military personnel in same-sex relationships so they can travel to states where they can marry legally.

If implemented, this new plan would reverse an earlier plan to have the same-sex partners of military members sign a declaration form in order to receive limited benefits, such as access to military stores and some health and welfare programs. Hagel says the recent Supreme Court decision ending DOMA to legally married same-sex couples eliminates the need for such a plan:

"As the Supreme Court's ruling has made it possible for same-sex couples to marry and be afforded all benefits available to any military spouse and family, I have determined, consistent with the unanimous advice of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the spousal and family benefits far outweigh the benefits that could be extended under a declaration system.”

In the memo, Hagel says the department intends to treat all married military personnel the same and "make the same benefits available to all military spouses, regardless of sexual orientation." But, recognizing that same-sex couples are only allowed to marry in a limited number of states, Hagel said the provision allowing service members to travel to states where the unions are legal is a way to help overcome those challenges.

I can just hear those anti-marriage equality folks now, spouting off about these ‘special rights’ that same-sex military couples have, getting 10 travel days to go get married where its legal.

So, I have a solution for them: work to have marriage equality become the law of the land in every single state and there’ll be no need for the additional travel days.

See how that works out?

via The Associated Press

Read More

This Is What Equality Looks Like

Another reason to celebrate the death of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] is that, in the olden days, the American citizen half of a straight binational couple—one spouse an American citizen, the other a foreign-born person—could sponsor their spouse for citizenship; it was that easy. Not so much for gay and lesbian binational couples. Even with marriage equality becoming law in several states, same-sex binational couples often faced the threat of deportation of the foreign born spouse because we did not have the same rights as our straight counterparts.

Now it’s a new day. And with the death of DOMA, gay and lesbian binational couples can now sponsor their spouses for a Green card with an end game of citizenship, just like Becky and Sanne.

The two women were married in the Netherlands, but live in North Carolina. And even though, back in 2012, North Carolina voters approved of their state’s anti-LGBT ‘Amendment 1’—which banned the state from performing, and even recognizing, same-sex marriages or civil unions—this past week when Becky and Sanne arrived at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] offices in Charlotte, North Carolina, they were treated like any other married couple.

The USCIS officer reviewed their relationship, from its beginnings in India, through time spent in Africa, Belgium, The Netherlands and now North Carolina, and he was satisfied that Becky and Sanne had provided sufficient evidence that they were legally married, and he reopened their previously denied green card application.

At the end of the interview, the USCIS Officer announced that Sanne was now a lawful permanentresident of the United States; and just 75 minutes after the interview began, the USCIS ordered production of the actual green card which is expected to come by mail sometime next week.

There are those that say the fight for marriage equality is a fight for ‘special’ rights, but the story of Becky and Sanne illustrates that really all we want is the same rights as our straight counterparts. We’d like to be married; we’d like our marriages recognized; we, like most people, want our marriages celebrated.

No more, no less; just equal.

via The DOMA Project

Read More

Good News Friday: Life After The Death Of DOMA

Well, it’s been just over a month since the Supreme Court kicked parts of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] to the curb and told Prop H8 to take a hike, so where do we stand now?

To start with, we have judges in Ohio, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Missouri who, this week alone, have acted to advance marriage equality by drawing on the decision in Windsor v. United States as part of their reasoning.

• In Ohio, U.S. District Judge Timothy Black drew on the precedent set in the Windsor ruling as part of his reasoning affording a temporary order requiring Ohio to recognize the marriage of James Obergefell and John Arthur: “While the holding in Windsor is ostensibly limited to a finding that the federal government refuse to recognize state laws authorizing same-sex marriage, the issue whether States can refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages is now surely headed to the fore. Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, ‘the state law-shoe’ has now dropped in Ohio.”
• In Missouri, the State Supreme Court has asked attorneys involved in a gay death benefits case for an additional briefing in light of the Supreme Court’s decision against DOMA. Kelly Glossip was denied the benefits of her partner, Missouri State Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard, who died in the line of duty in 2009.
• In Pennsylvania’s Montgomery County, citing the Windsor again, the County Commission has directed clerks to distribute marriage licenses to gay couples.
• In New Mexico, Attorney General Gary King also cited the Windsor decision in his opinion in which he announces he won’t defend a state law in a lawsuit seeking marriage equality; he cites, along with Windsor, the Massachusetts case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and Iowa’s Varnum v. Brien.

And it isn’t happening solely at the state level; the Windsor ruling is affecting federal rulings as well. This week, the Federal Election Commission will vote on allowing married same-sex couples to make joint political donations from an individual bank account. Previously, married same-sex couples were ineligible to make such contributions under DOMA, but with Section 3 of that law deemed unconstitutional, the commission says it will now revisit the issue.

In addition to the DOMA ruling, Suzanne Goldberg, co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, also attributed the advancement of marriage equality to previously anti-equality elected officials wanting to catch up to other politicians who have endorsed same-sex marriage. And let’s not forget We The People, who have been telling the world in poll after poll that it’s time to make marriage equality the law of the land.

The march goes on, people, and its gathering momentum.

via The Washington Blade

Read More

Brian Sims Silenced On DOMA By Colleague Citing 'God's Law'

Brian Sims, that openly gay Pennsylvania Democratic state Congressman—and, to be fair and honest, extreme hottie—took to the House floor last week in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on DOMA and found that his remarks were blocked by several state lawmakers using a procedural maneuver; and when two of Sims fellow Democrats attempted to speak in support of Sims, they too were blocked.

One of those lawmakers, a conservative—of course—Republican—of course—Representative, Daryl Metcalfe, said he felt Sims’ comments were a violation of "God's law."

Yes. He did.

"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law."—Daryl Metcalfe

See what he did there? He states that he should not allow someone to make comments he views as rebellion against God, so he silenced Brian Sims before even hearing what Sims was going to say. And that’s an elected official in Pennsylvania.

Sims said he had no intention of criticizing marriage equality foes, and was only going to talk about the importance of the SCOTUS ruling: "I wasn't planning on chastising anybody. I wasn't planning on discussing how far we have to come in Pennsylvania or that we really have no civil rights in Pennsylvania."

At the end of the session, Sims spoke again, this time criticizing Metcalfe and the other legislators who blocked him:

"A few months ago I reminded this House that we put our hands on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around. What I did was in no way against the law of any God. I can't call anyone a bigot, a homophobe or racist, but language used against me does not live up to the standards of this body."

Then he asked his legislative colleagues to censure Metcalfe because his comments "did not live up to the standards set by this body."

Metcalfe, as a rabid conservative who believes what he says should be heard, and he alone gets to decide what others might say on the floor of the Pennsylvania Statehouse, is standing by his words:

"For me to allow him to say things that I believe are open rebellion against God are for me to participate in his open rebellion. There's no free speech on the floor."

Welcome to Pennsylvania, where lawmakers are not entitled to Free Speech. Welcome to Pennsylvania, where members have the right under House rules to veto another member's remarks under "unanimous consent." When the openly gay, and, again, openly hot, Sims got up to speak, Metcalfe and at least one other representative withdrew their consent.

How can the people of Pennsylvania expect any work to be done, when you have lawmakers deciding for themselves who should speak? The only way to move forward, to come to any kind of understanding, is through conversation and dialogue, and letting people speak.

Even in Pennsylvania.

Sims, to his credit, is also not backing down. Under the advice from House Speaker, and Republican, Sam Smith, Sims will use the proper procedure to censure Metcalfe by going through the Ethics Committee or seeking a House resolution.

Sims has said he will pursue the censure: "This is a guy who hates women, he hates gay people, he hates minorities and he hates immigrants."

And then, so, so not backing down, last Thursday Brian Sims and fellow Democratic Representative Steve McCarter introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriages in the state:

"LGBT Pennsylvanians are seeing their neighbors in New York, Maryland and Delaware, among other states, now qualify for the approximately 1,000 federal rights and benefits that come with civil marriage and they are increasingly asking why they don't have those same rights, as well as the state rights and benefits."

That’s what Pennsylvania needs. A congressman who stands firm, who will not fall in the face of bigoted statements from a colleague who cites God’s laws in an American statehouse. We are not a country of God’s laws, we are a country of man’s laws, and Daryl Metcalfe, like so many others, will soon find himself foot-stomping and head-snapping when marriage equality comes to pass.

Because it will.

Even in Pennsylvania.

source

Read More

Post-Death To DOMA, A Michigan Judge Blocks A Ban On Domestic Partner Benefits

Oopsy. It looks like some Michigan lawmakers just got bitchslapped by a federal judge.

See, last Friday, U.S. District Judge David Lawson blocked Michigan's ban on domestic partner benefits for public school and local government employees because he believes that state lawmakers simply wanted to punish gays and lesbians.

Oh. But.He.Did.

Lawson said plaintiffs who have lost benefits or were forced to buy expensive private health insurance have made a "plausible claim" that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

"It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose — indeed, perhaps the sole purpose — of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose."

The ban on domestic partner benefits was passed in 2011 by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican-controlled governor’s off, AKA Rick Snyder, and effectively ended insurance coverage  for people whose domestic partners work for certain public employers.

Supporters of the law, i.e. homophobes and bigots, say it saves tax dollars and follows the spirit of Michigan’s 2004 constitutional amendment—approved, at the time, by 58% voters—that defines marriage only as a union between a man and a woman.

In his 51-page opinion, Lawson cited last week's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down the portion of DOMA that barred certain benefits to married same-sex couples.

Although the injunction doesn't end the case, Michigan ACLU legal director Michael Steinberg believes that the law is doomed, and adding that any public school district or local government can now choose to restore or create benefits for same-sex couples or unmarried heterosexual couples.

Governor Snyder's office said the governor will review the ruling and consult with the state attorney general "to determine any next steps," meaning he’ll stomp his feet and cry activist judges. And, the state itself could appeal; the attorney general's office, which defended the law in court, had no comment but Ari Adler, spokesman for House Speaker and Republican Jase Bolger said the law's supporters still stand behind it.

On a happy—can’t-wait-to-see-it-happen—sidenote, another judge is considering whether to strike down Michigan's nearly 9-year-old ban on same-sex marriage.

The march goes on.

UPDATE

That other Michigan judge--citing last week's SCOTUS ruling on DOMA--will allow a lesbian couple to sue the state for marriage rights:

"Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim has sufficient merit to proceed. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (U.S. Jun. 26, 2013), has provided the requisite precedential fodder for both parties to this litigation.

Plaintiffs are prepared to claim Windsor as their own. And why shouldn’t they? The Supreme Court has just invalidated a federal statute on equal protection grounds because it “place[d] same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage.”

Moreover, and of particular importance to this case, the justices expressed concern that the natural consequence of such discriminatory legislation would not only lead to the relegation of same-sex relationships to a form of second-tier status, but impair the rights of “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples” as well. Id. This is exactly the type of harm plaintiffs seek to remedy in this case."

The trial date will be set later this month.

source

Read More

Tim Huelskamp: ISBL Asshat of the Week

Kansas Republican Congressman Tim Huelskamp does not like The Gays, and does not like the ruling of the Supreme Court that rang the death knell for DOMA, and Prop H8 packing. 

So, even though the GOP’s Job#1 is jobs—except when they were trying to keep Obama out of the White House for a second term and except when they were voting for the, what is it now, the 37th time, to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act—Huelskamp's Job #1 right now is trying to get a Constitutional Amendment passed to ban same-sex marriage everywhere.

:::foot stomp:::

Sadly though, even in his home state of Kansas, he’s not getting the support for his Hate Ban that he’d hoped. The democrats are basically calling his attempt a joke, and his own party is telling him to settle.

“It is a complete and utter waste of time. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. It clearly demonstrates that he has nothing better to do. He is holding on to this divisive and hateful legislation when he should be focused on bringing jobs back to the First District. This will not help the farmers.”— Kansas Democratic Party spokesman Dakota Loomis

Then toss in his own party and, well, me thinks Tim Huelskamp needs a nap.

Kansas state Congressman, J.R. Claeys calls the same-sex marriage ban “not a legislative priority of mine" and then added that he doesn't see a chance for Huelskamp's amendment ever passing. When asked if he thinks Huelskamp should have even made the proposal, he says, “I am not sure how to diplomatically sidestep this question."

Translation: Tim Huelskamp needs to settle down.

But Tim Huelskamp probably won’t take that sit down. While he admits that all recent polls show a majority of Americans leaning in favor of same-sex marriage, he is going to press on because his homophobia 1s Job#1; not what the people want, mind you.

And here’s his reasoning: "A majority of Americans don't like President Obama as president, but he's still the president."

Um, Obama is still the president because he was elected to the job, asshat. He isn’t a social issue, he’s the president. And when members of your own party are asking that you set aside your homophobia—which, many times in the GOP, is a cover-up for being a deeply closeted, bathroom stall foot-tapping, homosexual—you should listen.

The people of Kansas who voted for you want you to work for them, not for your own personal bigotry.

And that’s why you, Tim Huelskamp, are the ISBL Asshat of the Week.

source

Read More

Random Musings

Okay, so while I’m still on a high from yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and dismissing Prop H8 I found a truly wonderful story about the impact of the decisions.

Steven and Sean Brooks, a binational gay couple, were in court yesterday, in front of an immigration judge, whose ruling could have split up the couple because of DOMA.

According to Lavi Soloway, who represented the couple: “A copy of the 77-page Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor was delivered to the court by our summer intern, Gabe, who ran five blocks and made it in time for the decision to be submitted to the Immigration Judge and to serve a copy on the Immigration & Customs Enforcement Assistant Chief Counsel.”

‘DOMA is DEAD’ it announced.

The judge threw out the case against Mr. and Mr. Brooks because they are a legally married couple in America, entitled to all the rights of legally married couples.

I’m still grinning.

Kris Jenner, fame-whoring, daughter pimping, sex tape fronting, married to a woman—or so it seems on the surface—Kris Jenner is getting a talk show this summer.

Since all Kris can do is talk about her daughters, I’m wondering how long it will take her to whore our her latest grandbaby meal-ticket, and then how long before the show is cancelled.

In the words of Margaret Cho, “This is gonna be a Kardastrophe!”

We had a Free HBO weekend a couple of weeks back, so I went mad DVRing movies from that channel.

One was, of course, Behind The Candelabra, about Liberace’s love affair, and bad breakup, with Scott Thorsen.

I found it good, but sad; it wasn’t until Liberace’s mother passed away that he felt he could truly be free as a gay man, though he remained deeply closeted until his death, and even afterwards.

That said, the shallow part of me, which I love, is beginning to run an ad campaign to see that Matt Damon’s Ass gets an Emmy nod.

It was real, and it was spectacular.

A little more on DOMA? Okay.

Some who are much more familiar with the rulings are looking very closely at the decision, for clues on how the court might rule on future challenges to state laws barring gay marriage. And they think they’ve found something ….

Buried in the decision is a reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, in which SCOTUS struck down a state law against interracial marriage as unconstitutional. To LGBT advocates, that reference looks as if it might signal a readiness on the Court’s part to do the same to state laws banning gay marriage.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, ruling that the freedom to marry must not be limited by discrimination and that the Virginia law had no legitimate purpose other than maintaining discrimination.

And that’s exactly the argument that lawyers in the Prop 8 case made in asking the Court to strike that law down. Now, SCOTUS declined to take a position on Prop 8, invoking standing issues, and it did not directly address the question of whether states could or couldn’t continue to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples, and it did not declare a constitutional right to marriage.

But the DOMA decision made an expansive case against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and more specifically, the citation of Loving v. Virginia which could be an encouraging signal.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

So, the other day I’m watching TV and one of those wacky commercials came on, this time for something called the Air Curler. It’s an attachment to a blow dryer that looks like it has a plastic pitcher on the end of it. You, um, insert your hair into the pitcher, turn on the blow dryer, and your hair is magically spun into delightful curls.

Stupid? Of course. But then I saw something else when they removed the Air Curler from the blow dryer.

To put it bluntly, it looks like one of those Cock Sleeves that some men—and I ain’t naming names—slip over their penis and then proceed to, um, jack off pleasure themselves, until they cum into the patented Cum pitcher.

Sorry for the mental image, but it had to be said.

But … speaking of that device, Carlos and I have started watching Hannibal, having DVR’d the season.

It’s quite gruesome, so far—but I expected no less—and really interesting.

It doesn’t hurt that it stars the Pia Z’adorbale Hugh Dancy. Oh, he’s not Hannibal—that would be –he’s the FBI investigator who begins working with Dr. Lecter.

But he’s a delightfully cute man.

In Light of the deaths of DOMA and Prop H8, here's a little refresher course on what to say, and not say, to The Straights.

I got caught up in the Jodi Arias movie on Lifetime the other day.

Back story: I had the shingle on my face about three years ago. Shingles affects the nerves and, in some cases, the sufferer endures constant nerve pain for the rest of their lives. I do not; I do, however, get very bad, very bad, headaches located in the same spot where I had the shingles. I used to get them about once a month, and then less often and less often, to the point where I’d forgotten about them, Until Monday night when one struck, turning me into a light-sensitive vampire, who sits in a dark dark room until the pain subsides, generally 24 hours later.

Which was why I was channel surfing and came upon the Jodi Arias Lifetime movie.

All I gots to say about that is: Bitch was cray. Way cray.

So cray I am surprised that her attorneys didn’t use the insanity defense.

Cray.

Gee, ain't it funny? 

Just when you think things have changed .... The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

Paula Deen. Her restaurants are packed, her books are flying off the shelves, but she’s losing some big deals, y’all. And I kinda wish I had a Way Back Machine, so I could travel back in time and apply for a job as one of Paula Deen’s minions and tell her, as nicely as I could, to STFU before she opened her yap.

The Food Network said Pack her knives and go … literally … and now Smithfield, whose products Paula used to hawk, have canned her ham … see what I did there? … and rumor has it that QVC will quickly follow suit.

There is also talk that Deen’s publisher, Random House, may close the book on her, and diabetes drug makers Novo Nordisk and Sears Holdings are said to be “monitoring the situation.” Then, let’s toss in Harrah’s Hotels and Casinos, which have Paula Deen Restaurants in their casinos, who have decided to rebrand her restaurants as something other than Paula. Even WalMart … Wal-freaking-Mart … has decided to take Paul’s dishware and cookware off their shelves.

Now, you can say that this is all a lot of Who shot John? Over words Paula Deen may have used decades back, but it’s also about a history of Paula Deen and her treatment of African America employees at her businesses.

I recently caught sight of a video from 2012—last year—and taped by the New York Times, where Paula was asked about her ancestors who were slave owners and the story of her great-grandfather who killed himself when his slaves were set free: “Between the death of his son and losing all the workers, he went out into his barn and shot himself because he couldn’t deal with those kind of changes…Back then, black folk were such an integral part of our lives. They were like our family, and for that reason we didn’t see ourselves as prejudiced.”

Trouble is, after that bit, she then tells the interviewer and the audience that she has black people in her employ who are just like family. One, and I think she said his name was Hollis Johnson, was a particularly dark-skinned man, or, as Paula put it, pointing to a black wall behind her, “He’s as black as that.”

Yes. She did. And then she dug herself in deeper. When asked if Hollis was there with her that day, Paula looks around and asks, “Hollie? Hollie? Where are you? Oh, get away from that black wall, we can’t see you.”

Yes. She did. I was all about giving Deen the benefit of the doubt for her use of the n-word, thinking about when she said it, where she lived and how she was raised, and that she said it, apparently, so long ago. But, while she may not toss about the n-word as handily as those old days, the way she speaks of African Americans—even the ones she considers “like family’”—and the way she treats her African American employees, makes me hope that everyone cuts ties with Deen. And fast.

Like I said, though, I would have liked to have access to a Way back Machine and given Paula, and anyone else who thinks and speaks like she does, a heads up about their future. Maybe then they’d think twice, and speak less.

Read More