Wall Street's biggest put stock in equal bonds
A wise investment:
New York (CNN)Wall Street's leading banks have signed a "friend of the court" brief pressing the Supreme Court to back same-sex marriage.
Major financial firms including AIG, Bank of America, BlackRock, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs JPMorgan, UBS and Wells Fargo signed the brief that will be filed on Thursday.
FULL: Wall Street pushes SCOTUS on gay marriage [CNN Money]
Gross: Tony Perkins makes some sort of 'ugly baby' joke at Hillary Clinton's expense
After an interview with his Executive Vice President, Jerry Boykin, that was exclusively dedicated to Hillary Clinton and the email thing that's in the press, viciously anti-gay (among other things) social conservative politico Tony Perkins responded to Boykin's use of the phrase "ugly baby" like so:
He "couldn't help it," folks.
Really, suddenly contrite Ben Carson? Because you were pretty cocksure before!
I don't know about you, but if I go on national television and claim that millions of people's sexual orientations are "absolutely a choice" and further suggest that prison coitus proves this to be so, I think it's fair to say that I am "pretending to know" what I just said I "absolutely" know. And since I spoke in such absolutes, it's also fair to believe that I had given my views some prior thought.
But this is far-right politics we're talking about. And so now a man with a very anti-gay track record is apologizing for his earlier certitude, saying that what he gave to CNN in absolutist language was actually something less considered:
I mean, this is going to drive the far-right social conservatives nuts, so ha. But let's get real here: this is political, not sincere.
ADF links A-Rod's drug suspension with florist's anti-gay discrimination; huh?!
I'm really trying to be nice here. But there's just no other way to say it. This clumsy attempt, from Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Joseph Infranco, might be the most ridiculous piece of commentary writing I've ever seen an anti-gay organization put out:
Disgraced Yankee superstar Alex Rodriguez recently made headlines with a hand-written apology addressed “(to) the (f)ans” over his drug violation suspension. Predictable debate followed the apology; some thought it sincere, while others suspected he was hoping for kinder fan treatment – especially if he failed to live up to his very sizeable [sic] contract. Whatever the case, A-Rod took “full responsibility” for his suspension from baseball for substance abuse, and hoped the apology would allow him to get on with playing baseball.
Apologies are a good thing, and if heartfelt they can get one back on track. But a Washington florist offered the chance for an apology and a minor fine to avoid the ongoing heat (and financial ruin), replied “Thanks, but no thanks.”
The offer of apology and settlement came from the Washington State Attorney General, who is prosecuting a kindly grandmother and florist, Barronelle Stutzman. The matter has already received much publicity. Stutzman, who has employed persons and served people regardless of sexual orientation, declined a same-sex wedding request from a long-time customer. She tearfully told the customer and friend her Christian faith would not allow her participation, gave the name of three florists who would serve, and concluded the conversation with a hug. That looked like the end of the matter until Attorney General Bob Ferguson learned about the encounter through social media. He promptly filed suit against her business and Stutzman personally, so all her assets – including her home – could be taken.
There‘s another point here that makes the story even more troubling. Let’s imagine that A-Rod declined to apologize, and instead defied the Yankees. Let’s further imagine he said: “I’ll never play for you again, and I despise this team.” Do you suppose the Yankees would gleefully wave his contract and say “We’ve got you! And you’ll play for us whether you want to or not.” Of course not. No team wants a player who does not wish to play for them. You can’t force someone to put their talents to their best use. In fact, Yankee Manager Joe Girardi said the focus must now be whether A-Rod can do his job. In other words, give your best and show results or you won’t play – no matter how much you’re paid.
Now, do we suppose customers would want to force an unwilling florist or photographer to use their talents? I doubt it. Just as with an athlete, there would be no way to know if the flowers looked this bad, or the lighting was wrong in photographs, because the artist had a bad day – or their heart was not in it. Furthermore, I would not want to give my hard-earned money to a person who disagreed with my request so vehemently that they declined a paying job.
FULL: ON A-ROD AND FLORISTS [ADF]
Follow that? You're forgiven, if not.
Not only is the whole thing ludicrous in terms of both setup and syntax, but it's also politically inept in terms of conceit. In the part imagining a defiant A-Rod who refuses to be a team player, the ADF guy is linking someone they've already described as a "disgraced Yankees superstar" with the supposed victim of the piece, Ms. Stutzman. How does he possibly think this is a good thing to do? We've already established that A-Rod did something wrong. The ADF denies that Ms. Stutzman did wrong. However, by directly linking A-Rod's theoretical defiance with the very defiance that Ms. Stutzman has very much shown and which has very realistically landed her in a hot seat of her own making, Mr. Infranco is helping making our point, not his. With "friendly" counsel like ADF, Ms. Stutzman won't need enemies!
I really think groups like the ADF are so trapped within a broken narrative that requires them to polish the turd of discrimination and sell it as "religious freedom" that they are starting to trip over their own logic. Over their own script and its casting. Which is not surprising: it's much harder to write a fantasy novel than it is to write an accurate news report.
NOM: Marriage means putting choking hazards on your baby's toes
First and foremost, kids are not a marital requirement, and it is the height of anti-intellectualism to suggest you can shape public policy on this matter around something that is always—every time, in every instance, in every civil marriage—an option.
But as a parent of a toddler myself, I can assure you that wedding rings are not something you want to make accessible to an everything-goes-in-the-mouth baby:
You're already endangering this baby's welfare, NOM, should he or she happen to be gay. Please don't put the young life at risk too. Think of the children.
Video: Ben Carson is apparently one felony conviction away from fellating a man
Forced, dominating, otherwise option-less prison sex proves that gay people "absolutely" choose their sexual orientations, claims GOP presidential frontrunner:
It's always adorable for me, someone who very much tried opposite sex physicality just to make sure my instincts were in fact right, hear seemingly non-exploratory straight men tell me that my sexuality is a choice. When you have, in fact, attempted the form of sex other than the one to which you are naturally geared, it's not so hard for you (and your partner) to see that it's, well—not so hard.
NOM to gay families: Your relationships are 'simply about adult sexual desires'
I have a husband, a child, and in-laws. I have bills and wills and taxes. I have decisions about schools and meals and whether that sweater will be warm enough for that day. I have a teething toddler and an overworked spouse. I have a never-ending to-do list of family and work commitments. I have more love and security and blessings than I ever dreamt I'd have, which far overshadow the long hours and occasional frustrations.
In short, I have a marriage and a family. But not to National Organization For Marriage president Brian Brown, I don't. Because to that advocate of discrimination, people like me are incapable of relationships that go beyond "adult sexual desires":
One thing the US Supreme Court won't be able to do is redefine marriage, because marriage was created by God himself as the union of one man and one woman, and no judge or politician has the power to change it.
But let's not downplay the importance of this case — an adverse Supreme Court ruling that takes relationships that are simply about adult sexual desires and attaches the label 'marriage' to them would deal a devastating blow to our cause and likely take us years to recover from. So this is our last, best chance to wake up the Supreme Court and let them know that the American people demand that they respect our votes and our voice and not meddle in the democratic decisions of state voters and legislators to define marriage in the law as it exists in reality — one man and one woman.
Oh yeah, I have sex too. Quite a bit of it. If the cliché about sex dwindling after years of marriage has truth, no one told me or my spouse of twelve years.
But reducing my marriage and my family to being "simply about adult sexual desires" would be like saying the United States Constitution is only about its two mentions of the words "religion" or "religious." Then again, Brian surely wishes it were.
Maggie Gallagher's new gig
Maggie, the personality probably most (and forever) associated with marriage inequality in this country, is now editing a political site with its eye on 2016
This "Pulse 2016" site is a project of the American Principles Project, which is essentially a spinoff of NOM. APP was founded by Maggie's NOM cofounder, Robert George, and in addition to Maggie, it includes a number of NOM's behind-the-scenes players, like Luis Tellez and Sean Fieler, on its board.
This being the case, let me be the first to wish Maggie and her pals continued "success." Who knows what major rights and benefits they might unwittingly help us win this go-around?