Breaking: By a 5–4 ruling, SCOTUS extends marriage equality to all fifty states
History. Made. Today.
More to come.
*Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, as expected. I'll have it ASAP.
"The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
Video: While GOP rivals cling to '÷', Hillary makes winning case for '='
When Andrew and I were finally able to marry under law, six years after already pledging our life commitment in every other way, the moment choked me up more than I expected. More than anyone expected, in fact. The videographer chose to place the microphone on my lapel rather than Andrew's in part because the common assumption was that Andrew was the more likely of us to burst into tears. When the theoretical became reality, however, I was the one sobbing like a baby. It's because the whole thing—the weight of marriage, the blessing of finding such solid love, the hard fight that was still so relatively nascent at the time, the ability to obtain what so many before us were denied—coalesced in a far more powerful way than I had anticipated. Every step, glance, and syllable of the ceremony came with a resonance that felt as if it was spanning back through the ages while also speeding ahead to the future. It was bigger than me, and I was overcome by it (in a glorious way).
That's what I love about this Clinton campaign video. It really captures that power:
Perfect image for group that's shooting at the moon, hopes to leave some children dangling
The National Organization For Marriage's latest attempt at a graphic meme, in which the pro-discrimination organization takes a wholesome stock photo and slaps its exclusionary branding onto it:
Eh, if you can't win the latest attempts at the ballot, practically ever win in court, help elect an anti-gay president, or obtain just about anything of substance in the majority of your years as an organization, I guess trying to pull down the moon isn't the worst idea. When you've tried everything else, disrupting the earth's balance might be what you need to do. It's what the donors expect.
I just wish NOM would stop endangering our kids. Encouraging them to hang from celestial bodies? How irresponsible, NOM! Almost as bad as telling minor children that their parents aren't real.
FRC flat-out lies about Gen X and marriage equality; typical but no less egregious
In today's edition of its "Washington Update," the extremely anti-gay Family Research Council tried to make it seem as if Generation X is aging up and out of support for marriage equality. FRC's writer (the byline belongs to Tony Perkins, but FRC now admits he doesn't write most or any of it) states the following:
Nice try. I mean, at this point, the hope that people grow up and become more anti-gay is the only hope onto which a pro-discrimination group like FRC can hang its hat.
Only problem for FRC and its deep desire for some ray of light? Their framing is a complete and utter lie. And big time!
The Washington Post piece in question is simply about how much millennial support has shot up over the past decade. The very same data that WaPo used also shows that Gen X has risen considerably in this same time period, from 44% to 59%:
Yes, Millennials have risen at a higher rate than any other generation, to no one's surprise (especially since this post-1980 framework allows for ten more years of younger, rollable millennials while all other groups stay statement). But Gen X didn't decline in support, as FRC claims. Instead, Gen X went from just bubbling under majority support to now holding a healthy 59% in support. They went up 15%! That fully and in every way contradicts FRC's narrative.
I mean, look, FRC, I'd be desperate too if I'd stuck my neck out in such a public, animus-driven, and history-book-memorable way in support of crude civil discrimination. But hey, let's at least try to write in a way where we can still see the ballpark of reality. To be clear, that's the same ballpark where a majority of Gen Xers are happily cheering on their little kids, whether or not those new millennium children happen to grow into adults who want to marry someone of the same-sex or the opposite-sex.
Man who'll never be POTUS serves up rotten red meat that'll never cook in congressional dining halls
No you won't, no you can't, and no you won't ever be:
Translation: "I am now a professional sayer-of-things who is constantly running for my next book deal, speaking engagement, and punditry gig, with no actual eyes on ever again making or executing law. So here, let me say more things. Blargity, blargity, bloozers."
As of press time, there was no word on what Huckabee will allow the gullible folk who believe his fairy tales to do with their other two wishes.
Starbucks flying Pride flag over its HQ; new Starbucks location to open within flag by week's end
Remember when the National Organization For Marriage tries to boycott Starbucks for being pro-LGBT? Yeah, well—consider this the coffee giant's continued and sustained laughter and/or overt mockery:
Pride Flag Flies Over Starbucks HQ [J.M.G.]
Can you even imagine if Chick-fil-A wanted to fly a pro-discrimination flag over its HQ? No, you surely can't imagine that. And no, that company wouldn't even try such a nasty PR stunt. And that alone tells you the clear difference between the merits (or lack thereof) between the two sides of this discussion.
Org. that's long brought headaches to American gays goes after notable, pro-gay cure
Like countless American brands, Tylenol (and its Johnson & Johnson mothership) have long featured portraits of American family life in its advertisements. Courtship, marriage, and parenting are just some of the key commonalities on which brands rely in order to relate their products with the day-to-day life of the consumers they hope to reach. This is Advertising 101.
When it's heterosexual couples and their presumably heterosexual children doing heterosexual things, the American Family Association of course takes no issue. But when its gay kids going to prom or gay parents raising their children? Well it's taking sides in a "culture war," don't ya know:
Companies should advertise the quality of their products, or in this case, how and when to take a medication and why it works. They should not be highlighting who is attracted to whom or who sleeps with whom. This is a marketing decision Tylenol will regret.
Tylenol's Pro Gay Campaign [AFA]
Don't "take sides"—just succumb to our campaign demanding that including gay people in your ads constitutes deception and "normalizing sin." Riiiiiiight.
Go home, AFA; you're over. It's done. You lost. Maybe take a Tylenol for what it surely your major "culture war" hangover.
Video: Ryan Anderson, fellow anti-gay activists talk to anti-gay CBN about their hopes for anti-gay future
Mike Huckabee can't sign NOM's marriage pledge; he's already vowed to not
If anyone would sign the National Organization For Marriage's ridiculous marriage pledge, exceedingly anti-gay "culture warrior" Mike Huckabee would be the surefire bet. Only thing? In a May 15 email, Huck already declared that he won't:
I'm holding you to your word, Mike. Don't want to flip-flop already.
NOM officially floats general election liability in front of GOP primary candidates
While the twelve already-announced GOP presidential candidates, as well as the several other presumed ones, are all quite anti-equality, I actually think this might be a bridge too far. I think the usual suspects (Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Bob GaysSuck, et. al) will sign on, I'm not so sure that a Jeb Bush or a Chris Christie or a Scott Walker will. Not because I think they're going to run as anything other than anti-LGBT; it's clear that they won't. But the idea that a fair Supreme Court ruling is "illegitimate" and in need of overturning is an extreme idea that I'm not so sure anyone with eyes on the general election will want to get behind. I mean, even the idea of a long-dead FMA is a ludicrous idea that no serious person should consider as part of a serious election. But the Supreme Court thing is just crazy talk.
And if the GOP's eventual primary victor does sign on to this, I think the Democratic candidate will have a talking point that could make Mitt's "47%" snafu seem like an electoral boon by comparison. Which would actually be par for NOM's course, considering they are an organization that has define itself by the unwitting help they've given us and the lasting hurt they've brought to their own side