Religion Not Involved in Repeal of Prop 8!

In an amazing upset this week, Prop 8 was overturned, and the ruling judges never even mentioned religion in their decision! Right, I control+F-ed (searched) through 128 pages of statement and only civil marriage was mentioned, but never the word "religion," nor "discrimination," anywhere that I could find. How politically correct!

Yes, I'm really impressed by the court that recently declared Prop 8 unconstitutional. Yes! The way they worded the decision was so beauuuuuutiful;

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, in requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

Interesting, right? It was only unfair because, there was no "legitimate reason" that Prop 8 should ever have been enacted. But if there was, then it would have been okay? I guess it's okay because our government can carry out the "passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently." Hmmmm. Are gay people even a class? I guess they are now a different class, because the court said so. I guess, the court could have recognized that gay people are just, you know, people, and not even a legitimately different social class, who should ever be separate from other people in the law's eyes, but, that would have been addressing a "broader issue," and;

Broader issues have been urged for our consideration, but we adhere to the principle of deciding constitutional questions only in the contest of the particular case before the Court.

So, they couldn't ever decide that gay people deserve all the same rights as non-gay people, UNLESS there was somehow a "particular case before the Court." What would that case look like? It would have to be about someone claiming it was unconstitutional to treat gays as a separate class of people, right? Maybe because they were unnecessarily denied something given to other people?

Hmmm, it's too bad we don't have any cases like that for them to give a decision on! Maybe, one day...

Gay Stipend Part of Giant Gay Conspiracy in Massachusetts

Cambridge, Massachusetts, has the rest of the state talking. "In a move that may be the first of its kind in the country, Cambridge will soon begin making payments to same-sex married public employees to defray the cost of what local officials have called a discriminatory federal tax." While certain companies (like Google) already pay their employees this sort of stipend, Cambridge is the first level of government to do so.

Why would Cambridge be the first place for this to happen? Previous mayor, E. Denise Simmons, pointed out that "Having marriage equality yet an unequal tax burden keeps [certain] married couples on the margins, and marginalization in a lot of ways is seen as a level of discrimination."

But why should the state or even a single city have to pay this difference? Current Cambridge Mayor, David Maher, explains that the "City of Cambridge once again stepped up as a leader in civil rights and took steps to mitigate this tax inequity...This action is the right and fair thing to do until the federal government addresses this issue." He also noted that he doesn't expect to see other cities follow suit soon, because it "requires the expenditure of funds."

So, why would the Mayors of Cambridge think this was worth spending funds on before anyone else? Could it be that, they support gay right because...both mayors mentioned in this article, are gay. Yes, it's true. E. Denise Simmons was the first openly lesbian African-American mayor in the United States. David Maher came out during his term last summer. Heck, even the Mayor before Simmons was gay; Kenneth Reeves was the first openly gay African-American mayor anywhere in the United States! (source)

So, you can see Massachusetts is only spending money on gay people because their government is gay. They don't care about the greater good of society at all, only helping gay people. Heck, probably everyone in the whole state is gay! That means all the other things in Massachusetts that we thought were great are probably just gay scams too. Like Harvard, that's totally gay. And having the lowest divorce rate in the nation? That's probably gay too.


P.S. I know some of you are looking at California and thinking, but isn't that a really gay state too? How come they don't have a low divorce rate? But remember, California is not nearly as gay as Massachusetts. California revoked gay marriage in 2008 (via Prop 8) because over 50% of that state did not support gay marriage. Meanwhile, Massachusetts' state motto is; "By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty." I mean, swords and liberty, what's more gay than that?

Maine: Put Your Money Where Your Marriage Is

Maine is currently battling Prop 1, which would overturn their new law permitting gay marriage. Two groups are up against each other in this fight;
Protect Maine Equality (Vote No on 1)
and
Stand for Marriage Maine (Vote Yes on 1)

The anti-gay-marriage Stand for Marriage Maine is very behind on $ raised, with only $2.5 million for their opponent's $4 million. So it's understandable, that they would criticize their opponents, saying that the pro-gay-marriage group has unfairly raised more than half their funds from out-of-state contributions.

EXCEPT that if we look at Stand for Marriage's stats, they've actually raised 70% of their funds from out of state! This means while out-of-state, the pro-gay-marriage group has just slightly more support, in-state they have over THREE TIMES the financial support of their "Stand for Marriage" opponents. This study goes on to mention that the average contribution of Protect Maine Equality is only about $400, while Stand for Marriage Maine's average supporter gives almost $4,000.

So what we have here is; a small number of wealthy donors attempting to take away the right to marry from Maine citizens, and mostof these donors are from outside the state! Something seems inherently broken about this equation..

Lutherans Allow Gay Pastors

Today, I found that the Lutherans have formally allowed openly gay clergy. They suspect that it will "prompt individual congregations to split off from the denomination," but they don't seem to mind. I wouldn't mind either--if a congregation splits off now there's no questioning their prejudice.

For the few that break off anyway, I bet the rest of the Church will not be sad to see them go.

Conservative Advocate Supports Gay Marriage

That's right, Theodore B. Olson, the man who secured Bush's first term by urging Florida to stop recounting their votes, is now fighting Proposition 8 and pushing the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage nation-wide. He has no gay relatives, he claims but is pushing for marriage equality because it "could involve the rights and happiness and equal treatment of millions of people." Mr. Olson now has colleges who won't speak to him about the issue, and he receives regular hate mail. Even his own mother is worried he will lose the support of conservative voters due to his work on gay marriage. However, Mr.Olson is not daunted. He argues that "You have to make peace with this because it is sure to happen, and you will see it in your lifetime."

Those aren't just words--Mr. Olson is a heavy-weight lawyer who has won 44 out of 55 Supreme Court battles, so we'd better keep tabs on this guy!

Is Marriage a Federal or State Issue?

Recently, the Obama administration said that the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) is unfair. It's startling to look at just how this "conservative" law affects state rights over the definition of marriage.

Most people know that the DOMA limits the federal definition of marriage to "a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman." What this does is allow the government to deny any benefits of marriage to gay couples, even if they are married by their state. So even in states that decide to allow gay marriage, their gay couples cannot claim social security benefits of their spouse, file joint taxes, ect.

It seems a huge conflict that states can be allowed to selectively perform and recognize marriage (as if it were a state right) but then the federal government can turn a blind eye to some of those marriages created by the states. The DOMA effectively makes the federal government the final authority when it comes to marriage. You know something is wrong when a conservative law actually increases federal power.

It will be very interesting to see what Obama does next about DOMA. Although he has a lot of liberal supporters, Obama usually backs down on issues that would lose him a majority of popular support. Gay marriage and anything attached to it are one of the touchiest subjects in America. With Obama's approval ratings sinking towards 50%, what can he do here to maintain popular support? To remove all federal restrictions on marriage and allow each state full authority on the issue would be the truly conservative way of dealing with it.