Palin’s son divorcing after being married for only 18 months.
Loving, committed same-sex couples can’t harm the institution of Marriage that Religious Conservatives seem to dishonor so.
Loving, committed same-sex couples can’t harm the institution of Marriage that Religious Conservatives seem to dishonor so.
This is 2013 with more Americans approving of same-sex marriage than being opposed to it, and with broad bipartisan support for Marriage Equality. If New Mexico State Law doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriage, why on Earth would they not be able to issue valid marriage licenses to same-sex couples?
Is NOM implying that like race heterosexual marriages allow for racial purity from grandparents down to grandchildren? Or is it simply more crass race-bating?
The show provides an inviting glimpse into not only the life of this one man, but into the history of our country and all of Americans as a people and as a country. I urge everyone to see this wonderful play. Sit there, in the audience and feel Thurgood addressing you directly, and allow that interaction to prompt you to consider history, the present and the future.
While much of the focus on the upcoming Supreme Court’s review of Same-sex Marriage cases has focused on the Court’s hearing of the Repeal of California’s Prop 8, a law that banned same-sex that case is important,but the marriage after it was already lawful in that state. However, it is the other case before SCOTUS, that is likely to impact same-sex couples in Pennsylvania the most. In that case, Windsor v CCCC, the Court is[Read More…]
We are not talking about legislative developments here. We are talking about a specific court case: Hollingsworth v. Perry. This case came out of the District Appeal, with a very narrow scope. Correct me if I am wrong, but there really isn’t anyway that the Supreme Court could decide Hollingsworth v. Perry such that it affected the entire nation.
GetEqual just doesn’t get it, if you ask me. They need to get a clue on their way to Getting Equal. It isn’t that they are wrong in theory. Yes, everyone deserves to be protected from discrimination. But few with any experience in reality, would expect creating public policy by one Supreme Court decision to the plausible step to that end.
It is part of why Court rulings have most often found in favor of same-sex marriage, while popular votes have not. In the context of the court, the exact legal arguments are the basis for the decisions. In the arena of public voting, the fear mongering machines have at it, and people are sways to vote against fairness by the provocation of fears- all of which are unwarranted. But fear mongering, even fallacious fears is hard to counteract.
All of us, must care about these things, and none of us can pitt one of these things against the others as more or less important. They are all apart of our journey, and all must come to be.
Or it could be on a path of hammering the status quo into stone. Remember the Ten Commandments? Look at who is sitting on the Supreme Court. Does this look like a body of individuals intent on pushing equality forward at anytime let alone in the highly charged current political environment?