Congratulations, Newlyweds!

"Mayor Bill Peduto presides over Pittsburgh's 1st same-sex wedding"

(Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2014/06/16/Mayor-presides-over-1st-wedding/stories/201406160066#ixzz34oBoYiWb)

(Photo via Twitter)

A Doubly Rare Event

It's a rare event when the editorial boards at the Tribune-Review and the Post-Gazette write about the same thing on the same day.

It's even rarer when they actually agree.

Well, they did yesterday.

Since I give them (and rightly so) a hard time on their stubborn science-denial, I'll let the Trib's editorial board go first. They point out that like slavery, enshrined discrimination, the denial of due process, the ban on marriage equality is "egregious" and that:

...its blatant unconstitutionality becomes so apparent that it trumps the bigotry and prejudice that we rationalize as acceptable mores and folkways.

And:

On Tuesday in Harrisburg, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican, ruled the commonwealth's laws banning same-sex marriage violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and permanently enjoined their enforcement. “(T)hat same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional,” wrote Judge Jones. “Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.”

Astutely, the Corbett administration will not appeal.

Yes, there comes a time. And that time has come in Pennsylvania and the nation.

And here's what the editorial board of the Post-Gazette had to say:

Americans who were told that gay marriage would subvert traditional marriage have seen for themselves that this isn’t true. They have seen the unfairness of fellow citizens living ordinary lives refused the fundamental right to marry because they happen to be gay. In language both eloquent and practical, Judge Jones concisely sums up why Pennsylvania’s law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

And:

Some will resent that it was a judge, not the Legislature, who caused this momentous change. But fundamental rights are not for a majority to veto.

I am guessing they'd both agree with how the P-G tied up it's editorial, namely that "history is now on the side of those whose definition of freedom is inclusive of all Americans."

Wherever He Is, Rick Santorum's Probably Having A Bad Day

Of course, it's about the ban being declared unconstitutional:

Same-sex couples across Pennsylvania could begin tying the knot on Friday or Saturday under a landmark federal court decision in Harrisburg that had some people celebrating and others crying foul.

An order on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III overturned the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, positioning Pennsylvania to become the 19th state in which same-sex couples can marry legally. Jones declared the 1996 act a discriminatory violation of the Constitution that belongs in “the ash heap of history.”

“We now join the 12 federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage,” Jones wrote in a 39-page opinion.

Daryl Metcalfe defined the problem a few paragraphs later:

“We're not going to stand by silently while an activist judge tries to strike down an institution that has been preserved throughout history,” said state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry. He introduced an earlier impeachment resolution against [Attorney General Kathleen] Kane, who refused to defend the marriage law.

Here's the decision if y'inz wanna read it.

And here's why Lil Ricky's probably having a bad day today: He endorsed Jones for the seat on the District court (h/t to slate).  Here's Santorum's statement by way of the way back machine where he said that Jones was:

...highly qualified to assume the important role of Judge and the duty of protecting the Constitution and ensuring the effective operation of our judicial system.

But Rick had more to say about Judge Jones (h/t to the Washington Blade).  Take a look:

Santorum said he was excited about Jones' federal judgeship because Jones "understands our values and traditions."

But did you see the date on the endorsement?  March 1, 2002.  That means that it was during George W. Bush's first administration.  He was also confirmed unanimously by the Senate.  That means that every Republican member of the United States Senate in 2002 voted for the guy.

Oh, and he was also the guy who struck down the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools.

So I'd say, yea, Rick Santorum's have a bad day today.

Poor Rick.

KDKA's Mike Pintek Supports Marriage Equality!

Yea, you read that right.

I got a chance to hear KDKA's afternoon drive guy, Mike Pintek (an unapologetic conservative) talk about marriage equality for an hour or so this afternoon.  The frame was (basically) found in this KDKA story:

Now that one county in Pennsylvania will issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, the question is who will marry those folks?

It turns out that there’s one mayor right here in this region who would be happy to do the honors.

“The government has no place in deciding who you can love as a person, and I would just welcome the chance of performing a same-sex ceremony,” Braddock Mayor John Fetterman told KDKA political editor Jon Delano on Friday.

Fetterman says some rights trump the law.

“Whether that’s civil disobedience, or breaking the law, it’s doing the right thing,” adds Fetterman.

A member of FreedomToMarry.Org, Mayor Adam Forgie of Turtle Creek supports same-sex marriage, but he won’t marry gay couples yet.

In discussing Mayors Fetterman and Forgie, Mike Pintek presented his own views (which are shockingly close to mine).  Basically, he said that:

• it wasn't the government's business to dictate who could or couldn't get married
• two consenting adults (of whatever gender) should be free to get married
• he never heard ANY good explanation about how two "gay guys" (his term, not mine) getting married affected anyone else's life or marriage

And so on.

He even deflected the silly "but marriage is for procreation" argument from at least one caller.

Let's give credit where credit is due.  As disagreeable as Mike Pintek could be on any number of other issues, on this one he's absolutely right (and good for him on this!).

Mike Pintek is in favor of marriage equality.

Props To Jerry Bowyer!

His rhetoric's landed him on MediaMatters again!

Take a look:

Forbes contributor Jerry Bowyer relied on shoddy logic and baseless assertions to attempt to debunk the well-supported claim that marriage equality has a variety of economic benefits.

In his July 4 blog post - touted by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) - Bowyer claimed that the Supreme Court's recent marriage equality decisions would hurt businesses by adding to "paperwork" for same-sex couples.

It's a silly argument Jerry's making but I'll let this commenter sum things up:

Yeah, because excess paperwork is always an awesome reason to deny people their civil rights.

Awesome.

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

It happens every now and then - the Scaife's braintrust gets something RIGHT.

Take a look:

The times they have a-changed. Witness two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings issued Wednesday regarding same-sex marriage.

In one 5-4 ruling, the high court said a provision of 1996's federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “is unconstitutional as deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment,” which guarantees equal protection of the laws.

“The avowed purpose and practical effect of (DOMA) are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote for a majority joined by the court's liberals.

In a second 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by an odd union of conservatives and liberals, the court held that the private party that stepped in to defend California's gay marriage ban lacked standing. Thus, gay marriage once again is legal in The Golden State.

We agree with the Supreme Court's rulings. For, and particular to the DOMA case, those married in the 12 states (and District of Columbia) that recognize same-sex marriage no longer can be discriminated against for a host of federal benefits, privileges and rights enjoyed by heterosexual marrieds.

It's about fucking time.

Tracking The Crazie - Marriage Equality Edition

Found this at WND:

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day to release opinions on two landmark cases (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor) that, should the court overstep its authority, threaten great violence to the age-old institution of marriage – society’s fundamental cornerstone.

Also at stake is the high court’s already fragile legitimacy.

Lest there be any doubt as to where the Bible-believing Christian community stands, scores of Christian leaders and clergy – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike – have released a statement in anticipation of these rulings entitled: “We Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon Them.” I was honored to have my name included among the list of signatories that, collectively, represent tens of millions of Christians.

Ah, so there's a statement, now.  We'll touch on it later.  Back to teh crazies at WND:

The central reality behind the statement is this: Marriage is what marriage is, has always been and always will be. Marriage predates civil government. Mankind can no more transmute marriage to something it is not than can we reverse the earth’s rotation or gravitational pull. Despite an evidently contagious delusion to the contrary, not even the United States Supreme Court is capable of overruling the laws of moral and biological physics. Any attempt to do so is illegitimate. It’s moral alchemy. [Emphasis added.]

But by this same argument, slavery predates civil government as well.  And it's encouraged in The Bible - both the Old Testament :

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Deut 20:10-15) [Emphasis added.]

And the New:

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Colossians 3:22-24) [Emphases added.]

So I guess it was also moral alchemy when this nation declared:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Allowed in The Bible and yet banned by the The Constitution.  Huh.

The statement itself bases the definition of marriage on something called "Natural Moral Law" which never, exactly, gets a good definition itself, though it's given high standing:

We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society; the first church, first school, first hospital, first economy, first government and first mediatin g institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.

Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman was not an idea manufactured by the Christian Church. It precedes Christianity. Though affirmed, fulfilled , and elevated by Christian teaching, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Moral Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason.

This claim of the existence of such a Natural Moral Law is the ground upon which every great civilization has been built. It is the source of every authentic human and civil rights movement. This Natural Moral Law gives us th e norms we need to build truly human and humane societies and govern ourselves. It should also inform our positive law or we will become lawless and devolve into anarchy.

So this "Natural Moral Law" is the final say.  Funny how the Constitution disagrees:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So if the Supreme Court is to decide on the Constitutionality of those laws, "Natural Moral Law" (whatever that is) has no authority over and above the Constitution.

So what if the Natural Law crowd looses?

Take a look:


Huh - he talks of a "firestorm of opposition" will cause "a revolution" that could "explode" and "break this nation apart."

Sounds like a threat to me.  From those claiming to abide by "Natural Law."

Huh.

Well, THIS Is New

And what might that be, you ask?

Well, dear friends, it looks like I've been endnoted.  (For those of you bibliographically challenged, an "endnote" is kinda like a "footnote" except it's at the end of a book or a chapter and not at the bottom or foot of a page.)

And where have I been endoted?

Here.  I'm the 88th endnote in chapter 4 of David Lampo's book A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights.

And who is David Lampo?  From the Huffingtonpost:

He is also the director of publications at the Cato Institute and a member of Log Cabin Republicans.

I was endnoted by a Log Cabin Republican/Cato Institute sort of guy??

While I have to admit that's really not my thing, I also have to admit it's certainly very flattering to see my name on his pages.  The only problem is that I now have to go find a copy of the book to see why I was endnoted in the first place.

All I can tell you is that this was the blog post that was cited - it's a blog post criticizing The Trib editorial board (now that's a surprise!) for calling U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, he who declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, a "liberal activist judge."

Speaking of Cato, my friend Eric, he who writes Da Funk, sent me some links from there that he thought might appeal to my more progressive friends.  Eric and I agree on few things but he's a good guy - very thoughtful and smart.  I just disagree with his politics.  Doesn't mean we can't be friends.

Here's the links:

• Rand Paul may be giving a big boost to immigration reform
• The Iraq War: 10 Years Later
• How Minimum Sentencing Hurts Minorities
• Google's Transparency Regarding National Security Letters

I haven't had a chance to check these out yet but if they trigger a conversation (even if you disagree) then that's a good thing.

Pittsburgh Reacts...

Last night, our friends at WTAE-TV posted a "both sides of the issue" report on the Marriage Equality arguments heard before the Supreme Court.

TAE's coverage frames the story and in doing so (though I am not sure they actually realize this) underscores the faulty nature of the "Traditional Marriage" point of view.  First, there's Gary Van Horn of The Delta Foundation of Pittsburgh

Gary Van Horn: Today I think it's been a roller coaster, up and down...
Mike Clark: Gary Van Horn has been keeping a close eye on what's happening in DC. The President of Pittsburgh's Delta Foundation, encouraged by polls showing the majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex couples getting married.
GVH: 57% of people say they have a relative or close friend that's gay.  So the country's really changing.  People's hearts and minds are changing.  It's a very emotional moment.

Then comes the other half of the frame:

MC: Opponents, though, say it's not about emotion, it's about faith.
Reverend Gary LaPietra: We have no right to tamper with what God has already said.
MC: Reverend Gary LaPietra says God makes the law, not man.
GLP: Doesn't matter what my opinion is, the president's opinion, the Supreme Court's opinion. We have the Supreme Allmighty God who has spoken in the matter. He has defined marriage and God forbid that we change it.

It's interesting to see how each side appeals to authority in supporting his argument.  Van Horn appeals to the collected opinion as shown in some recent polls.  LaPietra, on the other hand, would have none of that.  His authority is The authority - "all mighty God."  Popular opinion in a democracy doesn't matter.  Rule of Law doesn't matter.  The Constitution doesn't matter.  All that matters is how God has defined an institution.

Like this definition:

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,
24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Colossians 3:22-24)

But let's get back to TAE:

MC:La Pietra says this is a moral issue, though. A matter of right and wrong, not in the hands of Justices.
GLP: I believe that there is an absolute good, and that good is God. And that final authority is what he says in his word.  That word is immutable, cannot be changed and will not be changed, no matter what laws are written by men.

Wait.  So if the Word of God is immutable and if Paul's letter to the Colossians allows for slavery, then something like this:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Must also be against the Word of God, right?  I mean it's a moral issue, right?  An "absolute good" that cannot be changed "no matter what laws are written by men", right?

Light the Way to Justice Vigil - Tonight!

Black, white, gay, straight -- Love does not discriminate.

Via Facebook:

On March 26th & 27th, The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Join with us in Pittsburgh to support the repeal of this unconstitutional legislation. Support marriage equality!

Light the Way to Justice Vigil
When: TODAY! 7:00pm until 8:00pm.
Where: U.S. Courthouse, 700 Grant St. Pittsburgh, PA
Sponsor: Marriage Equality for SW PA
RSVP: On Facebook or just show up!

It's Time.

Video of the Day (Supremes Edition)

Yep, it's time to pull this out again: