Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts

Friday, April 4, 2014

New same-sex marriage ruling due in Ohio

A federal judge in Cincinnati, who had already ruled that same-sex couples married in other states must have some legal rights when they live in Ohio, said Friday that he will shortly rule that they must have full marital equality.  Thus, a case that started out as a dispute over names on birth certificates would be transformed into a broader decision that Ohio must recognize valid gay and lesbian marriages performed elsewhere.


During a hearing in his court on Friday, U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black disclosed that he plans to issue the new ruling within ten days.  The entry on the docket confirming his intention can be read here.  State officials told news organizations in Ohio that they would promptly appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


The case is Henry v. Wymyslo (District Court docket 14-129).  It was filed in February by four same-sex couples who were married in other states; they either have children or expect to have a child delivered in coming weeks, and they want the names of both spouses on the birth certificates.  Ohio officials, under a state law that refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, have said they will not issue such certificates.


Lawyers for the couples have been attempting in recent weeks to get their case expanded into a challenge to any Ohio provision that bars recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.  On Friday, the judge indicated he would allow that, and struck down all such restrictions.


The case, however, does not involve Ohio’s ban on new same-sex marriages within the state.  The voters of Ohio approved that ban in 2004 by a margin of sixty-two to thirty-eight percent.


Last December, in another case, Judge Black ruled that Ohio must treat same-sex couples who were married in other states the same, for purposes of entering a spouse’s name on the death certificate of the other spouse.  The judge wrote: “The Court’s ruling today is a limited one, and states simply, that under the Constitution of the United States, Ohio must recognize valid out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples on Ohio death certificates, just as Ohio recognizes all other out-of-state marriages.”


It was after that ruling that the four couples began their lawsuit over the names on birth certificates.


In association with Bloomberg Law




SCOTUSblog



New same-sex marriage ruling due in Ohio

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Alabama House passes resolution requesting constitutional convention to ban marriage equality

Closeup of the U.S. Constitution

That the Alabama House passed a resolution calling for a constitutional convention in order to ban same-sex marriage nationwide forever ‘n ever is not all that surprising. More surprising is that apparently most of the representatives involved didn’t know what the hell they were voting for:

According to the resolution, the convention would specifically propose an amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and bar legal recognition of any other form of marriage.

Democrats on the Rules Committee wouldn’t have signed off if they’d known what it was, Todd said. The description of the resolution on a summary sheet provided to committee members, she said, only mentioned that the state would call for a convention to make an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It did not specify what the amendment would address. [...]

The resolution passed on a voice vote of the chamber.



Laboratories of democracy, indeed.



Daily Kos



Alabama House passes resolution requesting constitutional convention to ban marriage equality

Marriage equality comes to Medicare

President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Medicare Bill at the Harry S. Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. Former President Harry S. Truman is seated at the table with President Johnson. The following are in the background (from left to right): Senat
Nearly 50 years after LBJ signed Medicare into law, same-sex married couples are now treated equally


More tyrannical despotism good news from the Obama administration:

The Obama administration announced on Thursday that same-sex married couples can qualify for Medicare hospital and physician benefits for the first time.

And something tells me that statements like this from Kathleen Sebelius actually get Republican angrier than the HealthCare.gov SNAFUs from last fall:

“We are working together with SSA to process these requests in a timely manner to ensure all beneficiaries, regardless of sexual orientation, are treated fairly under the law,” U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.

In the statement, the Department of Health and Human Services encouraged same-sex couples to visit the Medicare website for more information on how same-sex couples or survivors of same-sex spouses can apply for coverage.



Daily Kos



Marriage equality comes to Medicare

Sunday, March 30, 2014

8 Appalling Moments by the Right Wing This Week: Gay Marriage Wedding Cakes Edition



Known unknown: Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced by a trained ape.








The parade of right-wing morons and lunatics marched on this week. Some highlights:


1. Donald Rumsfeld: A “trained ape” would be better at foreign policy than Obama


Donald Rumsfeld continues to both shock and awe us with his arrogance and his psychopathic inability to admit he was completely wrong about every aspect of the Iraq war. Being a psychopath, he still has the audacity to hold forth on questions of foreign policy. That he recently included a dollop of racism to his unwanted commentary on President Obama’s conduct as Commander-in-Chief, is just par for the course for good ol" Rummy.


In an interview with Fox’s Greta Van Susteren this week, Rummy railed against Obama’s dealings with Afghanistan, and with characteristic colorfulness said that relations with Afghan president Hamid Karzai had gone “downhill like a toboggan,” under Obama whereas all had been rosy under Bush.


“Take for example that we have status of forces agreements probably with 100, 125 countries in the world,” Rumsfeld said, amping up the technical jargon to confuse the audience and make himself look smart, no doubt. “This administration, the White House and the State Department, have failed to get a status of forces agreement.”


He added: “A trained ape could get a status of forces agreement. It does not take a genius.”


Hmm, no racism there.


It is either a known unknown (or an unknown known—we’re never quite sure) that Rumsfeld likes to use these kinds of metaphors, but no, we don’t believe it was an accident. As bad as that is, perhaps worse is his perpetuating the lie that the Bush administration was not a catastrophe for foreign relations, and that he was not hugely responsible for the biggest fuckup, lie and war crimes of all Bush’s merry band of jackals.


2. Pat Robertson: Rape causes atheism.


What planet is Pat Robertson on? Planet crazy, that’s what. On Monday, the “700 Club” host talked about a letter he had received from a confused Christian viewer named Sandra. Sandra was flummoxed as to why a coworker was “hostile at the mere mention of God” whenever Sandra tried to proselytize or “bring her to Jesus.” Reading between the lines, the co-worker did not care for being hounded to go to Sandra’s church, or repent, ‘cause the end is near.


“Should I abandon the idea of being a positive influence on her and just let her perish?” Sandra wondered to the televangelist.


Uncle Patty reads between a different set of lines, and he had a variety of theories on why relentless evangelizing might rub someone the wrong way. Could be something “demonic… something beyond normal human experience,” he conjectured.


Working overtime, his little brain alit on the perfect explanation: “Maybe she had an abusing father, somebody who raped her and acted like he was preaching to her from the Bible,” the TV pastor continued. “You just never know what’s going on in somebody’s childhood.”


Eureka! Case closed.


“Just pray for that anointing,” Pat concluded.


3. Pat Robertson (yeupp, again) points out that Jesus would not have baked a gay couple a wedding cake.


Jesus was a carpenter, from what we’ve read, not a baker, so as far as we know, he was not given to baking wedding cakes for even heterosexual couples. Also, did they have wedding cakes in biblical times? Note to self: research wedding rituals in Jesus’ day.


But historical anachronisms are besides the point when you’re Pat Robertson and you want to make a point about homosexuality.


 “I think you got to remember from the Bible,” the televangelist said this week, “if you look carefully at the Bible what would have happened in Jesus’ time if two men decided they wanted to cohabit together, they would have been stoned to death.”


True enough, Uncle Pat. It’s this next part that gives us pause.


“So Jesus would not have baked them a wedding cake nor would he have made them a bed to sleep in because they wouldn’t have been there. But we don’t have that in this country here so that’s the way it is.”


So, the problem is that gay people are around and not being stoned to death. This whole thing gets Uncle Pat worked up into a lather, because he is very pro-life.


“What is it about gays? What is it about abortion?” he ranted. “Have you ever thought why they’re on the forefront right now? Both of them deny the reproduction of human species…. The Devil is trying to say, ‘I’m going to destroy your progeny any way I can. If you will kill your babies, that’s fine, I’m with you; if you will deny the chance of having babies, that’s fine too; but I want to destroy your opportunities to reproduce." It’s a very serious thing and we’re not talking about it, and we need to as a society, we have to realize where the attack is coming because it is definitely an attack.”


Do you follow that? Devil. Gays. Women. Birth control. Big cabal. Out to get us.


h/t: rightwingwatch


4. Chris Christie declares himself innocent, blames “emotional” woman for Bridgegate.


Chris Christie ran his own investigation into Bridgegate, used a million dollars of taxpayer money to do it, and declared himself innocent this week. This was treated as news. Case closed, right?


The internal investigation did reveal that Christie was told about the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge (petty payback to the Fort Lee Mayor who dared not support Christie). But Christie says he does not recall that conversation. Memory is a funny thing, and Chris Christie’s memory is really funny, because at one point he asserted that although he did not recall this conversation (with David Wildstein of the Port Authority, who orchestrated the whole lane closure payback thing), he did recall that the conversation had nothing to do with getting back at some rinky dink mayor.


While Team Chris Christie shockingly exonerated Chris Christie, they gratuitously stuck it to Bridget Kelly, the staffer Christie already scapegoated and fired for the whole mess. The report called her “emotional” and mentioned she had been jilted by another staffer, despite this not having a thing to do with anything. It’s just fun to bring up the fact that women are emotional and don’t like being jilted. Whereas men are the opposite.


5. Bill O’Reilly: Critics of Paul Ryan are “race hustlers.”


Paul Ryan has spoken. He does “not have a racist bone in his body.” Also, some of his best friends are black. Wait, that’s not true. He does not have any black friends.


But Bill O’Reilly stood up for his boy Ryan this week, defending Ryan’s right to talk about the “culture” of shiftlessness of “inner-city males,” cite known racist author Charles Murray, and not be called racist. Anyone who accuses Ryan of using racist code language is a “race hustler,” O’Reilly says, and he’s sick and tired of that sort of behavior. “These race hustlers make a big living and they get voted into office by portraying their constituents as victims,” O’Reilly said. “And it’s all your fault, and it’s my fault, it’s the rich people’s fault, it’s the Republicans’ fault. It’s everybody’s fault except what’s going on.”


One of these race hustlers was California Rep. Barbara Lee, who had accurately called Ryan’s statement “a thinly veiled racial attack.”


She had some choice words about the race hustler characterization as well. “Unfortunately we’ve come to expect language like ‘welfare queens,’ ‘food stamp president,’ and now ‘race hustlers’ from the right wing and Mr. O’Reilly,” she said in a statement. “It is disgusting and divisive and should never be accepted in our national discourse.”


O’Reilly maturely responded that if Lee did not like being called a race hustler, he’d be happy to call her other names.


“How about ‘pinhead,’ congresswoman?” he said on the air. “You like that better?”


So there, you meanie lady!


6. Michele Bachmann: Birth control equals “killer drugs.”


Speaking of pinheads…. In her latest dispatch from Planet Nutjob, Michele Bachmann spewed yet more illogical nonsense this week.


Continuing her relentless attack on Obamacare, Democrats and just anything resembling progress, she vented about the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case, and how the religious freedoms of companies are under assault. Religious freedom means Christians are allowed to ram their religion down other people"s throat. That"s how the Founding Fathers envisioned it.


Bachmann could not quite bring herself to use the word “contraception” (it"s long and multi-syllabic, so pretty hard). She has a different nickname for it. The birth control that evil socialist Obama is so eager to have companies cover are “killer drugs,” according to Bachmann, and by that we don’t think she means drugs that make you really really high. In Bachmann"s world, there are “killer drugs,” a.k.a. contraception, and then there are the good drugs, “life-saving drugs and surgical procedures” that Bachmann says “only politically connected best friends” of President Obama’s administration will get.


You probably did not read that in the fine print of your Obamacare insurance policy.


For more of Bachmann"s lunacy, click here.


7. Rep. Bill Cassidy: The uninsured are “less sophisticated” and illiterate.


Of course, there is a reason you did not read that in your new insurance policy that you got thanks to Obamacare, and that reason is that you are ignorant and stupid. Louisiana Rep. and Senate hopeful Bill Cassidy says he thinks he knows a whole lot more about poor people than Barack Obama, that alleged former community organizer, does. The uninsured are, says Cassidy “illiterate.” He also says: “I’m not saying that to be mean. I say it in compassion.”


He knows, because he’s a doctor and they are his patients (poor things). And it is for their sake that he opposes expanding Medicaid in Louisiana. See how compassionate he is. He’s a doctor, for pete’s sake. He has to be compassionate.


He then further reflected on his version of “the reality of who the uninsured are: relatively less sophisticated, less comfortable with forms, less educated,” he said.


Ergo, no healthcare coverage for them!


h/t: tpm


8. Ted Nugent: I’m just like Rosa Parks.


Bereft of his “singing” career, Nugent is now a columnist and an all-out, full-throttle race-baiting, gun-slinging slimebucket. Just like Rosa Parks.


And just like Rosa"s civil rights were, Ted’s right to sling those guns are under assault.


“In 1955, my hero, Rosa Parks,” he wrote this week, “refused to give up her seat on a city bus. Good for her. In 2014, gun owners must learn from Rosa Parks and definitely refuse to give up our guns. As Rosa Parks once said, "You must never be fearful about what you are doing when it is right."”


It’s not the first time Nugent has declared himself a sistah with Rosa. “I’m Rosa Parks with a Gibson,” Nugent has previously claimed. Further confusing his metaphors he has called for gun owners to “sit down on the front seat of the bus.” And do what? Shoot out the windows?


Although he says he deplores racism, Nugent has also said that apartheid was not all bad, and that some people aren’t created equal, like indigenous people in South Africa who “still put bones in their noses.” So he and Rosa are absolutely together on that.


h/t: mediamatters


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



8 Appalling Moments by the Right Wing This Week: Gay Marriage Wedding Cakes Edition

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

GOP candidate who blamed tornadoes on same-sex marriage stymies party leaders

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



GOP candidate who blamed tornadoes on same-sex marriage stymies party leaders

Friday, March 14, 2014

Support for marriage equality continues to grow

Same-sex couple Steven Bridges (L) and Michael Snell exchange rings after filling out a marriage license at the City Hall in Portland, Maine December 29, 2012.  Same-sex couples can start marrying on December 29 in Maine, a state that made history on Elec

According to most polls, a majority of Americans now support marriage equality. But it turns out that’s not the only good news to be gleaned:

The national trend using all surveys asking opinions on same-sex marriage also suggests that the majority of Americans now supports same-sex marriage.  In fact, in the past year, the change in support has increased more rapidly than ever. [...]

This has important implications for where public opinion is headed. If the stable linear trend were the right one, then by 2016 just over 56 percent of the public would be expected to support same-sex marriage. However, the accelerated trend predicts that support for same-sex marriage will be about 5 points higher by 2016. It is appropriate to infer that opinions are trending positively and changing exponentially as time goes on.



Flores also suggests that the change is too rapid to be taking place due to generational shifts—it has to be happening because previous opponents are changing their minds. And that might be the best news of all.



Daily Kos



Support for marriage equality continues to grow

Saturday, March 1, 2014

More Americans Than Ever Support Gay Marriage, Leaving Christian Right Behind



Even white evangelical Protestants are starting to shift their opinions.








In America today, it"s more normal to support gay marriage than not to.


That"s according to findings from the Public Religion Research Institute, a non-profit, nonpartisan research organization. By comparing results of a survey it conducted in 2013 with one it did a decade ago, PRRI found that today, over half of Americans support same-sex marriage, up from just 32% in 2003. Its findings are similar to those of the Pew Research Center, Gallup, and other poling organizations, which have all noted a significant increase in support for same-sex marriage in the past 10 years.


Certain groups stick out as being far less supportive than others. Only 39% of African Americans support same-sex marriage, compared with 53% of Hispanics and 53% of whites. There is a nine-point difference between men and women, with 57% of women in support, compared to 48% of men. Sixty-four percent of Democrats and 57% of independents support same-sex marriage, compared to only 34% of Republicans, a gap that has increased by 21 percent points in the last decade.  


But regardless of differences between groups, within groups, it"s becoming more popular to support same-sex matrimony, even among those who have been traditionally staunchly against it. Take white evangelical Protestants, who continue to be some of the least supportive: while only 27% support same-sex marriage today, that"s a significant increase from the 12% who supported it in 2003. Support for same-sex marriage is strongest among Millennials (people aged 18-33), with 69% in support, compared with only 37% of the Silent Generation (those aged 68 and older). The “generational tidal wave,” as PRRI CEO Robert Jones calls it, holds true across religious and political lines: for example, whereas only 34% of Republicans overall support same-sex marriage, half of Millennial Republicans support it. 


Personal connection and perception matter: knowing someone who"s gay, and thinking that sexuality is biologically determined, strongly influences whether an individual supports gay marriage. The difference is striking: while 63% of those who support same-sex marriage have a close friend or family member who identifies as gay or lesbian, only 36% of those who oppose do. More Americans have family and friends who are openly gay than ever before: 65% today, versus just 22% in 1993.


Notions of whether being gay is something you"re born with, or something you acquire through upbringing and environment, has also shifted in the last decade. In 2003, 38% of Americans thought a person"s sexuality was biologically determined. Today, 44% do. People"s views on the topic are positively correlated with their support for gay marriage, with 76% of those who believe it is biologically determined supporting same-sex marriage, compared with only 28% among those who believe it"s a learned trait.


“In a certain sense sexuality becomes less dangerous if it is fixed early,” explains Clyde Wilcox, professor of government at Georgetown University, who spoke at the launch of the report in Washington DC this week. “It"s not contagious, and it"s not anyone"s fault. You can"t discriminate because it"s not a choice.” Groups least supportive of same-sex nuptials—evangelicals, Republicans, African Americans—are less likely to think sexuality is biologically determined than those who are not, and less likely to have a close friend or family member who identifies as gay or lesbian.


Religious conservatives may be getting left behind as the country changes its mind. With the exception of Jews (83% of whom support gay marriage), religious people are far less likely to support gay marriage than those who are not. (Religiously unaffiliated people trail closely behind Jews in their support, followed by white mainline Protestants. Around 50% of white Catholics, Hispanic Catholics and Hispanic Protestants support gay marriage. Thirty-five percent of black Protestants do.) Americans also tend to view religions as not supportive of LGBT rights, a perception that may be hurting their cause. Survey findings demonstrate a significant drop in religious affiliation across America (22% are unaffiliated today, versus 8% in 2003), which may be in part linked to negative perceptions of religious" groups treatment of LGBT people.


“Nearly one-third of Millennials who left their childhood religion say unfavorable church teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people played a significant role in their decision to head for the exit,” says Jones. Fifty-eight percentof Americans, including 70% of Millennials, say that religious groups" stance on LGBT issues is alienating young people. Young people and those who identify as LGBT are far more likely to be religiously unaffiliated than the population at large. 


Jones says negative public perception of religious groupings on LGBT rights and a lag in support for gay marriage among worshippers may provoke change by religious institutions. “Can theology just take its cues from public opinion? Most theologians would have a problem with that position,” he says. “But what does it do when public opinion moves over here, and theology is over here?” 


While LGBT and their allies have reason to celebrate the national upsurge in support, PRRI notes that a large proportion of Americans, especially religious Americans, think that same-sex sexual relationships are immoral (although they may still support gay marriage), and that LGBT face some of the highest discrimination in the country. And even though there"s a national shift in attitudes on same-sex marriage, it still isn"t a priority for most Americans. Only 24% of Americans say same-sex marriage is a critical issue for them personally, with 25% saying it"s one of several important issues. Nearly 50% of Americans say that the issue is not that important to them personally, with same-sex marriage ranking below jobs and unemployment, healthcare, immigration, HIV/AIDS and abortion. 


Moreover, just because there"s increasing support for same-sex marriage, it doesn"t mean the US is becoming less conservative as a whole. “We"re not winning on guns. Sometimes Millennials are the most conservative on pro-choice. It"s not that these are changing attitudes on sexuality in general,” notes Wilcox. “Since 1992, the percentage of people who say that LGBT sex is always wrong has plummeted, but those who say that sex outside of marriage is always wrong went up.”


Nationally, Americans are more likely to consider themselves pro-life (48%) than pro-choice (45%), and more likely to identify as conservatives (38%) than liberals (23%). Wilcox suggests that while other issues remain polarized, the rise of LGBT people in pop culture helped to make the issue more palatable, which made it easier for people to come out to their family and friends. 


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



More Americans Than Ever Support Gay Marriage, Leaving Christian Right Behind

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban in Texas





(Newser) – Yet another big win for gay marriage: A federal judge declared Texas’ ban unconstitutional today, but left it in place until an appeals court can rule on the case. Judge Orlando Garcia issued the preliminary injunction after two gay couples challenged a state constitutional amendment and a longstanding law. He said the couples are likely to win their case and the ban should be lifted, but said he would give the state time to appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals before do so.


“Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,” Garcia wrote. “These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex.” The ruling is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights activists following similar decisions in Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia.







My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE

To report an error on this story, notify our editors.





Copyright 2014 Newser, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. AP contributed to this report.





Newser



Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban in Texas

Friday, February 14, 2014

Virginia Strikes Down Ban on Same Sex Marriage (VIDEO)

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Virginia Strikes Down Ban on Same Sex Marriage (VIDEO)

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Religious Conservatives Crying over Gay Marriage - "Who Cares?"

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Religious Conservatives Crying over Gay Marriage - "Who Cares?"

Friday, January 17, 2014

Black TV Star Tamera Mowry Called ‘White Man’s Whore’ over Marriage to Fox News Reporter


Of course, it’s also hypocritical white, liberal writers like Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher who steadily contribute to this kind of double-standards for so-called “racial tolerance”:

Sister Sister star Tamera Mowry tearfully told Oprah Winfrey’s network that her marriage to Fox News correspondent Adam Housely had earned her scores of racially-tinged abuse on Twitter and elsewhere.

“See, this is where I get emotional, because it’s hurtful,” Mowry said on Oprah: Where Are They Now.


“Because when my husband and I are so openly—we’re fine with showing love. Love. But people choose to look past love and spew hate. That’s what hurts me, because I’ve never experienced so much hate ever in my life, ever.”


“I get called ‘white man’s whore,’” she said. “The new one was ‘back in the day you cost $ 300, but now you’re giving it to him for free.’”


Tamera starred with her identical sister in Sister, Sister, a 1990s sitcom, and recently in a reality show on the Style Network about the twins’ homelives, in which Housely appeared. She married Housely, an LA-based correspondent, in 2011. Her sister married actor Cory Hardrict, and Tamera said one of the most hurtful comments she’d received contrasted their husbands’ race.


“They say, ‘Oh, Tia’s a true black woman because she married a black man,’” Tamera said. “Oh—I’m less of a black person because I married white?”


RELATED:  Bigots slam Tamera Mowry for marrying white
Politik Ditto



Black TV Star Tamera Mowry Called ‘White Man’s Whore’ over Marriage to Fox News Reporter

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Utah to Ask Supreme Court to Block Gay Marriage Order

Utah is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to block a ruling by a federal judge in Salt Lake City that declared the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the Utah attorney general’s office said.

The Utah Attorney General’s office said it’s coordinating with outside lawyers to file the appeal, following Utah’s failure on Dec. 24 to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver to grant an emergency request to block the Dec. 20 ruling by District Judge Robert Shelby.


“The filing of the appeal may be delayed for a few days,” according to a statement on the office website. “It is the intent of the Attorney General’s Office to file with the Supreme Court as soon as possible.”


Seventeen other states and the District of Columbia have now legalized gay marriage. New Mexico, the only state without a law specifically allowing or prohibiting gay marriage, was barred by its highest court on Dec. 19 from denying same-sex couples the right to marry.


“Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law,” Shelby wrote in his Dec. 20 opinion. The judge, 43, was appointed in 2011 by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and was confirmed last year.


Neither Ryan Bruckman, a spokesman for the Utah attorney general’s office, nor John Mejia, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Utah, immediately responded to phone calls seeking comment on today’s filing.


© Copyright 2013 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.




Newsmax – America



Utah to Ask Supreme Court to Block Gay Marriage Order

Friday, December 20, 2013

Why I Think Arguing About Gay Marriage as a Slippery Slope to Polygamy Is a Bad Idea




I recently received a challenge of sorts on my Facebook wall from a longtime friend, who wanted me to talk about the “Sister Wives” court ruling in Utah, concerning polygamy.


Turns out, though, that the ruling is favorable less to the prospects of polygamy than to the right to privacy of what amounts to “religious cohabitation.”


Those who oppose same-gender marriage often put forward polygamy as a possible result should we begin down the slippery slope that leads away from “traditional marriage.” Since I have long been an advocate of same-gender marriage, I guess my friend believed that this Utah case about polygamy would reveal the lack of consistency in my argument, showing me to be another one of those crazy libertines whose morality is probably made up on the fly and is tied to nothing more substantial than personal preference.


I get people trying to catch me out on this kind of stuff all the time. So, in contravention of my long held practice of not arguing these kinds of things on social media, I broke down and responded … mostly about why I think this kind of argument isn’t usually very productive.


Here’s what I said:


I will make this one exception to my rule about not engaging in these kinds of Facebook discussions out of respect for our friendship, __________.


One reason I avoid them is because it has been my experience that people want less to discuss an issue with me than to try to goad me into some kind of argument. I will operate in this case on the supposition that your intentions are better than that.


Another reason I avoid this kind of discussion is because of the problem of incommensurability–that is, we start with assumptions that cannot be reconciled. You appear to operate out of the popular Enlightenment assumption that there is such a thing as an absolute truth that is accessible to human beings in some unmediated form, which exists prior to any philosophical or theological commitments–and which is somehow tied to “bedrock principle borne out through centuries of history and embraced by civilization for time immemorial.” (If I read you wrongly here, please correct me.)


I, on the other hand, don’t believe that there is any absolute truth to which human beings have unmediated access–and by unmediated, I mean that all the truths we claim are conditioned by language, culture, tradition, etc., and are therefore subject to human interpretation. (Notice, I didn’t necessarily commit myself to the position that there are no universal truths–only that, to the extent that there are, we are never going to agree on just what they are and on what implications they may have for us. So, as a practical matter, arguing about them quickly deteriorates into assertions of personal preference–though, of course, those engaged in such a discussion would be loathe to admit it. I don’t think that cuts us loose from all moorings, leaving us floating in a vast sea of relativism, but my explanation for that is an essay, not a Facebook post.)


Now, someone might object here by saying, “Yes, but the Bible, isn’t it absolute truth, binding on everyone?” I would respond to that by saying, first, the Bible never makes the claim of absolute truth for itself. Again, let me be careful: the Bible claims to contain the words of God, which–even were I to stipulate that they rise as close to the level of absolute truth as anything else–doesn’t relieve its interpreters of the responsibility of trying to make sense of them. Therefore, second, and needless to say, there is no uncontroversial interpretation of even the words of God–either through the prophets or the words of Jesus himself–let alone the rest of the Bible. As one rabbi said to me, “Y’all do things with our books that even we don’t do.”


My reference to the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” not finding polygamy overly objectionable sounds like a flippant throw away line, meant to divert attention away from the fact that I didn’t set down a lengthier argument. However, that little line is my point in a nutshell. You claim a “bedrock principle” that persists from “time immemorial.” The problem with that statement, however, is that there exists a time we can remember when God was apparently much less concerned about polygamy than you appear to be–indicating that there is no enduring “bedrock principle” that withstands the test of time, as you claim. In point of fact, marriage–at least as traced back through the Abrahamic tradition–is a much more fluid set of arrangements than you seem to allow.


So, here’s another reason I generally steer clear of these kinds of encounters: though I tell you why I think easy references to marriage as some sort of historical institutional monolith don’t work, it will not sway you–since you operate from a set of foundational principles I don’t share. I don’t say that as slight, but merely as an observation of how this sort of thing works. You don’t find my arguments compelling, and I don’t find yours compelling because we start with different assumptions about how we arrive at truth. So after this exchange, we will both have spoken our minds at some length, and no one who happens upon this thread will be persuaded from the beliefs that that person brought to this conversation in the first place. (And by this time, I’ve publicly rehearsed my position on this topic enough that I’m not particularly enthusiastic about doing it again.)


The other reason I try not to get baited into having this discussion is because I think for those people who follow Jesus there are more important discussions to have. To rephrase a line from Tony Campolo, I think polygamy is an issue used by comparatively wealthy American Christians to distract themselves from the fact that they drive Mercedes Benzes–an issue about which the prophets and Jesus had a great deal to say. I’m not accusing you of this because, as you say, I don’t want to put myself in the position of “judging [your] motives.” However, it is my experience that slippery slope arguments about things like polygamy and incest and pederasty (aside from being offensive to people who love one another, but who happen to share the same gender) are sufficiently marginal arguments, the practical effect of which is to sidetrack us from issues of poverty and injustice with which we have some reasonable expectation of coming in contact and over which we actually have some agency.


So, I’m happy to talk about our kids, or how your practice is going, or how my goofy life is going–but I’ve discussed this one about as much as I’m going to discuss it.



Follow Derek Penwell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/reseudaimon




Politics – The Huffington Post



Why I Think Arguing About Gay Marriage as a Slippery Slope to Polygamy Is a Bad Idea

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

VIDEO: Jennifer Love Hewitt Weds & Gives Birth!







It’s a girl for Jennifer Love Hewitt! The 34-year-old welcomed her first child on Tuesday her rep confirmed, saying, “Jennifer Love Hewitt and her husband Brian Hallisay are thrilled to announce the birth of their daughter. Autumn James Hallisay was born on November 26.” And there is even more good news! A source tells the mag that Jennifer and fiance Brian Hallisay secretly tied the knot! The former co-stars began dating in 2012 and Jennifer revealed their engagement back in June. Congrats to the happy family!













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: Jennifer Love Hewitt Weds & Gives Birth!

Monday, November 11, 2013

Carlos Maza: Fox News Falsely Claims Chris Christie Didn"t Veto Marriage Equality Legislation


Fox News attempted to  paint  Gov. Chris Christie as a moderate on social issues, falsely claiming that he had refused to veto legislation that would have legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey.


On the November 10 edition of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Fox News reporter Carl Cameron discussed Gov. Christie’s political reputation among conservatives, citing his decision not to veto marriage equality legislation in 2013 as evidence that Christie might not appeal to social conservatives:


The reason Christie didn’t veto a marriage equality bill in 2013 is because he had already vetoed it in 2012 despite widespread public support for the measure. Christie cited his personal opposition to marriage equality and was widely criticized for the suggestion that the issue should be put up for a public vote.


State lawmakers struggled – and are still struggling - to gather enough votes to override that veto.


When a New Jersey lower court ruled on September 27 that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, Christie’s administration appealed the decision and warned of “far-reaching implications” if same-sex marriages weren’t delayed until the appeals process was completed.


It wasn’t until New Jersey’s Supreme Court refused Christie’s request for a delay that he finally dropped his appeal effort, reiterating that he “strongly disagrees” with the court’s decision.


In October, Christie stated that he would continue to oppose marriage equality even if one of his children turned out to be gay. 


Gov. Christie may still have trouble courting social conservatives, but his unwillingness to stand in the way of marriage equality legislation won’t be the reason why. 




Media Matters for America



Carlos Maza: Fox News Falsely Claims Chris Christie Didn"t Veto Marriage Equality Legislation

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

VIDEO: What She Misses About You Video







We all know relationships have a way of becoming stale after a while, but editor Kathryn Jezer-Morton has a few solutions to re-ignite the flames in your romance.













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: What She Misses About You Video

Sunday, November 3, 2013

VIDEO: Wife Of LAX Shooting Victim: He "took Pride" In TSA Mission







The widow of a TSA agent killed in a shooting at Los Angeles International Airport remembered her husband on Saturday as a “great man” who loved his family and took pride in his work.Ana Hernandez told reporters outside her home that she and her husband, Gerardo I. Hernandez, met as teenagers and got married on Valentine’s Day in 1998.”We met in 1994, I was 16 and he was 19, and we have been together ever since,” she said. The couple had two children together. “Gerardo was a great man who always showed love for our family,” Ana Hernandez said, adding that her husband would have turned 40 next week.Hernandez is the first TSA agent to die in the line of duty in the agency’s 12-year history.













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: Wife Of LAX Shooting Victim: He "took Pride" In TSA Mission

VIDEO: Wife Of LAX Shooting Victim: He "took Pride" In TSA Mission







The widow of a TSA agent killed in a shooting at Los Angeles International Airport remembered her husband on Saturday as a “great man” who loved his family and took pride in his work.Ana Hernandez told reporters outside her home that she and her husband, Gerardo I. Hernandez, met as teenagers and got married on Valentine’s Day in 1998.”We met in 1994, I was 16 and he was 19, and we have been together ever since,” she said. The couple had two children together. “Gerardo was a great man who always showed love for our family,” Ana Hernandez said, adding that her husband would have turned 40 next week.Hernandez is the first TSA agent to die in the line of duty in the agency’s 12-year history.













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: Wife Of LAX Shooting Victim: He "took Pride" In TSA Mission

Thursday, October 24, 2013

VIDEO: Kim Kardashian & Kanye West Plan To Marry ASAP!







New reports have revealed that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West will not have a very long engagement! Apparently, the wedding is going down as soon as possible-because Yeezus is pushing for prompt nuptials! As reported yesterday, it’s going to be a huge lavish affair!













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: Kim Kardashian & Kanye West Plan To Marry ASAP!