Stop Censorship Now

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to marry gays

thepotentiallyreverend:

godinthebrokenness:

So far, it’s only been the GOP to tread over Americans freedom of religion.

So ironic. And sad.

I’m looking forward to seeing the Catholic and Evangelical churches of Indiana release a statement about how this is a horrible breach of the separation of church and state, and is a threat to freedom of conscience/religion. Oh wait…

Dammit, this ridiculousness has been going all around the internet…and the hullaballoo over it is a bunch of bullshit.

The bill in question is P.L.158-2013, which was HB 1006.

It’s not actually changing anything. All of this was already on the books, they’re just changing their system from “Class A-D” to “Level 1-6”, so the bill modifies these sections (along with what looks like hundreds of other sections) to change “Class D” in the text to “Level 6”. That’s the only thing it changed about the marriage license statute. In case you’re curious, the statute in question is Title 31, Article 11, Chapter 11 “Offenses”.

And in fact, they lowered the pentalties associated with Class D/Level 6 felonies such as the “false information” one. Class D was

between six (6) months and three (3) years, with the advisory sentence being one and one-half (1 1/2) years

and the new Level 6 penalty is

between six (6) months and two and one-half (2 1/2) years, with the advisory sentence being one (1) year

Fine is max $10,000 in both cases.

Additionally, the supposed “addition” of barring people from performing same-sex marriages (IC 31-11-11-7) has been on the books since 1997, and wasn’t even touched at all by this new law (because it’s a misdemeanor, not a felony). So that bit is patently false.  And as for the people blowing a gasket over widely speculative definitions of “solemnization”, maybe consider that this law has been in place since 1997, and have you heard of anyone being slammed down?  The solemnization is pretty clearly in the context of a marriage license.  I’m not a lawyer, but I’m gonna go ahead and say that as long as you don’t say “by the power vested in my by the state of Indiana” and try to sign a marriage license, you can do whatever damn ceremonies you please.

I’m all for defending gay rights and keeping an eye on what states are doing with it, but whipping up a fury over false information helps no one but the opposition. So yeah, this is a non-story, a routine and wide-sweeping administrative change that wasn’t targeting this law in the slightest. Whipping up a fury over actually indirectly reducing the penalties for existing laws, and pretending like they were just introduced? The media should be ashamed of themselves for wild speculation and shoddy reporting.

TL;DR: These laws have been around since ‘97 and this article is bullshit. It was an administrative change moving from “Class A-D” to “Level 1-6”, and actually indirectly reduced the penalties for false information on a marriage certificate. The media blowing this story out of proportion have done bad and should feel bad.

Progressive media spreading falsehoods and shoddy reporting to try to drum up support for good issues is one of my top pet peeves.  Advocating for justice and truth should never involve spreading lies, misinformation, and deceit.

Calloo callay!  O frabjous day!  Prop 8 is dimissed, and thanks to this lady, DOMA is dead - unconstitutional on its face.  Married couples - all of them - now have 1000+ federal rights pertaining thereto, and Californians once again free to marry the gender of their choosing.  This is a day of moving forward.Details: DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, flat out.  Justice Kennedy joined to make a 5-4 majority, and as expected in that outcome, quoted Loving v. Virginia, holding that marriage is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the states”, and stated that DOMA “rejects this long-established precept.”  And there were some strong words had: “By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.  The Consitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group…DOMA cannot survive under these principles.”  You can read the whole thing in the PDF of the ruling - it’s suprisingly readable, actually, and heartening to read.  This is about as good a ruling as we could expect - there was some theoretical possibility of a wider ruling, but it was severely unlikely, and this is pretty damn awesome.
In Prop 8, they ruled that the defendants didn’t have standing, meaning the case will be dismissed and Prop 8 falls, but without any broader ruling or precedent.  So Californians’ rights to marriage are restored, but the rest of us still have a ways to go.  It would have been nice to have a ruling “on the merits”, as they say, but the final word on Prop 8 has been spoken either way, and Prop 8 is dead.
It’s a good day for marriage equality across the nation, and especially in California . We’ve still got a long ways to go - 31 states still have constitutional amendments against it.  Trans* rights are still fledgling or nonexistent, and recognition of poly relationships probably isn’t even a twinkle in Bernie Sanders’ eye.  But today, Californian couples - regardless of gender - can be married, and same-sex couples across the nation will have their marriages recognized by the Federal government.
As for the 31 states, I think that number will only go down at this point, starting with Oregon in November 2014.  It’s a good day for marriage equality.

Calloo callay!  O frabjous day!  Prop 8 is dimissed, and thanks to this lady, DOMA is dead - unconstitutional on its face.  Married couples - all of them - now have 1000+ federal rights pertaining thereto, and Californians once again free to marry the gender of their choosing.  This is a day of moving forward.

Details: DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, flat out.  Justice Kennedy joined to make a 5-4 majority, and as expected in that outcome, quoted Loving v. Virginia, holding that marriage is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the states”, and stated that DOMA “rejects this long-established precept.”  And there were some strong words had: “By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.  The Consitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group…DOMA cannot survive under these principles.”  You can read the whole thing in the PDF of the ruling - it’s suprisingly readable, actually, and heartening to read.  This is about as good a ruling as we could expect - there was some theoretical possibility of a wider ruling, but it was severely unlikely, and this is pretty damn awesome.

In Prop 8, they ruled that the defendants didn’t have standing, meaning the case will be dismissed and Prop 8 falls, but without any broader ruling or precedent.  So Californians’ rights to marriage are restored, but the rest of us still have a ways to go.  It would have been nice to have a ruling “on the merits”, as they say, but the final word on Prop 8 has been spoken either way, and Prop 8 is dead.

It’s a good day for marriage equality across the nation, and especially in California . We’ve still got a long ways to go - 31 states still have constitutional amendments against it.  Trans* rights are still fledgling or nonexistent, and recognition of poly relationships probably isn’t even a twinkle in Bernie Sanders’ eye.  But today, Californian couples - regardless of gender - can be married, and same-sex couples across the nation will have their marriages recognized by the Federal government.

As for the 31 states, I think that number will only go down at this point, starting with Oregon in November 2014.  It’s a good day for marriage equality.

breakingnews:

Hillary Clinton announces support for gay marriage

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just announced her support for gay marriage in an online video released today.

I had just assumed she already had stated support, but Wikipedia says she played a similar game to Obama.  So, good for her finally stating it straight-up, I guess.

But that said, this video is long, but it’s good.  It’s an extensive, pretty comprehensive statement in support of gay rights, marriage equality, and beyond, put well in context of the United States and the world.  She doesn’t exactly make you swoon like Obama has a tendency to do, but she’s very thoughtful and deliberate, and I like that.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’d vote for her in a heartbeat.

Oh, and about the bottom middle photo in that photoset…

Bob Foote, a master LAN administrator for King County, makes the final adjustments to one of 10 computers at the Recorder’s office…Foote has been gathering and preparing extra computer equipment since even before the election, anticipating the passage of Referendum 74 and the rush to get marriage licenses.

Gay marriage tech support!  The best kind of tech support.

My favorite five photos from the Seattle Times photo gallery of the first day of marriage licenses in Washington state, plus a bonus photo from Meryl Schenker.  So much happiness in all of these.

Good job, Washington.  You make me proud.

“It was pretty much like every other wedding,” he said.

And the bill is signed!  Woot!  Congrats, Washington State!

Now we just have to wait out the inevitable referendum process, which I’m pretty optimistic will just draw things out instead of changing them.  But still!

Awesome.  I feel like the the tizzy by One MillionForty Thousand Moms have resulted in a net boost to Macy’s sales, if anything - this has gotten way more press from people pleased as punch by it than by anyone upset with it.  Hooray for backfires!

I made the mistake of watching the house floor discussion on the gay marriage bill.  Rep. Hargrove, you’re an ass.  Using a Jack in the Box commercial to prove that gay marriage is bad?  Really?  Also, you are not the parent of your entire state, to tell them whether or not you approve of their choices.  That’s a ridiculous reason to impose your And you don’t seem to understand that the undercurrent of your entire argument - that gay parents are inferior to straight parents - is nothing but fearmongering and bigotry.  You do realize, sir, that studies have shown that that hypothetical parent with two mothers is actually happier and better off than the one with straight parents, right?  Of course not.

And good for your family for not having a divorce.  I feel sorry for your relatives that died of AIDS, because they probably died feeling rejected and unaccepted by their family as well.

And all of you people throwing God into your speeches like I throw salt on my fries: you do realize that you can’t just cite God as reason to make laws, because we don’t live in a theocracy, right?  And you realize that “traditional marriage” that you just harped on a million times is actually rife with polygamy, incest, forced marriage to rapists, and all kinds of things you would abhor?  And that “traditional marriage”, until less than half a decade ago, didn’t include interracial marriage?

I just can’t.  Thank God this is Washington, and we have enough people who have their heads on straight in our house, and this will pass and get signed.  And, if I can be a little optimistic given that R71 passed pretty handily a few years ago, it will pass the people’s vote as well.  And Washington will stand firmly on the side of equality, and gays will get married, and all these “personal moral objections” and “religious convictions” (thank you for calling them out, Rep. Marko Lilas) will fall apart as they realize that the gays are just like them, and children of gay families are just like them, and there is no threat except to their own misconceived theology.

Rep. Lilas, you make everything better.  Thank you for being wonderful.  Your speech was wonderful and sensible and covered all the bases and just yes.

If you want to join, you can do so here.  But I’ll warn you - Rep. Overstreet is up, and he’s off on a theological tangent where he has already name-dropped Jesus twice and “truth” an uncountable number of times, and is trying to make a logical argument and failing miserably.  He started by insinuating that we didn’t define marriage in the first place.  Heh.  Silly person.  I’m out, I can’t handle any more of this.

Quotes from the Washington House discussing gay marriage

The bill made it out of committee today, and there are some priceless quotes.  In particular, Rep. Matt Shea was on a roll.  There is supposed to be a video, but it’s not up yet, so I just have to rely on the article.

I sit here as a Christian…This country was based on religious liberty not sexual liberty.

I think this guy needs to look up “religious liberty”

This will be the first time in the history of our country where we are giving people that horrible horrible choice [of choosing between their consciences and their business interests].

The first time?  Really?  The first time people have had to give up their biases and misplaced bigotry in order to make a buck?  I mean, come on, Ron Paul said just this year that the Civil Rights Act was bad for businesses.  You can come up with better “horrible horrible” things.

[Tried to add a clause] so we don’t treat Christians and others as second class citizens.

Right, because it’s okay for the gays to be denied recognition of lifelong commitment, but it’s not okay for Christians to be denied the right to discriminate against people based on in-born traits.  And we definitely need a clause granting blanket immunity “from any civil claim or cause of action” remotely relating to gay marriage.  Fortunately the amendment didn’t make it through.  

If it had, I’d have to demand my own immunity clause for fundamentalist Christian marriages - because lord knows (if ze exists, ze most certainly does) that they cause far more damage to this country than the gays ever have.

He also wanted to put a one-month residency requirement “to make sure our marriage laws are not abused.”  Because couples flying to our state to buy hotel rooms and wedding locations and food and wedding planners and generally spend lots of money is just the worst thing that could happen right now.

But I’ll end this post with a happy, quote, from Rep. Eddy: “We ought to acknowledge that we also heard of communities of faith that support this bill.”

Thank God (and G-d, and Allah, and whoever else is applicable) for that.