Did any of you watch the Republican Presidential Debate last night? I watched most of it. I want to see what we are going to be up against next November, and I was not impressed but was surprised a few times. Most of all though, I have to say that Fox News is the worst group of moderators ever. In my opinion, debate moderators should be impartial, but that’s a dirty word for Fox News. They clearly had an agenda. That agenda was to attack some of the candidates like Trump and lob softball questions to others they favored more, like Mike Huckabee. Furthermore, their treatment of Ben Carson, the only black man on the stage, bordered on racism as they completely ignored him for the first half of the debate, causing him to quip when finally asked a question by Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly at the 44 minute mark, “Well, thank you, Megyn, I wasn’t sure I was going to get to talk again.” Fox News is just plain pitiful, and they prove it over and over each day. When will the Fox News fanatics learn? The answer is that they won’t because they are being told what they want to hear instead of the truth.

Donald Trump continued to serve as the leader on the clown bus to hell. However, I applaud the way he attacked the moderators. He is foul and loudmouthed but he held his own against the moderators who consistently attacked him. Grant it, this was one instance where they basically spoke the truth, but then again so did Trump. And I’ll also give it to Trump, at least he admits to using the system to gain political favors and to get richer.

The biggest surprise (no pun intended) was Chris Christie. Christie’s presidential campaign has widely been viewed as past its expiration date. But he was able to capitalize on his everyman persona Thursday night—speaking in detail, delivering his responses with passion, and picking his fights without letting his temper get the better of him. Shockingly, he sounded intelligent, something I never expected. It just goes to show that he was well coached. He kept his cool, even when Rand Paul rolled his eyes at him. I hate when people roll their eyes at me. I used to have a student that rolled her eyes at teachers all the time; she did it to me once and only once. I’m pretty sure I’d have called Paul out on it as well, because it showed his childishness.

When the subject of gay marriage came up, most of the candidates gave the response that was expected (and Fox News kept running a deplorable ad about ignoring the Supreme Court decision), but the most sensible answer of the night came when John Kasich was asked by Kelly how he would explain his opposition to gay marriage to a son or daughter who was theoretically gay or lesbian.

“Look, I’m an old-fashioned person here and I happen to believe in traditional marriage. But I’ve also said that the court has ruled … and I said we’ll accept it,” Kasich said of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

“And guess what? I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or I can’t love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That’s what we’re taught when we have strong faith.”. Kasich went on to say he would love his daughters “no matter what they do.”

“Issues like that are planted to divide us. I think the simple fact of the matter is — and this is where I would agree with Jeb, and I’ve been saying it all along — we need to give everybody a chance, treat everybody with respect, and let them share in this great in this great American dream that we have, Megyn,” Kasich told Kelly.

“So, look, I’m going to love my daughters. I’m going to love them no matter what they do. Because you know what? God loves me unconditional love. I’m going to give it to my family, and my friends, and the people around me.”

As for the rest of the contenders, Jeb Bush consistently stammered and seemed highly unprepared as he has in most interviews I’ve seen of him. Ted Cruz and Scott Walker just look plain creepy and sounded it too with their answers. I just don’t like to look at either one of them. Mike Huckabee came off as a Southern Baptist hick, which is why for some God forsaken reason that some people love him. Ben Carson just faded into the background, as did Marco Rubio, though he did show that he would merely divide this country more as a hardline Republican, i.e. Tea Party fanatic. Then there was Rand Paul who consistently acted childish on the stage. I don’t think I missed anyone but if I did it was because they were wholly unmemorable.

Though Trump got the most airtime last night, I think Christie and Kasich come out as the winners. Christie kept his cool and did not come across as a brash bully, while Kasich showed that there could be a moderate Republican candidate. Let’s be honest though, Kasich isn’t running for president but for Vice President. None of the candidates have good records on LGBT issues. They are Republicans after all, well except Trump and God only knows what that clown is. There isn’t a single one of them I like or would even come close to voting for, but it was interesting to get a good preview of them.

So, did you watch it? If you did, what did you think? I’d really like to know. Will you watch the Democratic debate on October 13?

Hopefully you’ve already heard that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a groundbreaking ruling protecting gays and lesbians from employment discrimination. With this ruling in place, LGBT workers in all 50 states who experience employment discrimination can now file an EEOC complaint. “Allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex,” the commission concluded in a decision dated July 15.

While a few Congressmen have tried to introduce non-discrimination legislation that included the LGBT workers, it has always failed to make much headway. For years, Democratic Senator Al Franken has been trying to pass a bill to protect LGBT students in public schools from discrimination. And for years the bill, known as the Student Nondiscrimination Act, or SENDA, failed to even get voted out of committee. Recently, Franken’s legislation was added as amendment #2093 to S1177, aka the “Every Child Achieves Act of 2015,” and last week it came up for a vote on the Senate floor. Senator Lamar Alexander led the charge to vote “no” claiming that it would cause lawsuits. As someone who was tormented as a child with “faggot” and “queer” while,in school, there needs to be some lawsuits to force teachers and administrators who often do nothing, to stand up for kids in their schools. This and other bills that have attempted to end discrimination against LGBT individuals in the public sector have increasingly been voted down by Congress.

Because of the issues facing such legislation, it is a huge step when the EEOC rules that all types of discrimination based on sexual orientation are forms of sex discrimination banned by the Civil Rights Act. Previously, the EEOC limited sexual orientation discrimination claims to cases where workers alleged they were victims of sex stereotypes. The 3-2 EEOC ruling came in a case brought by a federal air traffic control specialist in Miami, who contended he was denied a promotion because he was gay.

So that settles the issue, right? Sadly, that’s not necessarily true. Courts give weight to EEOC rulings, because they are the experts in the field, but it’s up to each court to decide whether to apply this ruling to claims by private-sector employees. SCOTUS does tend to rely on EEOC rulings, but that’s no guarantee.

In many states, it’s legal for employers to discriminate against workers — or not hire people in the first place — because of sexual orientation. That’s why gay activists have been pushing for federal legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would make workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity against the law.

The EEOC ruling “is an enormous leap forward and will provide another important tool in the fight against employment discrimination and unemployment experienced by LGBTQ people,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National LGBTQ Task force. “We need to further attack the scourge of discrimination in a comprehensive manner — and while LGBTQ people may file employment discrimination cases with the EEOC, we still need more. We must push for legislation that provides clear and strong protections for all LGBTQ people in every area of life — from housing to health care.”

“The fight for basic civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people just took a big step forward,” said American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT Project director, James Esseks. “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people all across the country now have a place to turn if an employer fires them because of their sexual orientation. This is a significant development because protections for gay and transgender people are almost nonexistent in federal law, and 28 states also lack state-level protections.”

Finally yesterday two more Alabama counties say they will issue wedding licenses following the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Both Houston and Henry counties had refused to issue any licenses because of gay marriage. After the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage nearly a month ago, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore advised Alabama probate judges to wait 25 days to see if the U.S. Supreme Court would allow for a new hearing. The change in Houston me Henry counties came at the end of a 25-day window in which the U.S. Supreme Court could have reconsidered its decision. Conservative groups in Alabama are still trying to challenge the ruling and are asking the Alabama Supreme Court to follow anti-slavery precedents from the 1850s and resist gay marriage.

Most Alabama counties already are issuing marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight, though a few have refused to issue any marriage licenses at all, forcing people seeing a marriage license to go to another county. I personally think those probate judges should have resigned instead of inconveniencing their constituents, but Alabama law (stupidly) says that probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses but doesn’t say they are required to do so.

“Considering the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Act in which Alabamians as well as Houston County residents overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman, it can be reasonably concluded that on the whole, Alabamians and specifically Houston County residents do not support same sex marriage,” Houston County Probate Judge Patrick Davenport said in a statement. “However, after the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling last month and the expiration of the time allowed by law for a rehearing, it is now my legal opinion that same sex marriage is the law of the land and consequently, I am obligated to follow the law.”

The change was very special for two men in Dothan, the county seat of Houston County. Finally, Keith Ingram and Albert Pigg (pictured above) who had attempted to get a marriage license in Houston County several times in recent months got what they’d been seeking on Wednesday morning. The couple were issued a marriage license at the Houston County Administrative Building just before 10 a.m. Wednesday and were married immediately afterwards in front of the building.

“We’re happy that it’s finally come to this day, that love wins, and we’re full Americans (who) have every right that every other American has,” Ingram said. “I was relieved that we don’t have to take any further steps, that we could finally move on to bigger issues that are affecting our country. This is our day.”

Elli Canterbury, who officiated the wedding, said the moment was particularly emotional for her. “I’ve known Keith and his family for quite a while, almost eight years already, and I know they’ve had a long struggle to get to where they needed to be here,” Canterbury said. “Thank God (that) Judge Davenport saw the light, and I’m grateful for him that it happened. I can’t really put into words what it means to me to be here for Keith and Albert.”

Ingram and Pigg first attempted to obtain a marriage license on Feb. 9 after a Mobile Federal Judge ruled that the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. Since then, they’ve made numerous requests and attempts. Until Wednesday, Houston County was among about a dozen Alabama counties not issuing marriage licenses to any couples in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples had the right to get married.

Henry County also announced that marriages licenses will now be issued to all couples. Geneva and Pike counties are not issuing marriage licenses to any couples.

“Love does win eventually,” Pigg said. “It’s just a matter of how hard you fight for your rights to be a true American.”

Every time I watch the evening news, which I do nearly every night as I cook supper, I get discouraged, and trust me, I don’t need more discouragement after being on the job market. Yet, I keep watching. Of course the big news for the last few days is Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Trump lead the Republican polls with almost twice the support of his closest rival. When I think of Trump, I think of a loudmouth, a real estate magnate, and a man who has driven several of his companies into corporate bankruptcy. The United States has enough problems without Trump causing chaos. Lindsey Graham called Trump a jackass, which is defined as a “silly, stupid person,” but Graham used the wrong noun to describe Trump. Trump is not stupid, but he is an asshole, which is defined as a “mean and contemptible person.”

The reason I say that Trump is not stupid is because, at least right now, his strategy his working. He is drawing attention away from other Republican candidates, and his face is all over the news. The Republican presidential race is so packed with fifteen people running, (or is it sixteen now, I can’t keep up) that Trump is able to lash out at other Republicans and get in the news. In fact, he’s using what I consider the Fox News strategy: he’s being brash, he’s being insulting, he cares little about the truth, and he is playing on people’s fears. Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Carson, Christie, Huckabee, Jindal, Perry, Santorum, and Walker all do the same thing, but aren’t as media savvy as Trump. The others in the pack just aren’t “up to snuff” as my granddaddy would say, but Jeb Bush, I think, will let the dust settle and then he’ll be back in the running.

The saddest thing about the whole Republican race is that most of these people are just plain mean. They have few redeeming qualities in my book. And while Trump said this about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it should be applied to the group seeking the Republican nomination: “Bunch of clowns. Bunch of real clowns.” The problem is that this set of clowns is of the Stephen King It variety. I honestly believe that they would be disastrous to this country, and it greatly saddens me because I see so many people nodding and agreeing with so much that they say. It is sad to say but it’s true, many Americans have a mean streak a mile wide, and they like bullies like Trump. Trump knows it and he has them eating out of his hands.

“Just as Hillary Clinton’s clothing and make-up choices should be absolutely off-limits to anyone of substance discussing American politics, so too should Donald J. Trump’s hairstyle. Is it any wonder that a guy like him would surge in the polls when we treat national elections like High School Bullying contests. We’ve pushed this election into his comfort zone with name calling, intensely personal attacks, and useless spin. It’s all he has. We can take it back from him by actually focusing on real issues…something he can’t do. Demand substance and model it. Care about what his politics look like, not his hairstyle.” ‪#‎DemandSubstance‬ – Brian Sims

I am so thankful that the readers of this blog are an extremely kind and giving group of people. You comments and generosity warm my heart on a daily basis. Why can’t more Americans be like y’all? The United States would be a better place if they were.

Here’s a palate cleanser, because politics can leave a bad taste in your mouth.

The Alabama Supreme Court on Monday issued an order delaying gay marriage for 25 days, although most Alabama counties have ignored the state order and continued to issue the same-sex marriage licenses.

John Carroll, a former federal judge and now a law professor at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, explained the reasoning behind the order and suggested those counties who ignore it are on safe ground.

“Did the Alabama Supreme Court have to do this? The answer is ‘no,”’ said Carroll. “Were they within their rights? I guess.  

“But there is a period of time, by rule, before the decision is final.” 

While the U.S. Supreme Court landmark ruling Friday legalizing gay marriage has almost no chance of being changed, it is not technically the law of the land for 25 days after the ruling.

When the U.S. Supreme Court issues an order, there is a 25-day period for appeals before the court’s “mandate” is issued to the appeals court that sent the case to the high court. That mandate establishes the opinion is now the law.

Citing that short window of appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court on Monday issued the order telling the state’s probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Meanwhile, some counties, such as Marshall, Franklin and Colbert, had stopped issuing all marriage licenses today. And just before the court order, the association of county commissioners issued a statement urging all county probate judges to issue same-sex marriages, per the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Friday, the same group had advised counties not to issue same-sex licenses.

It’s too soon to tell what effect the state order will have or if it will be challenged, but the courthouse in Madison County continued on Monday to issue marriage licenses to couples, same-sex or not.

Madison County Probate Judge Tommy Ragland said he sent the Alabama Supreme Court order to the county attorney’s office today and after it was reviewed, he was told there was nothing preventing the office from continuing to issue marriage licenses.

“We forwarded that to (county attorney) Jeff Rich,” said Ragland. “He didn’t’ tell us to do anything different, and so we’re issuing them.”

A Birmingham attorney working to untangle the issue this afternoon said the state high court’s order doesn’t matter.

“The Alabama Supreme Court did not direct probate judges to delay compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision,” said Birmingham area attorney Heather Fann. “This order has no practical effect. U.S. District Court Judge (Ginny) Granade already ordered Alabama’s probate judges to stop enforcing the marriage ban as soon as the Supreme Court rule, and that is binding immediately.”

The Alabama Judiciary under the direction of Chief Justice Roy Moore have decided that the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is merely an opinion but not the law of the land. Alabama is merely trying to stall the inevitable, but they are in actuality acting like spoiled brats. The probate judges are the only officials in Alabama who “may” issue marriage licenses. I put may in quotations because that is what Alabama’s Constitution says. In fact, Alabama law says that probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses, and several Monday morning were using that one word to cease issuing licenses altogether. ALA CODE § 30-1-9 states:

No marriage shall be solemnized without a license. Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties. The license is an authority to anyone qualified to solemnize marriage to join together in matrimony the persons therein named.

If certain probate judges are basing this decision on the traditional heterosexual marriage then they have a bit of a problem. If tradition trumps the law, then tradition has it that Alabama probate judges issue marriage licenses. It’s been that way for over 100 years, that is since the ratification of the 1901 Constitution of Alabama. However, these judges are not following Alabama legal precedent but their own interpretation of the Christian Bible. However, Alabama grants no fault divorces which is in direct violation of the words of Jesus who says divorce is only acceptable in the case of adultery. Alabama also allows for people to marry again after divorce. Jesus says that this is still adultery as long as the divorced spouse still lives. And where is this in the Bible?

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. – Matthew 5:32

However, if you want the part about marriage it’s in Matthew 19, where he addresses marriage and divorce (this happens to be where the “one woman, one man” argument comes from):

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” – Matthew 19:3-9

The Bible should have great influence on our lives, but it is the Spirit of the Word that should guide our leaders. It is the center of all moral philosophy that we are equal and that we should love and respect one another. The probate judges of Alabama who are refusing to issue marriage licenses are not following the Spirit of the Word, but their own bigoted hatred for the LGBT community. A few are also trying to get a name for themselves to run for higher office. However, considering that our highest court has ruled, they should follow Romans 13:1-5:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. – Romans 13:1-5

If Alabama officials refuse to do their job, or a significant part of it, then they should be dismissed. Each probate judge who refuses to follow the law, should be removed from office by the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The Chief Justice has the power to remove from office any probate judge who refuses to act (ALA CODE § 12-13-37). These judges are refusing to act in accordance with the law. They are doing this on several levels, since the Alabama Code – Section 12-13-36 states that the:

The probate judge shall keep his office at the courthouse, and, unless otherwise provided by a local law, the office of the probate judge shall be kept open for transaction of business on every day, except Sundays and legal holidays, from 9:00 A.M. until 4:00 P.M.

If you happen to live in Alabama, please let me know if your probate office is open on Saturday. My county’s probate office is only open four and a half days a week, as are most county courthouses in the area, this is in direct violation of Alabama Code – Section 12-13-36. So if a few probate judges want to split hairs with the law and use the word “may” to decide not to issue marriage licenses at all, an inconvenience to those in that county, then let’s split hairs. All Alabama probate judges not “kept open for transaction of business on every day, except Sundays and legal holidays, from 9:00 A.M. until 4:00 P.M.” Should be removed from office by the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court pursuant to Alabama Code – Section 12-13-37. The greater problem is that the person who should be removing them from office is the Chief instigator of these shenanigans, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Therefore, the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, Lambda Legal, and the Human Rights campaign should file complaints against Chief Justice Moore for failure to perform his duties and responsibilities pursuant to Alabama Code – Section 12-2-30.

It is time for the state of Alabama to comply with the law. I am tired of my state being made to play the part of the fool for the United States because our state’s elected officials are clowns who care more about posturing for cameras than for carrying out their duties as officers of the state. The people of Alabama need to wake the fuck up and start electing people who will follow the law not follow it only when it is convenient for them. Pay attention to who you vote for and if someone has been removed from office for misconduct once (Roy Moore) then for God’s sake don’t elect him to the same position again. If your legislators cannot pass a budget, their one sole fucking duty, then do not vote for them again. If your probate judge refuses to do his job, don’t vote for him again. And if any official within the state refuses to carry out the duties of his or her office with dignity and respect for the law, call for them to either resign or be removed from their position. We cannot sit by and watch this happen, we must act and act now!

Needless to say, I’m a tad pissed off at my state.
Dear Lord, please let me get a job, preferably in another state, or better yet, maybe in another country whose officials have a modicum of sense. Amen.

 

Occasionally, and it seems to happen more and more often, the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the politics of hate astounds me. On article I read stated that, “It was only a matter of time before anti-gay ultra conservatives used the debate over hanging the Confederate flag in governmental buildings to take aim at the display of the rainbow flag.” However, I have to disagree with that because the thought would never have occurred to me because it is so utterly ridiculous.

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer took to his radio program Tuesday to demand that if the Confederate flag is going to be removed from government buildings, so should the gay pride rainbow flag, which he called a symbol of “the Gay Reich.”
Fischer said:

If we are going to remove symbols of oppression from our culture, if we come to the point where we say any flag that represents bigotry, any flag that represents hatred, any flag that represents slavery or oppression needs to be removed, then I want to suggest to you that the next flag to go ought to be the rainbow flag of the Gay Reich.

The rainbow flag represents the gay lobby, it represents Big Gay, it represents what I’m calling for the first time today, I’m introducing a new term: the Gay Reich. They’ve got a flag just like the Nazis had their flag.

That flag is a symbol of slavery and oppression and bigotry and prejudice and bias. So if we’re going to go after symbols of oppression, we ought to make the rainbow flag the next target for removal in our culture.

As a southerner and a historian, I have many many problems with the use of the Confederate Battle Flag as a political symbol. It is a flag of losers. The Confederacy lost. That should be enough. However, it has been taken by even greater losers, i.e. racists, as a symbol of pride and hate. I personally believe that the only flags that should at state agencies is the American flag and the state flag. There is no reason for there to be any other controversy about this. If the government wants to fly the “six flags” of Texas or the “five flags” of Alabama, then it should not be on the Capitol grounds but instead at a historical park separate from the Capitol.

In Alabama, Governor George C. Wallace raised the Confederate Battle Flag above the state Capitol building as a symbol of white supremacy. It was a political move of hatred. It remained atop the dome of the Capitol until controversy over the flying of the flag in the early 1990s. The controversy was quietly and with no fanfare ended six days after Jim Folsom, Jr. became governor of Alabama in 1993. In a move Folsom’s father Governor “Big” Jim Folsom, Sr. would have been proud, Folsom simply ordered the flag to no longer be raised. It actually took a few days for anyone to notice. (A quick historical note, Big Jim spoke to a joint session of the Alabama Legislature the day after the Brown v. Board of Education decision was handed down by the Supreme Court and called for an immediate desegregation of Alabama schools, to which the legislature ignored and passed a law reaffirming school segregation.)

The only place that the Confederate Flag (and it should be the national flag not battle flag) should be flown near the Alabama Capitol is next door at the Little White House of the Confederacy Museum, but it shouldn’t be on the Capitol grounds. However, Alabama’s Governor a Robert Bentley (an idiotic dumbass) has chosen to make a political scene and take down the Confederate flags around the Capitol grounds. He should not have made a big fuss over it, like he did, and instead should have used Little Jim’s example and taken the flag down quietly. He’s making a big scene to cover his own incompetence over the Alabama budget crisis and to get publicity on the national news.

Some of my southern readers may disagree with me, but I do see the Confederate flags as symbols of oppression. If the South had won, LGBT acts would still be criminalizes, and we would have been hunted and jailed. The one thing that might have kept that from happening is that southern “hospitality” and “manners” would have demanded that we were hidden from sight. We would be the skeleton in the family closet. I think the Confederacy would have been an oppressive place for all those who were not the white elite.

I’ve gotten a little off topic talking about Confederate flags, but the whole matter is about bigotry. It honestly has nothing to do with “southern heritage.” However, no matter how you feel about the Confederate flag, the idea of comparing it to the rainbow flag is utter stupidity. The rainbow flag is about openness and acceptance, not about oppression. There is not such thing as a Gay Reich. I find the mention of a Gay Reich to be highly offensive. The Nazis of the Third Reich did their best to destroy homosexuality in Europe. They murdered, tortured, and lobotomized homosexuals merely for being alive. It is the idiotic argument of Reductio ad Hitlerum. When people have lost an argument and it goes to the ridiculous, they always resort to the Nazi Card, because they have run out of stupid arguments.

A recent poll released indicated 61% of Americans support marriage equality—but where does our next president stand? Sure, President Obama says the freedom to marry is a constitutional right, but he has less than two years left in office.

It’d be nice to think the matter will be settled once and for all after the soon-to-be-announced Supreme Court rules marriage equality, but whatever they decide will be considered, reconsidered and assailed in the coming years. (You only need to look to Roe v. Wade for proof.) 

In anticipation of the potentially historic news, we’re taking a look at where the major presidential candidates—both declared and just likely—stand on marriage equality.

Hilary Clinton

The Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 presidential election, Clinton says that she, much like President Obama and many others, has evolved on the issue of marriage equality. “I think that we have all evolved, and it’s been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that I’m aware of.”

Whether that evolution was heartfelt, a political strategy or the revelation of her true feelings all along, only she can say. As a presidential hopeful in 2008, she favored civil unions over same-sex marriage, and in 2014, told NPR host Terry Gross that marriage should be “a matter left to the states.”

But shortly after declaring her candidacy—in a video featuring two gay couples—the former senator and Secretary of State averred her unwavering support for same-sex marriage.

“Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right,” her campaign said in a statement this month.

Martin O’Malley

You’d be hard pressed to find a stronger ally for same-sex marriage and LGBT rights that this former governor of Maryland. O’Malley enthusiastically signed marriage equality into law in 2013.

“I get choked up just thinking about that evening,” he says of the passage of Maryland’s marriage equality referendum.

“I looked out over and saw my friends with their children, households headed by LGBT parents and all these people who had come together for a greater good. It was so real to me and so moving. This evening was not abstract it was about real people with real lives.”

Lincoln Chafee

You may not have heard of the Democratic former Governor of Rhode Island, but Chafee declared he was running for president back in April.

Back in 2004, he stated that each state “should be free to make its own decision on this issue,” but by 2013 he announced his full support for the freedom to marry, signing Rhode Island’s marriage equality bill into law.

“Rhode Island is upholding its legacy as a place founded on the principles of tolerance and diversity,” he said at the time. “I hope that leaders in capitals across the country—including Washington—will soon realize that marriage equality is an issue where doing the right thing and the smart thing are one and the same.”

Carly Fiorina

Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard CEO, announced her presidential campaign by May. She’s a tough one to figure out—while she supports Indiana’s “religious freedom” law, she also supports the right of same-sex couples to receive the legal benefits of marriage.

“What’s really at stake here for gay couples is how government bestows benefits,” she told USA Today. “What’s really at stake here for people of religious conviction is their conviction that marriage is a religious institution because only a man and a woman can create life, which is a gift that comes from God. And I think both of those points of view are valid.”

Though a longshot candidate, Fiorina is the only Republican contender (presumed or actual) to acknowledge the legitimacy of marriage equality and not just declare “let the states decide.”

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio says he believes sexual orientation is innate and not a choice, but he still opposes same-sex marriage and thinks homosexuality is a sin, which might make him the worst kind of enemy of equality.

When his home state of Florida began allowing gay couples to wed, Rubio told Politico , “if they wanted to change that law, they should have gone to the legislature or back to the Constitution and try to change it…I don’t agree the courts have the power to do this.”

In a recent interview, Rubio declared “there is no federal constitutional right to same sex-marriage.”

“You would have to really have a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex,” he continued.

“Can a state decide to change their laws?” he asked. “Yes, but only through the political process, not through the court system. And that’s what is happening now. The advocates of same-sex marriage refuse to go to the legislatures because they can’t win that debate. They want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters. It’s very simple. This is not a policy against anyone.”

Rubio added, “I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage… should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman.”

Ted Cruz

The Republican senator from Texas declared his candidacy in March, and is one of the party’s most outspoken opponents of marriage equality.

Cruz is critical of judicial recourse and recently introduced an amendment that would protect state bans against same-sex marriage. “We have seen judges, and especially the Supreme Court, ignoring the law,” Cruz said.

“If the courts were following the Constitution, we shouldn’t need a new amendment,” he added. “But they are, as you put it quite rightly, ‘making it up’ right now and it’s a real danger to our liberty.”

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush announced his candidacy last week to much fanfare (and by fanfare we mean Twitter blowing up with hilarious memes about his exclamatory campaign logo).

Sensing the national sea change on marriage equality, Bush has punted the issue, saying “it out to be a local decision—I mean a state decision.”

But we can take solace in the fact that he has little interest in a constitutional amendment repealing marriage equality.

“We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law,” Bush said in January.

Dr. Ben Carson

Ben Carson announced his candidacy back in May, boldly telling his hometown crowd “I’m not a politician.”

Carson made his opinion on the LGBT community known when he opined that “a lot of people who go into prison straight, and when they come out they’re gay.”

He’s also said that while gay people “should have the same rights as everyone else,” we don’t deserve “extra rights” like the freedom to marry. 

“They don’t get to redefine marriage,” he said.

Rand Paul

He’s got about as much chance of being president as his dad, Ron Paul, but the Kentucky senator did officially throw his hat in the ring.

In 2014, Paul said that he was “in favor of the concept” of a Federal Marriage Amendment—he later stated that same-sex marriage “offends [him] and a lot of other people.”

Rand’s also blamed the very idea of marriage equality on an ethical epidemic in America. “[T]here’s a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage,” he told conservative Christians earlier this year.

Lindsey Graham

The South Carolina senator—and confirmed bachelor—is “testing the waters” for a potential presidential run, but we can only assume it’d be to get a better salary when he inevitably becomes a Fox News pundit.

In his time, Sen. Graham has opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and extending immigration benefits to same-sex partners. He’s on the record as saying he hopes the Supreme Court “will allow each state to define marriage within its borders,” but you can bet he hopes they define it as strictly between a man and a woman.

Mike Huckabee

The former Governor of Arkansas is among the most rabid opponents of marriage equality in the Republican party, and that’s saying something.

He’s even encouraged governors and state legislators to “consider ways to resist a Supreme Court decision that recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.”

Who wouldn’t want to vote for a guy who tells two branches of the government to ignore the third?

Rick Perry

If you remember this former governor from Texas from the 2012 election cycle, you remember his comparing homosexuality to alcoholism—explaining that gays and lesbians should simply choose to abstain.

When a district court judge deemed Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, Perry voiced his outrage, saying, “Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our Constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.” 

He wants states to have the right to define marriage for themselves, saying “the idea that one size fits all coming out of Washington, D.C., is not going to work.”

Like a number of his anti-gay peers, though, Perry said he would “probably” attend gay or lesbian friend’s wedding. 

Rick Santorum

The candidate so anti-gay they turned his name into a dirty word is currently weighing a presidential bid.

When a judge he appointed struck down the same-sex marriage ban in his home state of Pennsylvania, Santorum called the judge’s appointment a “mistake.”

“The court has to stop being the judge and jury for the consciousness of America,” the former senator said. “That’s not what the court’s supposed to be. The court’s supposed to uphold the Constitution, not change the Constitution based on what they think is the current mood of the day.”

Talking to the Pew Forum in 2008, Santorum said allowing same-sex couples to marry “is completely deconstructing marriage and taking away a privilege that is given to two people, a man and a woman who are married, who have a child or adopt a child.”

In the same interview, Santorum blamed marriage equality for everything from the divorce rate to unplanned pregnancies.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President on Tuesday, with The Washington Post declaring, “Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy is great entertainment. It’s terrible for politics.” 

Trump has been outspoken (ya think?) about his views opposing gay marriage, telling Howard Stern in 2013, “It’s never been an argument that’s been discussed with me very much. People know that it’s not my thing one way or the other.”

Ten months later, in November 2013, Trump attempted to paint an “evolved” view–one, however, that still opposed marriage equality. “I think really what you have is a very changing stance, and you see it changing very rapidly. If you go back 10 years ago it’s very different… I think I’m evolving, and I think I’m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage. I am for traditional marriage, I am for a marriage between a man and a woman.”

Bernie Sanders

Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy in April declaring that “People should not underestimate me.”

Sanders has a pretty sparkling record when it comes to marriage equality, dating back as early as 1996, when the then-Representative voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.

His home state of Vermont was the first to legalize same-sex unions in 2000 and the first state to pass legislation legalizing gay marriage in 2009.

He remains and unwavering ally to the cause.

George Pataki

The former Governor of New York made his long-shot Presidential bid back in May.

As a moderate Republican, Pataki is the only major Republican presidential hopeful who supports marriage equality.

In a recent political ad Pataki declared, “Defeating Islamic terrorists, shrinking government, growing the economy — these are the issues that matter most,” he said. “Instead we’re debating social issues like abortion and gay rights.” He called that a “distraction.”
Source:  http://www.newnownext.com/where-the-major-presidential-candidates-stand-on-marriage-equality/06/2015/

  
Yesterday, I wrote about the “Race for The a Title of Stupidest,” which discussed the idiocy and ignorance of the Republican presidential candidates.  I had an anonymous commenter that wrote, “Too bad you can’t see the idiocy within your own Democrat Party. The country would be a saner place if you learned to dissent within your own ranks. Remember–dissent is patriotic.” To which I replied, “I never said I was a Democrat. Furthermore, I think both parties are deeply flawed, but it’s the Republicans who are rabidly anti-LGBT and can only come up with idiotic dribble to back up their claims. This is a gay blog and for the most part I stuck to the stupidity of their stances on LGBT issues.” But to be fair, I decided to give the Democrats their due and write a post on the stupidest things said by Democratic presidential candidates.  However, I could not limit it to LGBT issues because all of the Democrats seem to be for LGBT rights.

  
Several different websites have “The Five Worst Things Hillary Clinton Ever Said,” all of them pretty much have the same quotes, so here goes. Number five on the list is, “I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.” This one is not so bad because I do not believe that Jesus would recognize many Republicans as Christians, at least not the Christianity that Christ laid out in the Sermon on the Mount or in his parables. He would more likely see them in the same way he say the Pharisees, all show but no substance. The fourth worst is “We have a lot of kids who don’t know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word.” Have these people ever met any kids? They get lazier and lazier by the year. In the five years I taught at my former school, I can count on one hand the number of those kids who had a job. I agree with Clinton 100 percent. The third worst is more dumb than anything, because Hillary said, “I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.” Bill Clinton was president, Hillary was First Lady. She should have understood that one. The second worst was “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” That might be a little of the pot calling the kettle black, but um…it’s true, at least I am tired of it. And the number one worst thing was kind of bad. In response to who was responsible for Benghazi, Hillary said, “What difference does it make?” She was speaking of whether it was terrorists or protestors, but nearly everything about the Benghazi incident has been blown way out of proportion. Fox News uses the words “Benghazi” and “emails” to get conservatives foaming at the mouth and to boost ratings.

The next person to declare his candidacy was independent/socialist cum Democrat Bernie Sanders. The Libertarian Republic, a free market news magazine featuring the writing of prominent libertarians, conservatives, independents and sometimes democrats wrote about the top five dumbest quotes from Bernie Sanders, and here they are. Number five was “A nation will not survive morally or economically when so few have so much while so many have so little…We need a tax system which asks the billionaire class to pay its fair share of taxes and which reduces the obscene degree of wealth inequality in America”. By honestly do believe that the graduated tax system in America right now is ridiculous. It puts the greatest burden on those who are the poorest, and it needs to be more equitable, so not such a dumb quote in my book. Let’s look at number four, “Education should be a right, not a privilege. We need a revolution in the way that the United States funds higher education.” The current system in higher education with expenses going higher and higher will cause more students not to attend college or to be so heavily in debt when they leave that it will take years to pull out. The current system is designed for an educated elite, which many Republicans are all to happy to have because it keeps poor and middle class people dumb enough to vote Republican against their best interest. Number three quotes Sanders as saying, “Social Security is a promise that we cannot and must not break.” Why is this listed as a dumb quote, because they don’t believe Social Security should have ever been established, and thus with all the money we’ve paid into it over the years, Libertarians and Republicans think it should be scrapped completely. The second dumbest thing was “Meanwhile, as the rich become much richer, the level of income and wealth inequality has reached obscene and unimaginable levels. In the United States, we have the most unequal level of wealth and income distribution of any major country on Earth, and it’s worse now then at any other time since the 1920s…”. Anyone who looks at world history should see a pattern here. When there is a great disparity of wealth in a nation, that nation either falls or goes through a massive political change, mostly not for the better and there needs to be some reforms. And the number one dumbest thing The Libertarian Republic quotes as the dumbest thing uttered by Sanders is “We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies.” We really do need to begin looking harder at more sustainable energy, because fossil fuels will not last forever, and we will have a major energy crisis unlike anything seen before.

When you google “dumb quote by Lincoln Chafee” the main thing that comes up is this quote, “How dumb can the Republicans be to be beating up on the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country? That’s one we gotta grab! a path to citizenship is not only good policy, it’s good politics.” A lot of people are also criticizing his belief in the metric system, but both his stance on immigration and the metric system sound pretty reasonable to me. I guess the main thing about Chafee is that he’s not terribly well known, he was a reluctant politician, and he’s switched from being a liberal Republican to an Independent and is now a Democrat.

Not many quotes by Martin O’Malley can be found either which is odd considering he was Mayor of a large American city (Baltimore) and Governor of Maryland. He has stressed that 2016 should be an election focusing on new perspectives and new leadership and that the Presidency “should not be a crown that is passed between two families.” He’s kind of has a point there, with Clinton and Jeb Bush running. Really the only other quote I found by O’Malley was “Sometimes in campaigns you can drive yourself crazy with the micro-targeting and the pollsters and the tea leaves and the pixie dust trying to twist yourself into triple back-flips to appeal to the three percent that are the undecideds that live in suburbs and have lawns that are less than 20 feet long and all that bullshit. Just tell the base why you’re doing what you’re doing and why you’re better than the other guy.” I wouldn’t exactly call that quote dumb, but pretty common sense. 

The difference in the “stupid things” said by Democratic candidates and Republican candidates is that Democrats are not cruel, insensitive, and mean-spirited. All politicians will tell you what they hate instead of what they will do, but hate speech seems to be the Republican criteria for running. I’m sure people will say that I am being far too biased with this post, but I spent quite a while yesterday trying to find quotes by Democrats to post and I came up with very little. Clinton and Sanders have the most because they’ve been at the forefront the longest, and let’s face it, Sanders is in this race to push the debate to the left and enjoys being controversial. Hillary has always been controversial as First Lady, Senator, and as Secretary of State. It comes with being a powerful woman in politics, but neither seem to be mean-spirited in their speech. Chafed and O’Malley just haven’t been in the big race long enough nor have they been on the national stage. Most of the Republicans running are in the Senate and have a ready forum for their lunacy.

By the way, I did not include Joe Biden. There are two reasons: he hasn’t officially announced that he’s running and there would just be too many quotes. Biden is one of the most loquacious politicians in American history and he’s talked enough and put his foot in his mouth so many times that he should have the permanent taste of shoe leather in his mouth. I want to close by going back to one of Hillary’s quotes: “I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.” The thing is, I find it hard to believe that any politician in America could or should be considered a Christian. They certainly don’t act like what Jesus has told us to behave, and in my book that’s just a Christian in name only.

As Just a Jeep Guy used to say, “Politics can leave a bad taste in your mouth,” so here’s a palate cleanser before we get started.

At the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, Mike Huckabee, a 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said in a February speech, “Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’”

In a Friday interview with radio host Steve Deace, Huckabee said he would “take nothing back from that speech,” from the speech he gave. Huckabee told Deace he was “kind of glad” the video of his remarks made the rounds online.

“I’m kind of glad it’s posted because people, if they watch the whole clip, what they’re going to see is that I’m giving a commonsense answer to the insanity that’s going on out there,” Huckabee said. “Because I hear people, everybody wants to be politically correct, everybody wants to be loved by the media and loved by the left and loved by the elitists. But, you know, I know I’m not going to be, so let’s just get it over with. I’d rather be a commonsense candidate for people who did take their brains to work today.”

Huckabee tries to sound like a folksy good ol’ boy, but merely comes off as ignorant. He is just one of many Republicans on an anti-intellectual crusade pandering to the Tea Party’s dumbing down of America. Republicans, most of them anyway, do not want to court the intellectuals of America because they would see through their idiotic rhetoric. I blame the majority of this anti-intellectualism on Fox News, but the news media in general have lowered there standards because of 24-hour news channels. Some days are not newsworthy, and they invent stories to be blown out of proportion, and viewers watch with rapt attention.
 

 Republican, especially this crop of presidential candidates, seem to be trying to see who can reach the height of stupidity and offensiveness. Huckabee certainly doesn’t hold a monopoly on stupid and insensitive.

Speaking to a group of pastors in Washington on Thursday, another presidential candidate Rand Paul said that a moral crisis is leading people to believe that same-sex marriage is acceptable. There is a “moral crisis that allows people to think there would be some other sort of marriage,” aside from traditional marriage, Paul said. I personally think that the high rate of divorce in America is a much greater moral crisis than same-sex marriage. Furthermore, for decades, homophobes have preached about the for cation and promiscuity of gay men, yet marriage would allow for same-sex couples to be in loving legally binding relationships. And gay men are not the most promiscuous. All one needs to do is to listen to a group of teenagers or college students and you would see young people having sex with little attachment or morality. The moral crisis of America has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. In fact, same-sex marriage would solve what many critics of American sexuality have long considered a moral crisis: premarital sex.

Republican Gov. Chris Christie said that if one of his four children came out as gay, he would “grab them and hug them and tell them I love them.” He would also tell them “that Dad believes that marriage is between one man and one woman,” he said. […] “My children understand that there are going to be differences of opinion in our house and in houses all across this state and across this country,” Christie said. What an awesome guy (see my eyes roll). 

 Moving on, there is Ted Cruz, good for a laugh if nothing else. He seems to believe that same-sex marriage is a threat to our very freedom: “If the citizens of the state of Iowa or the citizens of the state of Texas want to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman … the states have the constitutional authority to do so and the federal government and unelected judges cannot set aside the democratically elected legislature’s reasonable decisions to enact and protect traditional marriage,” Cruz told radio host Jan Mickelson. The 2016 presidential candidate added, “If the courts were following the Constitution, we shouldn’t need a new amendment, but they are, as you put it quite rightly, making it up right now and it’s a real danger to our liberty.” I’m guessing that Cruz doesn’t believe the Fourteenth Amendment is an actual part of the Constitution. Cruz also believes, “There is no place for gays or atheists in my America. None. Our Constitution makes that clear.” Cruz just continues to spout ignorance that God approves of child molestation, but not homosexuality when he said, “While there may have been an age difference, Josh Duggar’s transgressions are far less an affront to God than what gays do to each other.”

And then there’s Jeb Bush. Of late, he’s made some attempts to paint himself as supportive of LGBT rights. When running for governor of Florida, in 1994, he was sounding a rather different note. During his first and unsuccessful bid for governor in 1994, Bush argued in an editorial that LGBT people do not deserve special legal protection. “We have enough special categories, enough victims, without creating even more,” he wrote. In the editorial, published in the Miami Herald that summer, Bush drew a parallel between legal protection for gays and the question, “[Should] sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion? My answer is No.” “The statement that the governor must stand up for all people on all matters is just silly,” Bush wrote, arguing that government does not defend every Floridian “with equal verve and enthusiasm.” He listed a string of examples: “Polluters, pedophiles, pornographers, drunk drivers, and developers without proper permits.”

We can’t leave out the Republicans “intellectual” darling, Dr. Ben Carson, who thinks being gay is a choice, “Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,” Carson said. He mentioned LGBTQ people, pedophiles, and bestiality in the same sentence, as if they are all part of the same group and should be treated the same way. “No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA [the North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition. So it’s not something that’s against gays, it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications,” he said. And when he tried to explain his comments, he made zero sense. “There is no group. I wasn’t equating those things, I don’t think they’re equal. Just, you know, if you ask me for apple and I give you an orange you would say, well that’s not an orange. And then I say, that’s a banana, that’s not an apple either. And there’s a peach, that’s not an apple, either,” he said. “But it doesn’t mean that I’m equating the banana and the orange and the peach. And in the same way I’m not equating those things. My point was that once we start changing the definitions, then where do we stop?” And in one of the statements I find most offensive, Carson thinks that people who support same-sex marriage are trying to get rid of the Bible. “Think about the implications,” he said. “When people come along and try to change the definition of marriage, they are directly attacking the relationship between God and his people,” Carson said. “And that’s the reason it’s so important for them to change the definition, because if you can get rid of that, you can get rid of everything else in the Bible too.”. I think that Carson would benefit from reading my Sunday posts, but from the idiocy of the statements he’s made, I doubt he could understand it.

Last, but not the least idiotic, we come back to good old Mike Huckabee. To his credit, he’s never tried terribly hard to conceal how wretched he is when it comes to LGBT matters. Huckabee says that expecting Christians to accept same-sex marriage is “like asking someone who’s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli.” He also called homosexuality part of a lifestyle, like drinking and swearing. . . .”I don’t drink alcohol, but gosh — a lot of my friends, maybe most of them, do. You know, I don’t use profanity, but believe me, I’ve got a lot of friends who do. Some people really like classical music and ballet and opera — it’s not my cup of tea,” Huckabee said. Oh, and just let me say, I’ve always believed what my granny taught when she said that if you use a word to replace another, it’s just as bad. So Mr. Huckabee, saying gosh, by granny’s interpretation, is taking the Lord’s name in vain. That’s pretty pitiful for a Baptist preacher.

Six potential candidates, and not a single intelligent nor accepting statement among them. When it comes to LGBT issues, as with most issues, the Republican candidates are happy to take the retrograde position. That doing so tramples the rights of the LGBT community seems of little importance. Once again, they have combined political expedience and cheap moralizing to arrive at a stance of cruelty and divisiveness. Nice job guys, and it’s only going to get worse as the campaign heats up over the next year.