Tag: gay rights

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – the legion of doom, Trump has Michele Bachman as part of his spiritual team

the HQ for the Legion of Doom, from the cartoon Superfriends
the HQ for the Legion of Doom, from the cartoon Superfriends

“The religious right movement has struggled for decades to play a leading role in choosing the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, but this year, social conservatives declared early on, would finally be their year.

And yet, after doing everything right and carefully following their specific strategy, the GOP ended up going with a thrice-married adulterous casino owner who quite literally can’t tell the difference between a communion plate and a collection plate.”

“Yes, that Michele Bachmann. The failed former presidential candidate and former congresswoman has a new gig, advising her party’s presumptive nominee on evangelical issues. What could possibly go wrong?

She’ll be joined by a variety of prominent figures from the religious right movement – the panel has 25 members in all – including James Dobson, Jerry Falwell Jr., Robert Jeffress, Richard Land, and Ralph Reed.”
A very interesting piece on the Rachel Maddow blog.
Yep, some Americans are indeed quite ignorant.   If anyone is quite stupid enough to believe that Trump is such a friend to LGBT folks as he claims, or heck, anyone who is just a decent human being,  just look at the company he keeps.  It’s a who’s who of the biggest jackasses in Christianity.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – now just where does it say “you shalt not do your job” in the bible

So… we have an entire bunch of clerks in Tennessee that have resigned their jobs rather than even have a chance of granting a marriage license to someone they don’t like, that being folks who want to marry whom they want, and not whom the clerks want them to marry.

It’s great that other people who don’t hate so much can get now some decent jobs (22% population below federal poverty level).  But where does it say in the bible that you don’t do your job or obey the government?  The bible repeatedly says obey the government.  Why?  Because the Judeo/Christian god put every government in place and every king or leader in place and this god doesn’t make mistakes.  It doesn’t say only follow it when you feel like it.

If the clerks want to cite not being yoked with others, well, they’re a bit late in that since I can be pretty sure that they’ve associated with plenty of people who have gotten divorced and remarried, Christians they don’t share beliefs with, etc.  As for calling on the “commandments”, I’m sure that the clerks don’t follow all of them though they are quick to claim that the bit about homosexuals is all-important.  How many people who work on the “Sabbath” have they murdered, in God’s name, of course.  Makes it hard to go out for lunch after church, doesn’t it?

Considering that there must have been a lot of prayers going up to prevent same-sex marriage and those failed, one can make some guesses about what was going on:

This god is fine with same-sex marriage and indeed supports it.

The Christians praying were doing it wrong.

There is no God.

Buh-bye, Pope, Bell and Butler.  Don’t let the screen door hit you on the bum on your way out.

Post-script – in a amusing turn, we have a TrueChristian(tm) Colorstorm, being unable to quote his bible in support of the clerks, and himself, but claims that Thoreau’s “Life Without Principles” supports what the clerks did.  You can see the discussion in comments.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – marriage and a lovely example of TrueChristian hysteria

Remember this. credit - Greta Christina
Remember this.
credit – Greta Christina

Whoo-hoo, marriage for all!   I hope that everyone who chooses to get married is as happy as my husband and I.

Rather than reviewing the SCOTUS decisions since others have done a better job than me, I found a typical opinion piece by one of the horrified TrueChristians, or as he puts it “orthodox Christians” (not to be confused with Orthodox Christians, of the eastern varieties). It’s much more fun to watch the schadenfreude and hypocrisy that such people create and reap for themselves.

First, a few thoughts though on the decision. The reason rights are enshrined in the Constitution is because states shouldn’t have that power. We fought a war over that. We’ve constantly been adding classes of people who get to enjoy those rights.   The dissenting justices were amazingly unprofessional sounding in their writings and ended up using nothing more than personal attacks and the logical fallacy “appeal to tradition”. All of their arguments would have been just great in defending slavery or denying women the right to vote. It strikes me as they lost their minds as soon as their religion was under fire for simply being wrong. They aren’t special snowflakes any more. Another thing that these idiots can’t quite get is that there are churches that have no problem with people who are gay and lesbian. All they want to do is enforce their particular religion on everyone.

Now, let’s get to the fun bit. An opinion piece out on the Time magazine website was written by Rod Dreher, a writer for the magazine The American Conservative. For a bunch of people who claim to hate big government, they sure want it when it can force their religion on others. We wouldn’t expect anything less. Dreher is the person who claimed that the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t at fault for allowing priests to molest children, it was the gays!

This post is full of sarcasm. Anything that resembles agreeing with these twits isn’t.

At least the fellow is smart enough not to claim that the sky is falling, at least “not yet”.   It’s always so embarrassing when “orthodox Christians”, and Orthodox Christians (not the same), and evangelical Christians, and Protestant Christians, and Catholic Christians, etc ad infinitum fail repeatedly in their predictions of how their god is going to get us, honest, really soon now.

We’re supposedly now in “post-Christian America.”  Funny how that seems to be not the case because there are churches still on many corners, still hundreds of media outlets that are entirely Christian, my local screaming preacher on street corner is still there.  Bibles are in every library and every bookstore.  Scads of websites and blogs, and golly, Mr. Dreher is still writing his very own and very TrueChristian opinions on the Time magazine website!  You know you are persecuted when you are in Time. Continue reading “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – marriage and a lovely example of TrueChristian hysteria” →

A Gay Dad Sounds Off on the Terror Threatening to Be Unleashed on California Families

A Gay Dad Sounds Off on the Terror Threatening to Be Unleashed on California Families.

 

Unsurprisingly, there are still more attempts to legitimize the actions of conservative theists.   The Westboro Baptists aren’t the only ones that bear watching and confronting by pointing out their actions and showing them for what they are.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Schadenfreude, tasty, tasty schadenfreude

Considering the name I’ve taken for this blog, it’s no surprise that I enjoy watching people suffer by their reaping the results of their willfully ignorant choices and claims. I like to watch people who insist that they are so pious that no one can question their actions fail in their claims of divine perfection and divine protection. I like to watch people who claim that their opinions are the objective will of the some magical omnipotent being tear their clothes and wail piteously when their opinions are thrown into the dung heap of history as nothing more than very human ignorance and hate. There is no shame in applauding when willful ignorance and hate fail.

This is why I am happy that the folks in Ireland stood up against the ignorance that has been fostered by religion, especially the Roman Catholic Church, for so many years. They have cast away the fear that religion has tried to shackle them with and embraced their fellow humans. I take pleasure in watching the excuses and complaints flow from those who would insist that anyone but them is less than human. They’ve failed again and I am happy for that.

This is why I am happy that secular law has been used to show the hypocrisy and harm that religion can do by the revelation that the hyperpious Duggar family is anything but good and honest. I am deeply unhappy that humans can be so harmed by religion, in this case all of the Duggar children, because they were told that they and only they were right and “right” means that women are less than human, and believers are above justice and responsibility. These actions and the constant problems that religion has with abuse of other shows that religion makes no one good and religions’ gods do nothing. If only religion was decent and humane, and no one had to be hurt and be an object lesson in how faith fails. That is not the case.

This is why I’m happy that the idea of “reality” TV shows that are no more than a reincarnation of freakshows are under fire. Everyone who watches such shows is complicit in rewarding such behavior.

I do not feel a sense of schadenfreude for those who are hurt through no fault of their own but for those who now are displayed as hypocrites, who caused harm to themselves by their own actions. I do condemn those theists who lend their voices, tacitly or vocally, to the belief that religion and their faith is some holy cow that can never be questioned.

The little good religion does can be also found in other sources.   Countering religion may not remove all of the harm in the world, but it can get rid of some of the most pernicious sources of it.

all images thanks to atheistmemebase.com
all images thanks to atheistmemebase.com

Incidentally, both instances show that prayer is rather pointless. How many prayers do you think were offered up for God to change the vote or for the abuse to stop?

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Did you miss the social anarchy? Cal Thomas and the usual deceit by Christian conservatives

as usual, from atheistmemebase.com
as usual, from atheistmemebase.com

Seems like we have a wealth of less than true comments here in the news from conservative Christians.

Here in the US, the Supreme Court has essentially abdicated its responsibility and has left a series of lower court decisions to stand when it comes to the legality of same sex marriage. They have let the Equal Protection Clause argument stand. From my perspective, it seems that the usual conservative justices are too afraid of speaking their opinions on the subject (mostly Roman Catholic) and want the whole issue to just go away so they aren’t exposed for the theocratic twits that they are.

Of course, this means that the usual conservative pundits are having a conniption that their ignorance and bigotry hasn’t a chance of becoming the law of the land. One pundit has a great column in my local Sunday paper; it shows just how nasty this type of person is. The pundit is Cal Thomas, the former VP of the infamous Moral Majority, which was neither moral or a majority, a sad collection of Christians who hated other Christians, other theists and everyone else. It, and its founder Jerry Falwell (see here for some good quotes from ol’ Jerry) did its best to make the US a theocracy. It died a deserved death when people realized its predictions of dire events were nonsense and money driven by fear dried up.

Cal does want some attention, so I am inclined to give it to him, if only to show that such people still exist. They occasionally crawl back into the light and it is worth seeing what misery they might be fomenting in the darkness.

In Cal’s column, titled What Next? (my local paper doesn’t have a link to it, so we’ll use the Albany Herald’s), he says that there are three points that need to be made about the SCOTUS action to allow the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) argument to stand without challenge. The EPC states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This was originally just applied to states but it was expanded to the federal government in the 1950s with the Bolling vs Sharpe decision.

Point number one is a baseless claim which may or may not be partially true. Cal is sure that the conservative justices are all about states’ rights and simply must have wanted the states to decide for themselves on matters of equal protection under the law. He is sure that the liberal justices must have wanted to accept these cases where states banned same sex marriage and that the lower courts over turned those laws. This doesn’t make much sense because if the SCOTUS let the lower courts ruling stand, as it did, the liberal justices would have to do nothing and still agree with the result and still have the overturning of DOMA on their side. If the conservative justices thought their arguments had merit, they would have wanted to establish that states rights trumped federal. They intentionally chose not to. Why would they allow lower court decisions that they did not agree with stand? It seems that they were not confident in their arguments at all and again, did not want to be forced to declare what they really believed, that some people have more rights than others according to religion.

Cal tries to make the argument that maybe (!) they conservative justices didn’t want to have another Roe vs Wade, because they didn’t want to create a controversy that would exist for a long time. Umm, Cal? Roe vs Wade didn’t create a controversy; it came about because of a controversy, if women could exercise their rights without interference from the government.  Same sex marriage has been a controversy for years; having one more ruling on it would make no difference to that controversy. You and yours would still be claiming that the sky will fall if you don’t get your religious beliefs made law.

Point number two is Cal trying to claim that it’s fine for the court to ignore its responsibilities because it stops “judicial activism”. If there is no ruling, then the judges weren’t activist and no one can complain about conservative justices being the same activists as they say liberal justices are. What an attempt to claim that well it’s no our fault if something bad happens and oooooh, it will, honest, really, just like every other prediction of disaster if we go against some religion. I live about 20 miles from Dover, PA, where another Christian conservative predicted dire consequences for saying that his religion was wrong and still nothing. Continue reading “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Did you miss the social anarchy? Cal Thomas and the usual deceit by Christian conservatives” →

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – on the anonymous ad about the same sex marriage decision in the Harrisburg Patriot News

Support-Traditional-MarriageTo get myself in the mood for ridiculing bigots, I’m watching Blazing Saddles and The Constitution USA with Peter Sagal as I write this post. On June 22, 2014, there appeared an anonymous advertisement on page A16 of the Harrisburg Patriot News (Harrisburg, PA). It was ostensibly about how “wrong” Judge Jones III was when he struck down Pennsylvania’s protection of heterosexual marriage nonsense.

It’s quite a word salad, always using a $5 word where a $1 word would do. What it boils down to is the old claims that if we allow homosexual marriage, then we’ll allow people to marry trees and that the marriage of two heterosexuals is the only “natural” marriage because it’ll result in children. I guess that my marriage of 20+ years isn’t a “natural marriage”. I’m guessing that we can safely assume that our anonymous ad poster is a Roman Catholic, since they are so impressed by claims of “natural” whatever and having children. Of course, I probably offended our anonymous source by saying that such a TrueChristian is a Catholic since, you know, Catholics are sun worshippers, or Satanists or Papists, or whatever Protestant Christians want to call them in their Christian “love”.

The above is all I really need to say about the ad, thanks to the usual lack of creativity of the average TrueChristian. However, it’s just too much fun to actually read this mess and point out its failures. Let’s proceed, shall we? Alas, this isn’t available online, since it’s just an ad and not actually part of the paper. I’ll do my best of picking out the best and most representative quotes from our anonymous TrueChristian source. I think I’ll call them “Annie”, just like a character I particularly revile from the unfortunate prequels from the Star Wars universe….. (If someone really wants to look at this mess in the original, just ask and I’ll scan it in.)

First Paragraph: “In effect, he (Judge Jones) reinforced the truth that all are created equal and have individual rights that can’t be denied; thereby, proving that homosexual individuals have been discriminated against.”

Isn’t it great that a TrueChristian has admitted that they’ve been lying all along and that everyone is created equal and deserves individual rights? Why, Annie is admitting that there is indeed discrimination. I wonder, would Annie support the attempts to pass laws in PA to prevent discrimination of homosexuals in jobs and other daily activities? I somehow doubt this but alas, we can’t ask Annie since he/she is hiding.

Ah, but then Annie decides that the problem with Judge Jones’ decision is that homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are innately different and thus can’t be considered “equal”. Our Annie claims that Judge Jones did this “In doing so, he immediately stepped away from the Constitutional protections of due process, and the rights and equality of individuals.”   Annie wants to claim that unions are different from individuals and thus have different rights. If the marriages aren’t “equal”, then Annie claims, they can’t be treated as equal.

So, how aren’t these marriages equal? Why yes, dear reader, it’s because marriages are only expected to produce children. Again, per Annie, my marriage of over 20 years isn’t a real marriage, only marriages that he/she approves of are “real”. Let’s see what Annie says: “An essential importance that focuses on the core difference is that a homosexual union hasn’t the physical structure, or capability within itself, to conceive another human being, or raise offspring with a male (father) and female (mother) influence as intended by a marriage.” Just like our other TrueChristian, Brandon McGinley, we get to see TrueChristians insisting that no one but them and those who agree with them have real marriages and real families. At least our Annie has decided that families with adoptive children are real families as opposed to Mr. McGinley. Alas, they are only “real” families if they have a male and a female in the household, so sorry you folks who have single parents thanks to divorce, death or any other reason. You simply don’t qualify. Continue reading “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – on the anonymous ad about the same sex marriage decision in the Harrisburg Patriot News” →

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Pennsylvania’s anti-equal marriage rights law struck down; let the whining commence

330-Morality-Slavery-or-Homosexuality-Guess-which-one-the-bibles-ok-with-biblical-ethics-insanity-bigotryFinally, a break from work and a chance to kibbitz on the interwebs. Here in the US, we are celebrating Memorial Day, a day to remember those who have fallen in combat during our various wars. It’s also a time for celebrating the summer, even though it isn’t officially summer yet. Everyone wants to grill something outside, so the meat department is very busy.

Oy, I’m tired.

But that’s nothing new. We did have a great development here in PA when Judge John E. Jones III struck down the PA anti-marriage law, which said only certain people approved of by certain religions can enjoy the benefits of marriage. Judge Jones, you might remember, also was the judge for the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial which showed intelligent design to be the same as creationism much to the disappointment of those who were doing their best to sneak their religion into public schools. Judge Jones may be one of the few Republicans left who respects the rights of people and the existence of the US Constitution. They are still out there, those who favor the government to stay out people’s lives and to be fiscally responsible, but they are a vanishing breed. It may interest you to know that even Rick Santorum supported this judge’s confirmation. So much for claim of “activist liberal judge”. I wonder, does he do so now that Judge Jones dares to disagree with him and his desire to make the US a theocracy?

Of course, we do have the usual suspects throwing fits about this. Rep. Metcalfe, often a target of derision on this blog, has suffered quite a bit lately, with this and with the defeat of his attempts at requiring everyone to have “papers” to vote. We also have the Pennsylvania Family Institute (aka the Pennsylvania Family Council, and Independence Law Center, all the same organization) insisting that the sky is falling again. It’s always amusing when people who are so virulently anti-family, always have to add that to their official names of their organizations. It’s as if no one would realize that they cared about families at all if it wasn’t in their name. They may be interested in families but only those they approve of. One does wonder, do they approve of any family that doesn’t teach their particular religion? I do have reason to doubt that, with their carrying on about how marriage is *only* for a few.

Brandon McGinley, their “field director”, and he of claims that homosexuality can be “overcome” and that homosexuality is going to destroy any vision he has of appropriate “masculinity”, has an interesting op-ed in the local Sunday paper today. Unsurprisingly, it’s pretty much what you might expect from someone like Mr. McGinley. For a fun read about Mr. McGinley’s views, PA GLAAD has a great series of screen caps of Mr. McGinley’s tweets.

But enough of that, let’s take a look at the claims that Mr. McGinley makes. First, there is the claims of how dare anyone reject the “traditional” meaning of marriage and how marriage is somehow only a “unique” thing that only means man marries woman, they must have kids and nothing else. I guess that Mr. McGinley would be sure that my marriage of 22+ years isn’t a “real” marriage. But the state already disagrees with him and has for years. It’s a shock that he isn’t protesting my marriage, but that would be a bit of a problem since he also isn’t whining about divorces too, something else that his bible says is a “very bad thing”.

We get right into the claims of how this was an “activist” decision “unnecessarily broad in scope, faulty in reasoning and, to many, malicious in rhetoric”. Of course, there is nothing about this supposedly “faulty” reasoning, just vague claims of that. Silly of me to expect someone like Mr. McGinley to actually say how the reasoning if faulty. He also does skirt around the fact that more than half of Pennsylvanians approve of equal marriage laws and it was only our representatives that voted to have a law restricting marriage.

Then we get into the meat of the baseless accusations. Mr. McGinley is horrified by Judge Jones’ phrase “We are a better people than what these laws represent. And it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history”.  He is sure that anyone who uses such a phrase isn’t interested in “healthy public discourse”, aka allowing people like Mr. McGinley attempt to make homosexuality a thing to be hated, as he has admitted he wants to do. Mr. McGinley can continue to try spread his claims as much as he wants, but not with the tacit blessing of the government by its restriction of equal treatment under the law. Continue reading “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Pennsylvania’s anti-equal marriage rights law struck down; let the whining commence” →

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Part 2, The lie of “think of the children” Pennsylvania style

040-If-you-want-to-assert-a-truthPart 1 here.

 

A rather pathetic example of one of those Christians who want to pretend their personal beliefs should be made law is a recent op-ed “Defend marriage, for the kids’ sake” (yep, he went there) It was written by Brian McGinley of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, another one of those organizations that has to put “family” in its name since no one would notice it from their actions.  It should read the “Pennsylvania Family As We Define It Institute”.  Mr. McGinley starts off with the usual emotional appeal  “Think of the Children!” nonsense citing how much kids are hurt by single parents(women of course), fatherlessness, divorce, etc.  Funny how Mr. McGinley and his ilk are never advocating laws to stop divorces, to force parents to stay together.  Of course, they don’t; since their ignorant constituencies want their divorces.  And funny how Mr. McGinley can’t actually cite one actual study showing his claims to be true.

And what does the opening salvo have to do with gay marriage?  Well, nothing as we can see.  And what’s hilarious that gay marriage between two guys would supply that supposed need for fathers doubly!  Surely, Mr. McGinley would be for such a thing.  Oh, but they wouldn’t be “real” fathers per Mr. McGinley.  Mr. McGinley of course wants to declare that marriage is only “real” if the biological parents are the ones raising the kids and who are stuck together with no other choice.  Sorry, folks who care enough to marry another person with kids, sorry those parents who had a mate that was dangerous and worthless and are doing it on your own,  you aren’t good enough per Mr. McGinley and his “Pennsylvania Family Institute”  even if you are straight.  They want to deny your rights too.

My husband and I have been married 22 years.  That’s far longer than his many brothers and sisters who have kids and who have had multiple divorces.  We got simply lucky in that we married someone that some ignorant people deign to “approve of”.  If I add that we have no children and chose to do that, there are those who would say we aren’t “really” married either and who would take our rights away.  Just like Mr. McGinley “Makes no mistake about it: If marriage is not about children, there is no reason for it to exist at all.”  My rights are at risk too.

Mr. McGinley is a sad little man and one helluva hypocrite.  “Surely we don’t need the government to bless our private sexual relationships to give them value and meaning.”  He cries crocodile tears when he says “How sad it would be if our relationships depended on the blessing of the state?”  But that is exactly what he wants done by the state, since we depend on the state to do more than just approve our sex.  It approves our relationships, and Mr. McGinley wants to declare that no one but those he approves of can have legal rights to share our loved one’s life.

Mr. McGinley does do one thing that I’m sure he doesn’t intend “But we don’t (and shouldn’t) make public policy based on cultural trends. We make public policy based on reasons and arguments about the common good—and especially the good of the voiceless and vulnerable who are our society’s future.”  Hmmm, but we do make public policy on cultural trends that come from reason and arguments for the common good, not just the good of those selfish and ignorant, be they majority or minority, who want to deny equal rights to everyone.  That’s how the stupidity of miscegenation was destroyed.  That’s how integration came about.  We used reason and arguments about the common good, not the whining of a few religions (Christian, Islam, Jewish, etc) that want to pretend that their god agrees with them.  We are speaking up for the voiceless and vulnerable, those who Mr. McGinley would love to deny equal rights.

It’s not about the children for Mr. McGinley.  It’s only about Mr. McGinley.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Bravo for Pennsylvania AG Kane, Part 1

330-Morality-Slavery-or-Homosexuality-Guess-which-one-the-bibles-ok-with-biblical-ethics-insanity-bigotry“We are surprised that the attorney general, contrary to her constitutional duty under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, has decided not to defend a Pennsylvania statute lawfully enacted by the General Assembly, merely because of her personal beliefs.” – James Schultz, Pennsylvania general counsel

It’s so cute when the irony escapes people like Mr. Schultz, Gov. Corbett, PA House Speaker Sam Smith, et al.  Golly, doing something in PA law  “merely because of personal beliefs”?  Oh say it isn’t so!   They of course don’t mention that the members of the PA General Assembly decided to take equal rights away from everyone because of their personal beliefs.  The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act for PA wasn’t just a bunch of people forcing others to obey their personal beliefs was it?    And that’s what AG Kane is refusing to defend.  The wannabee theocrats want to try to keep the statute which seems to be quite unconstitutional? Well, then Mr. Schultz, Gov.Corbett, Sam Smith, et al can do if they think it’s worth it.  Alas, for them they can’t hide behind someone else’s metaphorical skirts and avoid having their names attached to such nonsense.  They get to take direct responsibility for it.

Here’s the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.  Mr. Schultz says that the Act has something to do with Attorney General Kane’s “constitutional duty”.  Here’s the parts I’m guessing he means “(3) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence of a ontrolling decision by a court of competent jurisdiction.”  And farther down “(c) Civil litigation; collection of debts.–The Attorney General shall represent the Commonwealth and all Commonwealth agencies and upon request, the Departments of Auditor General and State Treasury and the Public Utility Commission in any action brought by or against the Commonwealth or its agencies, and may intervene in any other action, including those involving charitable bequests and trusts or the constitutionality of any statute.”

As I see it, this depends if the statutes are indeed constitutional.  If one goes up a bit in the Act, you get this “The Governor may request the advice of the Attorney General concerning the constitutionality of legislation presented to him for approval in order to aid him in the exercise of his approval and veto powers and the advice, if given, shall not be binding upon the Governor. In all other cases the advice when received shall be followed and, when followed, the recipient shall not in any way be liable for doing so, upon his official bond or otherwise.”  So, we have an Act that says that the Attorney General can offer opinion on constitutionality but the Governor, et al, can ignore it, no matter if it is true or not.  At this point, AG Kane says that the statute is not constitutional and thus is not what her oath indicates she should do.  Her oath (just like everyone  in the Executive Branch)? “”I do solemnly swear (or affirm*) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”  So, to fulfill her oath, if she believes that the statue is unconstitutional, she must refuse to defend something some legislators and governors before her put into place. I am unaware of what the AG at the time of the acceptance said about the law but we do know that the Republicans knew it was going to be controversial back in 1996 when an effort was made to deem it unconstitutional then.

Now, we know that the Attorney General evidently can legally refuse to defend the constitutionality of a statue from the Act down in the part about the General Counsel “(6) Initiate appropriate proceedings or defend the Commonwealth or any executive agency when an action or matter has been referred to the Attorney General and the Attorney General refuses or fails to initiate appropriate proceedings or defend the Commonwealth or executive agency;”  If there were no ability to refuse action, then there would be no part of the Act that says the General Counsel can initiate proceedings. So, it seems that Mr. Schultz is incorrect about what the Act says or that he’s trying to argue himself out of a job.  I might suspect the latter since this case is not going to be any fun for him at all.

There was no mention of who gets to marry who in the US Constitution when it was first written.  But it was declared that everyone deserved the same rights, even though it took a long time to get them to people of color, women, etc.   Attempts to claim that it is constitutional to deny equal rights is going backward, forgetting any advancement of human freedom and dignity that has occurred.

Once upon a time, even straight people couldn’t marry who they wanted due to ignorant “values” of the times.  If you were of different “color” you couldn’t marry.  If you were a Catholic and your love was a Protestant, your ignorant family might make it impossible for you to marry (which happened to my aunt who then never married).  Just because some people want to pretend their personal beliefs are “eternal values” certainly doesn’t make it so.

Part 2,  The lie of “think of the children” Pennsylvania style