Leave a Comment Johan
CNN profiles Henry, Josh, and the Defense of Marriage Act
July 7, 2011
By Adam Bink
Following up on last week’s post regarding deportation under DOMA being halted in the case of Henry and Josh, here’s a nice CNN profile of the case and explaining DOMA:
I find this so helpful because while polling shows Americans oppose DOMA, a lot of people still have no idea what it is and why it should be repealed.
22,000 Courage members like you signed our joint petition, showed up at a Newark rally, and worked hard to raise the profile of this couple. It’s paying off!
If you support the work that we’re doing together, chip in to help us continue repealing DOMA and pushing the Administration to put a moratorium on these deportations.
Filed under: DOMA Repeal
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
29 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | July 7, 2011 at 8:52 am
I keep subscribing although I have no time to keep up with the comments. P8TT, why can't I quit you?
2.
Ronnie | July 7, 2011 at 9:42 am
Subscribing & sharing…….religious liberty FOR Equality…..
Bishop Gene Robinson Calls For Federal LGBT Employment Protections http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/06/262179/b….
Thank you Bishop Robinson…..
(me) 29 states have NO employment protections for LGBT people, but hey, the governments of those states have no problem with stealing the hard earned money of LGBT people living in those states in the form of taxes. You know, using that money for roadwork, public schools, parks, postal service, government buildings/employees/supplies, cleanup of & recovery from natural disasters, funding the welfare checks distributed to help women (& men) who keep having children they can't afford to take care of just for the sole purpose (in many cases) of getting a check from the government & in some cases (trust, the following example I am pointing out does exist) making it possible for her to be able to buy her drugs off the street from some kid who aged out of the system because organizations like NOM would rather risk kids like him becoming drug dealers &/or prostitutes than being placed in a stable, safe, loving & necessity providing home with 2dads or 2moms.
Ah, America. The country where the government recognizes that the hard earned money of American citizens is important but the importance of the person that money is coming from & the ability to respect that person is subjective in the eyes of some people… gotta love it (sarcasm)… ; ) …Ronnie
3.
jpmassar | July 7, 2011 at 1:53 pm
BIG NEWS
WASHINGTON (Thursday, July 7, 2011) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday announced that, in the coming weeks, the Committee will hold the first congressional hearing on proposals to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
4.
Gregory in SLC | July 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm
HOPEFUL ! http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/leahy…
and http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/07/0…
5.
Ana C. | July 7, 2011 at 3:08 pm
What a gorgeous couple and it's so obvious they are very much in love. Kudos to them!
6.
Sheryl_Carver | July 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Maybe it's part of that "agenda" thing we keep hearing about?
Or
Maybe this site has been compromised by the Religious Right. By keeping us addicted to reading & commenting, we don't have any time left to do those "icky, sinful" things they are so worried about.
7.
Kathleen | July 7, 2011 at 4:17 pm
UPDATE: Mass DOMA cases
DOJ's Response to Gill Plaintiffs' request for en banc hearing http://www.scribd.com/doc/59562274
Currently in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, there is case law holding that laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation only need withstand rational review. The only way to overturn that precedent within the circuit, other than a ruling from SCOTUS, is for the Court to rule otherwise in an en banc hearing. Because the DOJ believes heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard, it is arguing that the 1st Circuit should grant an en banc hearing "in order to undertake a complete analysis of the appropriate level of scrutiny applicable to classifications based on sexual orientation."
8.
Kate | July 7, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Anonygrl: How do you manage to get your posts on the NOMBlog??? Secret words? They have not posted a single one of mine.
9.
Kathleen | July 7, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Hi, Kate!!
10.
Kate | July 7, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Hi, Kathleen! I miss you.
11.
TomTallis | July 7, 2011 at 6:16 pm
I haven't been able to find out whether or not Henry is allowed to work while they wait for the final outcome of their case. This has an effect on my marriage, so I don't ask this lightly. Thanks.
12.
Sagesse | July 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Gotta love the headline.
NOM in New York: All Hat and No Cattle
http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/NOM_i…
13.
Kathleen | July 7, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Miss you, too. Been busy.
14.
Sagesse | July 7, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Yet another DOMA development
U.S. Trustee Withdraws Appeal of Gay Couple's Bankruptcy Court DOMA Victory
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/us-tr…
15.
Sagesse | July 7, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Vander Plaats gives GOP candidates endorsement requirement
http://iowaindependent.com/58215/vander-plaats-gi…
16.
Sagesse | July 7, 2011 at 6:48 pm
From the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU)
Fair Marriage Laws in New York: Frequently Asked Questions (2011)
http://www.nyclu.org/marriageFAQ
17.
Sagesse | July 7, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Been waiting for the anti-gay response to the DOJ's DOMA brief.
DOJ’s Brief “Reads Like A Gay Rights Manifesto”
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/271295/…
18.
Sagesse | July 7, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Mayor Bloomberg To Officiate Gay Aides' Wedding On Day Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/mayor-bl…
19.
Sagesse | July 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Brooklyn Bishop Bans All Politicians Who Voted for Same-Sex Marriage
http://newyork.christianpost.com/news/brooklyn-bi…
20.
Edward | July 7, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Sagesse….might u be on Skype? If so, I would really like to talk sometime. Im there as Kalibra46615
21.
JonT | July 7, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Wow, if re-formatting of the text and mis-characterisation of the brief is all poor Whelan can do…
What, did he literally phone that in?
What a douchenozzle.
22.
Sheryl_Carver | July 7, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Thanks, Kathleen, for posting the doc, & explaining to us lay people why it's important!
23.
Sheryl_Carver | July 7, 2011 at 8:45 pm
I know it's nothing new, but it is still an ugly truth that people whose only credential is wealth have so much power in our government. Wonder if there is any country of even medium size where this is not so.
24.
justjoel59 | July 7, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I don't know if this link will work, 'cause I copied it off twitter, and I know it's a very unscientific poll, but check out these numbers!: http://goo.gl/5SEQ8
25.
Sagesse | July 8, 2011 at 5:06 am
Gay troops cheer ‘don't ask, don’t tell’ court ruling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-troops…
26.
Thom | July 8, 2011 at 5:21 am
This request bothers me ever so slightly. Somewhere in the back of my mind I am wondering if the petitioners are concerned that SCOTUS might decide to make a less than stellar attempt to appropriately resolve the issue and so they are looking to the en banc process to shore up the case for heightened scrutiny as a preemptory move.
27.
AnonyGrl | July 8, 2011 at 7:15 am
I honestly can't explain it. Especially because it is ENTIRELY inconsistant. Sometimes a really short one gets bumped and a long one gets through, even though the content seems the same to me… sometimes the reverse is true. Sometimes one from home posts but from work does not, sometimes the other way around.
You should set up a throwaway email somewhere and try posting using that. It might work?
28.
Kate | July 8, 2011 at 7:16 am
Tried that. I think they're blocking my IP. Will try from a different one when I can.
29.
Kathleen | July 8, 2011 at 8:06 am
The Plaintiffs in Gill (one of the Mass DOMA cases) initiated the request for an en banc hearing. The Court asked the other parties in the cases to respond to the request and this is DOJ's response. All aside from what SCOTUS might do with this when it gets there, it makes sense to ask the appeals court to make a decision on standard of review. And, as explained above, the only way for the 1st Circuit to come to the conclusion that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard is for this circuit's precedence to be overturned by the Court meeting en banc.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.