Sunday School 7/10/22: Extra Credit

For Sunday School, we heard from Vice President Kamala Harris. Her videotaped interview with Robert Costa was featured on Face the Nation, the Spotlight Classroom this week.

Now, let's hear from Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA), and see if he did a better job answering questions than Madam Veep.

Costa asked Youngkin if he agreed with Harris, who said you don't need to abandon your faith to believe in a woman's right to choose. To me, a reasonable answer would start with, or at least include, either 'yes' or 'no.'

Youngkin said he's pro-life and life begins at conception; he agrees with the Supreme Court decision that it should be up to the states; he asked the legislature to craft a bipartisan "15-week pain threshold bill;" and said

I think this is what it's all about is, this is a moment for our country to have a discussion around this. And each state will decide something different. And I think that's the -- that's the real value of the Supreme Court's decision.

Um, the "real value" of the SCOTUS decision is separate but unequal classes of pregnant women? And that's somehow "our country" having a discussion?

Costa asked, twice, if he'd change his 15-week proposal to a full ban; given Youngkin's "reality" of having a split legislature, I don't see a full ban without a unified legislature. That said, he believes his job" is to get something done," and he thinks the 15-week bill is what's going to fly. 

Costa brought up Youngkin's ban on teaching "inherently divisive concepts," and asked for an example. Youngkin alluded to Critical Race Theory, without using those words. It's not about forgetting history, he said.

But we shouldn't... play 'privilege bingo' with children. We shouldn't teach children that they should judge one another, and one group is privileged and another group is going to find it hard in life necessarily. And we shouldn't blame someone and have them form a view that they're inherently racist... 

Costa asked what Youngkin would do if the Board of Education came to him and said the term 'Civil War' is too divisive and they want to use 'war between the states' instead. First Youngkin said he didn't think that would happen, then he said he didn't believe they will do something like that. And then, he said

...I think what we all recognize is that slavery was an absolute -- was an absolute black spot in our history. I mean, it is so, so abhorrent. We have to teach it.

Not the question he was asked, but if he can't answer a simple example like this, what's he going to do with a hard one? 

Because it was a long interview, here are Youngkin's answers from the second half.

• Judges in Virginia are "adequately" protected; he's got state resources on it, and he's called on AG Merrick Garland to do more, apparently assuming that protests are intended to "influence" judges, rather than to express anger. At the same time, he said, "Broadly speaking, this is about democracy."

• Asked if he'd codify same-sex marriage in Virginia, he said the Dobbs decision protecting the rights of lawmakers to legislate is "consistent with what we know the Constitution stands for." When pressed, he said "we actually do protect same-sex marriage... that's the law in Virginia." However, it's only protected if Obergefell stands; the state struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in 2020, but did not codify a right to have one. 

• He had "really great fun" visiting Nebraska, which had literally nothing to do with what he was asked: whether Donald Trump should stop saying the 2020 election was stolen. Nor did his "this is not a 'or' moment but an 'and' moment..." ramble. Nor did his "this is the Republicans who - that can win." Nor did his talk about 5,000 volunteers at elections. I'm sighing bigly, here, I am.

• Virginians don't want to talk about January 6th, they want to talk about "run-away inflation, gas prices... crime in their communities...education and the rights of parents to be engaged in their kids' schools." He also said," while I think it's important to the media, is really not what voters are focused on." He also said Trump's going to do whatever he's going to do.

• As to how he'll spend his 'political capital' as a "rising star," he wants to focus on electing GOP representatives; he thinks "the road to the majority in the House... comes through Virginia." After that, there are gubernatorial races where he thinks he "can make a difference." He refused to answer whether he'll support election deniers like Doug Mastriano in PA, even though Costa asked him twice.

Finally, on whether he and his family are open to a run for president in 2024, he's "hugely humbled" and

the reality, of course, is, I think it's based on the fact that I won in a state that was blue and we turned it red. I ran on a platform that we're delivering. And I often find it shocking that people are surprised that a person runs for office and then goes to work to deliver on what they promised they were going to do. And so, I think my job is to be a great governor in Virginia.

Cost asked again if he's open to the idea,

That's not a decision that we have even begun to undertake. The reality, of course, is I've been in - I've been governor of Virginia for six months. We've got an extraordinary amount done. $4 billion tax cuts. A record budget for education. $400 million in to law enforcement to raise salaries and keep our communities safe. This is where I'm focused.

Am I the only one seeing those comments as foundational to his '24 campaign bio? And does everyone agree he answered fewer questions than Harris?

See you around campus. 

Wondering on Wednesday 5/4/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

If you're like many folks, no matter where you stand on the opinion outlined in the Alito draft suggesting that Roe v. Wade is being overturned, you're probably wondering who leaked the darn thing in the first place. 

Many on the right assumed it was a liberal justice's clerk, trying to rally the troops and get folks riled up to either (a) change the presumed outcome of the decision, or (b) change the presumed outcome of the midterm elections. And, of course, they did the whole "we're the victims here" because someone stole their thunder, or something. 

Me? I wondered which of the justices leaked the draft. My first guess? 

I think it was Ginni Thomas in Clarence's office with a spatula who flipped the Roe-killing draft out the window into the hands of a reporter who had been snooping around trying to figure out if there was any medical reason for Clarence to have spent a week in the hospital at the exact time that Ginni was in the headlines because of her life-and-death January 6th text messages to Trump's 4th Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the guy who wants us to believe his permanent address is a rusty old trailer on top of Scaly Mountain.

That the reporter happened to be there with an open catcher's mitt is pure chance.

And now we'll have to wait to see how long before Clarence goes back into the hospital - or until Ginni goes into the hospital, leaving Clarence to text his CPAC friends for some suitably conservative recipes to cook while Ginni is indisposed.

And my second? 

Or, maybe it was Kavanaugh, by the keg, who used the draft to mop up a mess created by his leaving the tap open when he went to check his calendar from 6th grade to see whether he needed go to the gym on the first Monday in May.

Finding out that was not the case - it's the first Monday in October that's relevant now - he over-served himself, and tossed the damp draft and a bunch of Red Solo cups into the trash on his way to bed, where soon dreams of Renate danced in his head. He might have even sung the Renate Alumni fight song in his stupor, but I can't say for sure.

And that's where the draft was found - in the dumpster with the cups and their residual draft -by the reporter from Politico, who had a nose for news - and beer - and sniffed out the story of the year.

If you had to wonder, who do you think let the draft see the light of day? And, perhaps more importantly, why?

Other wondering on this week's big story? What else will fall? If the standard is things that are deeply rooted in our history, clearly additional attacks on voting rights will be affirmed, and encouraged.

Inter-racial marriage? It's hard to imagine that surviving, right? Consider our 'deeply rooted history' of enslaving blacks to do the work that was beneath us, and how young black girls became the sexual targets of their white overseers. And who could forget the murder of blacks for the offense of looking at white women, or speaking to them? How could we possibly allow them to marry into our families, with this deeply rooted history of ours?

Similarly, I wonder how long before we say that marriage equality has no deep roots in America? Any bets on that? And, I wonder, do people know how many states still have laws on the books banning and/or refusing to recognize same-sex marriage? Sure, they're being ignored since the Obergefell decision, but they're still on the books.

Another issue about which we can wonder? Can any of the alleged privacy protections in the Constitution actually protect women who want to use contraception? I mean, think about it. 

• Our life expectancy is falling. 
• The birth rate is falling. 
• We're projected to be a minority-white country - by 2045.  

Is it really beyond our wildest imagination, I wonder, for some red-state pseudo-religious legislature to decide that what we need more than anything is more cute white babies, and act to make sure that happens by restricting access to contraception?

I know Alito said, in the draft, that this was just about abortion, but we know we can trust that about as far as we can throw him, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett.

What's got you wondering tonight?

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 2)

I was reading what I anticipated would be a funny take on 'gender reveal' parties, those often way-over-the-top shindigs with explosions and death and destruction and whatnot. 

The article was moving along, I was chuckling, and then? Then the 'U' word appeared. You know what I'm talking about, right? Here's how it showed up in the article.

 We are fortunate enough to have the resources for almost the ultimate in frivolity: gender reveal parties. Ukraine is the ultimate in seriousness, in a life-and-death battle with all the suffering and horrors of war. Gender reveal parties should be an opportunity for us to be thankful for what we have and to support and fund our fellow humans in Ukraine.

Seriously? Gender reveal parties should be an opportunity for us to send money to Ukraine? As you can tell from the opening of this post, I think gender reveal parties are kind of crazy, but I also think the constant focus on Ukraine, to the exclusion of everything else (other than the price of gas,) is equally crazy.

Like people everywhere, I'm horrified by what I've seen and heard about in Ukraine. I've watched President Zelenskyy's messages to our Congress, to elected officials in other countries, and the UN. I support sanctions on Russia, and I support us giving some military and humanitarian support to Ukraine. 

That said, I think it's ridiculous - and, frankly, grossly unfair - to expect us to turn everything we do, and everything that brings us joy, into an opportunity to help Ukraine. 

Frankly, there are other crises happening in the world, too.? Here are just a handful of them.

• China has committed crimes against humanity by their treatment of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups; over a million are dead, hundreds of thousands imprisoned, and others sent into forced labor over the past several years. 
• In South Sudan, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced or killed; nearly 5,000,000 children are not in school, and some 8,00,000 people are facing hunger or famine. This, too, has been going on for years,
• So has the war in Yemen;  4,000,000 people have been displaced, more than 110,000 have been killed, and over 20 million need humanitarian aid.
• And don't forget Somalia, with a million deaths, and more than a million people displaced in that country's ongoing civil war.
• And, have we already forgotten about Afghanistan and the Taliban?

Why do these get less attention? Other than China, we rarely hear about these conflicts, and when we do, it's well after the Ukrainian news of the day. And would we have heard much about China, absent the Olympics? 

Why is that? Is it because these aren't social-media-savvy countries? Is it because civil wars don't matter? Is it because these people don't look like us? It's hard to ignore that last question.

And, in case you're thinking everything's hunky-dory here at home, think again.

• Politicians from both parties continue to choose their voters, instead of the voters choosing their politicians; it's been going on for decades, and is getting worse instead of better as gerrymandering flourishes.
• Politicians are doing their best to make voting more complicated instead of easier, and while they say they are making voting more secure, we know that what many of them are trying to do is make it easier for them to erase the vote of the people.
• We are pulling books from schools and libraries, because people who have never read them have been told by their churches or their politicians that this is the right thing to do.
• We are (knowingly) underfunding public education (here in New York, for example) and allowing individuals to take taxpayer money out of public schools and give it to private schools - including corporate, profit-driven entities - and religious schools.
• States are codifying vigilante justice to avoid having laws struck down by the courts. So far -- so far -- it's just laws against abortion; who knows where they'll go next with this plan of attack. Texas started this; others are following.
• States are trying to pass laws to prevent citizens from seeking medical are in other states (Missouri and Oklahoma for starters), or threatening to jail parents - potentially with life sentences - for seeking medical treatment for their children (Idaho), and charge providers with felonies for providing treatment (Oklahoma, again).
• And let's not forget the "Don't Say Gay" bills - yes, that's plural now, with Alabama following Florida's lead.
• States are attacking marriage equality, proposing marriage contracts that would only be allowed for opposite-sex couples (Tennessee).
• States have passed laws allowing doctors to pick their patients, instead of having to treat everyone - even people they don't like (Ohio, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas...).

In America, folks - this is all happening, right here in America, to Americans.

Should we care about Ukraine? Of course. Should we care only about Ukraine? Of course not. 

We should learn (or remember) how to walk and chew gum at the same time; we can hear about, and care about, more than one thing at a time. Even if the people don't look like us, or don't have great social media skills.  

We should never let our guard down here at home, no matter how compelling the news from elsewhere in the world might be.

And we should allow ourselves a little joy, without feeling guilty and without feeling obligated to anyone else. 

Making America What, Again, Exactly?

I just saw this article this morning, and to be honest I thought it must be an April Fool's Day post -- except that it's from Texas, first of all, and it was posted a few days ago, so no, it's real. Here's the eye-catching headline.

Texas Republicans advance a bill 

that would allow doctors to refuse LGBTQ patients

Looks about right, for Texas, doesn't it?  'Extreme conservatism' I think is how my Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo described them, a few years ago. 

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York, because that is not who New Yorkers are. 

According to the article on LGBTQ Nation, the bill

...would allow state-licensed professionals to refuse to serve LGBTQ people if they cite their religion has advanced out of committee in the Texas senate.  Senate Bill 17 would prevent state licensing agencies from denying or revoking licenses from professionals - including doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and even barbers - if they claim to be following a "sincerely held religious belief."

The bill's sponsor, Senator Charles Perry, said

Living our faith does not stop when we start to work. When we see what we may perceive as immoralities, those people who hold those beliefs should be able to defend their faith...without fear of losing their livelihood and their license. 

It's OK though - apparently law enforcement officers have to keep their religious beliefs in check, and even doctors will have to set their beliefs aside for "life-or-death" situations. From the text of the bill,

This section may not be construed to: (1) authorize a license holder to refuse to provide a medical service within the scope of the person's license that is necessary to prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury; or (2) limit any right, privilege, or protection granted to any person under the constitution and laws of this state and the United States.

Guess we'll not see Texas signing on to that whole 'health care is a right' thing, I'm thinking. And of course, who gets to determine what medical services fall under the 'necessary to prevent death' part of the law? I'd argue that chemotherapy may be considered  as being 'necessary to prevent death' but I'm sure that's not what Texas is thinking. I just think it's noteworthy that 'imminent' only applies to serious bodily injury...

But what - there's more.

Wondering on Wednesday (v150)

Let's get this out of the way right off the top: I'm not really wondering about very much tonight, because so much of it seems so very straightforward and there's little demand for wonder. That said, let's get right to it.

First up?  There's no marriage like a forced marriage.

The Trump administration on Monday began denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country.

Huh? We're going to force people from other countries to get married in order to stay here? Why would we do this, you ask?  Because back in 2010, President Obama signed an order allowing same-sex partners to get visas, but at that time, only married heterosexual partners could. So, fast forward to the Undo Obama Policies administration we're in today, and the only logical thing to do?

Force gays to marry, obviously. Because now that same-sex marriage is legal (but of course, not required), we must impose the draconian rule on citizens of other countries - even those where same sex marriage is illegal - almost all the time:

The United States informed foreign governments that they would allow ''limited exceptions"  to its new policy in cases involving diplomats from countries where same-sex marriage is illegal. But that government would have to provide documentation proving that same-sex marriage was illegal and commit to accepting same-sex partners of US diplomats.

What's comical, if that's the right term, is that the party of Trump maintains that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Up next?  The First Lady is trying to #BeBest, even as her husband is continuing to #BeAnAss, #BeWorst, #BeACad, and #MAHA (make America horrible again). There is literally nothing to wonder about on the latter, and I wish her the best on her trip away from her husband.

Finally, there's the FBI supplemental background investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, the president's choice for the Supreme Court. It may be done, it might not be. There may be more witnesses to interview - or there may not be. The White House says interview anyone you want, but the White House counsel's office says not so fast, it seems.

There will be no conclusions offered, only interview notes - and the information  will be held extremely close to the vest, too.

All 100 Senators will have access to the new information, but not their staffs. There are also 10 Judiciary Committee staffers who have access to the Kavanaugh file, which is a paper report -- there are no pdfs of emails of it. And it will not be made public.

And anyone who leaks the information is likely to be in trouble, as none of it is to be shared - which is exactly what we have come to expect.

Like I said, not a whole lot of wondering going on.

Why is Kim Davis in Jail?

Kim Davis is in jail because not because she's being punished for her beliefs, as some people maintain, but for her failure to obey the law and her failure to do her duty as the elected county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky.

Some of the presidential candidates are chiming in.Prominently, for example, Mike Huckabee, president of the Josh Duggar Fan Club, plans on visiting Davis on Tuesday.  He's also established a Free Kim Davis Now petition,which is front and center on his presidential campaign page.  The petition, addressed to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and US District Judge David Bunning, states:

Immediately release Kim Davis from federal Custody. Exercising Religious Liberty should never be a crime in America. This is a direct attack on our God-given Constitutional Rights. 

Government government shutdown artist/denier Ted Cruz also supports Davis in her dereliction of duty, and has also wrongly stated the issue on purpose, noting that

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their faith - or be sent to jail.

Not so much, gentlemen.

Kim Davis is not only not being persecuted for being a Christian; she's not being persecuted at all. She's being treated like a public official who has officially shown contempt for the law, and for multiple courts. Her disdain has been duly recognized, which is what she wanted, and she's simply getting the attention she requested by defying the court's order.

Some folks are happy to point out that Davis has had four marriages, as if that should disqualify her from having a faith-based position on same-sex unions. While it might be hypocritical to profess concern about the sanctity of marriage if you've had four of them yourself, it's not really our business, and it's not the issue here. The more time spent on that argument, I think, the more time wasted.

Truth be told, I'm also not concerned with her religious beliefs. Not because I disagree with them (which I do), and certainly not because she's not entitled to them -- she is absolutely entitled to have her own personal religious beliefs, and to share them. However, she has no right to impose her beliefs on anyone else. That's why they're called personal religious beliefs.

Some folks have suggested that, if Davis were a Muslim instead of a Christian, no one would have an issue  with her behavior. That argument is ridiculous; this isn't about her choice of faith - it's about her failure to do the job she was elected to do.

Davis's decision to deny marriage licenses to all who seek them, whether gay or straight, is not a defense, either. Dereliction of duty equally applied is still dereliction of duty.

Her actions are also in direct conflict with her own statements thanking those who voted for her when she was elected last year, replacing her mother who served for decades in the position.

My words can never express the appreciation, but I promise to each and every one (of her constituents) that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and fulfill the statutes of this office to the letter.  (Emphasis added.)

She also noted during the race that

If I'm elected it will be a seamless transition with no break in services to our citizens. Licenses, taxes, election-related activities and all of our other services cannot stop or slow down.  (Again, emphasis added.)

A "working clerk" would issue marriage licenses to all legal applicants, and a "good steward of their tax dollars" would not accept salary and benefits paid by tax dollars if he or she was not doing her job. After all, the county clerk cannot pick and choose which dollars she's going to take care of, she must take care of all of them, including the ones that pay her salary. Further, it defies logic that not issuing licenses would seem to constitute a "stop or slowdown" don't you think?

Davis should stay in jail for as many days as it takes for her to formally agree to perform all of the duties of her office. She could be released on bail, I suppose, but that would seem the easy way out (and one which would attract a lot less attention) so I doubt the option would be accepted if offered.

If she can't bring herself to faithfully execute the duties of her office -- all of them -- as required, then she must step down. I'd also like to see her repay the salary and benefits she received under false pretenses during this time. (Davis reportedly makes $80,000 per year.)

She's also potentially facing charges for misconduct,for violating the Kentucky code; charges have been referred to the State's Attorney General.

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly (a) commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or (b) refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or (c) violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office. 

The code doesn't get into the reasons behind an official's misconduct, and neither should we.

Kim Davis is welcome to exercise her religious beliefs, even to proselytize on her own time; she's welcome to teach bible study to prisoners (if they're interested) on her free time, as it's been reported she does.

However, she's not welcome to deny services to the taxpayers she was elected to serve, whether they are gay or straight, old or young, black or white, male or female, Christian or atheist or anything in between.

The One About Marriage

June 26, 2015, is a day all about gratitude, for a majority of the same Supreme Court justices who gave us 'corporations are people' has officially determined that all people are people too.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

Friday's decision means that same-sex marriage is in fact constitutional, and that the participants in them are protected the same as are participants in opposite sex marriages. And in marriages between prisoners and their pen pals. And in inter-racial marriages. And in marriages where the new husband is a deadbeat dad. These are among the cases over the years where the Court has chimed in, allowing marriage, 'protecting' marriage, revering the 'traditions and social benefits' that come from marriage.

No longer will someone like, say, Charles Manson be more valued than a gay doctor, lawyer, politician, soldier, musician, actor, teacher, athlete, pastor, accountant, bus driver, stock broker, entrepreneur, lifeguard, writer, janitor...

People are free to express their displeasure at this decision and at the weddings that result, just as they are free to express their displeasure and distaste at marriages between octogenarian men and twenty-something playthings; between rich businessmen and their second, third, or fourth trophy wives, (or their interviewers); or those between The Real Housewives of Anywhere and their poor bastard husbands.

Now, as Patrick and I prepare to mail our own wedding invitations, I'm delighted that all members of our family will have the same opportunity as we have: to embark on the journey of marriage, to make permanent and public and equal their commitment, their enduring love, and their undying faith in their partners, regardless of where they live when they make the decision to say "I do."

And I'm thrilled for friends who have already gotten married in New York and other 'marriage equality states, to know that their marriages are just as legitimate as ours will be when we tie the knot in September, regardless of where they are today or where they end up tomorrow.

I'm not surprised at some of the reactions coming from 'marriage conservatives' as I call the politicians who are looking to make hay out of this decision. I certainly wish there was less hate and a little more compassion, and I hope that people will become more tolerant and less judgmental over time. We've shown we can do this on other issues of equality, whether driven by a SCOTUS decision or by us individually or collectively coming to the realization that people who are different are not demons, nor are they 'less' simply because they are not exactly like us.

I'm going to leave you with thoughts expressed by Sean Kirst, an outstanding columnist we are fortunate to have here in Syracuse, who provided a thoughtful response to a question posed by Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent Friday.  Roberts asked

The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

Here are excerpts from Kirst's reply:

Who do we think we are, affirming so many times that the greatest contribution of the founders - a group of influential men of celestial courage who didn't always transcend the ugly norms of their time - was to craft an ideal of liberty of such purity, of such inspiring power, that it would shine and ascend and be brought to bear on question seemingly unimaginable more than two centuries ago?

 Who do we think we are, bumping forward, debating, shouting, protesting, legislating, procrastinating, telecasting, sniping, griping, always predicting the doom of the republic when someone we disagree with - be it liberal, be it conservative - wins the day, yet waking up the next morning managing to somehow keep going this raucous, boisterous, never boring, often maddening, sometimes transcendent, still unfinished and in-the-end- we're all-in-this-together-dammit experiment of a union?

Who do we think we are?   

Just who we were yesterday, and will be tomorrow, when we again put one great collective foot before the next:

Americans. 

Equally, gay or straight, Americans.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v32)

Get your GPS out, I have a feeling one of the things I'll be wondering about, this Wednesday, is how to bring it all back home.

If you've ever spent any time reading comments, tweets or posts on social media, you've probably seen a barrage of  "This (town/city/state/country) sucks, can't wait to get out of here" or "This (politician/writer/athlete/actor) sucks, can't believe anyone (listens/watches/pays attention/votes for) him" or similar comments.  Have you ever wondered what it would be like if they all actually got up and left, or at least stopped pestering everyone with their negativity?

Speaking of negativity, there's been more than enough of that over the years as plans were announced and then dropped, and announced and then dropped, and then announced and then almost started but then stalled... Yep, I'm talking about the renovation of the Hotel Syracuse. Well, Negative Nellies, work has been going on in earnest for several weeks, and thanks to the relationship between hometown developer Ed Riley and the local media, we're getting updates on progress on a fairly regular basis. This week, we saw pics from inside the project, including how the lobby is being returned to its former glory, with windows uncovered and access to a balcony restored.  Say 'Nay' if you must, but please, don't be standing in line next March when she reopens - get out of the way and make room for the Yay sayers.

Speaking of making room, looks like both the Dems and the Reps will have to keep making room for more Presidential candidates. Hillary has company, with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee all mainstream declared candidates. Chafee, has been a mayor and US senator, in addition to being Governor, was once a Republican, became an independent, and a couple of years ago signed on to the Democratic side; he too may need a GPS to find his way home.

On the Republican side, we still don't have Jeb Bush or Scott Walker officially in the race, but we did add Empire Stater George Pataki and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham to the already crowded field.

What do all of these folks have in common? Red, white and blue websites for one, with an easy-to-find 'donate' button. Or, in Sanders' case, a 'contribute' button, which seems somehow more engaging and accessible, as if he wants not only my money but also my opinion. I wonder, does he really? I may have to test that.

Testing. That's what the Rabid Badger, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, is doing to my patience. I told you about his 'lovely' and 'cool' trans-vaginal ultrasounds comment.  This week, he's telling everyone that rape and incest only matter early in a woman's pregnancy.  Walker has announced he'll sign a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks, with no exceptions.  He can do that, if it crosses his desk - but can't his people get him to stop justifying what he's doing by talking about things in ways that show only his cluelessness and insensitivity?

And far be it from me, a middle aged white lady centrist Democrat to call out any of the R's for their lack of sensitivity and their treatment of people.  I'm going to let one of their own do that.  Enter Mary Cheney, daughter of Dubya's puppet master, who took Republicans to task (on their own media network, no less).  In a Fox News editorial, Cheney calls for real support for "individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the belief that strong families are the cornerstone of our society." I wonder if any of them will listen to her? She notes

For years I have listened while Republican candidates talked about the importance of family and the need for our country to support strong families. I wholeheartedly agree. We do need to support families, but that means supporting all families - regardless of which state they live in, how they look or how they are made.

So the next time a Republican presidential candidate wants to talk about the need for our society to support and protect families and children I hope he or she will include all families and all children in that protection - including the hundreds of thousands of children like my son and daughter who are growing up with same-sex parents. 

Oh my. I just happily quoted a Cheney, and I support what she says.  And she said it on Fox News. Where, oh where, I'm wondering, did I put my GPS?

The Irony Board: Personal Freedoms

Gee, the Republicans are running into a bit of backlash on their whole "people have the right not to vaccinate their kids" talking points. That whole personal freedom thing is a little more complicated that they thought, it seems.

For a while now, the R's have inserted little lines into their state party platforms, like this excerpt from the Texas GOP platform in 2014:

All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves, or their minor children,without penalty for refusing a vaccine.  We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that wold contain personal records of citizens without their consent. 

Obviously, personal freedoms, particularly personal medical freedoms, are very important in Texas and in many other red states.

The same folks who believe that people have the right to vax or not vax don't seem to have any problem with kids who are not vaccinated hanging out with other kids in school, day care centers, playgrounds, Chuck E Cheeses, bounce houses and birthday parties and all the rest, even if the personal choice of a parent can in fact jeopardize other people's children. And when there is no way of knowing whether the kids present have been vaccinated or not.

And there's no legitimate reason for the government to jeopardize anyone's right to participate in society, to go freely about their lives as a citizen, exercising their personal freedoms, right?

So where on the personal freedom continuum, do some of these typically Republican-supported ideas, regulations, and strongly held beliefs fall?

• Limiting the right of a person to vote, by reducing hours at urban polling stations, or requiring government-issued ID to allow a person to vote, but not automatically issuing said government ID (and vehemently opposing a national ID card), or not allowing a person to leave a voting line once they're in it, or other foolish steps that have been taken under the guise of preventing virtually non-existent in-person voting fraud in America? (Joe Biden would have said 'literally non-existent' and he wouldn't have been far off.)
• Forcing women to undergo invasive medical procedures like trans-vaginal ultrasounds? 
• Keeping people on life support against the wishes of the patient and family?
• Extending benefits to one class of Americans that you would refuse to pass to another class of Americans because they exercised their own personal freedom of speech?
• Declaring that judicial candidates must have a 'biblical' world-view but also insisting that certain religions assimilate or referring to them as a 'cancer' ? 

Chris Christie, who put a healthy, symptom-free Ebola worker in a plastic bubble in New Jersey, until she could leave the state (and go into forced quarantine in Maine), apparently doesn't see the irony between that action and his statements in England about 'personal choice' when it comes to vaccines.  But if he was right on Ebola, can he also be right on vaccinations?

Well, of course, silly! As the blustery,belligerent Governor of New Jersey, he has the right to protect the people of his state.

And as a blustery, belligerent potential presidential candidate, he has to protect the state of the people on the Right. 

What IS Religious Freedom?

I've noted before on this blog that I'm not a 'religious' person, meaning that I don't belong to a church or attend services regularly or anything like that. I do try to live life according to the golden rule, to be ethical and fair and non-judgmental (even while admitting that the last part can be really hard).

And I think even if I were a religious person, I would struggle with what passes for 'religious freedom' these days.

The Mississippi State Flag

It now seems we can pretty much say anything is a deeply held religious belief, and using that we can discriminate and get away with it, at least in Mississippi. But not in Arizona?  I get so confused.

Arizona, as you may know, had a very public battle regarding a bill that would allow a company that had 'deeply held religious beliefs' to not participate in certain business transactions if they did not like who the customer slept with. That's obviously minimizing it, but that's the gist of the move behind their law, which came about as a result of actions in other states -- not Arizona -- regarding a business owner not wanting to engage in commerce with gays.

The Arizona bill was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, in part because she believes there are more important things for the government to be focused on -- and I wholeheartedly agree on that -- and because the law could do more harm than good to her state. I agree with her on that account as well.  (You can read more here.)

Mississippi's bill moved through the legislature without a whole lot of notice -- certainly nothing like what played out in Arizona.  I'll be honest, until I saw that it passed, I wasn't aware it was even being considered.

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant, who signed that state's religious freedom bill (SB2681) last week,  noted he was

proud to sign the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act today which will protect the individual religious freedom of Mississippians of all faiths from government interference.  Mississippi has now joined 18 other states to defend religious freedoms on a state level. 

Under the bill, 'exercise of religion' is defined as "the exercise of religion under the First Amendment", which as we know simply states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Also buried in the bill is a statement indicating that

Nothing in this act shall create any rights by an employee against an employer if the employer is not the government.

So an employer does not need to allow an employee to face east and pray, or to chant in the break room, or to wear a tallit or yarmulke, or to use Rosary beads, for example?  And that company can close their doors to any customer they like, as long as that closure is based on a First Amendment application of religious freedom?  Which seems to mean that people don't have religious freedom, but employers do?  Is this another one of those 'corporations are people too' things?   As I said, I get so confused.

What's not confusing is the statement below, which is prominently displayed on the main page of Governor Bryant's official web page, under the headline Rising Together

I call on every Mississippian, no matter what our race or region or party, to rise above our petty differences and build together the Mississippi our citizens deserve. Let us go forward from this time and place, unafraid to make the bold changes that will help us rise together. 

I guess now Mississippi is the Mississippi the citizens deserve.

That rising together thing, well, I think that'll have to wait until people are done using their religion as an excuse.

Yes, I'd Be Happy To Serve You

But first, can I ask you a few questions?

1. Are you single or married?
2. If you're single, why aren't you married? 
3. If you're married, are you married to a man or a woman? Are you of the same race or different races?
4. If you're not married, please describe your living arrangements. Do you live alone? With a roommate? A friend? A friend with benefits? Life partner? Other? Is the roommate/friend/friend with benefits/life partner a man or a woman? If Other, please describe.
5. Do you have any children? If yes, how many and what are their ages? If you do not have any children, why not?
6. Are you employed? If yes, please provide verification of employment. If not employed, what do you do all day? 
7. Have you ever had sexual intercourse for non-procreative purposes? Please describe.
8. Did you vote in the last election? Do you typically vote Republican? Democratic?
9. Are you currently wearing makeup?  If yes, why? 
10. Have you ever had a surgical procedure? Was the procedure elective? Was the procedure cosmetic?
11. Do you believe in vaccinating children?
12. Please describe your views on abortion. In detail. Include specifics about vaginal ultrasound procedures, how long the grass can be at an abortion clinic, parental notification, how high a bounty should be offered to people who identify women seeking an abortion after a specific time period has passed since her last period, the number of abortionists that can be allowed within a 100-square mile area, the number of protesters that can be allowed within six inches of a prospective abortion patient, how many visits a prospective abortion patient must have before having the procedure, and so on. Leave no stone unturned on this one.
13. Do you believe that infertility treatment is medically necessary? How about erectile dysfunction drugs? Do you believe in contraception?
14. Do you believe the government has the right to order parents or guardians to obtain medical treatment in any circumstance? If yes, please describe.
15. Do you believe that the government can order a patient to be placed on artificial life support, for any reason, against the expressed wishes of the patient and/or the patient's family?
16. Do you believe that the government can order artificial life support to be removed from a brain-dead patient, against the expressed wishes of the patient/patient's family, for any reason, under any circumstances?
17. Do you believe the government can prevent parents from getting medical treatment for their children?
18. Do you own any guns? How many? What kind? For how long? Have you had a background check? If yes, when? Do you have a concealed carry permit?  Are you carrying now? Have you ever fired your gun? If yes, when? What training did you receive on how to use your weapon? When was the training? Who provided it?
19. When was the last time you attended worship services? Where? Describe your religion in 140 characters or less.
20. If your faith includes confession, what was the last sin you confessed, and when?
21. Have you ever received food stamps, welfare, housing assistance, childcare assistance, energy assistance, Medicaid, or any other unearned governmental benefit? Please explain. 
22. Do you believe that women are subservient to men? Explain.
23. Do you believe the government should subsidize faith-based schools directly or through tax credits to parents of children attending the schools? If yes, at what grade level would this be appropriate?
24. Do you believe that only a creche and a Christmas tree should be displayed on government property, and that Christmas is the only legitimate holiday celebrated in December?
25. Do you believe in the spiritual benefits of psychotropic drugs such as marijuana, peyote, psilocybin, and related substances? Have you ever used any such drug for spiritual or other purposes? Explain. 
26. Do you believe in capital punishment? If yes, under what circumstances? If not, why not?

Please feel free to browse the store while I review your responses. Assuming all goes well,  I should be right with you. Oh wait, you have some questions for me before you decide if you want to do business with me?  Well, I guess that would be OK...

=================  

I'm not trying to make a mockery of anyone's religion or deeply held beliefs; I'm making a mockery of government-supported discrimination.  I'm making a mockery of laws like SB 1062 in Arizona, which is pending a signature or a veto from Governor Jan Brewer. I'm making a mockery of politicians like Steve Pierce, who voted for the bill before calling for a veto or repeal, because, like so many Republicans who denounce equality, he noted

I have friends that are gay, and I wouldn't do anything to hurt them.

This bill and others like it are being tagged with the rainbow flag, but they would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone else for any reason they could describe as a deeply held religious belief.  Wiccans could discriminate against Jews who could discriminate against Catholics who could discriminate against Baptists who could discriminate against Mormons who could discriminate against Christian Scientists who could discriminate against atheists who could discriminate against Lutherans who could discriminate against deists, any of who could discriminate against me for living in sin with My Sweet Baboo, if they so chose, or against him for being divorced, if they so chose, or for whatever reason they chose.

This fight is not about gays; it's about PEOPLE.

It's about not making laws that say it's OK to discriminate against people, whether they're in a protected class or not.

It's about remembering that we had government-sanctioned discrimination before we had protected classes.

It's about remembering that those days were not our brightest, shiniest moments.

It's about not going backward in the name of freedom.

Round em up! Head em out!

Git along, little extreme conservatives! Git along right out of New York! We don't want your kind here!

That's what Andrew Cuomo said about them, on a radio interview last week.  I know it's true because I saw it on Facebook. See, it's right here in this post that was on a friend's page:

January 18th. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is the latest in a long line of oh so "tolerant" Dems. On Friday the possible 2016 Dem presidential nominee said this about the NY Republicans who are against his gun control SAFE Act: "Who are they Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that's who they are and they're extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York because that's not who new Yorkers are."  Wow, is this guy a Dem or a member of the National Socialist Party? So fair warning Empire Staters, if you're pro-life, pro-Second Amendment or pro-traditional marriage, Andrew says pack your bags and get out. Better do it quickly before the Governor puts you on a train and sends you to a "special camp." Time for Cuomo to build his socialist utopia without any more "extreme conservative" tax revenue. Good luck with that, Andy.

I also know it happened, that the extreme conservatives have to get out of New York because a local TV station showed a portion of the transcript with just the inflammatory words shown, and then went on to interview someone who, by his own admission does not meet all three of the qualifications, but the reporter ignored that fact and blithely carried on with the story. The best part was that, in the anchor chat following his story, both the reporter and the anchor talked about the importance of context -- not taking the words as a standalone comment, but that the full context needed to be considered in order to form an opinion. And then they ended the story without any context.

Well, here's transcript of the relevant section of Cuomo's interview with Susan Arbetter, host of the Capitol Pressroom. Note that the transcript was released by Cuomo's office in response to an article in the New York Post, which the Sonofa Governor thought presented his views in a 'distorted' way. I have listened to the tape of the broadcast and the transcript is very accurate; I tried to use some punctuation and to illustrate the emphasis you can hear in the recording.

To set the stage, Cuomo and Arbetter were talking about money, who's donating, and the fact that Cuomo seems to be getting money from many Republicans, not just from Dems.  Arbetter made the point that some might think Cuomo was moving away from his 'progressive roots' and Cuomo gave this long rambling answer:

I don't think that that is right Susan. I think it is a very important point, but I don't think it's that I'm less of a Democrat, I think what you're seeing is, you have a schism within the Republican Party. You have the Republican party searching for identity, they are searching to define their soul. That is what is going on. Is it the Republican party that is a moderate party or is it a conservative party? That is what they are trying to figure out and it is very interesting because it is a mirror of what is going on in Washington, right? The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It is more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans. And a moderate Republican in Washington can't figure out how to deal with the extreme Republicans. And the moderate Republicans are afraid of the extreme conservative Republicans in Washington in my opinion.

All good so far -- that same opinion has been expressed by many of the talking heads and yes, Republicans in DC, including in the House, where Speaker Boehner has very little control over his own party.

The answer goes on (as I said, it was long and rambling)

You've seen that play out in New York, their SAFE Act, the Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act.  It was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats, their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York, because that is not who New Yorkers are. 

Now, to this point the satirical blogger who was quoted on my friend's Facebook page has the transcript right -- the part she chose to pay attention to. But there's more:

Moderate Republicans like in the Senate (he's referring to the NY Senate not DC) right now and control the Senate. Moderate Republicans have a place in this state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican. But not as what you are hearing from them on the far right, not this clash that you are getting from the quote unquote "power brokers" of the party now. "We are right to life, we are pro- assault weapon, or anti-gay"....

Arbetter then asks Cuomo about comments from one of those Republican party "power brokers" who has asked Republicans not to endorse Cuomo.  Lets pick up there:

I think he did that in reaction to the meetings we were having. You know, moderate Republicans I work with; moderate republicans passed my agenda, for the past three years.  They want to criticize my record? My record was passed by the moderate Republicans, so they are criticizing themselves and this really isn't about me, Susan. This is "who are they?" And who is going to win between the conservative Republicans, the extremely conservative Republicans and the moderately conservative Republicans.  And literally, look at the issues they pick...

And here's where the crux of the issue comes in, folks -- not the comment about there's no place for them, which was a great sound bite, but here's why he said that:

 Are we right to life or are we pro-choice? Well, if you are right to life, that is your opinion and that's your religious belief, that's fine - but that is not the opinion of this sate, 70% are pro-choice in this state.

"Well, we are anti-gun control," that is fine. 70% of this state wants intelligent gun control. (Note: including, as I've pointed out before, many folks who are mostly unhappy with how the SAFE Act was passed, and who agree with two-thirds or more of the law itself - I have 'conservative' friends who would go even farther than the SAFE Act did in some areas).

 "We don't agree with gay marriage, we are anti-gay," that is fine, but 70% of this state (about), is now pro-gay marriage.

So figure out who you are and figure out if you are of an extreme conservative philosophy and if you can survive in this state. And the answer is no.  

Well, alrighty then.

There's the context that our news reporters didn't want to talk about, but wanted you to look up yourself. There's no trains to special camps, there's no rounding up conservatives and sending them on their way, no kicking them out of The Empire State.

There's just the numbers, expressed in opinion polls, that show that New York - gasp - is relatively liberal, and to Cuomo's point, it's a bunch of moderate Republicans who are making it possible for us to be such a bastion of liberal ideals.

The issue of extremism vs conservatism, of fiscal conservatism vs extreme social conservatism, is exactly what Cuomo said it was -- an identity crisis in the Republican party and one they have to solve if they want to make any headway.  It is, as noted in the interview, their problem to solve.

Marriage Equality from the IRS is not real 'Tax Equality'

Yesterday, the Internal Revenue Service announced that they would recognize legal same-sex marriages for tax purposes, granting them the same benefits as legally married opposite-sex couples.  Even if they move to a state that doesn't have a marriage equality law. Even if they were married in a foreign country.  By golly, how progressive!

Here's a comment from Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on the decision:

Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal law that all Americans deserve. This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.

This announcement was entirely logical, based on the SCOTUS decision back in June that deemed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

The expected parties chimed in from both the 'pro' and 'con' side. For example:

The Treasury Department is grossly overstepping its authority. This is a nation of laws. Only Congress has the authority to change the law...This action continues a pattern of lawlessness across the nation where administrators and clerks have taken it upon themselves to interpret and re-write laws as they pertain to marriage. Only the legislative branches of the Federal or State governments enact or rewrite the law... This,  from Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. I'm guessing that those 'administrators and clerks' include Supreme Court Justices, who down DOMA?

This welcome clarification provides fair and consistent treatment for all legally married couples across the country. The federal government is right to recognized that people's marriages shouldn't dissolve when they cross state lines.  So said James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT Project.

This one seemed like a no-brainer for the IRS. The alternative, of course, would be to treat opposite-sex marriages the same as same-sex marriages, which I'm sure no one wants to mess with.  For example:

• Try telling an opposite-sex couple just back from their destination wedding and honeymoon on a Caribbean island that they're not really married, because they had their wedding in another country.
• Try explaining to all of those loving opposite-sex couples that got married in Las Vegas at the Elvis Wedding Chapel that their marriage is meaningless here in New York, because it happened in another state.
• Or my favorite, try telling married opposite-sex couples that they can no longer have any of the myriad benefits that go along with being married. There's more than just the tax implications, such as the one that was the reason for the Windsor/DOMA case in the first place.

If  the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, as some have suggested, then all benefits given to legally married couples should be removed.  However, if the government is going to be in the marriage business, then all legally married couples - same or opposite sex - are entitled to the same federal benefits.  That's really simple. 

What's complicated is way beyond the issue of marriage equality, and that's the thinking that somehow, every 'interest group' is entitled to some special benefit under the varied laws of the federal government and of each state.  Individuals and businesses, doctors and lawyers, farmers and bankers,  rich people and poor, military contractors and tourist traps and everyone and everything in between, have a chance at any number of reductions, credits, and benefits simply because they are, well either a person, place or thing. It's nuts.

What if, heaven forbid, we actually treated everyone equally, in just the tax code?  What if we made everyone pay their fair share, and not some manufactured share based on who they loved, their race, their location, their occupation, or how they spent their salary?

An outrage of biblical proportions, I'm sure.  The screaming that's been happening since June 26th over same sex marriage will pale in comparison to what would happen if we truly moved towards a limited government that acted with equality.

Anyone want to stick around for that?

Knock Knock. Who's there? An Iowa Republican

An Iowa Republican who?

An Iowa Republican who wants to pay judges on his state's highest court based on the decisions they make.

Judges on Iowa's Supreme Court make around $163K for their full-time jobs; state representatives like Tom Shaw (R-Laurens) make $25K for their part-time jobs (are you listening, New York?).  Shaw, upset with the unanimous decision of the justices back in 2009 on the constitutionality of gay marriage in Iowa, is one of a handful of folks proposing that the four judges still on the bench who were involved in that decision have their pay reduced to $25K, in part because

It's our job to maintain the balance of power between the three co-equal branches of  government.

Maybe it's just me, but the Legislature declaring war on the Judicial branch (and only part of it, mind you) by slashing salaries of people they don't like doesn't seem to have much at all to do with 'maintaining' the balance of power, it seems pretty much like a bald-faced power grab, doesn't it? 

The fact that the Iowa state motto is "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain" must be lost on Representative Shaw. So is this little section of the Iowa Constitution:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation: the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

In the tripartite system, the Legislature is supposed to draft bills, laws and codes that are constitutional.  The Executive branch is supposed to pass or veto them. The Judicial branch is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the law and codes.  Sometimes, there's a breakdown, usually starting with the Leg, when they miss the mark.  And when that happens, people go to court to get the final answer.

In their written decision, the justices went to great lengths to describe how they reached the conclusion that the Iowa code declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman was unconstitutional.  

Legislators have a few options when the Court decides against them: they can try and amend the law to meet constitutional requirements; they can drop the issue entirely; or they can try and amend the constitution, in which case "the people" decide (and by people, I mean corporations, unions, PACs, and so on, as well as humans who vote).

Rarely do they propose punitive damages against the judges.

This isn't about marriage equality.

Yes, the case was about marriage equality, but this issue is much larger than that --  it's a very bizarre and frightening concept generally.   Kind of makes you wonder where they could go next, doesn't it?

Knock knock.

Shots Fired: NY Marriage Equality

Author's note: this post was updated to correct a formatting issue. The content is the same as when originally published in June 2011.

Not surprisingly there've been many quotable moments leading up to and since the NY Senate voted 33 - 29 to allow same-sex marriage and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill Friday night.  Here's a sampling:

"I just probably committed political suicide." Republican Senator Mark Grisanti to a Buffalo News reporter after the vote. Grisanti, a lawyer and a Catholic, also noted that he could find no legal reason to deny same sex couples the 1300 rights that he and his wife enjoy because they're married.

"With the world watching, the Legislature, by a bipartisan vote, has said that all New Yorkers are equal under the law." Governor Andrew Cuomo, in a statement after the vote. It was barely bipartisan, but it was enough.  

"I'm sure our committee will comply with that." Onondaga County Conservative Chairman Austin Olmstead, on his state party's promise not to support anyone who voted in favor. No surprise here.

"I knew there were countless people who would welcome my vote and I knew that there were countless people who would be angered by my vote." Republican Senator Stephen Saland, the first of the undecided to support the bill. Saland was instrumental in securing the religious exceptions and ensuring that if those don't past legal muster, the whole bill becomes null and void.

"You can't teach something that you don't have, so two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."  NY Giants Super Bowl hero David Tyree.  Wondering how single moms and dads are handling this today with their sons and daughters, respectively?

“Heck, I work for Fox, man, they’ve got Glee on T.V.”  Michael Strahan, another NY Giants hero, on the potential for repercussions on supporting same sex marriage. What a great line!

“You don’t see two male dogs sleeping in the same dog house together." Clinton County legislator Sam Trombley, who also noted there would be an "HIV epidemic if this passes." Um, really? When I was younger, we had two male dogs. Winnie was a shepherd/husky mix; Sam was a spaniel/dog-down-the-street mix. The two slept curled up together all the time. Maybe it was because they had such gender-neutral names?  

At the end of the day, the world did not come to an end after the vote; it probably won't come to and end when the next state passes it, or the next one, or the next one.