ok, i dont wanna hear about that judge.

while joe scarborough throws around phrases like "participate in the homosexual lifestyle", claire underwood mika brzezinksi shuts shit down.

this week in a nurtshurll

If you ever argued in favor of marriage equality, tried to fight the homophobic bans keeping LGBT families from REALLY becoming families, donated to LGBT causes, participated in a rally for gay marriage, attended a Gay Pride march - today, victory is yours. Thanks for winning this - for me, and you. For all of us. -MC

A video posted by Margaret Cho (@margaret_cho) on Jun 26, 2015 at 10:38am PDT

how we got here.

ctm gurl.

thx starla!

UPDATE

Joe is running through the halls with a rainbow flagged tied on like a cape high fiving everyone. #MarriageEquaility #LoveWins #SCOTUS

— Jill Biden (@JillBidenVeep) June 26, 2015

FYI

Proud. pic.twitter.com/9J44PCYeuQ

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 26, 2015

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed." - Justice Kennedy

andrew sullivan on gay rights

"To those who are often tempted to write off America's ability to perfect its union still further, to lead the world in the clarity of its moral and political discourse, and to resist the pull of fundamentalism when it conflicts with human dignity, let me just say: I believe. Because I have seen." (via)

that is one gay ass bridge.

minnesota just passed marriage equality, and minneapolis celebrated by doing this to one of their bridges. as the jalopnik writer points out:

"it looks like the final stage of mario kart."

ctm.

good news!

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled today that the Defense of Marriage Act, more specifically Section 3— the federal definition of marriage between one man and one woman—violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. Today's ruling makes the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the second federal court to hold DOMA unconstitutional. (via)

sing it, sister.

you can get gay married in warshington now! you have got to watch this sassy legis-lady's tender speech.

in related news, the smell jersey senate just passed a marriage equality bill. it goes to the state assembly or whatever next, and then governor chris christie promises to veto it.

Judicial Activisim Alert!

Goddamnit.  So Justice Robert B. Wiggins of the State Supreme Court of Livingston County New York decided that the ironically named New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms (for straight people only) can proceed with their case seeking to overturn the equal marriage law passed this June and nullify marriages granted under it.

The case seems to hinge entirely upon the argument that Governor Cuomo and possibly Mayor Bloomberg violated the state's Open Meetings Law while discussing the bill with the Republican caucus at the Executive Mansion and the Capitol.  Who would have thought that a threat to the legality of same-sex couples getting married in New York state would come from implications that Republicans legislators participated in bending the rules to get the bill passed?  Towelroad is saying that the Judge was pessimistic about the lawsuit's prospects, but I don't know where they're getting that insight.  However, they did provide this perspective on the claim regarding Open Meetings Laws:

some meetings were indeed private. But, the open meetings law does not explicitly require that every meeting of more than one person be open to every Joe, Tim, and Sally who's interested. Nor is it meant to uproot the entire legislative process. To invalidate one law on the grounds that some people conducted some closed door meetings would set a dangerous precedent that could invalidate nearly every law Albany passes, including every budget since the 1950s, the law that sent computer money to certain public schools, and the law that named a state building after the Rev. Diaz.

Another point of the case is that Cuomo violated the constitution by failing to hold the bill for three days before the legislature voted on it.  However, this requirement can be dismissed if the legislation requires immediate emergency action.  The Governor used admittedly flimsy logic to certify that the bill required an immediate vote, and it appears that the Judge has ruled that the Governor followed procedure and the charge has no merit.

Reverend Jason J. McGuire (pictured, nice face), executive director of  New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, stated in response to the ruling:

“We have said all along that we look forward to our day in court.  Now we will have it. The legality of our legislative process must be protected.”

I just have one question, why is it judicial activism when gays get rights through the courts, but justice when conservatives seek to take rights away from gays through the courts.

[NY Times]

gay marriage?

via

ALL VOL

donte stallworth tweets his support of marriage equality. thanks donte for being such an excellent example of the volunteer spirit.

want to be terrified into supporting marriage equality?

yes ma'am!