Win! Win!

Standard

Washington (CNN)In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, establishing a new civil right and handing gay rights advocates a victory that until very recently would have seemed unthinkable.

The 5-4 ruling had Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.

The far-reaching decision settles one of the major civil rights fights of this era — one that has rapidly evolved in the minds of the American pubic and its leaders, including President Barack Obama. He struggled publicly with the issue and ultimately embraced same-sex marriage in the months before his 2012 re-election.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family,” Kennedy wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.”

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the Court’s “threat to American democracy.”

“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” he wrote. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

The relevant cases were argued earlier this year. Attorney John Bursch, serving as Michigan’s Special Assistant Attorney General, defended four states’ bans on gay marriage before the Court, arguing that the case was not about how to define marriage, but rather about who gets to decide the question.

The case came before the Supreme Court after several lower courts overturned state bans on gay marriage. A federal appeals court had previously ruled in favor of the state bans, with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals writing a majority opinion in line with the rationale that the issue should be decided through the political process, not the courts.

Fourteen couples and two widowers challenged the bans. Attorneys Mary Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier presented their case before the Court, arguing that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right for all people and should not be left to popular vote.

Three years after President Barack Obama first voiced his support for gay couples’ right to marry, his administration supported the same sex couples at the Supreme Court.

4 things we learned about John Roberts

“Gay and lesbian people are equal,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices at the oral arguments earlier this year. “It is simply untenable — untenable — to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.

The same-sex couples who challenged gay marriage bans in Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio were just a few of the estimated 650,000 same-sex couples in the United States, 125,000 of whom are raising children.

The challenges included same-sex couples who wanted to marry, those who sought to have their lawful out-of-state marriage recognized, as well as those who wanted to amend a birth or death certificate with their marriage status.

By the numbers: Same-sex marriage

The lead plaintiff in the case is Jim Obergefell who married his spouse John Arthur in 2013 months before Arthur died.

The couple, who lived in Ohio, had to travel to Maryland aboard a medical jet to get married when Arthur became gravely ill. And when Arthur died, Obergefell began to fight to be recognized as Arthur’s spouse on his death certificate.

Map: Where same-sex marriage is recognized in the U.S.

The plaintiffs from Michigan are April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two Detroit-area nurses who are also foster parents. They took to the courts after they took in four special-needs newborns who were either abandoned or surrendered at birth, but could not jointly adopt the children because Michigan’s adoption code requires that couples be married to adopt.

Milestones for LGBT rights

Sgt. Ijpe Dekoe and Thomas Kostura became plaintiffs in the gay marriage case after they moved to Tennessee from New York.

The pair had married in New York in 2011, but Dekoe’s position in the Army took the couple to Tennessee, which banned gay marriage and refused to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

–SCOTUS has finally stepped in where others were afraid to tread and FUCK Antonin Scalia and his dissent! Finally a sweeping tribute to freedom and a definite slap in the face to conservative cousin-fucking Duggerites!

From Followthemoney.org

Standard

Names in the News: Michigan’s DeVos Family

The DeVos family of Michigan—Republican stalwarts who have given large contributions to socially conservative ballot measure committees—didn’t hesitate to take advantage of Michigan’s new campaign finance law.1 2 The law, which doubled contribution limits, had a little-noticed quirk in timing that the DeVos family used to contribute more than $700,000 to the state’s Republican house and senate campaign committees during the course of two days.3 4

Though substantial, the $700,000 was a drop in the family’s bucket. Members of the Devos family—Richard Sr. and Helen, their sons Daniel, Douglas, and Dick, along with the sons’ spouses, Pamella, Maria, and Betsy, and grandson Richard III—have contributed $45.6 million to state campaigns since 2000. The fortune for such prolific giving stems from Richard DeVos Sr.’s role in co-founding Amway, the direct sales corporation. The family has since widened its holdings to include a variety of businesses, including an NBA franchise.

The recent spate of giving is striking for not only the size of the contributions, but because the DeVos family has not previously focused on giving to state legislative campaign committees. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics data since 2000, members of the DeVos family had given $464,394 to house and senate Republican campaign committees up until the new law took effect—meaning that in just two days the family far exceeded its previous lifetime contributions to Michigan Republican legislative campaign committees.

Previously, the DeVos family had contributed primarily to state political parties. Family members donated $5 million to the Michigan Republican Party (which Betsy DeVos chaired from 1996 until 2000), $3.7 million of which came from Richard DeVos, Sr. The family also contributed $1.1 million to the Republican Party of Florida.

TABLE 1: DeVos Family Giving to Michigan Party Committees 2000–2012
Committee Total
Michigan Republican Party $4,937,500
Michigan House Republican Campaign Committee $267,394
Michigan Senate Republican Campaign Committee $191,500
TOTAL $5,396,394

Most of Dick DeVos’ giving occurred in 2006, when he ran unsuccessfully for governor of Michigan. Of the DeVos family’s $45.6 million in giving since 2000, $35.4 million came in the form of self funding by Dick DeVos and his wife, Betsy DeVos, who donated $130,596 to his campaign. Other members of the family combined to contribute $21,935 to his gubernatorial campaign.5

TABLE 2: DeVos Family Contributions Totaling More Than $50,000 to Ballot Measures, 2000-2012
State Year Committee Amount
MI 2004 Citizens for the Protection of Marriage $50,000
FL 2006 Florida4Marriage.org $100,000
MI 2008 Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science & Experimentation $275,000
MI 2008 Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Kids $60,000
FL 2010 Protect Your Vote $100,000
MI 2012 Protecting Michigan Taxpayers $1,750,000

The DeVos family has also contributed generously to ballot measure campaigns in Michigan and Florida. Richard Sr., and Douglas and Maria DeVos, gave a total of $50,000 to support Michigan’s 2004 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In 2008, Richard DeVos6 gave $100,000 to a similar measure in Florida, while other members of the DeVos family contributed $60,000 to fight the legalization of medical marijuana in Michigan, and $275,000 to fight an attempt to legalize stem cell research in Michigan. In 2010, Richard Sr. and Helen each gave $50,000 to opposeefforts to reform redistricting in Florida. Members of the DeVos family combined to contribute $1.8 million to oppose a 2012 Michigan constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed a right to collective bargaining.

-Just a small tidbit to inform people where a great deal of the DeVos family’s money goes; into hate speech, insuring inequality, bigotry and keeping the working person in line. 

Check out this guy’s blog

Standard

The Pursuit of Ones Own Best Interests

Posted on August 30, 2013
 

It seems to me that the pursuit of one’s self interests is the founding principle of activity of all sentient beings. In fact, I would postulate that each person’s life is a continuous quest for one’s personal interests. And there is nothing wrong with such. In fact, it is simply the nature of nature if you will. No one chooses to do anything unless they truly believe it is in their best interests. That is not to say that each choice actually is in one’s best interests, that is merely to say that every person seeks their own interests with each and every decision.

Even submission and sacrifice for another is founded upon the pursuit of one’s own self interests. When a person agrees to watch a TV show that they do not care for in deference to the personal tastes of another, they likely do so because they feel that decision is in their own best interests. If for no other reason than to keep the peace, such is an effort towards one’s own personal interests.

Christians who “submit to” and “surrender” their life to Christ do so in pursuit of their own best interests. Since they truly believe that there is a “Heaven” and a “Hell”, then they choose to go to “Heaven” as a matter of seeking their own best interests throughout all eternity. In fact, were there really an afterlife with an either/or choice of Heaven or Hell, by all means the only logical choice would be to choose Heaven if for no other reason than to avoid Hell. Hence, Christianity is a prime example of an ideology based upon seeking one’s own best interests.

The pursuit of one’s best interests then being the quest by which we deliberate and make our every decision, then it seems to me that any individual’s morals and ethics are established within that context. The “best” of people live decent, clean, law abiding lives in pursuit of their own best interests. And, such a life likely is the most reasonable course as one seeks their own best interests.

Yet ultimately each person must choose and decide for themselves precisely what is in their own self interests. Such is life, and such is living. Or so it seems to me.

 

We are NOT a significant race, we are but one of MILLIONS!

Standard