Changing America's Insane Marijuana Laws

While west coast states seem to finally recognize that the so-called "war on drugs" has been a farce and an utter failure, states like Virginia lag behind.  The result is a swelling prison population and the disproportionate criminalization of black males in particular and often strips them of their voting rights.  This later effect likely delights the Virginia Republican Party which, candidly, would disenfranchise all blacks and minorities if it could devise a way to do so. In the city of Norfolk a movement has sprung up to decriminalize the personal use of marijuana, motivated by (i) a recognition of the havoc the current draconian laws are having on minority populations, and (ii) the hypocrisy of demonizing marijuana when the death toll and societal damage from alcohol is much worse.  A column in the New York Times looks at the long over due move to change marijuana laws which should never have been enacted in the first place.  Here are highlights:

The budtenders of the Rose City are relentlessly helpful with tips pairing a marijuana strain that is “equal parts fruity and musky” with a stimulating Sichuan dish. As Oregon, the place where empires once clashed over the global trade of beaver furs, glides into a second year of legalized recreational pot, the state is determined to show the world that a certain kind of drug prohibition belongs in history’s Dumpster.

Soon, with the likely passage of legal pot in California next month, all of the West Coast — from the tundra of Alaska to the sun-washed suburbs of San Diego — will be a confederacy of state-regulated marijuana use.

Across the Pacific, a completely a different view of drug use is playing out in the horror of the Philippines. That country is ruled by Rodrigo Duterte, a crude and brutal strongman known as the Donald Trump of the Philippines. Under his watch, more than 3,500 suspected drug users and dealers have been killed. Many of those murders are “extrajudicial,” as the State Department calls them.

Heroin is the drug of choice in small towns in New England and wide-open rural areas across the country. Blacks and Latinos use and sell drugs at roughly the same rate as whites, but 57 percent of the people locked up for a drug offense in 2014 were nonwhite.
Perhaps because so many addicts are white and suburban, or white and rural, there is now a rare bipartisan consensus emerging for wholesale reform of the drug laws.

We can start, nationwide, with marijuana. Though legalization is not without its problems — a spike in emergency room visits attributed to edible pot, persistent black market dealers — it’s mostly been no big deal. Across the legalized West, consumers frequent their corner pot shop to talk varietals and buzz strength. Homegrown gardeners pass on suggestions to avoid bud rot as harvest nears. Tax revenue from sales — though not a panacea — flows to schools and roads and treatment programs.

It all works, for the most part. And when California, now the world’s sixth largest economy, passes its legal pot measure in November as expected, it will truly be game over for this absurd form of prohibition.

So why are nearly 600,000 people arrested in the United States for simple possession of marijuana every year? And why is pot still illegal on the federal level? People in the loop of this policing circle know it is an absurd and Sisyphean use of law enforcement.

A clear majority of Americans now favor pot legalization. The problem is the federal government, which still classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, alongside heroin and L.S.D. If pot was legalized nationwide, with a tax on every sale designated for treatment, it would free up the police to get at serious crimes, while ensuring that no addict would be denied treatment for lack of funds. As with most social reforms, it only seems impossible until it’s obvious.

Judge Who Refused To Marry Same-Sex Couples Found "Unfit" for Bench

Anti-gay judge Vance Day

An Oregon state court judge who has refused to marry same sex couples has been unfit for the bench by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness.  Like lunatic County Clerk Kim Davis, Judge Vance Day believes he is above the law and can ignore the rules of Code of Judicial Conduct, much like the judge who heard my divorce did even though the Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct bars anti-gay bias on the part of judges and requires that they refuse themselves if they cannot be unbiased.  The difference is that in Oregon, the judicial review body seemingly takes its oversight duties seriously whereas in Virginia, the Judicial Review Commission is a joke based on my personal experience.  I hope Judge Day is removed from the bench and that a message is sent that judges and court clerks are not above the law.  The New Civil Rights Movement looks at this development.  Here are highlights:

A judicial oversight panel investigating complaints against Marion County, Oregon, Judge Vance Day, has recommended that the State Supreme Court remove Judge Day from the bench. Judge Day came to the panel's attention in May of 2014 when he refused to officiate at the weddings of same-sex couples after Oregon legalized marriage equality.

The Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability sent its formal recommendation to the Oregon Supreme Court this week, accusing Judge Day of discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other serious charges.

"His misconduct is not isolated. It is frequent and extensive,” the commission found. 

The commission charges Judge Day “willfully” violated ten different rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including his refusal to officiate at the marriages of same-sex couples. The commission said whenever a same-sex couple asked Judge Day to officiate, he told his staff to lie about his availability and direct them to another judge. Judge Day did not dispute that practice, but argued same-sex couples were not denied their rights because another judge was always found to marry them.

Day is only the sixth judge in the state since 2007 to have been referred for sanctions to the Supreme Court.

Virginia could stand to take some lessons from Oregon.

Oregon: Eight "Militia" Members Arrested, One Dead

One did not need to be clairvoyant to know that sooner or later the illegal seizure and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in rural Oregon would lead to violence and bloodshed. Yesterday, it happened as eight of the lunatic, sedition loving "militia" members were arrested and one other member was killed and yet another wounded.  Others remain at the refuge facilities.  Like so many right wing groups that want to subvert the government and make themselves above the law, this group had ridiculously called itself the "Citizens for Constitutional Freedom."  In fact, the group stood for lawlessness.  Sadly, few Republicans had the spines to condemn the group and its illegal actions, self-prostitution to extremists now being a hallmark of the GOP.  The New York Times has details on yesterday's long over due arrests.  Here are highlights:

Ammon Bundy, the leader of an armed seizure of a federal wildlife refuge in rural eastern Oregon, was arrested and one person was killed Tuesday afternoon in a traffic stop in rural Oregon, the F.B.I.

Seven other people, including Mr. Bundy’s brother Ryan Bundy, were arrested, the authorities said. Another person was hospitalized with injuries that were not life-threatening.

The authorities did not identify the man who was killed, but a member of the Nevada State Assembly, Michele Fiore, who has been a supporter of the Bundy family, said on Twitter that it was LaVoy Finicum. Mr. Finicum had become a de facto spokesman for the occupiers.

Community leaders demanded that the group leave, but several members were still occupying the refuge Tuesday night.

The F.B.I. and the Oregon State Police said that Mr. Bundy, his brother and three other people, including Shawna Cox, 59, of Kanab, Utah, and Ryan Waylen Payne, 32, of Anaconda, Mont., were arrested on a state highway, but they provided no further details. Ms. Cox and Mr. Payne were prominent in speaking for the refuge. Also arrested on the highway was Brian Cavalier, 44, of Bunkerville, Nev.

The authorities said only that shots were fired during the course of the arrest. Two other people: Peter Santilli, 50, of Cincinnati, and Joseph Donald O’Shaughnessy, 45, of Cottonwood, Ariz., were arrested later in Burns, and John Eric Ritzheimer, 32, turned himself in to the police in Peoria, Ariz., the authorities said. All of the defendants face a federal felony charge of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats.

Those arrested need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the law breakers still at the refuge need to either leave immediately or be removed by force.  Watch to see if any of the GOP presidential candidates condemn the lawless behavior of the extremists who occupied the wildlife refuge.

 

The GOP’s Sympathy for Sedition

When Republican politicians constantly attack the government - and other citizens - to pander to ugly elements in their party base, they are setting the stage for and building a mindset that accepts armed revolt against the government and the larger society.  This is especially true when portions of that base are pathological in their hatred towards others and view themselves literally above the law.  A column in the Washington Post looks at how today's Republican Party encourages sedition, a/k/a treason.  Note how GOP House members try to conflate armed bands with "peaceful civil disobedience."  It is laughable or insane, take your pick. Here are excerpts:

Republican lawmakers began the new year in Washington with new ideas about how to undermine the government in which they serve. 

On Wednesday, the first legislative day of the year, House conservatives gathered with reporters for their monthly “Conversations with Conservatives.” When the questioning turned to the armed rebellion in Oregon against the authority of the federal government, these representatives of the United States stood with the rebels. 

No, Congressman. Civil disobedience is when people break laws they think unjust and then peacefully face the legal consequences. The takeover of a federal wildlife facility in Oregon by armed men is sedition.

Yet not one of the 10 or so Republican House members on the panel criticized the takeover, and one, Rep. Steve Pearce (N.M.), announced his refusal to pass judgment.

It was an inauspicious start to this election year and to the second session of the 114th Congress. The Republican majority began the year not by governing but with an ostentatious show of its hostility toward government.

The House’s first substantive piece of business for the new year: another attempt to repeal Obamacare (the 62nd, by the Democrats’ tally) coupled with another stab at cutting off Planned Parenthood, one of a dozen such efforts recently to scale back abortion rights and women’s health care.

[T]here was, purely as a matter of doggedness, something impressive about the New Year’s Obamacare vote. North Korea is testing nukes, Saudi Arabia and Iran are plunging the Middle East deeper into conflict — but congressional Republicans will not be distracted from their agenda.  

[I]t’s hard to govern when your caucus is so hostile to government that it has sympathy for seditionists. Asked about the Oregon situation, Ryan deferred to Rep. Greg Walden, a member of GOP leadership who represents the area — and, as The Post’s Mike DeBonis noted, Ryan nodded agreement as Walden spoke. Walden made clear that “an armed takeover is not the way to go about it,” but he had sympathy for the rebels.  . . . . lawmakers sworn to uphold the Constitution applaud those who take up arms against the government.

The GOP’s Love Affair with Lawbreakers

The Republican Party likes to bill itself as the party that supports the rule of law and law and order, yet its base it increasingly made up of those that believe that they are above the law and that they can simply disregard and break laws that they do not like.  Such laws range from non-discrimination laws that the Christofascists break over disingenuous claims of "religious liberty" to the gun carrying lunatics and domestic terrorists that seized federal facilities in Oregon.  A column in the Washington Post rightly looks at the GOP's love affair with those who seek to break the law.  Here are highlights:

Ammon Bundy and the other armed militants occupying a federal facility at a wildlife refuge in Oregon have a beef with the administration — the Teddy Roosevelt administration.

[T] “taking of the people’s land,” the “overreach” that moved these rebels to take up arms, occurred 108 years ago, when Roosevelt — a Republican president and a great conservationist — established the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, one of 51 such refuges he set aside, “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.”

So why have the militants chosen this moment, more than a century after the fact, to “unwind all these unconstitutional land transactions,” as Bundy put it? Perhaps it’s because they think the political atmosphere now condones such anti-government activity. 

You can see why they might think so. Several of the Republican presidential candidates have been encouraging lawbreaking, winking at it or simply looking the other way.

A few months ago, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and others rushed to defend Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk jailed for refusing to obey federal law.  . . . . Cruz identified her jailing as “judicial tyranny” and said Davis was operating “under God’s authority.”

Donald Trump has put at the center of his campaign an extra-constitutional ban on admitting Muslims into the country. Marco Rubio said that if the law conflicts with the Gospel, “God’s rules always win,” and that “we are called to ignore” the government’s authority.

And, of course, there was the 2014 standoff in which Cliven Bundy, who refused to pay grazing fees for his use of federal land, got support or sympathy from Cruz, Trump, Huckabee, Rand Paul and Ben Carson. Cruz denounced the federal government for “using the jackboot of authoritarianism.”

The rancher lost much of his support when he delivered a racist rant. But not all of it:

Flirting with extremists helps conservative candidates harness the prodigious anger in the electorate. A poll released this weekend by NBC, Esquire and Survey Monkey found anger is particularly intense among Republicans: Seventy-seven percent said the news makes them angry at least once a day . . . .

So when some very angry people led by Ammon Bundy took over the (unoccupied) compound at the wildlife preserve over the weekend, the Republican presidential candidates reacted mostly with silence. A scan of tweets from Republican lawmakers also found nary a peep about the armed takeover of the federal facility.

Cruz also released a TV ad Monday protesting inadequate enforcement of the border. “The rule of law,” he says in the ad, “wasn’t meant to be broken.” That’s a fine sentiment. But to live under the rule of law we must follow all laws — not just those we like. 

Armed Extremists Vow to Continue to Occupy Federal Property

Extremists once again hiding behind the American flag

The lunacy - and some would say treason - on display in Oregon is the logical outcome of the contempt for government authority and the laws that apply to everyone that has become a hallmark of the Christofascist/Tea Party base of the Republican Party.  A mindset that has been only encouraged by the demagoguery of GOP candidates and their willingness to prostitute themselves to these ugly elements of the party base.  The good of the country seeming rarely factors into the GOP's partisanship priorities.  The irony, as noted by many on social media, is that if 150 blacks tried anything remotely comparable, the military or swat teams would have already moved in.  White extremist continue to get a pass from both the police and the media.  The New York Times looks at the unfolding saga.  Here are highlights:

The protesters arrived in this old lumber town to support a 73-year-old rancher and his son who had been sentenced to prison for setting fires that spread to federal lands. It was billed as a peaceful demonstration, but after “Amazing Grace” was sung and hugs were exchanged, a small, armed contingent declared outside a supermarket that it was taking a stand and asked who wanted to join.

So began the latest armed flare-up in a decades-long struggle between federal officials and local landowners and ranchers over how to manage the Western range. The armed anti-government group seized empty administrative buildings on a federal refuge for wildlife about 30 miles away through the snowy sagebrush, and by Sunday night, had hunkered down for what they vowed would be an indefinite standoff with the government.

“We will be here for as long as it takes,” said Ryan Payne, an Army veteran who characterized the group’s action as a liberation of public lands.

The Harney County sheriff, David M. Ward, said in a statement on Sunday, “These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

The group was led by Ammon Bundy, a rancher whose family became a symbol of antigovernment sentiment in 2014 when his father, Cliven Bundy, inspired a standoff between armed local antigovernment activists and federal officials seeking to confiscate cattle grazing illegally on federal land in Nevada. 

Residents expressed sympathy with the underlying complaints, but elected officials criticized the armed protesters as an outsider militia group whose actions had thrown their community into a harsh national glare.

“The battle was brought to us,” said Dan Nichols, a county commissioner who is a neighbor of the Hammond family. “This county isn’t supportive of what’s being done here at all. Once again, it’s a bunch of those who live without the county telling us what we need to do, how we need to be doing it and the repercussions if we don’t.” 

The Hammonds each served sentences for the arson charges, but they were ordered to report to a prison in California on Monday after a federal judge ruled that the sentences they had served were not long enough under federal law. Ms. Hammond said her husband and son would surrender themselves as ordered.

The case caused a local uproar, but it also touched a nerve with far-right groups like the one headed by Mr. Bundy. The Bundys have been organizing opposition to the government case against the Hammonds on social media in recent weeks. They described the case as a tyrannical use of federal authority.

Mr. Payne, the veteran who is also at the site, said the group was not violent. But he also said members had discussed the possibility that the standoff could turn violent.

Referring to the federal government, he added, “If they think that’s worth bringing their armies in here and harming or fouling that endeavor, we’ll just have to read the Constitution and look at our Bibles and see who’s on the right side.”

Note the reference to the Bible, the cause of so much death and horrors over the centuries.   These people are dangerous and need to be prosecuted for what they are doing. 

America's Toxic Masculinity Crisis

Being gay, one is often only too aware of the toxicity of "real man" Masculinity in Virginia.  Gays by definition pose a threat to the sensibilities and self-esteem of those whose sense of self-worth depends on their macho self-image and desperate need to be a "real man."  In the wake of the recent Oregon mass shooting, it appears that the killer,  Christopher Harper-Mercer may have been one such psychologically unbalanced American male who held a grudge against women and clung to the trappings of supposed masculinity, including an obsession with guns.  A piece in Salon looks at the shooter and the frightening online world that he seeming lived in.  Here are excerpts:

In the wake of any tragedy, there’s a natural impulse to wonder: How did this happen? Who was to blame for this? In the week since Christopher Harper-Mercer’s execution of nine students at an Oregon community college, the question has become the same: Who is at fault here? 

Wedged among the proliferation of dank memes, choruses of copycat threats, violent Pepe .gifs, and cries of “Beta Uprising,” the 4chan forum /r9k/ might be closest to actually having an answer. According to the users, women were to blame for this rampage: If “the sluts” had just given it up to Mercer, he might never have gone on to murder innocent people. As horrible as 4chan may be, this claim is seemingly backed up by Mercer’s own words. In the days leading up to the attack, he posted complaints on a number of online forums about being chaste against his wishes. In his rambling manifesto left at the scene of the crime, he reportedly wrote: “I am going to die friendless, girlfriendless, and a virgin.”

Mercer’s frustration and rage at being a virgin likely contributed to his lashing out at innocent bystanders. But the real issue wasn’t that Mercer was a virgin and that this whole thing could have been avoided with a pity-fuck. The problem is that Mercer—like the community that it seems he was a part of—felt that he wasn’t a “real” man because of it.

The state of being a man is a compilation of external influences that ultimately define whether someone is a “real” man or not. Guns, sex, and money serve as a sort of holy trinity for traditional masculinity, the tropes by which a supposedly true man is known. When it’s stripped down to its toxic core, “what is a man” ends up being defined by how many chicks he can bang, how much ass he can kick, and how much money and “status” he has. 

Of course, for all the swaggering machismo and bravado of these would-be alphas, their concept of masculinity is so fragile that a trending Twitter hashtag can threaten it. When we define so many aspects of “manhood” as being external to just existing, it means that manhood is something that can be taken away from you at any time.

[P]art of being “a man” in the traditional, hyper-masculine sense means being a virile sex machine. A (male) virgin is, thus, an aberration, a mistake, and a pretender who doesn’t deserve his penis. The incel boards and forums are full of young men complaining about how they’re subhuman, genetic refuse that mistakenly made it off the production line. They live in deep pain and resentment over the fact that they are not men the way they feel like they should be.

The more than men believe in the tropes of traditional masculinity and gender roles, the more they feel the pressure to live up to them, and the more pain they feel when they believe they fall short. But they can’t express that pain. After all, the traditional masculine man isn’t allowed to express pain, weakness, fear, or insecurity. They’re expected to be stoic, a silent pillar of strength. Their only acceptable emotion is anger. 

Violence is somethinganyone can do. When you’re feeling powerless, then you take that power back—preferably from someone else.

In fact, a study published in the medical journal Injury Prevention documents this phenomenon quite clearly: Men who feel the most male discrepancy stress (that is, who feel the worst about not being manly enough) are also the most likely to have committed violent assaults on others, as well as committing assaults with a weapon.
 
Gun manufacturers post advertisements featuring loving images of big, erect rifles with the caption: “Consider your man-card reissued.” The message is clear: You may not measure up, but you can buy a substitute to make up for it, chock full of copper-jacketed death sperm.

Charles Harper-Mercer felt he couldn’t measure up as a man by being a lover, so he decided to show the world just how big his semi-automatic murder penis was.

Mercer was someone who was obsessed with the trappings of masculinity that he felt he couldn’t measure up to and lashed out, as statistics show that so many do.

We need to recognize just how damaging it is to sell the idea of men at their worst—brutish, violent and barely in control of themselves—is the only way to be a “real” man. We’ve stuck ourselves with a toxic idea of masculinity where you continually have to prove you’re a man—being willing to hurt others in order to do so—instead of manhood being something inherent.

The defenders of toxic masculinity love to portray those who don’t conform as being unmanly or beta white-knight manginas—sexual quislings who seek to betray their gender because they can’t measure up. It’s a way of derailing the conversation, to pit people against one another rather than to accept the truth: This form of masculinity has failed us. It doesn’t produce men; it produces anger, rage, and pain. It teaches us that the only way to be a man is to aspire to be the worst in us. We can do better. We can be better.

Obviously, I hold these "real man" types in low regard.  They hold gays in low regard if not contempt, but it's really only because they hold themselves in such low regard and because gays threaten their sense of masculinity.   Behind most "real man" types you will find a homophobe worried about his own lack of masculinity regardless of the outward bravado.

The Ease With Which Mass Shooters Get Guns

As Republicans in particular are disavowing that any serious changes to America's insane gun laws are needed and trying to shift blame to mental illness and anything and everything other than the ease with which guns can be acquired.  And in most instances, we are not talking about the types of guns used by legitimate hunters or  a simple hand gun for protection in one's home (not that I believe this is a legitimate reason to have a hand gun).  Slate has put together a history of the mass shootings that have occurred since November, 2009.  In EVERY instance, some or all of the guns, including automatic weapons, were legally purchased.  What is the answer?  A drastic change in America's gun laws - perhaps something akin to what Australia enacted after a horrific mass shooting.  First, highlights from Slate:

On Thursday, after Chris Harper Mercer shot and killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, President Obama gave the latest in a tragic series of addresses in response to mass shootings in the U.S. "It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm to get his or her hands on a gun," he said.

But it is remarkably easy to get your hands on a gun in this country. Of the 11 shootings that prompted Obama to give a public address, eight were committed by gunmen who’d bought at least some of their firearms legally, some just days before their massacres. Several had histories of criminal behavior and mental illness that fell just shy of prohibiting their gun purchases—and in one case, a bureaucratic slip-up in the routine FBI background check was at fault. Here’s how the guns in each attack came into the hands of the killers.

Shooting: Military base at Fort Hood, Texas
Date: Nov. 5, 2009
Perpetrator: Nidal Hasan
Guns: FN Five-seven semiautomatic pistol and Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. He killed 13 people and injured more than 30.
How he got them: Guns Galore, a gun shop in Killeen, Texas, sold Hasan the gun legally three months before the shooting. He was not required to register the firearm on the base, because he didn’t reside there.

Shooting: Gabrielle Giffords constituent meeting in a Tucson, Arizona, parking lot
Date: Jan. 8, 2011
Perpetrator: Jared Lee Loughner
Gun: Glock 19 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. Loughner killed six people and shot 13 more, including Rep. Giffords.
How he got it: Arizona, which has some of the laxest gun laws in the country, passed a law in 2010 that allowed people to buy guns for concealed carry without a permit. Though guns cannot be sold to people with severe mental illness and though Loughner was suspended from his community college for mental health issues, no court had ever declared him mentally unfit, so his on-the-spot background check at a gun outlet came up clear.

Shooting: Movie theater in Aurora, Colorado
Date: July 20, 2012
Perpetrator: James E. Holmes
Guns: Holmes used a semiautomatic Smith & Wesson M&P15 (a variation on the military’s M16 weapons), a 12-gauge Remington 870 shotgun, and a semiautomatic .40-caliber Glock 22, killing 12 and injuring 70 . . .
How he got them: All three guns were purchased legally in 2012 between May 22 and July 6 at three different Colorado gun stores.  

Shooting: Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Date: Aug. 5, 2012
Perpetrator: Wade Michael Page
Gun: Like Holmes and Loughner, Page used a semiautomatic handgun.
How he got it: Page purchased the gun legally in a Milwaukee-area store. At the time of the shooting, the Brady Campaign on Gun Violence had named Wisconsin among the 10 states with the fewest gun restrictions.

Shooting: Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut Date: Dec. 14, 2012
Perpetrator: Adam Lanza
Guns: First, Lanza shot and killed his mother with a .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle. At the school, Lanza used an AR-15 semiautomatic, like Holmes. Lanza killed 26 people in total and injured two before killing himself.
How he got them: Both guns belonged to Lanza’s mother.

Shooting: Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.
Date: Sept. 16, 2013
Perpetrator: Aaron Alexis
Gun: Alexis began the attack with a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun (he also took a 9 mm pistol from a police officer at the scene after shooting him). He killed 12 people and injured eight before killing himself.
How he got it: Two days before the massacre, Alexis bought his shotgun at a store in Northern Virginia that claims to be the “only gun shop inside the Beltway.”

Shooting: Military base at Fort Hood, Texas
Date: April 2, 2014
Perpetrator: Ivan Lopez
Gun: .45-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P pistol. He killed three and injured 14 before killing himself.
How he got it: Lopez purchased his gun legally at the same Killeen, Texas, store that sold Hasan the gun he used in the first Fort Hood shooting. 

Shooting: Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas
Date: April 13, 2014
Suspect: Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.
Guns: Remington Model 870 shotgun and a handgun. Frazier allegedly killed three people.
How he got them: John Mark Reidle of Missouri allegedly bought the shotgun at a Missouri Walmart four days before the massacre, because Miller’s former felony conviction prohibited him from owning a gun. The handgun is of unknown provenance. 

Shooting: Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina
Date: June 18, 2015
Suspect: Dylann Roof
Gun: .45-caliber Glock. Roof killed nine people and injured one.
How he got it: A flaw in the FBI’s background check system allowed Roof to buy the handgun at a South Carolina store eight days after his 21^st birthday.  

Shooting: Two military centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee
Date: July 16, 2015
Perpetrator: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez
Guns: . . . a 12-gauge shotgun, a 9 mm handgun, and an assault weapon along the lines of an AK-47. He killed five people and injured two.
How he got them: A friend of Abdulazeez’s said the gunman had bought four firearms from an online arms sale site . . . At least some of the guns were obtained legally.

Shooting: Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon
Date: Oct. 1, 2015
Perpetrator: Chris Harper Mercer
Guns: Harper Mercer brought six guns with him on his shooting spree—five handguns and a rifle—and owned eight others, including pistols, four other rifles, and a shotgun. He killed nine people and injured seven before he was killed by police.
How he got them: All were purchased legally.

So how did Australia end its insanity and mass shootings?  Think Progress looks at the way sanity prevailed.  Here are excerpts:

In 1996, a gunman opened fire at a popular tourist destination on the Australian island of Tasmania. Using a semiautomatic rifle, he killed 35 people.

Australia responded by reforming their gun laws. High powered rifles and shotguns were banned and uniform gun licensing requirements were imposed for the guns that remained legal. The country also implemented a buyback program which resulted in the destruction of more than a million firearms. 

In the last 19 years, there have been no mass shootings in Australia, defined as five or more people being shot.

The effort in Australia was not particuarly partisan. It was led by John Howard, Australia’s very conservative Prime Minister. Rather, the gun control measures were seen as a matter of basic humanity and common sense.

America has done nothing.  In the wake of Oregon mass murder, Australians are disgusted and perplexed by the American response. . . . . The disgust is not limited to Australian shores. The New York Times struck a similar note. “Mass shootings have become an unsurprising part of American life, with lame public rituals in which politicians express grief and then retreat quickly into denial about this scourge,” the paper’s editorial board wrote Friday.

Another Mass Shooting - Thanks to the GOP and America's Insane Gun Laws

Mike Sullivan/Roseburg News-Review via AP)

Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December, 2012, there have been at least 986 mass shootings (i.e., shootings where more than 4 people were shot), with shooters killing at least 1,234 people and wounding 3,565 more.  74 of the mass shootings have involved school settings.  In some of the most horrific cases, the shooter lawfully purchased the guns used to commit mass violence and murder.  As Vox notes, the US had 29.7 firearm homicides per 1 million people in 2012, while Switzerland had 7.7, Canada had 5.1, and Germany had 1.9.  Even more frightening is the reality that the America makes up about 4.4 percent of the global population, but owns 42 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns.  Proponents of a misreading of the 2nd Amendment time and time again argue that more guns make one safer.  The data says the exact opposite.  And today, because of the failure of members of Congress, particularly Republicans who prostitute themselves to the NRA which has been documented to be funded by gun manufacturers.  Today, as a result, 10 people in Oregon lost their lives and more than a half dozen others were seriously wounded. The New York Times looks at today's carnage that is ultimately thanks to the NRA and the GOP:

A 26-year-old man opened fire on a community college campus here in this southern Oregon city on Thursday morning in a rampage that left 10 people dead and wounded seven others, the authorities said.

Students described scenes of carnage concentrated in a public speaking class that was underway in a college humanities building, and people fleeing in panic from classrooms as they heard shots ring out nearby.

The police responded as the school, Umpqua Community College, went into lockdown, and the gunman died in an exchange of gunfire, law enforcement officials said.

Law enforcement officials Thursday night identified the gunman as Chris Harper Mercer, and said he had three weapons, at least one of them a long gun and the other ones handguns. It was not clear whether he fired them all. The officials said the man lived in the Roseburg area.

Oregon is one of seven states, either from state legislation or court rulings, with provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The other states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah, and Wisconsin.

One family member ironically noted "Saddened to hear about the Oregon shooting. It actually crossed my mind while we were in Italy that I felt safer in a foreign country than in the US because of the guns and the violence in this country."  I had the same feeling in Paris back in May of this year -  even when the husband and I walked alone on nearly deserted streets late at night returning from local gay clubs.  There is something exceptional about America alright, and it is something exceptionally bad.  Every legislator who has voted against sensible gun control had an indirect hand in pulling the trigger in these murders today.

9th Circuit Rejects NOM's Attempt to Stay Oregon Marriages

NOM's hate merchant in chief, Brian Brown

Having seen opponents of gay marriage lose every court case except a lowly state court case, the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") is desperate to stay relevant - and most importantly, keep the money flowing in so that Brian Brown, et al, can live well.  One such attempt to stay in the news and keep the ignorant and bigoted sending in checks - most of NOM's financial support comes from a handful of secret donors - and give the false appearance that NOM has broad support was NOM's effort to convince the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the District Court ruling that struck down Oregon's bans on same sex marriage.  Yesterday, that effort went down in flames (the Court's opinion is here).  Here are highlights from the Oregonian:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request by a group opposing same-sex marriage in Oregon to intervene in the case.

The decision, handed down Wednesday afternoon, means the National Organization for Marriage has no route left short of appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unless NOM does appeal, any threat it posed to gay marriage in Oregon is over.   The action comes in the wake of the May 19 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane in Eugene to strike down Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage.

Supporters of same-sex marriage applauded Wednesday's decision.  "We're thrilled by the news but not surprised at all," said Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon. "There was never any merit to their proposal and they've been denied now at every turn."

Frazzini read the court's decision and called it "decisive."  "From their own filings, the National Organization for Marriage has about 100 members in Oregon," she said. "If anything, I'd characterize this entire episode as a nuisance effort on their part."

NOM, based in Washington D.C., had claimed in court filings that it deserved intervenor status on behalf of "several of its members, identified as Oregon members who provide weddings services, Oregon members who voted for Measure 36, and at least one member who is an elected Oregon county clerk," according to the five-page decision.

"We find that NOM's Oregon wedding service providers members' objections to facilitating same-gender marriage ceremonies is not sufficient" to achieve that standing, the court said.

"They could ask either that the full 9th Circuit review this or appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "But I don't think NOM ever presented a threat. Their appeals, after all, weren't based on the substantive merits of the case. It was merely a question of whether an out-of-state lobbying organization was improperly left out of the party."

The decision leaves Oregon as one of 19 states and the District of Columbia where same-gender couples can legally marry in the U.S.

Oregon School Shooter Had Interests Like the Las Vegas Shooters

Granted, not all of the shooters who go on rampages killing innocent people are wrapped up in war right and gun obsessed ideologies.  But, that said, there seem to be some striking similarities between the killers who murdered two policemen and a bystander in Las Vegas and the student who went on a shooting spree in an Oregon high school.  In both cases the guns used were legally secured - which seems to always be the case - and the shooters seemingly clung to extreme ideologies that included an obsession with guns.  What I find very frightening is the fact that Padgett, like the shooters in Kas Vegas outwardly looked "normal." The Daily Mail reports on the Oregon shooter:

Jared Michael Padgett, 15, the gunman who killed a Reynolds High School student in Portland, Oregon was a gun-obsessive who became furious with his classmates over his presentation about Hitler one week before his shooting spree.

This comes as Troutdale Police Chief Scott Anderson revealed that Padgett was armed with a legally owned AR-15 rifle, which he stole from his home and used to open fire and kill Emilio Hoffman, 14 and wound PE teacher Todd Rispler.

Police also revealed that Padgett arrived for his shooting spree on the school bus and was heavily armed, with nine loaded magazines, holding several hundred rounds carried in a guitar case - raising the possibility that he planned on committing mass murder.

Padgett, who took his own life in a locker toilet after killing Hoffman, was also carrying a handgun which he did not fire and a knife.

Freshman Kaylah Ensign, who knew Padgett since middle school, described a gun-obsessive who lost his temper last week when giving a presentation about a book on Adolf Hitler.

She told OregonLive that she did not recall the name of the book, but when they discussed the Holocaust he said, 'this is life now' and 'everything really does happen for a reason.'

Indeed, Ensign said he became extremely agitated during his presentation about the book on the Nazi leader when members of his class began to disagree with him.

'He got really uptight over it and started raising his voice,' she said, adding that 'he felt as if they were facts.'

On Padgett's Facebook page, the 15-year-old liked two tactical knife companies, M4 assault rifles and political pages such as 'Conservative American Military Veterans Against Barack Obama' and 'We WILL NOT Be Disarmed.'

These strong pro-gun opinions may have been inherited from his family. His brother-in-law Andrew Cooper wrote on Facebook that school shootings could be prevented with more armed guards.

More wasted lives and a school shooting now happens at least once a week in America yet we still have no meaningful gun control laws that would make it more difficult for the emotionally disturbed individuals to get their hands on guns.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects NOM Attempt to Stay Oregaon Gay Marriages

Trying desperately to remain relevant - at least among Christofascist donors - and to continue to attract right wing donors like the Catholic and Mormon Churches the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") petitioned the U. S. Supreme Court to stay a Federal District Court ruling that allowed same sex marriages to take place in the State of Oregon while NOM appeals the District Court ruling that rejected NOM's effort to intervene in the case. That appeal is  now before the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.   NOM sought to intervene in the District Court case after Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum indicated that she declined to defend Oregon's same-sex marriage ban.  The Ninth Circuit previous kicked NOM's request for a stay to the curb.  Apoplectic that it was not allowed to intervene, NOM filed its request with Justice Anthony Kennedy who referred the request to the full court. The justices denied NOM's request without comment.  For those trying to read the tea leaves of what the U.S. Supreme Court may do when a direct appeal of a ruling striking down a state same sex marriage ban, today's rejection of NOM's effort may not provide an accurate reading.  Here are details from BuzzFeed:

NOM’s appeal of the denial to intervene is the only matter left pending in the case because Oregon state officials had not fought the lawsuit, having agreed with the plaintiffs that the ban is unconstitutional. They had said that they would not appeal the decision if U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane struck down the ban.

In another case, that challenging Utah’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages, the Supreme Court issued a stay in January, which has led most judges hearing marriage cases since to issue a stay during any appeal. Here, however, the argument was not about whether there should be a stay of marriages during an active appeal from state officials, but instead whether NOM was likely to succeed in its attempt to intervene in the lawsuit in the first place.

Opponents of the ban were delighted with NOM's failure to intervene and futile effort at the Supreme Court.  Here is a quote via LGBTQ Nation:

“We are delighted that the court has rejected NOM’s attempt to derail marriage equality in Oregon,” said David Fidanque, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, which represented two of the four gay and lesbian couples who challenged the marriage ban. “We are confident that marriage equality in Oregon will help pave the way for marriage equality nationwide.”

Oregon Same Sex Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Today, yet another anti-gay animus motivated state constitutional and statutory ban on same sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional.  The latest domino is the state of Oregon where a U.S. District judge - like a plethora before him - ruled that that state's gay marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution.  Adding to the victory are (i) that the Court rejected the motion to intervene filed by the hate merchants at the National Association for Marriage - a group that I still suspect to be front for the Catholic and Mormon Churches - and (ii) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's refusal to grant an emergency stay of the ruling as requested by NOM, thus opening the door for same sex marriages to begin in Oregon.  The U.S.District Court's full ruling can be found here.   It goes without saying that the spittle is flying in Christofascist and professional Christian circles.  Here are some highlights from The Advocate:

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, who ruled last week that the National Organization for Marriage had no standing to defend the law in court, ruled Monday that the 2004 ban is unconstitutional, according to Oregon United for Marriage. The ruling means same-sex couples can begin marrying immediately, and local officials are reportedly ready to issue them licenses.

In his decision, McShane wrote that the couples challenging the law clearly are examples of strong relationships, although that is not a prerequisite for state recognition of marriage. He said that granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry would not have any effect on other families and couples, nor would it burden the state.

"Oregon law recognizes a marriage of love with the same equal eye that it recognizes a marriage of convenience," he wrote. "It affords the same set of rights and privileges to Tristan and Isolde that it affords to a Hollywood celebrity waking up in Las Vegas with a blurry memory and a ringed finger. It does not, however, afford these very same rights to gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry within the confines of our geographic borders."

He continued, "Because the state is unable to extend to opposite-gender relationships the full rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage, it is forced to burden, demean, and harm gay and lesbian couples and their families so long as its current marriage laws stand. ... The state's marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple's fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage."

Ron Wyden, Oregon's senior U.S. senator, cheered the decision on Twitter this afternoon shortly after the decision.

"YES! Marriage equality has come to Oregon," he wrote "Everyone should be free to marry the person they love – plain & simple."

Sen. Jeff Merkley also issued a statement upon the judge's ruling, congratulating same-sex couples on the right to marriage.

 The 9th Circuit's rejections of NOM's motion can be found here.  

36 Oregon Employers File Amicus Brief Opposing Stae Marriage Ban

In an earlier post today I noted the backlash Mozilla has been experiencing as a result of the past anti-gay bigotry of the company's newly appointed CEO.  In sharp contrast to Mozilla are 36 Oregon employers who have filed a brief opposing that states same sex marriage ban.  True, there are companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties that are anti-modernity, but increasingly big business recognizes that diversity and religious neutrality are the most conducive to success.  The Register-Guard looks at the court filing and the list of companies joining in its filing.  Here are highlights:

A coalition of 36 Oregon employers — including Nike, the University of Oregon and the Portland Timbers — have weighed in on same sex marriage, urging a judge to overturn Oregon’s ban on it.

The employer coalition filed an “amicus curiae” or, “friend of the court” legal brief today in a case before the United States District Court in Eugene, saying that the ban on same sex marriage causes significant harm to Oregon businesses.

“To attract and retain the best talent, we believe we need laws that promote diversity and inclusion, that treat all Oregonians equally and that prevent discrimination,” Nike’s general counsel, Hilary Krane, said on behalf of the coalition.

The companies that signed the amicus brief said the ban forces them “to involuntarily become the face of discrimination based on sexual orientation when they are forced to administer benefits differently for employees with a same-sex spouse in order to comply with Oregon law (e.g., income tax law). That imposes additional confusion, costs, and administrative burdens, which further harm Oregon businesses and their employees.”

Nike has taken the lead in other states in filing similar amicus briefs, which are filed by businesses, organizations or individuals who aren’t a direct party in a lawsuit, but who have an interest in it.

Other employers who joined in filing the legal brief in Oregon are: Autodesk; Celilo Group Media, Inc.; Christopher David Experience Design; Columbia Sportswear Company; EDJE Consulting; Gard Communications; Gerding Edlen; HM3 Energy, Inc.; Intel Corporation; Jubitz Family Foundation; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.; Medford Fabrication; Moda Health; Morel Ink; Neil Kelly Company; Northwest Evaluation Association; NW Natural; Oregon Business Association; Oregon Health & Science University; Oregon State University; PECI; Portland General Electric Company; Portland Public Schools; Portland State University; Powell’s Books; Russell Development Company; salesforce.com, Inc.; Standard Insurance Company; Starbucks Coffee Company; Portland Business Alliance; Tonkon Torp; Torpet LLC; and Weinstein PR.

Oral arguments are expected before the U.S. District Court on April 23.  U.S. District Judge Michael McShane has scheduled oral arguments for April 23 on two consolidated lawsuits challenging the gay marriage prohibition.

Oregon Republicans Support Same Sex Marriage

Admittedly, Oregon is not representative of most rank and file Republicans, but it is nonetheless, notable that the Oregon Republicans voted 233 -162 over the weekend and passed an endorsement of marriage equality.  Perhaps it was merely a case of accepting the inevitable now that the Ninth Circuit standard of review on anti-gay laws and amendments has pretty much rendered Oregon's same sex marriage bans unconstitutional in all but a formal ruling.  Or perhaps it is a case where some in the GOP have finally realized that changing demographics and the dying off of angry elderly Christofascists has put the handwriting on the wall.  Whatever the reason, one can imagine that there will be shrieks and flying spittle at NOM and FRC among other anti-gay hate groups.  Here are excerpts from Towleroad:

Republicans at the 50th Annual Dorchester Conference in Seaside, Oregon voted 233 -162 over the weekend in a first-ever endorsement of marriage equality by a GOP-dominated gathering of Oregon political activists, according to a press release from Freedom Oregon.

Freedom Oregon, a coalition of Republican leaders, formed earlier this year to rally Republican support for a proposed ballot initiative that would overturn Oregon’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

“There are a large number of young Republicans who are finding their voice in the party,” said Alexis Wolf, a Republican active in Freedom Oregon. “We don’t believe the freedom to express love and commitment should be limited by government.”

Said Chairman of LCR Oregon and Co-Director of Freedom Oregon James Owens, in a statement:

“The Dorchester Conference sets the tone for the GOP in Oregon for the coming year, and I’m proud to have led Log Cabin Republicans members on the floor of the convention today as we made history and moved one step closer to making marriage equality a reality for committed same-sex couples in this state. This wasn’t a vote against an anti-gay resolution, it was a vote in favor of freedom for all Oregonians — and a message to those fringe members of the Oregon Republican Party obsessed with pushing discriminatory measures similar to Arizona’s SB-1062 on the ballot in November. Today wasn’t just great — it was the absolute best outcome for Log Cabin Republicans, and a statement that Oregon Republicans are becoming more mainstream, less divided, and ready to win on issues like economic freedom, personal responsibility, lower taxes and a less intrusive government.”

Oregon's marriage equality battle is headed to a climax in 2014. Not only are there efforts toward a ballot measure underway which must qualify by July 3, two couples filed suit against the state's gay marriage ban in October.

Oregon's attorney general Ellen Rosenblum said last month that she would not defend the state's gay marriage ban in court, joining several attorneys general around the country in viewing such laws as unconstitutional following the SCOTUS ruling in the Windsor DOMA case.

The Christofascist/GOP Ruse of Protecting "Religious Freedom"

In the wake of veto of Arizona's "turn the gays away bill" by GOP Gov. Jan Brewer, there has been a great deal of shrieking by Christofascists and pundits of the far right, the latter of which have claimed that the Arizona bill was not targeted at gays  (e.g. the National Review pushed this fairy tale) even though the original promoters of the bill admitted that they wanted to protect against gays trying to sue Christian bigots who turned them away.  The defenders of the bill also ignore the fact that outside of Arizona's largest cities which have enacted their own non-discrimination ordinances, LGBT Arizonans currently have no anti-discrimination protections whatsoever.  In short, the bill was seeking to fix a problem that did not exist across most of the state.  As for the claims that such laws are not meant to solely apply to gays in the minds of the Christofascists backing them, last year Willamette Week, a small paper in Portland, Oregon, documented the disingenuousness of such claims.  Here are article highlights that are worth remembering:

Sugar, flour, eggs and water are now munitions in America’s culture war. Or so you’d think from two Oregon bakeries that recently got national attention for declining to make cakes for same-sex weddings.

The first incident, in February, involved Gresham’s Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whose owner told a lesbian couple that “we don’t do same-sex marriages.” Earlier this month, Pam Regentin, who operates Fleur Cakes out of her home in the Hood River area, also refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding.

Both bakeries cited their religious beliefs as the reason they would not make the cakes. Both describe themselves as Christian.

[An] Oregon statute makes it illegal for businesses to turn away customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

We wondered what other requests these cakemakers would decline to honor. So last week five WW reporters called these two bakeries anonymously to get price quotes for other occasions frowned upon by some Christians. Surprisingly, the people who answered the phone at each bakery were quite willing to provide baked goods for celebrations of divorces, unmarried parents, stem-cell research, non-kosher barbecues and pagan solstice parties.

We later contacted both bakeries to ask about these inconsistencies. Regentin declined to comment beyond asking whether she had been taped (she had not).

Sweet Cakes owners Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we “would even try to entrap a business” . . .

Baby Out of Wedlock

WW Asks - I’m shopping around for a nice baby shower cake for my friend. It’s her second baby with her boyfriend so I’m not looking for anything too big or fancy—probably enough to serve 15 to 20 people.

Sweet Cake says - “We have a sheet cake that will feed 30, or a 10-inch cake that would feed 30 people. The 10-inch cake is $50 and the sheet cake is $52. Or we have an 8-inch cake that would feed 15 for $40.”

Fleur says - Prices vary based on decoration and frosting, but a basic cake is $3 per serving.

Divorce Party

WW Asks - My friend is getting divorced and we’d like to throw her a little party to mark the start of her new life. Do you ever write messages on those—we’d want it to say “congratulations!”—and how much would it be for a cake that could serve about eight people?

Sweet Cake says - “A 10-inch is $29.99. That should probably do it....We can definitely do something like that.”

Fleur says - “The price for a 10-inch cheesecake is $36 and up. So it’ll be between $36 and $45, but you’re going to have to call in advance because my schedule for June and July is very busy.”

Pagan Solstice Party

WW Asks - I was calling to get a quote on a cake for a midsummer solstice party. My coven is celebrating on Friday, June 21. The decoration would be very simple: just a green pentagram. We’d like to pick it up sometime that afternoon, before the bonfire. It’ll be for about 30 people.

Sweet Cake says - “For 30 poeople we have a couple options... We have two kind of cakes you could have. About the diagram you want on the cake, I’m not sure how much extra that would be.”

Fleur says - Did not pick up phone or return messages. Acknowledged receiving requests by email but refused to comment.

Hypocrisy and lies - the hallmarks of today's "godly Christians."

Oregon AG Joins 5 States in Refusing to Defend Gay-Marriage Ban

As noted in my February column in VEER Magazine, an attorney's highest ethical duty is to the Court, not his or her client.  An attorney is ethically bound to (i) not proffer untrue facts or (ii) not misrepresent binding case law authority.  Here in Virginia, Attorney General Mark Herring recognized this ethical duty (much to the hysterical distress of Christofascists and the Republican political prostitutes) and refused to defend Virginia's foul Marshall-Newman Amendment and refused to lie to the Court about the stat of the case law on anti-gay measures.  Today, yet another state attorney general, this time Ellen Rosenblum in Oregon (pictured above), refused to defend that state's gay marriage ban stating that Oregon's ban could not be meet the level of scrutiny required.  Bloomberg.com has details.  Here are excerpts:

Oregon’s attorney general said she won’t defend her state’s ban on same-sex marriage, joining other top law enforcement officials in refusing to fight challenges to similar prohibitions in five other states. 

The law “cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review,” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a court filing today in Eugene. She said the state will continue to enforce the ban unless it’s overturned by a court.

Rosenblum followed fellow Democratic attorneys general Kamala Harris of California, Mark Herring of Virginia, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada in refusing to defend lawsuits challenging gay-marriage bans.

Litigation over the issue has spiked since a June U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating part of a law that limited federal recognition to heterosexual marriages. Since then, four courts have overturned state bans on same-sex unions. Three of those decisions are on hold pending appeal.

Rosenblum announced her refusal to defend the Oregon ban in an answer to federal lawsuits brought last year against her and Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber.

“State defendants admit that performing same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship,” she wrote in the filing. 

“The Attorney General has taken a close look at the facts, and came to the same conclusion that courts around the country and freedom-minded Oregonians have: there is no reasonable or legal justification to exclude committed gay and lesbian couples from marriage,” Mike Marshall, campaign manager for Oregon Untied for Marriage, said today in a statement. 

Rosenblum said in her own statement that while her office usually defends the state in litigation, “there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples in the same way it honors the commitments of opposite-sex couples.” 

Katharine Von Ter Stegge, who represents the Multnomah County assessor, a defendant in the lawsuits, had no immediate comment on the attorney general’s court filing.

The cases are Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 13-01834, and Rummell v. Kitzhaber, 13-02256, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (Eugene).

No doubt Rosenblum will be pilloried by the Christofasicts who prefer lies, untruths and unethical conduct over a perceived betrayal of their hate and fear based religious beliefs.
 

Oregon Orders State Agencies To Recognize Out-Of-State Gay Marriages

In a move which is in keeping with has historically been the case in terms of recognizing marriages performed in other states, the State of Oregon has ordered state agencies to recognize out of state gay marriages.  The action is separate and unrelated to the lawsuit currently pending in Oregon that challenges that state's current ban on same sex marriages being performed in that state.  It goes without saying that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the Christofacists and professional Christian crowd who cannot tolerate others not adhering to their hate and fear based version of Christianity.  Here are highlights from Willamette Week:

The state of Oregon will now recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who legally wed out of state.

In a memo sent to all state agencies today, state Chief Operating Officer Michael Jordan says any gay couple who wed in a state where same-sex marriage is legal will now be eligible for the same benefits as any other married couple.

"Oregon agencies must recognize all out-of-state marriages for the purposes of administering state programs," Jordan writes. "That includes legal, same sex marriages performed in other states and countries."

Jordan made the decision based on a legal opinion from the Oregon Department of Justice. 
"The opinion says that for years, Oregon has had a history of recognizing valid marriages that were performed in other states," says Department of Administrative Services spokesman Matt Shelby tells WW. 

For example, he says, common law marriages are one example of weddings not legal in Oregon, but legal elsewhere.

Changing Oregon's practices to recognize the union between couples of the same gender brings the state in line with the federal government, which began recognizing gay marriages last year when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act.

The opinion from the state Department of Justice does not involve the legality of allowing same-sex couples to wed in Oregon.

That question is currently under two separate challenges: both a 2014 ballot initiative to overturn the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and, as WW reported first yesterday, the ban is also being challenged in federal court.

  

Priest Chased Boy He'd Molested Down the Street in His Underwear

No, the headline of this post is not a joke.  It's based on a real news story about an Oregon priest who molested a 12 year old boy and then chased the boy down the street wearing only his underwear when the boy managed to escape.  So what id the Catholic Diocese doing with Fr. Angel Armando Perez?  Paying for his criminal defense, of course.  The episode provides a concise testimony to the utter moral bankruptcy of the Catholic Church hierarchy which is obsessed with all things sexual, carrying out a full blow jihad against and yet continues to protect predator priests.  I suspect that from the diocese's perspective, Perez's biggest sin was getting caught.  Here are story highlights:   

An Oregon priest has apologized and said he was drunk when he was caught on the street in his underwear trying to chase down a 12-year-old boy he had just molested.  The Archdiocese of Portland has said it will pay for the priest’s criminal defense, even though it was the first in the nation to declare bankruptcy in 2004, just hours before two civil trials on sex abuse allegations were to begin.

Woodburn resident James Curths told Oregon Live that shortly after midnight on Aug. 13, an out-of-breath boy ran toward him, begging for help eluding a man who was chasing him. Moments later, the Rev. Angel Armando Perez appeared, wearing only his underwear.

Curths and his sister-in-law drove the boy to his relatives’ home.  The boy gave police a detailed account of the alleged abuse and Perez was arrested later the same day.  Perez faces charges of first-degree sexual abuse, abuse of a child in the display of sexually explicit conduct, furnishing alcohol to a minor and driving under the influence of intoxicants.

Normal, well adjusted gays marrying under the CIVIL laws is a threat to western civilization according to Pope Benedict XVI, but this kind of behavior is OK as long as the public and media don't learn about it?