Republicans Remain Clueless on Women's Issues

With new polls showing him trailing His Democrat challenger, Charlie Crist, Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott sought an ad that would attract women voters to his side.    What he got from the College Republicans is a clueless ad that is both insulting to women - especially the segment of the women vote that Scott desperately needs - and Exhibit No. 1 of the problem of the  GOP's gender gap in general.  Contrary to what chauvinistic GOP males believe, women do care about more than shopping.  I have two bright, intelligent daughters who are far more politically savvy than these dolts think they are.    Slate looks at the clumsy GOP effort to attract women that in reality ought to be driving them into the arms of Democrats.  Here are highlights:

Today in GOP Outreach to Women: You Broads Like Wedding Dresses, Right?  At this point, it's hard not to wonder if the people being hired to do outreach to women on behalf of Republican candidates aren't all a bunch of Democratic moles. The College Republican National Committee created this ad for Rick Scott, who is running for re-election as governor of Florida, and it appears to be written by men who learned everything they know about women from reading bridal magazines. It's modeled after TLC's popular show Say Yes to the Dress, except it's called "Say Yes to the Candidate" and the "dresses" in this case are Rick Scott and Charlie Crist. 

"The Rick Scott is perfect," says our blond and youthful heroine, Brittany, admiring herself in the mirror while wearing a wedding dress, which is a thing Republicans have heard women like to wear. Her friends ooh and aah. But mom, who is of course a harridan because she dared age past 35, has other ideas. "I like the Charlie Crist," she says, as we see Brittany—an undecided voter, by the way—in a frumpier dress. "It's expensive and a little outdated, but I know best." Ominous music.

It turns out Republicans made this ad in bulk. As Bloomberg View's Jonathan Bernstein notes, "not only does Brittney 'the undecided voter' think that 'The Rick Scott is perfect,' she feels the same way about 'The Rick Snyder,' 'The Tom Corbett' and three other dresses. The ads are identical, only the candidate names change."

Was Last Week the Week Republicans Stopped Fighting Marriage Equality?

Scott Walker

With more and more younger voters and Americans in general supporting marriage equality, it seems that some in the Republican Party seem to be finally seeing the handwriting on the wall and are throttling back on their opposition to same sex marriage going nationwide.  That's not to say that they are openly supporting gay marriage since they still have to contend with the spittle flecked, knuckle dragging elements of the GOP base (.e., the Christofascists), but there does seem to be a change in the tone.  BuzzFeed looks at the past week and the apparent shift in opposition to LGBT equality and the GOP's move towards "living in the real world" to quote Senator Orrin Hatch.  Here are highlights:

While Republicans aren’t likely to join the fight for marriage equality en masse, the past week has shown that a growing core of the party is done fighting.

Since Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett announced last Thursday that he would not be appealing a ruling striking down his state’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages, two key Republican voices have signaled that Corbett is right and the fight is over.

The next day, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — one of the Republicans often discussed as a potential 2016 presidential nominee — essentially ceded the issue to federal judges.

“Any federal judge has got to look at that law not only with respect to the state’s constitution but what it means in terms of the U.S. Constitution, as well. Again, I’m not going to pretend to tell a federal judge in that regard what he or she should do about it,” Walker said, adding that “[v]oters don’t talk to [him] about that.”

Then, on Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch — a key voice for Republicans on judicial issues since the 1990s — went even further than Walker in an interview with KSL radio.

“Anybody that does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn’t been observing what’s going on,” he said. “The trend right now in the courts is to permit gay marriage, and anybody who doesn’t admit that just isn’t living in the real world.”

None of the three have gone so far as Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent did this week in announcing his support for marriage equality; all say they still support one-man, one-woman marriage. At the same time, though, they believe the country has reached a point where spending time and energy on fighting the issue is no longer worth it. And, the cry of “activist judges” has been replaced with deference to the judicial process.

They’re not alone, either. In the past year, Republican Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Brian Sandoval of Nevada stopped fighting marriage equality lawsuits over bans in their states during the course of litigation. Once the state’s supreme court ruled in favor of marriage equality in New Mexico last December, Republican Gov. Susana Martinez opposed any effort to put forth a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex couples’ marriages in the state.

And, it’s not just marriage. Corbett, before the marriage decision, had announced that he supported legislation under consideration in the state to ban anti-LGBT discrimination. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder announced a similar view on Thursday.

Read the rest of the piece.  Needless to say, there will be whining and shrieking from Christofascists like hate group leader Tony Perkins and the hate merchants at NOM. 

Governor: Pennsylvania Will Not Appeal Gay Marriage Ruling

In a move that will have the Christofascists and gay haters going berserk, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett (pictured above) has announced that he will not appeal yesterday's federal court ruling striking down that state's same sex marriage bans.  Previously, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane had refused to defend the ban which she believed to be unconstitutional.  As a result, the ruling will become final and same sex marriages will be allowed to continue and Pennsylvania will recognize same sex marriages legally performed in other marriage equality states (which means at the husband's family reunion in the late summer , we will be married under Pennsylvania law).  The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has details:

HARRISBURG — Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration won’t appeal a federal judge’s decision yesterday ruling a state law prohibiting same sex marriage unconstitutional, Mr. Corbett’s administration said this afternoon.

“I have thoroughly reviewed Judge Jones’ opinion in the Whitewood case. Given the high legal threshold set forth by Judge Jones in this case, the case is extremely unlikely to succeed on appeal. Therefore, after review of the opinion and on the advice of my Commonwealth legal team, I have decided not to appeal Judge Jones’ decision,” said a statement from Mr. Corbett’s office.

Same-sex couples have already begun applying for marriage licenses across the state and one same-sex couple was wed this afternoon in Allegheny County.

“As a Roman Catholic, the traditional teaching of my faith has not wavered. I continue to maintain the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. My duties as Governor require that I follow the laws as interpreted by the Courts and make a judgment as to the likelihood of a successful appeal,” Mr. Corbett’s statement continued.

“Throughout the debate on this important and meaningful issue, I have maintained that Commonwealth officials and agencies would follow the provisions of Pennsylvania’s marriage law unless or until a court says otherwise. The court has spoken, and I will ensure that my administration follows the provisions of Judge Jones’ order with respect for all parties.

“It is my hope that as the important issue of same-sex relationships continues to be addressed in our society, that all involved be treated with respect.”

Some of the plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Philadelphia firm Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, demanded that Pennsylvania recognize gay marriages from other states, while others sought to be married in Pennsylvania.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III gave both group of plaintiffs what they wanted.  “By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the commonwealth,” he wrote in Tuesday’s decision.

Despite the rants and moans of the Christofascists, the world will not end in Pennsylvania and heterosexual couples will continue to marry and have children.  Absolutely nothing will change except that the Christofascists will not be allowed to force their views on the public and punish gays for their non-compliance with their insidious beliefs.

UPDATED: Not unexpectedly, the hate merchants at NOM have gone into spittle flecked rants over Gov. Corbett's decision to NOT appeal yesterday's federal court ruling striking down Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban.  Here's a sample of the batshitery provided by NOM's Brian Brown:

"Governor Corbett's refusal to appeal this ruling completes the disenfranchisement of the people of Pennsylvania. For years they have been denied the right to vote on marriage. Now Governor Corbett has communicated to citizens of Pennsylvanians who have been fighting to be heard on this issue that he will join the ranks of the political elites unwilling to listen. Accordingly, Pennsylvania's voters must show Governor Corbett that he will be held accountable."

As noted before, Brown's fury is likely driven by his knowledge that his plush six figure income gig may be about over.  God forbid he have to get a real job - or perhaps move to Russia or Uganda.

Federal Court Stikes Down Pannsylvania Gay Marriage Ban

It is amazing how fast the anti-gay animus motivated state constitutional bans on same sex marriage are falling.  Today, Pennsylvania was added to the list of states where anti-gay bigotry has fallen.  And so far, no stay of the ruling has been has been issued and some couples (see image above) found judges who would waive Pennsylvania's three day waiting period have already married.  Governor Tom Corbett has indicated that he will make a statement tomorrow vis-a-vis his position on the ruling.  As you will recall, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane had refused to defend the ban which she concluded was unconstitutional.  Like all of the federal judges before him who have invalidated same sex marriage bans, Judge John E. Jones, III, held that the state had provided no meaningful justification for the ban.  Adding to the sweet irony of the ruling, Judge Jones was nominated to the bench by George W. Bush and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum had supported Jones' nomination.  The ruling is here.  Here are some excerpts:

[F]ar from affording the statute the presumption of validity,  Windsor  found DOMA unconstitutional because “no legitimate purpose overcomes  the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure.”  Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2696 (emphasis added);

The Court has . . . undertaken a more careful assessment of the justifications than the light scrutiny offered by conventional rational basis review [in examining statutes targeting women, the poor, the mentally impaired, and gays and lesbians].”). Notably, the Court’s sexual orientation jurisprudence has generally afforded considerably less deference than would be expected under usual rational-basis review.

Defendants do not advance that sexual orientation is mutable or bears a relation to ability to participate in society. Rather, they dispute only that gay and lesbian persons have suffered requisite historical discrimination and lack political power.

We agree with Plaintiffs that “[t]he fact that some forms of discrimination against gay people have ceased or become less prevalent does not change the fact that lesbian and gay people continue to live with the legacy of a long history of discrimination that created and reinforced the belief that they are an inferior class.”

In terms of state interests served by Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws, Defendants advance the following: the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children, tradition, and economic protection of Pennsylvania businesses. Defendants appear to defend only the first two aims, stating that numerous federal and state courts have agreed that responsible procreation and child-rearing are legitimate state interests and providing extensive authority for that proposition. Significantly, Defendants claim only that the objectives are “legitimate,” advancing no argument that the interests are “important” state interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny. Also, Defendants do not explain the relationship between the classification and the governmental objectives served; much less do they provide an exceedingly persuasive justification. In essence, Defendants argue within the framework of deferential review and go no further.

In sum, Defendants have failed to carry their burden, and we conclude that the classification imposed by the Marriage Laws based on sexual orientation is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. Accordingly, we hold that the Marriage Laws violate the principles of equal protection and are therefore unconstitutional.

Kudos to the Court.  Same sex marriage bans have ALWAYS been aimed at harming LGBT individuals and relegating them to an inferior status under the law.   We hear ad nausea about children needing a mother and father, yet the opponents of gay equality (i) ignore the tens of thousands of children of same sex couples and (ii) provide no causation between gay marriage and heterosexual couple divorce.  

Key Upcoming Cases in Pennsylvania Marrige Equality Fight

A reader recently asked about the status of the challenge to Pennsylvania's same sex marriage ban since this blog looks at the cases progressing in other states.  Based on the string of defeats suffered so far by states that have pandered to religious extremists and/or argued for mob majority rule, I suspect when the Pennsylvania ruling does come, it will follow the pattern we've seen in every other state at the U.S. District Court level save Nevada (which is almost guaranteed to be reversed by the 9th Circuit given its ruling in SmithKline in January).  But to answer the reader's question, the San Francisco Chronicle looks at the current status in Pennsylvania. Here are article highlights:

When U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin decides this year whether Pennsylvania must recognize same-sex marriages from other states, she'll do so from her perch above Independence Mall, where about 40 people staged an early gay rights protest in 1965.

For decades afterward, little changed on the gay marriage front. But the cultural and legal landscape has shifted rapidly since 2000, leaving Pennsylvania the last state in the region to ban gay marriage.
That could soon change as three high-profile lawsuits move through the courts.

In Philadelphia, McLaughlin is weighing the "marriage recognition" issue, which could reach the U.S. Supreme Court before the broader issue of marriage equality. Her case is set for oral arguments May 28.

"The laws have not caught up to where people actually are on this issue," said lead plaintiff Cara Palladino, 48, of Philadelphia, a Bryn Mawr University fundraiser who married Isabelle Barker, 42, in Massachusetts in 2005. "When you look around at all the challenges that we have, I think people are increasingly looking at gay marriage as ... a nonissue."

A Quinnipiac University poll last month showed that 57 percent of about 1,400 Pennsylvania voters surveyed approve of same-sex marriage, compared to 37 percent who are opposed.

Lawyers for Republican Gov. Tom Corbett believe the issue comes down to states' rights — and that neither Massachusetts, nor McLaughlin, should tell Pennsylvania how to define marriage.  "This court should ... leave to the individual state legislatures their traditional power, long recognized under the U.S. Constitution, to define the nature and character of the marital relationship within their boundaries," they wrote in a brief last month in the Palladino case.

It's not clear whether McLaughlin will rule right away. However, in June, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones is scheduled to hear a broader challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban during a two-week trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union represents 25 plaintiffs, including same-sex couples, their children, and a woman who lost her same-sex spouse. They say they have been denied financial and legal benefits that others enjoy. The ACLU plans expert testimony on such subjects as child rearing and the history of marriage, to build a record for the expected appeals.

"We think (they) will demolish any conceivable argument against marriage equality the other side could present," said Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

In a third key case pending in Commonwealth Court, Corbett's administration has asked a judge to void scores of marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples last year by Democratic local officials in Montgomery County.   "Same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history ... (and) cannot be considered a fundamental right," attorneys for the state have argued in court papers.

Gov. Corbett is sadly on the wrong side of history and will likely be viewed by history - if not already - as a modern day version of George Wallace standing in the school house door blocking blacks from attending public schools with whites.  The tide of history in America is on the side of expanding equality despite GOP efforts to drag the nation back to the 1950's.