Supreme Court Declines Prop 8, DOMA Cases For Now

The speculation will apparently continue for now as to what the U.S. Supreme Court will do with the appeal of the 9th Circuit's upholding of the invalidation of Proposition 8 and the appeals from numerous rulings finding DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, unconstitutional.  The Court could still take up the cases and the next key date will be October 1, 2012 when the Court will designate additional cases that it will consider.  Here are highlights from Box Turtle Bulletin:

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its Orders List (PDF: 136KB/10 pages) following yesterday’s conference session in which it was scheduled to consider whether to hear four LGBT-related cases. Today’s Order list indicates that the Supreme Court has agreed to accept six pending case, but the appeal of Hollingsworth v. Perry — the new name for Perry v. Brown, which itself was previously Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 — was not on the list.   It’s not clear yet though that this means that the Prop 8 case was rejected by the court. We won’t learn that until next Monday, when the Supreme Court will issue a list of cases it has decided not to hear this term. If Hollingsworth v. Perry is on that list, then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional will stand and California’s same-sex couples will have their marriage rights restored. But if Hollingsworth v. Perry is not on that list, then it means that the Supreme Court is still weighing whether to accept the case. It takes four justices to agree on hearing a case before it is accepted by the court.

The court also held off accepting the appeal of Windsor v. USA, which challenges the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. This case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behal of Edie Windsor, who is required to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes following the death of her legally-wedded wife in 2007. If she had been in an opposite-sex marriage, her estate tax bill would have been zero. Four other DOMA challenges are making their way through the Appeals courts, and the U.S. Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to hear three of those cases along with Windsor for a more comprehensive look at DOMA’s constitutionality.

The court has also, so far, declined to accept two other LGBT-related cases. In Diaz v. Brewer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer cannot withdraw domestic partner benefits from state employees without violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause  . . . . .

Newwark Archbishop Compares Gay Marriage to Incest and Attacks Pro-Gay Catholics

I've asked this question many times before: why does anyone who has not had a lobotomy or who has an IQ over a trainable retarded individual listen to anything the members of the child rapist protecting Catholic Church hierarchy?  The sex abuse scandal continues to flame around the globe and literally EVERY DAY new stories of molestations by Catholic clergy emerge and the Church continues to fight tooth and claw to deprive victims of meaningful compensation for the trauma and emotional damage they suffered.  So what do the foul princes of the Church do?  Unleash renewed and vile attacks on LGBT individuals and, now, pro-gay Catholics as well.  The latest nasty attack comes from John Myers, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey (who like his buddy Timothy Dolan in New York looks like he's never missed a meal and is living high on the hog).  Myers issued a 16 page tirade against gays and their allies within the Catholic Church and in the process cited discredited anti-gay "research."  Myers' full letter can be found here.  As I've said before, it is far past time that the IRS revoke the tax-exempt status of every Catholic diocese that has involved itself in influencing anti-gay legislation and/or supporting anti-gay political candidates. Here's an overview and a sampling from Meyers' diatribe via The New Civil Rights Movement:  

John Myers, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, has written a 16-page fear-mongering letter, called a “pastoral statement,” that compares gay marriage to incest, and suggests to his one million followers that marriage equality could lead to laws outlawing religious free speech or even imprisoning priests for preaching “God’s natural laws.” Myers also quotes the discredited anti-gay parenting “study” by Mark Regnerus as so-called proof “that the best possible environment for the healthy development of children is the presence and participation of the two biological parents in an intact family.”

“Newark Archbishop John J. Myers said the statement on gay marriage was not timed to coincide with the November election, now little more than a month away, and that he was not calling on Catholics to vote for a particular candidate,” The Record/North Jersey.com reports. “But he said they should examine the ‘full spectrum’ of each candidate, including how they stand on abortion and ‘a proper backing of marriage’.”

Most Churches are subject to IRS regulations prohibiting them from endorsing or otherwise supporting — or opposing any political candidate, or risk their tax-exempt status, a benefit that costs the American taxpayers $71 billion annually.

Parishioners in churches across the archdiocese, which covers Bergen, Hudson, Essex and Union counties, will be handed letters at church this weekend telling them about the statement and directing them to where it can be read.”    Coincidentially, one week from this Sunday, on October 7, is the Alliance Defense Fund’s annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” which radical right wing “pro-family” and religious groups flout the regulations by endorsing or opposing political candidates from the pulpit, and dare the IRS to investigate them or try to revoke their tax-eempt status.

“Myers acknowledged that a large number of Catholics seem to be at odds with church teaching, and that he wanted to reach out to them with his statement . . . .

The statement appeared to compare gay marriage to incest. “Even those who propose radically altering the definition of marriage would not advocate allowing two brothers or sisters or an uncle and his nephew to marry (say, for the tax benefits, or for hospital visiting privileges),” he wrote.

Myers also claims gay marriage will lead to the imprisonment of priests for anti-gay “religious” speech:  If our society enshrines in law a “civil” right to “marry” someone of one’s own sex, then any persons or groups that believe otherwise will be seriously disadvantaged in law and in fact..  .  .  .  How long would the state permit churches, schools or parents to teach their children that homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law if homosexual marriage were a civil right? Already in Canada and other democratic nations “hate speech” laws have been used to harass or even arrest clerics who preach the Biblical message about marriage.

As for pro-gay allies, Myers had this to say: It is my duty as your Archbishop to remind you that Catholics who do not accept the teaching of the Church on marriage and family (especially those who teach or act in private or public life contrary to the Church’s received tradition on marriage and family) by their own choice seriously harm their communion with Christ and His Church. I urge those not in communion with the Church regarding her teaching on marriage and family (or any other grave matter of faith) sincerely to re-examine their consciences, asking God for the grace of the Holy Spirit which “guide [us] to all truth” (John 16:13). If they continue to be unable to assent to or live the Church’s teaching in these matters, they must in all honesty and humility refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they can do so with integrity; to continue to receive Holy Communion while so dissenting would be objectively dishonest. 

I guess excommunication will be the next step in the Church's attacks on Catholics who support gay equality under the civil laws.  With those under 30 already leaving the Church in droves one can only hope that Myers' foul message will accelerate the exodus.

Did Romney Benefit from Amnesty for Tax Cheats?

I always maintain that one does not act like they are hiding something if they are not in fact hiding something.  Take for example Mitt and Ann "Marie Antoinette" Romney who continue to refuse to release their tax returns prior to 2010.  If there is nothing damaging in the returns, why continue to hide them and help create widespread suspicion that something amiss would be disclosed if the returns were to be made public?   A piece in Daily Kos suggests that the Romneys' intransigence comes from the strong possibility that  Mitt and Marie Antoinette sought relief under an IRS amnesty program for 1% tax cheats.  While the conjecture might be totally off base, there's only one way for the Romneys to end the speculation: release the returns.  Here are highlights from the Daily Kos piece:  

GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has been exceedingly hostile towards requests for transparency about his past tax records, only releasing his tax records for 2010 & 2011 as of yesterday (9/21/12), which essentially confirmed what even casual observers know: he's filthy rich & like most of the top 1% has accountants, tax lawyers exploit a myriad of tax loopholes, off-shore tax havens, and financial shenanigans to minimize his taxable wealth/income.

Using only the power of scientific thinking, I proffer the following falsifiable prediction:

Mitt Romney is hiding the fact that the he was one of the 5000 wealthy American tax-dodgers that Swiss bank UBS turned over to US authorities, as part of a USDOJ-brokered 2009 deal, which both fined UBS for hiding rich American's money in a massive tax-evasion scheme, and offered the 5000 rich Americans "amnesty" (from criminal prosecution, trials & prison time), if they paid back the tax revenues they stole from US Treasury during the previous years.

In other words, I hypothesize that Mitt Romney is hiding the fact that- according to US law- he should be in a federal prison, but is only free and running for to be the next US president because of the special "amnesty" program offered to 5000 American financial elite, who violated US law in order to hoard their riches in in an illegal tax-evasion scheme, which was cooked up by Swiss banks & exposed by a heroic whistleblower, who- in accord with the new 1% US morality- was the only one to be imprisoned, while Romney & his elite 1% cronies plotted his White House takeover. 

 

Here's a simple lesson for the incurious swarm of media reporters/commentators who routinely fail to ask the most important questions or connect the most "obvious" dots, or really do much more than distract & regurgitate undigested propaganda to prop up the charade that we have a healthy democracy (e.g. free press, free speech, competitive elections) of, by, and for the people.

Logical reasoning: He's hiding something else more damaging than public perception that he's hiding something, or the other tax fraud he committed. His 1% fortune put him in small sub-population UBS would likely risk recruiting for illegal tax-evasion scheme. Romney's 1% "above the law" & greedy values & dishonest character make him type of rich American to utilize illegal tax-evasion scheme. Proof he purchased "amnesty" from criminal prosecution/prison for tax evasion would be devastating & worse than bad press of being suspiciously secretive & intransparent. He already admitted to retroactively "correcting" his tax-evasion crime that was embarrassingly dishonest (claiming Utah residence until he opted to run for MA governor) that saved him more than median US income (i.e. "conscious, profitable mistakes"), so it must be something much more embarrassing and worth all the negative press he's getting for not fully disclosing like his father did.

Deduction: My hunch is that his records show he paid massive back-taxes in exchange for USDOJ offered amnesty. 

 

[I]t's worth noting that:  . . . . .The USDOJ-brokered "amnesty" deal & UBS settlement brought in about $5.75 billion in revenues to the IRS/US Treasury (i.e. approx. annual cost of 2007 bill providing health insurance to 4 million poor American kids blocked by 1 of Bush's 4 vetoes).

While my hypothesis about Romney's amnesty from prison might not be the dark secret he's hiding in his 2009 (& previous) tax records, it would certainly fit with his character and the fact that the biggest criminals and most corrupt are not only "above the law," but rewarded with more power & money, while whistleblowers & the bottom 99% are aggressively- often illegally- punished by the so-called "rule of law" that increasingly does not include fundamental constitutional or human rights.

I admit that I don't know what Romney is hiding through his refusal to release his tax returns for periods prior to 2010.  But my gut tells me he must be hiding something he considers devastating.  The premise would certainly be in keeping with Romney's arrogance and what I perceive to be his sense of entitlement.  If he wants something, he believes he should have it.  End of discussion.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

Focus on the Family Continues to Back Fraudulent "Ex-Gay" Ministries

With the changes at Exodus International and the admission by Alan Chambers that no one has every successfully changed their sexual orientation the Neanderthals and religious extremists at Focus on the Family are none too happy.  As a result, the FOTF folks have gathered up their toys and are now backing a break away "ministry" that continues to market the lie that gays can "change."  The "ministry" is disingenuously named "Restoring Hope Network" and will continue to prey on religiously brainwashed and tortured gays and their self-centered parents who cannot stand the personal embarrassment of having a gay child.  Think Progress has details.  Here are excerpts:

Focus on the Family has endorsed the Restored Hope Network, an ex-gay splinter group that broke off after Exodus International announced it would no longer try to “cure” homosexuality. Restored Hope describes homosexuality as a “perversion of God’s will for sexual holiness” and tries to “transform” gays and lesbians from being “broken sexual sinners.” Focus’ resident ex-gay, Jeff Johnston, who said recently that there are “a variety of roads into homosexuality,” described the “sexual brokenness” that Restored Hope purports to heal:

Sexually and relationally broken – just think about it for a minute:

• Because of Adam’s sin, our whole self is impacted by sin – including our identity, our sexuality and our ability to connect and maintain healthy relationships
• After they sinned, Adam and Eve feel ashamed, hide from God and begin blaming others; their eldest boy kills his brother; relational brokenness – inside families and between us and God
• Our culture is saturated with broken sexuality, and we’re exposed to it and impacted by it from childhood on; sexual brokenness runs deep in our world; it’s so much a part of our background that we don’t always notice
• Satan roams the earth like a lion, using sexual and relational brokenness to destroy individuals, families, churches, groups, businesses…

This is how conservative Christianity describes homosexuality, as “Satan roaming the earth like a lion.” It leaves no room for the very true love that same-sex couples have for each other, nor the families they are raising across this country. According to Focus on the Family, they are defective people destroying society who need to be fixed and erased. 

This whole anti-gay batshitery has a major flaw:   as the human genome project has revealed, there was no Adam and Eve and hence no "Fall."  FOTF and its allies continue to choose ignorance and bigorty rather than embrace modernity and admit that the Bible is a work of mand and anything but inerrant.

The Republican Brain Drain

Richard Cohen has a wonderful take down of the Republican Party in the Washington Post that looks at the intellectual decline of the GOP and the sad fact that the Party is no longer a party of ideas and innovation but instead a party that only looks backwards and that seeks to drag the nation back to a place in history that was never as wonderful as in the minds of the reactionaries and Christianists.  Trying to return to the 1950's simply does not address or find solutions to 2012 problems.  The GOP has a systemic problem that must be corrected: the primaries and caucuses need to be retooled to lessen the impact of the insane elements in the party.  Here are some column excerpts:

In 1980 Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination. He beat a future president, George H.W. Bush; two future Senate majority leaders, Howard Baker and Bob Dole; and two lesser-known congressmen. This year Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination. He beat a radio host, a disgraced former House speaker, a defeated Senate candidate, a former appointee of the Obama administration, a tongue-tied Texas governor, a prevaricating religious zealot who happens to serve in the House of Representatives and a cranky libertarian doctor. Where did all the talent go?

Until the Republican Party can answer this question, it makes no sense to continue to carp about Mitt Romney and the startlingly incompetent presidential campaign he’s running. His faults as a politician are manifest. He is robotic, unknowable (his own wife asserted at the national convention that “he made me laugh” and then failed to cite a single humorous moment), ideologically incoherent and severely out of touch with the average American. He is his party’s nominee because, like the one-eyed man in the valley of the blind, he is just the best of the worst.

Since Republicans are so focused on the individual and not on the system that produced him, they miss the real problem. The system in this case is the series of incredibly damaging primaries and caucuses that, in the crucial early stages, produce a candidate who could sweep Bavaria. The Iowa caucuses alone take the GOP so far to the right that it all but dooms the winner. Romney had to vow to stop thinking. He had to virtually declare himself anti-Hispanic (criticizing Texas for providing tuition discounts to the college-age children of illegal immigrants). While he has now moderated his approach, it is a bit late. Hispanic is not Spanish for Stupid.

Across the board, Romney pandered to the right. He did so on guns, abortion and even Iran. A GOP candidate has to oppose same-sex marriage, deny global warming and insist — against all evidence — that local control of education is the best.

The list of Republicans who looked at Iowa’s daunting demographics and did not run is more distinguished than those who did. At one time or another, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain (who was forced to drop out) were front-runners. Can you think of any two people less qualified for the presidency?
 
They have designed a system where, politically speaking, the lowest common denominator wins. We are all the poorer for it. 

Contrast the candidates of yore with the collection that took the field this year. The Republican Party has had a brain drain so that now its highest intellectual achievement is — like an infant in the Terrible 2s— simply to say no to everything, especially taxes.

 

Sex Toy Lawsuit: Exclusive Interview By Channel 3's Barbara Ciara

UPDATED:  Last night's on camera interview of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against United Continental for desecrating their luggage can be found here.  I hope readers will listen to the interview and draw their own conclusions.  In doing so, remember this: the zipper on the luggage was completely undamaged and the tape shown in the photo had Continental Airline's logo on it.

Last month I wrote about the lawsuit filed against United Continental Airlines by two close friends who had their luggage desecrated by personnel at Houston Intercontinental Airport in Houston as they returned from a trip to Costa Rica.  I did a companion piece on The Bilerico Project that was picked up by Huffington Post which in turn went viral and literally swept the news media around the world.  Tonight at 11:00 PM the couple gives their first on camera interview to discuss their experience and their motivations for suing the airline.  Here are highlights from WTKR-TV 3 as it promotes the interview:

 

Most people who travel tolerate the fact that strangers go through their personal belongings inside their luggage. It’s creepy thinking of someone going through your underwear, but it’s an intrusion we have come to accept in the years since 9/11.

As Barbara Ciara reports, a Norfolk couple claims baggage handlers displayed the private contents of their luggage to create public pain.  Hear their story, tonight at 11.

Barbara Ciara is well respected in Hampton Roads and has shown herself to be non-judgmental of the LGBT community.  Hopefully, the interview will do the story and my friends justice.  I will report more tomorrow after the segment airs and is available on line.

Romney’s Family Trust Invested In Chinese Companies

In addition to confirming that in 2011 Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than most secretaries, the returns also confirmed that Romney's family trust invested in Cnooc Limited, a state-owned Chinese oil company that trades with Iran, and a Chinese government controlled bank.  So much for being tough on China.  Romney's trust also bet against the U.S. dollar according to the New York Times:

The trust also invested in derivative securities linked to the Japanese stock market and to an index that includes stocks in every major country except the United States. It invested in a derivative that would profit if the dollar fell against a group of foreign currencies.

But back to Romney's Chinese investments.  Here are highlights from Gwaker:

Mitt Romney's 2011 tax returns, which were finally released today, show that Romney's family trust invested in two Chinese companies, a bank and a state-owned oil company. Then, as Romney's presidential campaign gained momentum, the trust sold the shares. This might not a big deal if Romney hadn't spent much of the past two years criticizing China for using unfair trade practices, and then faulting Obama for not being tougher on China's policies.

So while Obama was spending 43 months not being tough enough on China's trade policies, Romney's trust was trying to profit from them. And then, through pure coincidence, Romney's family trust sold their shares in the two companies just as Romney escalated his presidential campaign (and criticisms of China).

Of course, Romney would never do something as transparently manipulative as instruct his bookkeeping lackeys to match his considerable finances to some politically advantageous figure or goal.

Romney is a douche bag who will do or say anything that he deems potentially convenient at a particular moment in time.   There really isn't any other conclusion one can reach.

Paul Ryan: Leave DADT Repael Alone

Wow!  I can't wait to hear/see the reaction of the Christofascists' reaction to this: Paul Ryan stated in an interview in Florida that DADT repeal is a done deal and that the country needs to move on.  Obviously, many in the GOP - including GOP Congressman Jim Jordan who wants to undo the repeal of DADT - are not aware of Paul Ryan's latest views on DADT.    Frankly, I agree with Ryan.  I just wonder how he's going to explain his views on DADT to the Christofascists and gay haters in the GOP.  Here are highlights from WPTV-TV:

One year after the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred openly gay and lesbian service members from serving in the military, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said in an interview with WPTV NewsChannel 5 that the controversial policy should not be reinstated.

"Now that it's done, we should not reverse it," Ryan told WPTV NewsChannel 5 during a visit to Miami. "I think that would be a step in the wrong direction because people have already disclosed themselves."
Ryan was one of 160 Republicans and 15 Democrats in the House of Representatives to vote against the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in 2010.

"I think this issue is past us. It's done. And, I think we need to move on."

Can't you see the spittle flying around the offices of FRC and Focus on the Family and NOM?  I suspect one would need dress in full foul weather gear.

Nate Silver on the Statistical State of the Presidential Race

Nate Silver has a new piece in the New York Times that suggests that despite the blatantly untrue ads being put up by the Romney campaign and Karl Rove's sleazy American Crossroads PAC, Barack Obama is within the margin where past candidates with similar rankings have gone on to win the presidency.  I do NOT want anyone to get complacent, but it is encouraging to see that the Romney/Ryan ticket may be doomed.  Personally, I want the GOP to be defeated by the largest margin possible.  Only continued resounding defeats will force the GOP to reform itself and sent the Christianists and the Tea Party back to the political wilderness where they rightly belong.  Here are highlights from Nate's piece:  

With fewer than 45 days left in the presidential campaign, it’s no longer a cliché to say that every week counts. And there are a few polling-related themes we’ll be watching especially closely this week.

This is probably about the last week, for instance, in which Mitt Romney can reasonably hope that President Obama’s numbers will deteriorate organically because of a convention bounce. That is not to say that Mr. Obama’s standing could not decline later on in the race, for any number of reasons. But if they do, it will probably need to be forced by Mr. Romney’s campaign, or by developments in the news cycle, not the mere loss of post-convention momentum.

let’s consider a more basic question. What did the polling look like at this stage in past elections, and how did it compare against the actual results?

Our polling database contains surveys going back to 1936. The data is quite thin (essentially just the Gallup national poll and nothing else) through about 1968, but it’s nevertheless worth a look.

In the table below, [above] I’ve averaged the polls that were conducted 40 to 50 days before the election in each year — the time period that we find ourselves in now. (In years when there were no polls in this precise time window, I used the nearest available survey.)

The table considers the race from the standpoint of the incumbent party (designated with the color purple) and the challenging party (wearing the orange jerseys), without worrying about whether they were Democrats or Republicans. Mr. Obama’s position, for instance, is probably more analogous to that of the Republican incumbent George W. Bush in 2004 than it is to the candidate from his own party that year, John Kerry.

There has not been any tendency, at least at this stage of the race, for the contest to break toward the challenging candidate.

Instead, it’s actually the incumbent-party candidate who has gained ground on average since 1936. On average, the incumbent candidate added 4.6 percentage points between the late September polls and his actual Election Day result, whereas the challenger gained 2.5 percentage points.

To the extent there’s a useful rule of thumb about a candidate achieving 50 percent in the polls, it is this: a candidate who reaches 50 percent of the vote late in the race is almost certain to win. Below that threshold, there are fewer guarantees. But a candidate (incumbent or challenger) at 48 or 49 percent of the vote will normally be a clear favorite.

 Nate has a lot more, so read the entire article.