Steve’s Weblog

I had posted this in 2005 after Texas passed a similar constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Just change out North Carolina where the article mentions Texas. That is all.

I saw this post on Democratic Underground today, in case anyone else was maybe wondering what it feels like, here’s one voice:

I couldn’t help but notice that your newspapers actually called it a “Texas Upholds Gay Marriage Ban, instead of Upholds Straight Marriage Defense, but we knew that’s what you meant all along.

To the 535,000 people who voted in Texas to recognize same sex marriages, many of which already exist but not yet legally, thank you, from the bottom of our hearts for being remarkable, principled, fair minded and decent humans. You did the right thing, and it means more than is possible to put into words. You recognized that my love for my family is as fierce and as powerful and as consuming as your love is for your family, and you did the right and decent and moral thing, as you would have done for your own family. Thank you, thank you.

The rest of you three out of four Texans, you can go fuck yourselves, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart, for being the apathetic fucking shitbag throwback worthless waste of piss poor protoplasm that you are. I wouldn’t give you my piss to drink if you were dying in the desert today, and I mean Darwin will get you, with a little help from me, and believe me today, I am volunteering.

The next time you ask for money for breast cancer at the supermarket, I want to know which way you voted. The next time a fireman stops me in traffic with a boot collecting for charity, I want to know which way you voted. The next time your kids come to my home by the busload for halloween or scouts or school trips, I want to know which way you voted, the next time you call me to get a cat out of your tree, pick your ancient husband up off the bathroom floor, or to rake your leaves or help find your kid’s dog, because I know that three out of four of you voted to make and keep my family illegal. You will be held accountable.

Three out of four of you voted to make my family’s life as difficult and as fragile as possible. Three out of four of you voted that my evil little nephews have a greater claim on my estate than my life partner of 9 years, or my adopted children as long as I live in the state of Texas. Three out of four of you voted to keep my life illegal and invalid. Three out of four of you assaulted my family, stepped out of your busy little evil lives and into mine to tell me, with the weight of the law, what is right for me, by taking away my rights. Three out of four of you had better watch your back now, you will be held accountable.

I want vengeance. I want to hurt your families the way you’ve hurt mine, legally, financially, socially. I want to figuratively slam you up against the wall and ask you why you think that the green-eyed marriage ban is moral, or why you think that the asian-american marriage ban or the red headed marriage ban is moral or why you petty little judgemental sons of bitches think that the gay marriage ban is moral. I want to know why you think that discriminating against my family is a family value.

I want to know why you think my family means less to me than your family means to you, why you think I should feel any less angry or devastated than you would if your family was assaulted by three out of four people that you know. I am hurting today and deeply, profoundly, even dangerously angry today, and there isn’t a lot that I can do for the pain and the rage I feel except to vent it here.

We knew it was coming, like knowing that getting pushed down the stairs means you probably will break an arm doesn’t make it hurt any less when you break it. How can we support what is right and decent in society when society won’t be right and decent to us?

We’re not waiting for your permission to live our lives. We are already married for all intents and purposes. We already have families, we just have to work A LOT harder to keep bigots from hurting us, from interfering with our families in the name of “morality” and “family values”. But a clear warning here: if you get in the way of me and mine at the hospital, you will require the services of a hospital, and I mean that literally, not figuratively. If you decide that my children no longer belong to me or that I can’t live with the person I love for the rest of my life, I can’t say in public the lengths I would go to to disabuse you of that notion, but I will invoke Darwin again.

And I am telling you right now, if you change the law to discriminate against my family, then I have no use for your fucking laws. And if you make being an American so shameful and such a paean to bigotry in the 21st century that you use a constitution to REMOVE rights rather than establish them, then I have no use for being American either.

Okay I’m ready for a pep talk now.

wow.

I’ve been riding the train in Austin for over a year now, and have some observations and tips for new riders. Capital Metro has riding instructions, but some things aren’t said, or aren’t emphasized, so here goes… These are my suggestions for adding to the How To Ride guide.

Step 1: Buy your fare. If you buy your ticket from a platform or station Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) you don’t need to validate the ticket on the platform. All tickets and passes issued from the TVM are validated upon purchase.

Don’t get on the train without a ticket or pass, Capital Metro and APD do random fare checks, and the fine is way more than what you would have spent on the fare.

Leave yourself enough time to get the ticket from the TVM before the train is scheduled to leave, and assume there will be a line of others in front of you who are buying a ticket for the first time.

Step 3: Locate your train and wait safely. What they’re suggesting here is that you should arrive in time to be on the platform when the train arrives. Running up to the platform as the train is sounding it’s horn to leave the station and shouting to passengers already on board to hold the door for you just means you will make everyone else as late as you are.

The train usually arrives a couple minutes ahead of it’s scheduled departure time to allow for passengers to get on and off. If the door is closed when you walk up to the train, press the green button on the door to open it.

Step 4: Let other passengers exit before you board the train. It is easier and faster for everyone if you allow other passengers to get off the train before you board.

There’s no smoking on the train, or on the platform.

Even though the uninsured aren’t in the insurance market per se, we all still pay for their health care because they can always go to the emergency room and are required by law to be treated. And guess who pays for their ER visit? All of us. So the GOP has its own individual mandate in this debate – they’re mandating that the rest of us pay for the health care of people who can’t afford, or simply don’t bother, getting insurance.

From RawStory:

“Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would actually result in an expansion of federal benefits and spending at a time when we know that federal spending is way out of control and our entitlement programs are unsustainable,” [John Cornyn] told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.

The CBO found in 2004 that this wasn’t the case, although even if it did, all costs could probably be offset by the federal government purchasing exactly one less F-35 fighter jet or bombing one less village in Pakistan, but anyway here was Leahy’s rebuttal that is so simple it is incredibly depressing that someone had to say this out loud:

“If you have a same sex couple, both of whom have paid into Social Security, both of whom have fulfilled all the things required, that somehow it would be wrong if they got the same benefits as an opposite sex couple would,” [Leahy] said. “Fair is fair. They paid. They should be allowed.”

Dear Mr. Dale:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Barack Obama’s decision to order the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104—199). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I strongly oppose President Obama’s decision to instruct the DOJ to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The President has elected to make this ill-informed decision based on political motivation, rather than defending a statute that was passed by Congress, signed into law by previous Administrations, and broadly supported by the American people. I firmly believe that both President Obama and his Administration have an obligation to defend and uphold federal law, regardless of personal ideology, and you may be certain that I will continue to monitor this matter closely.

As you may know, in 1996 Congress overwhelmingly passed—and former President Bill Clinton signed into law—the Defense of Marriage Act. This federal law defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife”—I firmly support this position.

Under the laws, traditions, and customs of all fifty states, marriage has historically been defined as the union of a man and a woman. However, judicial rulings—and outright lawlessness by local officials in some states—have threatened traditional marriage and moved this debate onto the national stage. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas provides lower courts with the leverage needed to invalidate traditional marriage laws. And the first major assault on traditional marriage came in Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court—citing the Lawrence decision—overturned that state’s traditional marriage law. Since this time, other activist state courts have followed Massachusetts’ lead. In light of these judicial trends, constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle agree that the Defense of Marriage Act and similar state laws are now in peril. I believe that judges should strictly interpret the law and avoid the temptation to legislate from the bench or color their rulings with personal ideology.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856

http://www.cornyn.senate.gov

Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.

PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.

You are not my friend, and I am not yours. You are supposed to represent me as a Senator from Texas, our relationship stops there.

I would expect that as a Senator you should know the difference between enforcing a law and defending a law in court. There’s no confusion, except apparently, on your part.

I’m disappointed that your constituent response email is full of misrepresentations like that. DOMA denies legally married couples in those five states where it is legal, the equal protection they are entitled to under the constitution, what’s so confusing about that?

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman, and provided that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages granted under another state’s laws. I voted for this federal law, and I continue to support it because I believe the traditional family unit should remain the foundation of our society.

On February 23, 2011, however, President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Justice Department to cease defending the constitutionality of the DOMA. The Justice Department subsequently announced that it will not defend the DOMA’s constitutionality against a legal challenge (groundless, in my view) that has been pending before a federal appeals court.

In my view, the president’s action is indefensible and undermines our entire legal system. No president should be able to pick and choose which federal laws will be upheld and which will not. Furthermore, the president’s action is guaranteed to create confusion and more lawsuits. Currently, there are only five states in which marriages for same-sex couples are performed. However, in 30 states such unions are either statutorily or constitutionally banned. The DOMA was enacted by Congress in order to protect individual states and their laws against same-sex marriages.

I will continue to support the DOMA and work with my like-minded Senate colleagues to do all that can be done to uphold this federal law. I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)

http://hutchison.senate.gov

My friend Tina showed me this over the weekend, and it seems to be working quite well so far…

Find a screen with at least one blank row of applications, then Tap and hold on the screen to bring up the Personalize screen.

Under the “Add items to Home” section, select “Widget”:

Scroll down to the “Power Control” widget, and tap to select.

The Power Control widget will let you turn on and off Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS and Synchronization. It will also allow you to set the screen brightness to low, medium or high. Since the screen is one process that seems to eat up the most energy, this setting will have the greatest impact on battery life. Setting screen brightness on low will only work at night or in very low light situations. Medium is good for most indoor situations and everyday use. High is pretty much required if you are outdoors or in a very bright light area. Obviously turning off Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS when not in use will also contribute to extended battery life.

Dear Mr. Dale:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Barack Obama’s decision to order the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104—199).  I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I strongly oppose President Obama’s decision to instruct the DOJ to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  The President has elected to make this ill-informed decision based on political motivation, rather than defending a statute that was passed by Congress, signed into law by previous Administrations, and broadly supported by the American people.  I firmly believe that both President Obama and his Administration have an obligation to defend and uphold federal law, regardless of personal ideology, and you may be certain that I will continue to monitor this matter closely.

As you may know, in 1996 Congress overwhelmingly passed—and former President Bill Clinton signed into law—the Defense of Marriage Act.  This federal law defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife”—I firmly support this position.

Under the laws, traditions, and customs of all fifty states, marriage has historically been defined as the union of a man and a woman.  However, judicial rulings—and outright lawlessness by local officials in some states—have threatened traditional marriage and moved this debate onto the national stage.  The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas provides lower courts with the leverage needed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.  And the first major assault on traditional marriage came in Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court—citing the Lawrence decision—overturned that state’s traditional marriage law.  Since this time, other activist state courts have followed Massachusetts’ lead.  In light of these judicial trends, constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle agree that the Defense of Marriage Act and similar state laws are now in peril.  I believe that judges should strictly interpret the law and avoid the temptation to legislate from the bench or color their rulings with personal ideology.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate.  Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator

517 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Tel: (202) 224-2934

Fax: (202) 228-2856

http://www.cornyn.senate.gov

Looks like we won’t have to figure out what Obama means in his SOTU address, cause Judge Carter’s gonna tell us what to think!

Rather than listening to Washington insiders blab on about what President Obama means by what he says tomorrow night, please join Congressman John Carter live online to provide TEXAS comments on the President’s State-of-the-Union address.

Immediately after having to sit through the speech on the House floor, Congressman Carter will walk back over to his office in the Cannon Building and fire up his first live webcast for this new session of Congress, Texas-in-Washington with Congressman John Carter.

Please provide your comments or questions through any of the following mediums:

Email – to JudgeCarter@gmail.com
Twitter – http://twitter.com/judgecarter
Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/judgecarter

That Facebook link for Judge Carter only works for “friends”, so he’ll have to approve your friend request before you can send him questions or comments there. And he doesn’t actually respond to anyone on Twitter, so maybe you should just email him and hope someone on his staff actually checks that address. Oh, and not to worry, the fact that he’s been in Washington since 2003, is a member of the Republican Steering Committee and Secretary of the House Republican Conference in no way indicates that he’s a Washington insider.

I can’t imagine what this bad haircut could possibly say that might approach a response to Obama’s SOTU on Tuesday.

January 21, 2011
http://carter.house.gov
	Join Congressman John Carter (TX-31) LIVE ONLINE for a webcast response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. TARGET Start Time: 9:30 p.m. Central Time (Tuesday, January 25)

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/public-opinion-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/

Today, one position has emerged as the clear preference of the majority of Americans. Seventy-five percent of Americans support open service, 17 oppose any service, and only 8 percent support the compromise position of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”