Tag Archives: civil liberties

A GOP Bill To End the War on Pot

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Few ideas have more support from voters and less from national politicians than legalizing marijuana. While major polls now show that most Americans back the concept, the president and leaders in Congress won’t touch the issue except to laugh it off.

Like pothead soccer dads in the sitcom Weeds, however, some of the biggest backers of legalization are turning up where you’d least expect them. Take, for example, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who last week introduced a bill designed to prevent the feds from arresting pot growers and tokers in states where the drug is legal. “This approach is consistent with responsible, constitutional, and conservative governance,” the 13-term Congressman from California’s ultraconservative Orange County told me.

Until recently, Republicans who supported ending pot prohibition were about as common as unicorns. There were US Rep. Ron Paul, and, well, some prominent former Republicans such as New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. After ditching her Alaska Governor job for a Fox News gig a few years ago, Sarah Palin finally stuck her neck out: “If somebody’s gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm,” she said on Fox’s Freedom Watch in 2010, “then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in, and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society.”

Back then that was crazy talk. Now it’s mainstream enough that Rohrabacher’s new marijuana bill has already attracted two other Republican co-sponsors: Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Don Young of Alaska.

Rohrabacher got turned on to marijuana activism about 10 years ago, when he had to spoon feed his dying mother because she’d lost her appetite. He learned that medical marijuana might help her eat. “My interest has evolved from there,” he says

Continue Reading »

Source – 

A GOP Bill To End the War on Pot

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A GOP Bill To End the War on Pot

Boy Scouts of America Proposes Dropping Ban on Gay Kids—But Not Gay Adults

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

While the nation’s attention was turned to Boston on Friday morning, the Boy Scouts of America announced that it intends to end its ban on gay members, as long as its board approves the change. The organization would still, however, prohibit gay adults from serving as troop leaders or volunteers.

The proposed new policy states, “No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.” The proposed policy also reinforces the organization’s position that “Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.” You can read the proposal here, or the media statement here.

The change would apply only to members; it does not change the policy regarding gay troop leaders or other volunteers. “The BSA will maintain the current membership policy for all adults,” Deron Smith, the group’s spokesman, told Mother Jones via email.

BSA’s long-standing ban on gay members has been a huge source of controversy. In January, the group announced that it was considering whether to allow individual troops to admit gay members but put off making a decision until May. As my colleague Dana Liebelson has reported, the group lost some major funders because of the gay ban. Most recently, a number of high-profile musical acts ditched the Boy Scouts’ annual Jamboree for this reason.

If the Scouts’ 1,400-member board approves the change at its annual meeting in May, it would take effect January 1, 2014.

See the original article here: 

Boy Scouts of America Proposes Dropping Ban on Gay Kids—But Not Gay Adults

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Boy Scouts of America Proposes Dropping Ban on Gay Kids—But Not Gay Adults

Arab American on Boston Marathon: "Everyone in This Room Is Holding Their Breath"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

p.mininav-header-text background-color: #000000 !importantMore MoJo coverage of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings


What We Know About the Boston Marathon Attack


The Man in the Cowboy Hat: Meet Carlos Arredondo, a Hero of the Boston Bombings


Question Everything You Hear About the Boston Marathon Bombing


Terror Attacks on Sporting Events, Especially Marathons, Are Surprisingly Rare


6 False Things You Heard About the Boston Bombing


These Soldiers Did the Boston Marathon Wearing 40-Pound Packs. Then They Helped Save Lives.

From House oversight committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Mich.) to Sara El-Amine, the national director of President Obama’s political nonprofit, Organizing for Action, the Arab American community can count the Obama administration’s closest political allies and enemies among their number. Both were present Tuesday night as the Arab American elite gathered to celebrate their accomplishments at a black-tie event hosted by the Arab-American Institute in Washington, DC. Yet through the revelry and clinking of glasses, and the cheerful chitchat in English and Arabic, the terrifying attack in Boston cast a shadow over the evening.

Veteran CNN and ABC News journalist Christiane Amanpour was there to receive an award named for celebrated former New York Times foreign correspondent Anthony Shadid, whose death in Syria last year was a personal loss to many in attendance. Amanpour carefully broached what she called “the elephant in the room.”

“How many of us feel this burden of association and hope beyond hope that this won’t turn out to be what we are afraid it might be?” said Amanpour, who is partially of Iranian descent. “When we know who did this, we will all unite in strong and unequivocal condemnation.”

For many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans, flashing news alerts about another attack causing mass casualties brings anxiety over whether or not the perpetrator is a member of their communities, and if so, whether they will bear collective blame for the actions of isolated extremists. It’s a sinking feeling many minority groups have to cope with. But since the 9/11 attacks, the Arab American and Muslim American communities have been frequently singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, and have faced derision even from some public officials.

Tuesday, despite carefully worded statements from law enforcement and President Obama himself stating that the motive and identity of the perpetrators remained unknown, anti-Muslim and conservative bloggers narrowed in on a young Saudi student—who was never identified by authorities as a suspect, despite erroneous news reports—as the individual responsible for the carnage in Boston. By Tuesday afternoon, authorities said he was himself a victim.

“It’s devastating, I’ve got this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach,” said one Arab American community organizer on Tuesday night. “At the same time, I’m like, can we cool it with the ‘I hope he’s not Arab or Muslim thing’?” Community groups face a catch-22 in this situation, because any preemptive action on the part of Arab and Muslim advocacy groups to respond to unsubstantiated suspicion has the effect of cementing the association between Arabs, Muslims and terrorism in the public mind.

Until those responsible for the bombings are uncovered—there were conflicting reports on Wednesday afternoon about whether authorities had arrested a suspect—Arab and Muslim Americans will be on edge. Said one Arab American activist at Tuesday’s dinner, “Everyone in this room is holding their breath.”

Link to original: 

Arab American on Boston Marathon: "Everyone in This Room Is Holding Their Breath"

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Arab American on Boston Marathon: "Everyone in This Room Is Holding Their Breath"

Inside California’s Color-Coded, Race-Based Prisons

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story first appeared on the ProPublica website.

In several men’s prisons across California, colored signs hang above cell doors: blue for black inmates, white for white, red, green or pink for Hispanic, yellow for everyone else.

Though it’s not an official policy, at least five California state prisons have a color-coding system.

On any given day, the color of a sign could mean the difference between an inmate exercising in the prison yard or being confined to their cell. When prisoners attack guards or other inmates, California allows its corrections officers to restrict all prisoners of that same race or ethnicity to prevent further violence.

Continue Reading »

Link:  

Inside California’s Color-Coded, Race-Based Prisons

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, ProPublica, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Inside California’s Color-Coded, Race-Based Prisons

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded.

That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.

Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR.

So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.

Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was.

Taken from – 

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Whatever Happened to the Obama Administration’s Review of NYPD Spying?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In early 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder promised members of Congress that the Justice Department was “actively looking at” the New York Police Department’s spying on American Muslims. Now, more than a year later, advocates—and two top Democrats—are still wondering what happened.

“I have patiently waited for the Department of Justice to complete its review of the situation, but it has been nearly two years since the story broke and over a year since the Department of Justice committed to doing a review of NYPD’s actions,” Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif), who was detained in an internment camp during World War II, told Mother Jones. Honda said that the Justice Department should “conduct a full investigation, not a simple review, of the NYPD’s numerous constitutionally questionable actions immediately.”

Muslim advocacy groups have regular interagency meetings with the federal government but have also received no official response on the matter. Nor has Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), who says he “first requested that the department conduct an investigation in response to news reports in September of 2011.” Since then, Holt adds, “I have received no substantive updates from the Justice Department, despite many follow-up inquiries. To my knowledge, no investigation has been conducted.”

Holder repeatedly promised lawmakers that the Justice Department was considering investigating the spying, telling Honda in February 2012 that the department was “reviewing” letters from members of Congress about the NYPD’s actions “to determine what action, if any, we should take.” The next month, the attorney general went even further: “Just what I’ve read in the newspapers is disturbing,” Holder told a Senate appropriations subcommittee on March 8, 2012. “There are various components within the Justice Department that are actively looking at these matters.”

The whole controversy began in August 2011, when the Associated Press published the first of a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of stories on an NYPD unit, established in 2002, that was advised by an official from the Central Intelligence Agency and engaged in broad surveillance and mapping of Muslim communities in New York and the surrounding region. (The CIA inspector general investigated the Agency’s involvement in the NYPD program concluding that its involvement was legal.) The unit’s operations were funded in part by federal grant money meant to help combat drug trafficking. Although an NYPD official admitted under oath that the unit’s work never led to a single investigation, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslim communities as necessary “to keep this country safe.” A report by the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund found that the surveillance program had a “devastating effect” on Muslim communities in the New York area, causing Muslims to censor their speech, become suspicious of those around them, and to fear that their political or academic choices could draw attention from government authorities. Last June, the Muslim civil rights group Muslim Advocates filed a lawsuit against the NYPD alleging that the department’s surveillance program violated the constitutional rights of New Jersey Muslims.

Shortly after they broke, the Associated Press stories had caused enough of a stir that members of Congress were getting involved. Holt says he first asked the Justice Department to investigate the NYPD in September 2011. Thirty-four Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Holder in December 2011 demanding a Justice Department investigation of the NYPD. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich sent a letter to Honda on February 1, 2012, assuring him that they were “reviewing your letter, the news reports that you reference, and other information regarding the allegation that law enforcement agencies may have violated the Constitution or federal law by singling out Muslims or others for police contact—stops and investigations—based upon their race, ethnicity or national origin.” Several weeks later, Holder publicly told members of both the House and Senate that the Justice Department was “reviewing” whether or not there needed to be an investigation.

Members of Congress have pressed Holder on the matter since—including at a private meeting of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus in September 2012. At that event, both Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Honda both asked Holder in person about the review. Holder told them it was ongoing. Asked by Mother Jones, a DOJ spokeswoman suggested that the department still hasn’t made up its mind, adding that “we cannot comment on matters under review.”

The question of whether or not to investigate the NYPD’s surveillance activities pits two important Obama administration priorities against each other—its aggressive, often controversial efforts to prevent another terrorist attack on the United States, which have been frequently criticized by civil libertarians, and its reinvigoration of the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Since taking office, the special litigation section of the civil rights division has investigated more local police departments for unconstitutional policing than ever before, but never on behalf of American Muslims profiled by law enforcement.

Although Holder referred to the reports of the NYPD’s actions as “disturbing,” that’s not the view of everyone in the Obama administration. CIA Director John Brennan, formerly a top White House counterterrorism adviser, praised the NYPD’s surveillance program in April 2012. “I have full confidence that the NYPD is doing things consistent with the law, and it’s something that again has been responsible for keeping this city safe over the past decade,” Brennan said.

That was at odds with Holder’s initial take. “In performing these law enforcement functions, we have to take into account, you know, cost-benefit here,” Holder told the House appropriations committee in February 2012. “You do not want to alienate a community, a group of people, so that especially impressionable young people think that their government is against them. And then, you know, the siren song that they hear from people who they can access on the internet becomes something that becomes more persuasive to them.”

This piece previously stated that the CIA Inspector General was investigating the Agency’s involvement with the NYPD, that investigation has been concluded.

Link to original – 

Whatever Happened to the Obama Administration’s Review of NYPD Spying?

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whatever Happened to the Obama Administration’s Review of NYPD Spying?

Cuccinelli Wants a Rehearing on Virginia’s Anti-Sodomy Law

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last month, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond deemed a Virginia anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The provision, part of the state’s “Crimes Against Nature” law, has been moot since the 2003 US Supreme Court decision overruled state laws barring consensual gay sex. The law also bars consensual straight anal and oral sex as well, lest ye heteros think Cuccinelli isn’t also worried about your sex life.

But that apparently doesn’t matter to Virginia Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, who is asking the court to reconsider, reports the Washington Blade:

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state’s sodomy law.
The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on March 12 that a section of Virginia’s “Crimes Against Nature” statute that outlaws sodomy between consenting adults, gay or straight, is unconstitutional based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 known as Lawrence v. Texas.
A clerk with the 4th Circuit appeals court said a representative of the Virginia Attorney General’s office filed the petition on Cuccinelli’s behalf on March 26. The petition requests what is known as an en banc hearing before the full 15 judges to reconsider the earlier ruling by the three-judge panel.

Mother Jones confirmed that Cuccinelli had filed the request with the court as well. Given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that gay sex is OK and moved on to the question of gay marriage, I wouldn’t expect his appeal to go very far.

Link:  

Cuccinelli Wants a Rehearing on Virginia’s Anti-Sodomy Law

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Cuccinelli Wants a Rehearing on Virginia’s Anti-Sodomy Law

Nearly Four Years After Dr. Tiller’s Murder, Wichita Has An Abortion Clinic Again

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For the first time in nearly four years, women in Wichita have access to an abortion clinic. South Wind Women’s Center plans to open its doors this week, and will provide abortions in the city for the first time since an anti-abortion extremist murdered Dr. George Tiller in May 2009.

The clinic, run by former Tiller spokeswoman Julie Burkhart, will provide abortions up to the 14th week, along with gynecological services like pap smears, breast exams, birth control prescriptions, and prenatal care. I talked to Burkhart in February about reopening the clinic:

Mother Jones: Wichita has been the subject of so much attention from both anti- and pro-choice activists. What is the significance of reopening the clinic?
Julie Burkhart: First and foremost, we want to make sure that women who need to see us, want to come see us, are able to access care. We’re looking at a few thousand women who now have to travel outside the area each year. Secondly, what it says is that no matter where you live in the United States of America, women will have access to reproductive health care. This community has just been so embroiled in the abortion…I hate to say the abortion “debate,” but just the turmoil. Some people would say, “Just leave it alone and let it go.” However, we can’t really have true freedom in this country until everyone can access that right.
Why, just because we live in Kansas, in the middle of the country, should women be faced with more hardship? Why should it just be women on the coast where the laws are typically more liberal that have access to abortion care? I hope that’s what people get out of this—that no matter where you are as a woman, you’re entitled to that right.

Read the full interview here.

Read the article: 

Nearly Four Years After Dr. Tiller’s Murder, Wichita Has An Abortion Clinic Again

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nearly Four Years After Dr. Tiller’s Murder, Wichita Has An Abortion Clinic Again

The Civil Rights Division Is Kicking Butt, Says the Civil Rights Division

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama nominated Thomas Perez, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, to run the Department of Labor. Now, with Republicans scrambling to find any excuse block Perez’ appointment, the civil rights division has issued a report detailing its accomplishments over the past four years.

“For more than 50 years, the Division has enforced federal laws that prohibit discrimination and uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all who live in America,” the report reads. “Over the past four years, the Division has worked to restore and expand this critical mission.” The report has been in the works since prior to Perez’ nomination as labor secretary.

The word “restore” is a backhanded critique of the Bush administration, during which enforcement of civil rights laws dropped and the leadership of the civil rights division was found to be deeply politicized. Under Perez, the division claims to have worked on more voting rights cases, agreements with local police addressing misconduct, and hate crimes convictions than ever before, while acquiring the highest fair housing discrimination settlements in history. Civil rights advocacy groups tend to share the leadership of the division’s view that things have improved tremendously since the Bush years.

Here’s the division’s fact sheet touting its record:

dc.embed.loadNote(‘http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/628527/annotations/97580.js’);

Perez himself has been under fire from Republicans because of a recent Department of Justice Inspector General report that found lingering partisan divides in the voting section while knocking down almost all of the criticisms the GOP has leveled in the division’s direction. Republicans are also angry that Perez helped cut a deal that prevented the Fair Housing Act being gutted by the Supreme Court. But given the modern GOP’s hostility to many civil rights laws as unjust federal infringement on state’s rights, a strong record of enforcement in the civil rights division may just be another reason for Republicans to oppose his nomination.

Mother Jones
This article is from: 

The Civil Rights Division Is Kicking Butt, Says the Civil Rights Division

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Civil Rights Division Is Kicking Butt, Says the Civil Rights Division

At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes’ Best Argument Is That They’re Losing

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

More Mother Jones coverage of gay rights and marriage equality


The Anti-Marriage Equality Movement Meets on the Mallâ&#128;&#148;and Tries to Think Happy Thoughts


At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes’ Best Argument Is That They’re Losing


Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality


Which Politicians Supported Gay Marriage and When?


The Supreme Court’s Big Gay-Marriage Week, Explained


VIDEO: The 5 Most Comically Bad Anti-Gay Ads, Ever


Mac McClelland on Gay Rights in Uganda


Gay by Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity


Gay by Choice? Yeah, What If?

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the first of two marriage equality cases, and the best argument the chief defender of California’s ban on same-sex marriage could muster was that his side would ultimately lose.

Americans’ understanding of marriage is “changing and changing rapidly in this country, as people throughout the country engage in an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same sex couples,” argued Charles Cooper, who represented Californians supporting Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. He was trying to convince the justices that Prop 8 does not violate the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. In doing so, though, he acknowledged that acceptance of same-sex marriage rights is galloping forward, and he argued that the Supreme Court should allow that process to continue without interference from the Supreme Court. In other words, Californians whose marriage rights were taken from them at the ballot box should wait patiently for the country to evolve as quickly as ambitious Democratic politicians. (On Wednesday, the court will hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states when they are legal.)

It’s never a good idea to predict the results of a Supreme Court case based on oral arguments, and the strongest presentation at the Court isn’t always the one that wins. But from his first, hoarse remarks, it was clear that Cooper had walked into the heat of battle lightly armed. An experienced litigator who served in the Reagan-era Justice Department, Cooper took up the defense of California’s Proposition 8 after state officials declined to back the law in court. He was supposed to argue that California had a legitimate interest (other than simple bigotry) in banning same-sex couples from getting married, but he had difficulty finding one.

Continue Reading »

Mother Jones
Continue reading – 

At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes’ Best Argument Is That They’re Losing

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes’ Best Argument Is That They’re Losing