Hey y'all, just thought we might want a fresh open thread to discuss what's new.
So as an icebreaker, here's an article that got me thinking about marriage equality in California all day...from the Los Angeles Times comes the piece Prop. 8 foes clash over federal suit; ACLU, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights initially denounced the court action. Now they want to be part of it, but they are rebuffed:
A high-profile federal lawsuit against Proposition 8 has exposed new strains and divisions within the same-sex marriage movement, as civil rights lawyers who initially condemned the suit now want on board -- and are being rebuffed.The lawsuit against the anti-gay-marriage initiative, launched by Los Angeles political consultant Chad H. Griffin and backed by entertainment industry activists, drew scorn and anger from gay rights lawyers when it was filed in May.
...Now that a trial is nearing, the lawyers who denounced the suit want to join as full participants, asking for seats at the table and the ability to shape legal strategy. But the consultant who defied their advice has vowed to "vigorously oppose" their intervention, and, in a court filing late Friday, lawyers formally opposed intervention.
The clash comes at a pivotal moment for the case, seen as the most likely vehicle for winning marriage rights for gays across the nation, and raises questions about who will control the legal agenda. A federal judge in San Francisco will decide the lineup of lawyers later this month....
Read the whole piece...I know its left me wondering what the best course of action for marriage equality might be regarding this lawsuit. Frankly, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the NCLR put themselves into the position they find themselves in right now with this lawsuit -- not having a say in the legal strategies that will be used for this case. If they were against filing the lawsuit when the lawsuit was filed, and as far as I know they're still on record as being against the lawsuit, why should they be allowed to join in now? Or since it's going to impact all Californians and possibly all Americans, why shouldn't they be allowed to join in?
I know I don't have an answer -- there seem to be decent arguments on both sides of this.
But hey, discuss this situation and/or L.A. Times story, or any other subject matter in the thread... It's an open thread! What are you reading or thinking about today?
Not even a minister, but a refereee officiating!
DIXFIELD - Trying to refrain from bursting out laughing was a lost cause at Saturday afternoon's sports-themed wedding between Glenn Porter and Pamela Duprey in Porter's father's backyard off Canton Point Road.For instance, how many couples can say they got hitched wearing actual hockey jerseys instead of tux and gown while standing around the Stanley Cup trophy replica on a hockey rink beside a 36-foot-long replica of Fenway Park's famous Green Monster wall?
"It's too funny," Cindy Paine of Dixfield said.
"It's crazy," Porter's dad Frank said.
Across from a stadium parking lot tailgate party, a large New England Patriots stadium menu attached to a canopy listed the day's meals - food found at a sporting event. A chili cookoff would follow the ceremony after Mr. and Mrs. Glenn Porter cut the cake.
Sounds like alot of fun and very special for this couple, as their wedding day should be.
Let's check out the vows and look to see "if God's in the mix"...
According to the scoreboard, when Duprey, 50, and Porter, 45, next read their wacky vows, the Red Sox led the Yankees 8-0 in the top of the fifth inning."I promise to love you as much as the Nashville Predators and not hold your San Jose Sharks against you," Glenn Porter said of their two favorite hockey teams. "From this day forward, I will listen to all of your complaints about fantasy hockey, if you say them during the off-season."
"I will love you in sickness and in health, from this day forward, until death parts us or you become a Yankees fan," Porter said.
Duprey, laughing, read her vow.
"I promise to love you as much as I love my San Jose Sharks, and not hold your Nashville Predators against you," she said. "I will only show you my new stats during commercial breaks, and promise to keep you in the latest sports fashions."
"From this day forward, I will make sure to cheer for the same team as you in public," she said. "I will love you for richer or poorer, as long as you don't cheer for the Yankees."
Huh- not a single bit about "for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health"- yet it is a LEGALLY AND LOCALLY, NATIONALLY AND EVEN INTERNATIONAL RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE.
Good for you, folks- may you have many happy years of life, love, fun and companionship together.
And may many of our fellow Mainers soon be able to enjoy the same joie de vivre...
From the Los Angeles Times' Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected; Insiders say Atty. Gen. Eric Holder is close to naming a prosecutor to look into reports of excessive waterboarding and other unauthorized methods. Convictions could be hard to get:
U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is poised to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate alleged Cged CIA abuses committed during the interrogation of terrorism suspects, current and former U.S. government officials said.A senior Justice Department official said that Holder envisioned an inquiry that would be narrow in scope, focusing on "whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized" in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws.
...Some cases have not previously been disclosed, including an instance in which a CIA operative brought a gun into an interrogation booth to force a detainee to talk, officials said.
Other potentially criminal abuses have already come to light, including the waterboarding of prisoners in excess of Justice Department guidelines, and the deaths of detainees in CIA custody in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003...
As a military veteran who served for a couple of decades in the U.S. Navy, I hope some sort of investigation goes through, and at least some are punished for torturing detainees prisoners held in camps, such as Gitmo. To do nothing is to send the message to the world that it's okay to torture Americans to the same level we tortured War On Terror prisoners.
Basically, America needs to engage in behavior towards people we hold as prisoners in a way that we want others peoples and states to behave towards American they might hold as prisoners. Not prosecuting CIA or U.S. servicemember who tortured prisoners seems unacceptable to me.
As someone who realizes I could have been one of those prisoners when I was serving in the military...well, it's not difficult for me to put myself in the place of American servicemembers who may in the future become prisoners of war, or prisoners of militant organizations that are warring with America. Having America be a moral force in the world seems a idealistic, I know, but I see it as necessary if only from the perspective of setting a standard we can hold others to.
www.GayTalkRadio.org
No comments:
Post a Comment