Annise Parker
Mayor of Houston
b. May 17, 1956
““The voters of Houston have opened the door to history. I know what this means to many of us who never thought we could achieve high office.””
In 2009, when Annise Parker was elected, Houston became the largest city in the nation with an openly gay mayor.
In 1997, Parker won a seat on the Houston City Council, making her Houston’s first out elected official. In 2003, Parker was elected City Controller. She served two additional terms before being elected mayor.
Catherine Opie
Photographer
b. April 14, 1961
““Let’s push the boundaries a little bit here about what you guys think normal is.””
For over a decade, photographer Catherine …
Read More
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Phony Federalism
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is like the skinny
teenage girl who blossoms over the summer and suddenly finds
herself besieged by suitors. Once ignored, it has found a host of
champions among Republican presidential candidates who are
competing to show their devotion.
The amendment contains just one sentence: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."
It is a bulwark of federalism, which allows states the freedom
to adopt different policies reflecting their peculiar
circumstances. It was meant as a check on those who would demand
uniform practices from one end of America to the other.
Given the conservative preference for local control and distrust
of national mandates, it's no surprise to hear Republicans
asserting the central importance of this provision. In his book
Fed Up, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said attacks on the 10th
Amendment have led to "unprecedented federal intrusion into
numerous facets of our lives."
When he was governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty said he might
invoke the amendment to resist implementing President Barack
Obama's health care reform. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
used it to explain why his state health program is constitutional
while Obama's is not. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is also fond
of citing it.
They all seem to grasp the point of the 10th Amendment. As the
Center for Tenth Amendment Studies at the Texas Public Policy
Foundation says, it is to "protect our freedoms" and "prevent
federal government power from controlling our everyday lives."
Liberals, by contrast, have never had any strong attachment to
state sovereignty. Since the New Deal, they have regarded
centralized power as the best way to advance the welfare state.
They may favor state discretion when it favors their causes. But
they don't pretend to be consistent on the issue.
Conservatives, however, do. Pretend, that is. When there is a
conflict between state sovereignty and conservative policies, their
reverence for the 10th Amendment abruptly goes by the wayside.
That became apparent several years ago, when the Bush
administration asserted its power to prevent Californians from
using medical marijuana after the state allowed it. It also tried
to block an Oregon law allowing doctor-assisted suicide. Attorney
General John Ashcroft had no qualms about mobilizing the fearsome
resources of the federal government when states veered out of
line.
He has new company among the GOP presidential aspirants, who
support the 10th Amendment except when they don't. When New York
legalized same-sex marriage, Perry first said, "That's New York,
and that's their business, and that's fine with me." But he soon
reversed course, endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which
says marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a
woman."
Bachmann has made a similar exception. Asked about same-sex
marriage in New York, she said that "the states have the right to
set the laws that they want to set." Then she threw herself behind
a constitutional amendment to repeal that right.
Pawlenty? Romney? More of the same. The conspicuous exception is
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has a weirdly consistent respect for
the principles of federalism.
Perry tries to reconcile the contradiction by insisting that
he's merely trying to keep activist federal judges from overruling
the states that limit matrimony to its traditional form. He fears
the U.S. Supreme Court may someday rule that gays have a
constitutional right to wed their partners.
But that's not an argument for a constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage. It's an argument for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee states the right to ban it.
Perry and the others are straining to make two and two equal
five. "The support of a marriage amendment is a pro-states' rights
position," he says, "because it will defend the rights of states to
define marriage as it has been." This is like saying that a draft
protects a young man's right to serve in the military.
The more important fact is that the amendment takes away the
right of states to make their own choices -- and in a realm where
they have always had great latitude. It does not uphold the
sovereignty of states to let them adopt one policy and only one.
The test of a commitment to federalism is supporting it even when
it yields unpalatable outcomes.
The 10th Amendment has plenty of admirers professing their love.
But as any fetching young female soon learns, such declarations are
not always sincere.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
teenage girl who blossoms over the summer and suddenly finds
herself besieged by suitors. Once ignored, it has found a host of
champions among Republican presidential candidates who are
competing to show their devotion.
The amendment contains just one sentence: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."
It is a bulwark of federalism, which allows states the freedom
to adopt different policies reflecting their peculiar
circumstances. It was meant as a check on those who would demand
uniform practices from one end of America to the other.
Given the conservative preference for local control and distrust
of national mandates, it's no surprise to hear Republicans
asserting the central importance of this provision. In his book
Fed Up, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said attacks on the 10th
Amendment have led to "unprecedented federal intrusion into
numerous facets of our lives."
When he was governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty said he might
invoke the amendment to resist implementing President Barack
Obama's health care reform. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
used it to explain why his state health program is constitutional
while Obama's is not. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is also fond
of citing it.
They all seem to grasp the point of the 10th Amendment. As the
Center for Tenth Amendment Studies at the Texas Public Policy
Foundation says, it is to "protect our freedoms" and "prevent
federal government power from controlling our everyday lives."
Liberals, by contrast, have never had any strong attachment to
state sovereignty. Since the New Deal, they have regarded
centralized power as the best way to advance the welfare state.
They may favor state discretion when it favors their causes. But
they don't pretend to be consistent on the issue.
Conservatives, however, do. Pretend, that is. When there is a
conflict between state sovereignty and conservative policies, their
reverence for the 10th Amendment abruptly goes by the wayside.
That became apparent several years ago, when the Bush
administration asserted its power to prevent Californians from
using medical marijuana after the state allowed it. It also tried
to block an Oregon law allowing doctor-assisted suicide. Attorney
General John Ashcroft had no qualms about mobilizing the fearsome
resources of the federal government when states veered out of
line.
He has new company among the GOP presidential aspirants, who
support the 10th Amendment except when they don't. When New York
legalized same-sex marriage, Perry first said, "That's New York,
and that's their business, and that's fine with me." But he soon
reversed course, endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which
says marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a
woman."
Bachmann has made a similar exception. Asked about same-sex
marriage in New York, she said that "the states have the right to
set the laws that they want to set." Then she threw herself behind
a constitutional amendment to repeal that right.
Pawlenty? Romney? More of the same. The conspicuous exception is
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has a weirdly consistent respect for
the principles of federalism.
Perry tries to reconcile the contradiction by insisting that
he's merely trying to keep activist federal judges from overruling
the states that limit matrimony to its traditional form. He fears
the U.S. Supreme Court may someday rule that gays have a
constitutional right to wed their partners.
But that's not an argument for a constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage. It's an argument for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee states the right to ban it.
Perry and the others are straining to make two and two equal
five. "The support of a marriage amendment is a pro-states' rights
position," he says, "because it will defend the rights of states to
define marriage as it has been." This is like saying that a draft
protects a young man's right to serve in the military.
The more important fact is that the amendment takes away the
right of states to make their own choices -- and in a realm where
they have always had great latitude. It does not uphold the
sovereignty of states to let them adopt one policy and only one.
The test of a commitment to federalism is supporting it even when
it yields unpalatable outcomes.
The 10th Amendment has plenty of admirers professing their love.
But as any fetching young female soon learns, such declarations are
not always sincere.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Data On Same-Sex Couples Reveal Changing Attitudes
Ryan Witmer and Jhonmar Castillo wait with other couples to exchange vows in a Civil Union ceremony in Millennium Park on June 2 in Chicago.
Gay for a day?
I consider myself straight, but am interested in having sex with a girl just to see what it's like. I am under the impression that lesbians are not big fans of people like me. That's it, pretty much. I know I'm not gay; I guess I could be bi, but if I was it would be like 5%. I am mostly attracted to men and see myself marrying a man in the future. But the idea of being with a woman is interesting, and I want to check it out. I've been adventurous in plenty of other areas, so why not try this, too?
But I've heard stories about lesbians being led on by confused straight girls who wound up leaving them for men, and I don't want that to be me. I just want to have some nsa sex with someone who knows the score.
I don't want to lead anybody on, but I wouldn't want to just hook up with some random person immediately after meeting them online, either. (Not opposed to online but I'd want to get to know them a LITTLE.) Basically I have no idea how to go about this in an ethical, non-hurtful, and at least semi-private way. I also don't know how to find someone who wouldn't mind, um, educating me.
Man, I feel kind of bad for even considering this, like I'd be using the woman for my own selfish reasons. If there are women who actually get off on sleeping with straight girls I'd love to hear about it.
But I've heard stories about lesbians being led on by confused straight girls who wound up leaving them for men, and I don't want that to be me. I just want to have some nsa sex with someone who knows the score.
I don't want to lead anybody on, but I wouldn't want to just hook up with some random person immediately after meeting them online, either. (Not opposed to online but I'd want to get to know them a LITTLE.) Basically I have no idea how to go about this in an ethical, non-hurtful, and at least semi-private way. I also don't know how to find someone who wouldn't mind, um, educating me.
Man, I feel kind of bad for even considering this, like I'd be using the woman for my own selfish reasons. If there are women who actually get off on sleeping with straight girls I'd love to hear about it.
If You Won't Change Your Mind About Gay Marriage, Will You Limit Your Opposition to Quiet Grumbling?
Adam Serwer makes a
good point about the politics of gay marriage:
Many recent national polls have shown
that support for marriage equality is growing. But what's also
interesting is that the opposition, while still present, may be
growing less fervent.
Let's take New York as a test example. Despite the recent passage
of a marriage equality bill, support for marriage equality in New
York isn't that much higher than in the country as a whole -- it's
currently at 54 percent, according to
Quinnipiac, which is similar to the low-50s level of support we
see in national
polls.
Support for same-sex marriage in New York varies
depending on religion, with white Catholics being evenly divided at
48 percent opposed and 48 percent supporting. But white Catholic
voters in New York approve of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who drove
passage of [the] marriage equality bill, is at a nearly 3-1
margin. White Protestant opposition to same-sex marriage is
even higher at 54 percent, and yet 60 percent of white Protestants
approve of the job Cuomo is doing.
What this suggests is that some of the people opposed to same-sex
marriage rights nevertheless support Cuomo anyway. This gets to
something I think polling has yet to properly examine -- the
dwindling importance of same-sex marriage to even those voters who
voice opposition to it. The shift towards support for marriage
equality isn't just a matter of more people saying they support it.
It's also a function of people who are nominally opposed caring
less about the issue in general as the inevitability of marriage
equality becomes more apparent.
Read the whole post
here. Read more on same-sex marriage here.
good point about the politics of gay marriage:
Many recent national polls have shown
that support for marriage equality is growing. But what's also
interesting is that the opposition, while still present, may be
growing less fervent.
Let's take New York as a test example. Despite the recent passage
of a marriage equality bill, support for marriage equality in New
York isn't that much higher than in the country as a whole -- it's
currently at 54 percent, according to
Quinnipiac, which is similar to the low-50s level of support we
see in national
polls.
Support for same-sex marriage in New York varies
depending on religion, with white Catholics being evenly divided at
48 percent opposed and 48 percent supporting. But white Catholic
voters in New York approve of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who drove
passage of [the] marriage equality bill, is at a nearly 3-1
margin. White Protestant opposition to same-sex marriage is
even higher at 54 percent, and yet 60 percent of white Protestants
approve of the job Cuomo is doing.
What this suggests is that some of the people opposed to same-sex
marriage rights nevertheless support Cuomo anyway. This gets to
something I think polling has yet to properly examine -- the
dwindling importance of same-sex marriage to even those voters who
voice opposition to it. The shift towards support for marriage
equality isn't just a matter of more people saying they support it.
It's also a function of people who are nominally opposed caring
less about the issue in general as the inevitability of marriage
equality becomes more apparent.
Read the whole post
here. Read more on same-sex marriage here.
True Blood's Lesbian Vampire Is An Evil Witch
Kristin Bauer van Straten, who so memorably plays bitchy vampire Pam on HBO's True Blood, has been cast as Maleficient in the ABC fantasy series Once Upon A Time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)