Texas attorney general Ken Paxton announced today that “county clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on religious objections to gay marriage.”
Paxton called the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage “lawless,” and said “I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.”
My wife and I picked up registration tags for our car last week. Fortunately, the lady who waited on us wasn’t Amish.
Look, Mr. Paxton, you can disagree with a Supreme Court ruling. You can even call it immoral or unconscionable, as we now refer to Dred Scott (oh, and if you compare the marriage equality ruling to Dred Scott, which stated that the black man had “no rights the white man is bound to respect,” then you are a racist buffoon). However, what you can’t do is call it “lawless.” Please check a dictionary. You went to law school, for the love of Madonna! First years learn that laws are not inherently moral but are simply “the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.”
Also, if you were that concerned about “standing in defense” of the rights of Texas citizens, you could just hire more clerks who don’t have an issue with same-sex marriage or even those who do but actually follow the law as their jobs require. I don’t like guns, so I don’t work for a gun manufacturer.
In 2009, a Louisiana justice of the peace refused to issue a marriage licence to an interracial couple. Even Bobby Jindal, who likes gays about as much as sensible people like him, called for his resignation.
“This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. … Disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license,” the Republican governor said.
That was just 42 years after Loving vs. Virginia, but it’d be awfully efficient if we just skipped this obnoxious “standing in front of the courthouse opposing desegregation” step in the process.
The GOP’s tepid repudiation of Ted Nugent’s racist statements about Barack Obama continue to fail what they used to refer to on Law and Order as the “laugh test.”
Nugent, in a recent interview with Guns.com, called Obama, the product of a biracial union, a “subhuman mongrel.” Because these disgusting comments were not about his sexuality and rationalized by his religious beliefs, his Republican friends sort of, kind of rejected them.
“Ted Nugent’s derogatory description of President Obama is offensive and has no place in politics. He should apologize,” the Kentucky Republican tweeted Thursday night.
OK, that’s something. I suppose they’ll sever ties with a race-baiting clod, right?
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told CNN he disagreed with Nugent’s language but also didn’t rule out campaigning with him in the future.
“You’ve never heard me say such a thing and nor would I,” Cruz said. “I will note, there are reasons Ted Nugent – people listen to him, which is that he has been fighting passionately for Second Amendment rights.”
I suppose I’m not as encouraged as Sen. Cruz is by the thought of a racist who is a passionate supporter of gun rights.
Look, it’s not like this is a summer action movie and Nugent is the psychotic racist the hero has to recruit anyway because he’s the only one who can (PLOT DEVICE) the (PLOT DEVICE) before the (PLOT DEVICE). This is America. The GOP can surely locate another passionate fighter for the country’s right to self-destruct who isn’t a repugnant racist. Or at least isn’t a known one.
But if you thought Cruz was hard on Nugent, wait till Gov. Rick Perry gets a hold of him.
“That’s pretty tough words,” Perry said. “I wouldn’t have used those words. … I’m not going to get into this side of whether it’s appropriate or not. There are people who say things all the time. I mean, the idea that Ted Nugent said something that’s outrageous shouldn’t surprise anyone, he’s been saying outrageous things for a lot of years.”
Yes, Perry would have found more eloquent ways of impugning Obama’s heritage. And, gee, we already know Nugent is a bigoted jackass, so why are we complaining even if GOP politicians continue to embrace him?
And Perry really can’t take a stand on whether a clearly racist comment is appropriate? In fairness, people say (racist) “things” all the time, and Perry’s a busy man fighting gays and the Liberal War Against Religion.
After some pressure from Wolf Blitzer, Perry conceded that it was wrong to call the president a “mongrel.” Non-elected officials are apparently fair game. And just because a racist endorsed a GOP candidate for governor and will presumably continue his association with him is no reason to do something crazy like vote for the liberal woman.
“A comment by someone who has come in and endorsed him in the campaign I would suggest to you is not what this campaign is going to hinge upon, it’s going to be on Wendy Davis’s very liberal record,” Perry said. “I think this will be a news story or two and then we will get back to being focused on what the people of the state of Texas really care about.”
Texans don’t care about actual racists. It cares about the imaginary things they’ll say about Wendy Davis.
I might have to agree with John Lennon that “woman is the nigger of the world.” If George Zimmerman is acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin, the streets will rightly fill with protestors. However, a Texas man was acquitted for murdering a woman who refused to have sex with him and public reaction is muted at best.
Ezekiel Gilbert shot Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve, after she denied his requests for sex and wouldn’t return the $150 he had paid her, according to the San Antonio Express-News. Under Texas law, an individual is authorized to use deadly force to “retrieve stolen property at night,” and Gilbert’s lawyers cited that provision as justification for Gilbert’s action, reasoning that Frago had stolen $150 from him by taking his money without delivering sex.
I understand lawyers have an obligation to zealously defend their clients, but I think that’s adequately fulfilled with a successful manslaughter plea rather than arguing that a woman’s body is “stolen property.”
Frago was an escort, and although there’s often a “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” understanding about the extent of service provided, she was under no legal obligation to have sex with Gilbert, who I don’t believe was even charged with the criminal act of soliciting prostitution — although, his defense was based entirely upon the admission of this illegal act.
Because Gilbert walks free, this endangers the life of every professional escort who dares to obey the law. Ellwood City Ledger reporter Eric Poole put it best in the comments for the linked ThinkProgress article:
The idiot judge who failed to tell the jury that it wasn’t allowed to consider a property recovery defense, because even I – a reporter who covers police and courts – can see it doesn’t apply here. He paid for an escort. He got an escort. Case closed. He used a gun in an attempt to compel the woman to commit an illegal act.
By Texas law — he killed someone in the commission of a crime (attempt to coerce another person to break the law) — Ezekiel is not only guilty, he ought to be subject to the death penalty (I’m opposed to the death penalty, but the law says what it says).
Let’s be clear: Texas just let an attempted rapist and successful murderer tap-dance out of the courtroom.
I guess the gun didn’t make Gilbert brave enough to confront the alleged pimp rather than the unarmed woman.
Recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry endorsed a so-called “fetal pain” bill that would ban abortions in Texas after the 20th week of pregnancy, because he will not “idly stand by while our unborn are being put through the agony of having their lives ended.”
But once that unborn child turns 21 and stiffs a guy who paid for sex, well, I guess that’s just business.
Texas demonstrates the conservative goal of shrinking government to the point it’s small enough to enter a woman’s womb.
A three-judge federal appeals panel ruled Friday that the state of Texas can move ahead with enforcement of a law requiring doctors to provide a sonogram to pregnant women before they get an abortion.
As written, the law would require women seeking an abortion in Texas to view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure.
This is horrific. The most benign interpretation of the law is that it infantilizes women, who it deems too stupid to realize what a fetus has the potential to become. “Oh, wait, it’s like a future version of me conceived through the fertilization of an egg by sperm — to be exact, a developing mammal after the embryonic stage but before birth? See, I thought it was one of those chestburster things from Alien. My friend Mabel has seen all the movies. She’s real excited about the prequel that’s coming out. Anyway, she told me that I’d want to get that taken care of but now that I see this picture and everything. Well, thanks for straightening me out. Do you validate parking, by the way?”
However, the comments from judges who have ruled on the case only reinforce that the law is intended as federally mandated coercion intended to prevent women from having an abortion.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Pennsylvania case “held that the fact that such truthful, accurate information may cause a woman to choose not to abort her pregnancy only reinforces its relevance to an informed decision,” U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote in a concurring opinion. “Insisting that a doctor give this information in his traditional role of securing informed consent is permissible.”
I admit I’m impressed that a man with the name “Higginbotham” was able to overcome childhood bullying and ostracization and rise to the rank of U.S. Circuit judge, but I disagree wholly with his thinking here. “Informed consent” should relate to the woman’s health and include relevant information about any short or long-term effects (e.g. if the procedure could possibly result in sterilization and so on).
Pro-life advocates often claim that since a doctor will advise you of other alternatives to surgery, it’s appropriate for them to do the same regarding abortion. However, adoption is not a medical procedure, and once a woman is pregnant, that’s the only other option aside from keeping the child herself. Once she’s actually gone to the doctor, it should be accepted that she’s made the very difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy. If she wanted help with such a personal decision, she would reach out to friends and family. Her doctor isn’t her rabbi. He’s a physician.
Higginbotham demonstrates a lack of basic compassion that justifies his being born with the name “Higginbotham.” Yes, forcing a pregnant woman to “view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure” is not merely annoying and might cause her to be late for her hair appointment. It is actually incredibly painful and difficult for her. That fact does not justify doing it. Quite the opposite. And even if it’s occasionally effective and some women choose not to go through with the abortion, the law makes no provision for the associated costs of carrying the pregnancy to term or caring for the child once its born. You see, the people close to a woman who provide counsel and input would also be there to help her once she decides to go through with the pregnancy. This a serious decision that the government is sticking its nose into with the apparently clueless belief that it’s all just a minor inconvenience for a pregnant woman:
“Oh, la di dah, I guess I won’t buy that Coach bag and instead devote the next nine months to successfully bringing this pregnancy to term. No biggie. If I’m not able to raise the child myself, I will give it up for adoption at one of those Imaginary Republican Orphanages (as seen on TV) that will find a home for the child regardless of its health or race. Of course, that won’t be traumatic for me at all because I am just a child-growing machine and wouldn’t possibly become connected to my unborn child over the next nine months. And, really, can I please get an answer about the parking validation?”
If the government believes this type of psychological torture is appropriate in order to prevent people from doing things that are otherwise legal, I would propose a similar law requiring potential gun owners to watch news reports of children who died because of guns in the home.
Texas governor Rick Perry praised the new law, saying, “We will continue to fight any attempt to limit our state’s laws that value and protect the unborn.”
Too bad the effort to “value and protect” them ends once they’re born — especially if they’re women.
The great Holland Taylor is currently performing in a one-woman show about former Texas governor Ann Richards (“ANN: An Affectionate Portrait of Ann Richards“) at the Charline McCombs Empire Theater in San Antonio, Texas. This is essentially the chocolate and peanut butter of theatrical experiences as it combines two of my favorite people.
Ann Richards electrified everyone watching — including the 14-year-old me — when she delivered the keynote address as the 1988 Democratic National Convention. Every line was Julia Sugarbaker gold but the most remembered is her lament for “Poor George (H.W. Bush)… He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” One less recalled line but one that still rings true is, “And you don’t have to be from Waco to know that when the Pentagon makes crooks rich and doesn’t make America strong, that it’s a bum deal.”
Of course, beneath the sharp wit is the sadness of what came to pass: The Reagan Era that Richards says was soon to end obviously didn’t. I always thought it was because we sent a Dukakis to do a job best suited for a Richards.
Ms. Richards was governor of Texas from 1991 to 1995. She had struggled with alcoholism in her life but that battle helped inform a compassionate means of dealing with substance abuse and crime:
… the state of Texas, when I was governor, we built an awful lot of prisons. And to be frank with you, I made a deal, and the deal was that I would help pass the legislation and be for building a lot more prisons in Texas if I could get rehab programs for people who were alcoholics and drug abusers because I knew that over 80 percent of the crime committed in Texas was committed by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
And unless you treat that alcoholism and you treat that drug addiction, when they go right back out on the street, you got a drunk or you’ve got an addict that is going to commit a crime again.
George W. Bush defeated Ms. Richards in 1994. Karl Rove, the brains behind this victory, cynically stated that her loss was attributable in part to her opposition to a concealed weapon bill, which Bush later signed into law while also executing more prisoners than any other governor in history (he obviously did not see the cognitive dissonance here), and her warning to a Girl Scouts conference to beware of “Prince Charming on a motorcycle with a beer gut and a wandering eye.” That was actually pretty sound advice — not just for Girl Scouts but for the whole country. Rove is less upfront about the dirty tricks that were linked to him during the campaign.
In 1994, when Bush ran against Democratic Gov. Ann Richards in Texas, a whisper campaign began in East Texas that Richards had appointed gays and lesbians to state positions, which was true. The issue got little notice until Bush’s East Texas campaign chairman accused the governor of naming “avowed and activist homosexuals” to high offices.
I am impressed that 20 years ago Ms. Richards hired qualified people regardless of their sexual orientation (“avowed and activist” is usually translated to mean “not frightened and in a closet”). I also appreciated her inclusiveness — speaking Spanish during her keynote address in recognition of her state’s background.
Here is a clip of Holland Taylor as Ms. Richards in the play she painstakingly researched and wrote herself. If it eventually reaches Broadway, it will prove a worthy rationale for my brief return to New York.
And, because I love watching it, here’s Ms. Taylor accepting a well-earned Emmy for her work in “The Practice”:
RT @Timodc: In Massie's world, teachers can't be entrusted to decide what books to assign or how to appropriately discuss the existence of… 8 hours ago
serhasacomplaint 
Texas’s Definition of Pro-Life…
I might have to agree with John Lennon that “woman is the nigger of the world.” If George Zimmerman is acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin, the streets will rightly fill with protestors. However, a Texas man was acquitted for murdering a woman who refused to have sex with him and public reaction is muted at best.
Ezekiel Gilbert shot Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve, after she denied his requests for sex and wouldn’t return the $150 he had paid her, according to the San Antonio Express-News. Under Texas law, an individual is authorized to use deadly force to “retrieve stolen property at night,” and Gilbert’s lawyers cited that provision as justification for Gilbert’s action, reasoning that Frago had stolen $150 from him by taking his money without delivering sex.
I understand lawyers have an obligation to zealously defend their clients, but I think that’s adequately fulfilled with a successful manslaughter plea rather than arguing that a woman’s body is “stolen property.”
Frago was an escort, and although there’s often a “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” understanding about the extent of service provided, she was under no legal obligation to have sex with Gilbert, who I don’t believe was even charged with the criminal act of soliciting prostitution — although, his defense was based entirely upon the admission of this illegal act.
Because Gilbert walks free, this endangers the life of every professional escort who dares to obey the law. Ellwood City Ledger reporter Eric Poole put it best in the comments for the linked ThinkProgress article:
The idiot judge who failed to tell the jury that it wasn’t allowed to consider a property recovery defense, because even I – a reporter who covers police and courts – can see it doesn’t apply here. He paid for an escort. He got an escort. Case closed. He used a gun in an attempt to compel the woman to commit an illegal act.
By Texas law — he killed someone in the commission of a crime (attempt to coerce another person to break the law) — Ezekiel is not only guilty, he ought to be subject to the death penalty (I’m opposed to the death penalty, but the law says what it says).
Let’s be clear: Texas just let an attempted rapist and successful murderer tap-dance out of the courtroom.
In court, Gilbert, 30, testified that Frago spent 20 minutes inside his apartment before she left, telling him that she needed to pay her driver. Defense attorneys Bobby Barrera and Roy Barrera Sr. claimed that Frago’s “driver” had been her pimp, and argued that under Texas law Gilbert had been within his rights to use deadly force to recover his stolen property.
I guess the gun didn’t make Gilbert brave enough to confront the alleged pimp rather than the unarmed woman.
Recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry endorsed a so-called “fetal pain” bill that would ban abortions in Texas after the 20th week of pregnancy, because he will not “idly stand by while our unborn are being put through the agony of having their lives ended.”
But once that unborn child turns 21 and stiffs a guy who paid for sex, well, I guess that’s just business.
Posted by Stephen Robinson on June 6, 2013 in Capitalism, Social Commentary
Tags: escort, Ezekiel Gilbert, Lenora Frago, Texas