Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Seriously DEAN


14 comments:

  1. Woot!

    --Alan

    P.S.: I agree with Bill that Howard doesn't look younger, but he does look less stressed and has lost weight. Pretty well preserved/ Vermont was blessed to have such a governor. A very decent man. My offer stands; if he should come through this area, we will put him up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent, Alan. Have you read Kate O'Connor's book Do the Impossible? It's chock full of home grown moments in which people put Howard up or helped out or made suggestions. I love how many big surprises the campaign had early on.

      Yes, a very decent man. As I listened to Howard respond to interview questions, I could see his easy sincerity, his integrity. He said, "I didn't jdo this out of ambition..." and I could see how true that was.

      Delete
  2. Dang, another muggy day! But go supremes! At least DOMA is dead. And past time,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, they really owed us something after yesterday! DOMA is done. Hurrah!!

      Delete
    2. Not quite dome. It is still legal for states to ignore marriages contracted in other states. Surprised me a bit -- I thought there was a specific constitutional provision against such things (haven't checked the wording). Otherwise, the court did exactly as I expected: Threw out DOMA and supported the California court ruling on narrow technical grounds.

      Delete
    3. So I also thought, Bill. But I read that there is a lot of precedent for states ignoring marriages in other states that they don't approve of (I suppose this is a residue of anti-miscenigation laws). And carefully reading the constitution I see that although the states are obliged to recognize the records of other states, they are not obliged to recognize marriages performed in other states. But why do they get to pick and choose? And they are obliged to honor contracts made in other states, and is not marriage a contract (albeit a special one)? Then again, the idea of marriage being a contract is more a muslim than a christian legal concept. The English conception of marriage is more nearly the roman one, that a wife given "with her hand" is a chattel of the husband--because the Romans kidnapped the Sabine women!

      A pox on precedent--except when it serves my needs.

      --Alan

      Delete
    4. Article I, Section. 10.
      No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

      Article. IV.
      Section. 1.
      Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

      --Alan

      Delete
  3. Came across this today. Well worth the memory:
    http://m.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/08/268580/-Thank-You-Chairman-Dean

    ReplyDelete
  4. “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awesome. Thank you Justice Kennedy!

      Delete
  5. From my Inbox today:

    This morning, our nation took a major step toward full equality when the Supreme Court of the United States did the right thing and struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.

    With today's historic ruling, we are reminded again that the Constitution protects the rights of all Americans. Marcelle and I share the joy that LGBT families, including all the legally married couples in my home state of Vermont, are feeling today.

    I am also particularly happy about what this means for comprehensive immigration reform.

    Last month, on one of the most difficult days of my 38 years in the Senate, Republican obstruction forced me to withdraw my amendment to include equality for committed LGBT couples in the immigration bill -- an amendment that would have made sure all Americans could sponsor their spouses for citizenship.

    The decision to withdraw my amendment broke my heart. But with the Supreme Court's decision today, binational LGBT couples will be able to be united under the law, finally achieving something I have fought for in the Senate for years.

    Today, we celebrate a major victory for everyone who believes in justice, equality, and true family values. Tomorrow, we return to the task of making sure we live up to those values.

    We still have a lot to do, and I am more committed than ever to leading that work on the Judiciary Committee until we fully achieve "Equal Justice under law" for every American.

    Sincerely,

    Patrick Leahy
    U.S. Senator

    ReplyDelete
  6. You so do not want to miss this article!

    "Quarterback Obama's New Climate Change Game Plan"
    by Dr. Jeff Masters
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2449

    ReplyDelete