Archive for states

Video Overnight Thread- How Do You Say...


Totally fascinating. Having spent part of my childhood up in N Indiana and part in S Florida I would see this firsthand all the time. Coke/Soda/Pop would totally mess me up. Via Sullivan.


Cartoons of the Day- GLBT Rights In Everything!



Phil Hands

November 11, 2013

Adam Zyglis

Clay Bennett editorial cartoon

Clay Bennett


Paul Fell


So What If We Lose Texas As Part Of The U.S.


secession in colorado

Okay, so six counties in the north east quadrant of Colorado voted this week to secede. They want to form their own state. Well, we all know that ain't gonna happen. It takes more than a group of counties to make this a reality. It takes the approval of the state legislature and U.S. Congress for the secession effort to succeed. According to history, the last time a state willingly ceded territory was when Maine split from Massachusetts in 1820.

And what would we do with all of our flags with 50 stars? Would we have to sew on a 51st?

Well, maybe not. You know the old saying, be careful what you wish for. Well, how about this for a cost saving measure: We let Texas have what it wants -- to become it's own country. Then we lose them and we pick up North Colorado and we don't have touch the flags one bit. When one door closes, another opens kind of thing. You gotta like that.

But the idea of succession and even leaving the states and becoming it's own country is not new in Texas. HUFFPO:

Texas leaves the union

A year ago this week, more than 125,000 people signed a secession petition asking the Obama administration to “Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.”

Remember, by new government they mean new country. They already have their own state government. They're looking for sovereignty. Maybe they'll even decide to have a King ruling the new kingdom.

So what if Texas is successful in leaving? What kind of void would that leave the rest of us in? I'm sure the Astros, Mavericks, Rangers and Cowboys would still belong to our sports leagues. But, if we did grant them sovereignty, let's see how we'd fare. Here's some of what we'd have to give up.

1. We shed the state with the worst health care in the union. Yup, Texas is dead last.

2. Texas is on the bottom of women's health issues with among the strictest anti-abortion laws in the nation. We gain there.

3. The Lone Star State has discriminatory religious beliefs. They make it a requirement to pledge belief in a "Supreme Being" in order to hold public office. Atheists not allowed to run.

4. Women in general are cheated out of rights, wages and their votes in Texas. A 2013 report by the Center for American Progress gave the state of Texas an “F” for how it treats women.

5. Texas leads and has led the country in executions, with 503 since 1976. Pro or anti-capital punishment, there's still too much going on there in Texas.

6. Houston, the largest city in the state and fourth largest in the U.S. bars domestic partner benefits. Not exactly a welcoming place for LGBT partners.

7. New voter laws in the state make it hard for legal residents to vote. It's designed to eliminate women, students, minorities and the elderly. So our country would become more honestly represented.

And finally, we'd have Ted Cruz. He'll become a tri-citizen. He's Canadian by birth. American (still debatable with birthers) by his mother's nationality and Texan because that's where he's hoping to be anointed their first king.

Now taking this look at how losing Texas would effect us I'd say it's worth a right-quick consideration. We save on changing our flag. We save on seats in Congress because North Colorado is much smaller in population than Texas. Gone will be the biggots, racists and uncitizen-like minority that runs that state. Don't tell me this isn't a win-win situation.


Both sides say Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality could doom state laws


gay rights marry who you love

Watch as Rachel Maddow and David Gregory destroy the GOP’s last argument against marriage equality:

Justice Kennedy addressed that issue specifically in his ruling. He says that by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples who have kids, you’re humiliating and demeaning those kids.

By denying their families equal protection under the law by the parents who are raising them and who love them and who make their family. So we can put it in the interests of children, but I think that cuts both ways. And the ruling cuts against that argument. I mean, gay people exist. There’s nothing we can do in public policy can do to make more of us exist or less of us exist.

And you guys for a generation have argued that public policy ought to demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist. But you don’t make any less of us exist, you are just arguing for more discrimination. And more discrimination doesn’t make straight people’s lives any better.

But-- wait for it...

... Legal experts say Justice Scalia was probably right... and I agree.

wait what smaller

And so does Rachel Maddow:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

omg wtf

Here's the rest:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow:

Scalia "was saying, you realize this ruling means gay people are going to be able to get married, right? You realize that?" Yes, Justice Scalia, we realize that...

The Hill:

Legal experts say the Supreme Court's rulings this week on same-sex marriage send the clear signal the justices are likely to strike down state marriage laws that reach the High Court. [...]

It’s hard to see Kennedy making an about-face and saying it’s not demeaning when a state does it,” [Ilya Shapiro, a senior legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute] said.

Scalia saw the same clues in Kennedy’s decision. He wrote a scathing dissent excoriating Kennedy’s reasoning and dismissing the court’s claim that its decision was limited to federal law.

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia wrote [...] "As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe..."

As I said at the top of this post, legal experts (and Rachel) say Justice Scalia was probably right, and I agree.

But only just this once.