As of noon, ALL Louisiana parishes confirm they're issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Map: http://t.co/lqRfafsqEE pic.twitter.com/q6pRpGx0g7
— New Orleans Advocate (@theadvocateno) July 2, 2015
“We are pleased to hear that Principal Taylor and the Monroe City School Board corrected this wrong before any serious harm was done. Forbidding girls from wearing a tuxedo to the prom would have served no purpose other than to reinforce the worst sorts of harmful stereotypes and censor a core part of Claudetteia’s identity,” said NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell. “The school is doing the right thing by supporting its students and teaching them the value of respect and acceptance of one another’s differences.”Now, she can wear anything she wants to.
Jackson, who is fully supportive of Claudetteia’s sexual orientation and her decision to wear a tuxedo, stated: “I am very happy that the school reversed its position in time for Claudetteia and her friends to attend the prom together. Also, I am proud of Claudetteia for standing up for her right to wear a tuxedo to prom and for being true to herself. She should not have to miss out on an important milestone for all high school students because of what others might say or do.”
“I am thankful that my school is allowing me to be who I am and attend my senior prom in tuxedo. Now that I can go in my tuxedo, I am looking forward to celebrating the end of my senior year with my friends and classmates at the prom, like any other student,” said Love. “The outpouring of support has been incredible and inspiring; it is a source of strength that I will keep with me as I move on the next phase of my education and life beyond high school.”
The decision not to hear the Louisiana case was not unexpected as gay rights advocates had sought to skip the regular judicial process by seeking Supreme Court review before the case had been decided by an appeals court. Gay rights advocates representing the Louisiana plaintiffs said in court papers there is a "pressing need" to resolve the issue once and for all.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which has jurisdiction over the state of Louisiana, heard arguments in the case on Friday and has not yet ruled. The same court is also weighing challenges to bans in Texas and Mississippi.
In the Louisiana case, a federal district court judge upheld the state ban in September 2014.
If the court were to take up one or more of the gay marriage cases, it would then issue a ruling that would determine whether 14 remaining state bans will be struck down. Gay marriage is currently legal in 36 states.
The court in October decided not to take up the issue, but a November ruling by a regional federal appeals court based in Cincinnati upheld gay marriage bans in four states.
More than halfway through the morning’s arguments, an exasperated Justin Matheny, the assistant attorney general in Mississippi charged with defending the state’s ban, tried to change his tune during his rebuttal arguments.
It being clear that the three-judge panel was leaning against upholding the bans, Matheny told the judges that although the “trajectory” on marriage rights for same-sex couples is “undeniable,” he argued that “it’s not there yet.” Judge Patrick Higginbotham, born in Alabama almost eight decades ago and appointed to the appeals court by President Reagan more than three decades ago, spoke up. And though the older judge was hard to hear at times, he spoke up and spoke clearly when he responded to Matheny: “Those words, ‘Will Mississippi change its mind?’ have resonated in these halls before.”This is getting good.
Here we see the house of cards collapsing that supported the myth that redefining marriage in inevitable. This decision by Judge Feldman in Louisiana is a great win for the cause of marriage, coming as it does on the heels of other pro-marriage court victories, that puts the lie to the claim that it is inevitable the US Supreme Court will redefine marriage. To the contrary, we believe they will leave this issue with the states. Judge Feldman has authored a powerful opinion that points the US Supreme Court in the direction of upholding state marriage laws and constitutional amendments. He finds what should be obvious to everyone, that states have a legitimate concern in 'linking marriage to children with intact families.' It is perfectly appropriate for voters to determine if they wish to decide for themselves whether they wish to redefine this age-old institution that has served society so well. Overwhelmingly, voters have rejected redefining marriage, and we expect the US Supreme Court to do so as well."This is a short-lived victory, Brian. Know that.
"This national same-sex marriage struggle animates a clash between convictions regarding the value of state decisions reached by way of the democratic process as contrasted with personal, genuine, and sincere lifestyle choices recognition."And this mess:
"And so, inconvenient questions persist. For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs."There's more mess in the ruling, however, how can this man use such silly reasons to justify this ban? Especially, when it's being dropped elsewhere!
There’s no doubt I’ve fallen short and I’m asking for forgiveness. I’m asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff and my constituents who elected me to serve. Trust is something I know has to be earned whether you’re a husband, a father or a congressman. I promise to do everything I can to earn back the trust of everyone I’ve disappointed. From day one, I’ve always tried to be an honest man. I ran for Congress to make a difference and not just be another politician.Good ole Family Values, gets you every time.
I don’t want to make a political statement on this, I would just simply like to say that I’m very sorry for what I’ve done. While I realize I serve the public, I would appreciate the privacy given to my children as we get through this.”
District Attorney Hillar Moore III said his office refused to prosecute each one of the cases because his assistants found no crime had occurred. After inquiries from the newspaper last week, he arranged to meet with Sheriff’s Office investigators to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court ruling.This crap needs to stop. It feels like they are purposely looking to arrest gays.
Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, denied that investigators had been misapplying the anti-sodomy law, which remains among the state’s criminal statutes.
“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Hicks said. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”
Moore noted that public sex acts and the solicitation of “unnatural carnal copulation” for money remain illegal. But those elements were lacking from these 12 cases, and most of the men were arrested after agreeing to have sex away from the park at a private residence.
“The Sheriff’s Office’s intentions are all good,” Moore said. “But from what I’ve seen of these cases, legally, we found no criminal violation.”
Advocates for civil rights and the LGBT community expressed outrage last week, saying the task force unfairly targeted gay men who were humiliated by their arrests. “It is frustrating that the police are using their resources to pursue issues like this and arrest people for attempting to pick someone up and go home with them,” said Bruce Parker, of Equality Louisiana. “It’s perfectly legal, and we would have to close down every bar in Baton Rouge if that weren’t the case.”
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that a Louisiana registrar's insistence that only one father's name can go on the certificate does not violate the child's right to equal protection under the law; nor does it deny legal recognition of the New York adoption by both men.This is not fair. They are his parents they should be able to claim him as their child.
An attorney for the gay rights group Lamda Legal said the complex 72-page decision would have to be analyzed before a decision would be made on whether to appeal.
"These are certainly the types of claims that might interest the U.S. Supreme Court," said Ken Upton of Lamda Legal's Dallas office.
In Louisiana, adopted children get new birth certificates with their new parents' names on them. However, the state does not allow adoptions by unmarried couples. The state contends that putting both men's names on the birth certificate would violate state law.
More disturbing images have crept up on the Internet today in regards to J.J. Abrams's sci-fi thriller Super 8. No real plot details have been revealed at this time, but we do know that the story will gleefully nod to the past works of Steven Spielberg, primarily the science fiction movies he made in the late 70s and early 80s.
Last Friday, a piece of concept art claiming to reveal an alien monster from the project started making the rounds. It has yet to be verified. Now, a strange photo has come forward, which is purported to be from Super 8. It first appeared on Wildgame Innovation's Facebook page. It is a picture reportedly snapped by a deer hunter on a reserve in Berwick, near Morgan City, Louisianna. It was originally being passed off as real, but now inside sources close to the production say its actually a viral image from Super 8. There is even video from a young Weirton, West Virginia extra called "Crying Girl", who talks about having a run in with this creature in the movie.
In the scene, the little girl in question is said to be trapped on an airplane with her mother, where she comes in contact with this scary creature, which the young actress refers to as "a zombie". You can check out the photo and the video below:
Jindal's office said Tuesday the governor acted on the bill in the past few days after receiving it June 20.Including the "gun-in-church" bill, House Bill 1272 by Rep. Henry Burns, R-Haughton, Jindal has signed into law 940 of the 1,067 bills the Legislature sent him, vetoed 12, and used his pen to line-item spending measures in four different budget bills.
Burns' bill would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.
"I am proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of a repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,'" Cao said in a press release. "Our military commanders at the Pentagon believe it is time to proceed with dismantling this flawed policy, and I am happy [to] put my name on this legislation as well as to continue to work alongside Log Cabin Republicans as we speak to our Republican colleagues about the merits of repealing the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in our armed forces."
