Supreme Court Just Showed Their Hand

This was posted by a friend :

After reading Kerry v. Din, it appears the Supreme Court tipped their hand today on where they will fall on same-sex marriage. 

The opinions in the cases had an obvious undertone regarding the scope of constitutional due process rights to marriage. While the majority opinion was comprised of all the Conservative justices, Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito refused to join the opinion in whole and focused only on the judgment writing "...rather than deciding, as the plurality does, whether Din has a protected liberty interest, my view is that, even assuming she does, the notice she received regarding her husband's visa denial satisfied due process." 

This rationale offered by Kennedy, having originated in Court precedent (Kliendienst), was not contested by the four liberal Justices, rather they merely disagreed that the Consular Officer's statement was not adequate for denying the visa application.

My official marriage equality prediction now sitting at a 6-3 opinion. 

Oh how far America has come...

2016 Election

A friend posted this on Facebook and is an interesting perspective 

"Presidential dreams are becoming increasingly dreary for Republican hopefuls. Currently, the primary field is so wide open (with 16 contenders) that, even with the GOP identity crisis aside, the establishment candidates are polling at record lows. Given the identity crisis of who the Republican party is and needs to be, this election is becoming more and more of an election for Hillary to lose, rather than the GOP's to win.

When November 8, 2016 rolls around, Hillary will start... yes, START... with a minimum of 247 of the 270 electoral votes she needs to win. This is due to the "Democratic Blue Wall" (Google It). As many political strategists will say, Hillary is almost guaranteed Colorado because of the rapidly growing Hispanic population. Gaining Colorado gives Hillary 9 more electoral votes, bringing her to 256. Hillary is also likely to take Virginia because of the influx of Northerners (the D.C. crowd) who lean very left. If she pulled this off she would be at 269. 

This would leave Hillary needing one vote. Yes, one electoral vote. Given that Republicans start every election with 191 electoral votes, the necessity to win the big toss up states (Florida and Ohio) leave the smaller states, of which Hillary needs one, untapped.

If Clinton doesn't need Ohio or Florida, though she would likely win at least one, she would just need Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire to put her over the edge. And with a boatload of money and no real primary challenger, she'll have plenty of time and resources to lock up at least one of those states.

Let this sink in... 16 years of a Democratic President and 4 (I REPEAT 4) Supreme Court Nominations."

Regards

Jordan Letschert 

SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court Justice Didn’t Know Marriage Can’t Legally Involve Churches or Religion

With the first day of hearings taking place before the United States Supreme Court, an awkward happening occurred when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts found out that both religion and religious establishments have nothing to do with the legality of same-sex marriage.

The uncomfortable exchange began when Chief Justice Roberts asked famed gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto why she believed that we should “force churches and religious leaders to preside over a homosexual wedding that, when taken as a whole, would offend their moral conscience.”

Although she seemed taken aback, Bonauto replied with little to no hesitation.

“Well, I’d cite the U.S. Constitution, previous Supreme Court decisions, and the Treaty of Tripoli.”

Chief Justice Roberts then asked Bonauto to elaborate on her answer.

Bonauto replied, “Thomas Jefferson clearly stated that the intent and function of the 1st Amendment was that the country could never establish any laws based on, or supporting, a specific religious view. He stated that ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.'”

She then continued by stating that, “This court has ruled in this manner time after time, and even the Treaty of Tripoli, which was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate way back in 1797, clearly stated that our government was not established on any specific religious tradition. Not to mention, priests and churches will not be forced to marry anyone.”

Bonauto concluded by accurately saying, “Indeed, it is a fact that all you need to get married would be another person, a trip to a courthouse, a witness, and a signed document. When people get married in a church, it isn’t recognized by the government without the legal documentation.”

It was at this point that those in the court witnessed Chief Justice Roberts begin to whisper to fellow conservative Justices Scalia and Alito. Justice Roberts then became visibly red in the face at this point and some reports even state that you could audibly hear Roberts say, “Really!?”

From www.youreadygrandma

Regards 

Jordan Letschert 

Florida HB 7111

Despite Florida being a highly Republican state in our House and Senate, lawmakers who pride themselves on smaller govt, literally make up problems to pass legislation so their names can be put on a bill.

Case and point HB 7111 which OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED in the Fl House . This broadly worded bill would allow adoption agencies who receive TAX PAYER FUNDS to turn around and arbitrarily discriminate against QUALIFIED parents. 

Rather than an up or down approval to adopt a child in need of a loving home, this bill would allow the tax funded agency to say no based on sexual orientation, marital status, ect... Thus bringing up the constitutionality of the bill.

Despite Republicans in the Fl house stating it is NOT discriminatory to the LGBT community, they rejected nearly 29 amendments to the bill which would specifically carve out the ability to discriminate solely for being gay.... 

One main supporter for the bill actually tried to reinstate a 1977 law that BANNED gay tax paying citizens the right to adopt children in need of a safe, loving home. This 1977 law was ruled unconstitutional in 2010

Sadly the Fl House passed this bill, but the Fl Senate has held it up in the Rules comittee which consists of 8 Republicans and 0 Democrats refusing to vote as even they feel it may be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional

Additionally , the Senate was hoping to entice Foster parents of 160 children to permanently adopt with a tax incentive of $5,000-10,000 thus, this House Bill put that at risk as 33% of the Foster homes could be affected by HB7111

Now let's stop for a second and ask why our legislatures in the House not only voted on this discriminate bill but even created it... After all these agencies gladly accept tax payer money and operate under a govt issued business license... How many of the adopted kids complained? Perhaps that was the driving force... NOPE NOT ONE... In fact when the sponsor of the bill was asked he could not even answer basic facts about agencies, complaints ECT... He had no clue as to the facts....

As facts would have it at MOST 2 religious organizations were concerned about this... That's it 2.. When was the last time 2 cases of complaints got our legislatures to do something.

Rep. Ray Pilon who represents Sarasota Fl.. Stated he had to vote his "conscious and church" ... What happened to voting the will of those you represent... He also stated gay people could still go to a public agency... I compare that to separate but equal.. Like when we use to tell black citizens which water fountain to use or which bathroom to use.... It is SHAMEFUL.... He declined to respond to my request for a meeting...but will most likely not be re elected in 2016 as he votes for himself and his church not for Sarasota. 

Hopefully this bill will never be passed, if so, it will cost Fl tax payers $1 million a year to house 160 foster children who could be adopted..

Regards

Jordan Letschert 

IF YOU LIVE IN SARASOTA

Speak up and let Rep. Pilon he should vote NO on HB7111 that would legalize discrimination in adoption agencies. Rather than placing needy children in loving homes this bill would sanction discrimination.... Worst of all... These agencies benefit from tax dollars from the very citizens they seek to discriminate...

How is this possible in 2015 

https://www.change.org/p/ray-pilon-florida-vote-against-the-bill-that-would-allow-tax-funded-adoption-agencies-to-discriminate-against-gay-citizens-who-wish-to-adopt?recruiter=23724757&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-sm-share_petition-custom_msg&fb_ref=Default

Religious Rights

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

In other words.. NOT marrying ppl now violates their religious freedom 

Sir Elton John

Furious Elton John Calls for Boycott of Dolce and Gabbana Over IVF Comments

Sir Elton John on Sunday called for a boycott of the swank fashion house Dolce & Gabbana after the founders declared their opposition to same-sex marriage and gay adoptions in an interview with an Italian fashion magazine.

D&G, which has clothed some of the celebrity world's top stars, was founded 30 years ago by Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbano. Their designs have been worn by Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Christian Bale and many other movie stars.

But the founders, who were once a couple, told the magazine Panorama they supported "traditional marriage."

John, who married his longtime partner David Furnish last December, issued a furious retort on his Instagram account, saying he would never wear Dolce and Gabbana again and calling on others to join a boycott of the company.

The British singer-songwriter, who has two children born via a surrogate, was especially annoyed at Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbano for their comments about the children of gay couples. They told the publication that kids who aren't born into traditional families are "children of chemistry."

John responded: "How dare you refer to my beautiful children as "synthetic." And shame on you for wagging your judgmental little fingers at IVF — a miracle that has allowed legions of loving people, both straight and gay, to fulfill their dream of having children."

The boycott was quickly supported by other celebs, including tennis star Martina Navratilova and musician Courtney Love, who said they were dumping their D&G clothes.

Article from NBC

Regards

Jordan Letschert