Blurred Lines: Russia Dances With Gay Propaganda, Fights Lady Gaga and Madonna

By: Monday August 5, 2013 6:30 pm

With the 2014 Winter Olympics around the corner, the country has come under considerable heat for its anti-gay laws. In Russia, the act of voicing support for gay rights in and of itself is considered to be “propaganda” and is therefore illegal.


So, the usual set of stupidities then?

By: Tuesday July 9, 2013 1:30 am

Pat Robertson keeps making money — well, asking old people for theirs actually.

DOJ Official Who Destroyed Evidence of Sexual Orientation Discrimination Gets 1 Day in Jail

By: Wednesday June 26, 2013 11:25 am

As we celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision on DOMA let’s not forget about what happened earlier this week when Scott Bloch was sentenced to a meager one day in jail. Bloch was deputy director to the Department of Justice’s Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives, as well as Special Counsel at the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) during the Bush Administration. Bloch opposed the “homosexual agenda” and led the OSC to hire other lawyers that shared his view and would act accordingly.

Cryin’ and Nullifyin’

By: Monday June 24, 2013 1:30 am

Rule of Law means nothing to the sort of right-wing religious crowd John C. Calhoun would want to hang with.

Waiting With Pride, Dignity, and Hope

By: Saturday June 15, 2013 9:03 am

Several times in the next two weeks, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States will file into their ornate Washington DC courtroom at 10AM, and issue their judgments on a variety of major cases that have been under consideration during the past 9 months, including Hollingsworth v Perry (Prop 8) and US v Windsor (DOMA). SCOTUS watchers have been parsing the legal filings by both sides. Scholars have been dissecting the oral arguments, to see which points of law seem to be at the center of these cases. Pundits have been predicting how the court might rule for months. Soon, the opinion will be released, and the follow-up analysis will begin.

Meanwhile, we wait.

And for many, that waiting is done with increasingly powerful pride.

Washington State GOP Wants to Protect (Some) Homophobia from Anti-Discrimination Lawsuits

By: Saturday April 27, 2013 9:00 am

A dozen Republican members of the Washington state legislature are so outraged that a florist would be forced to sell flowers to gays or lesbians that they have put forward a bill to protect homophobic business owners from anti-discrimination lawsuits. Actually, that’s not quite right — the homophobic beliefs have to be “sincerely held” in order to protect the owner from a lawsuit.

Let’s take a moment and imagine just how a lawyer would probe those allegedly sincerely held beliefs . . .

And we note for the record that the mere fact that someone is sincere in their hatred of someone else doesn’t make it right, and certainly doesn’t make it worth protecting.

The freakout continues all over

By: Thursday April 25, 2013 1:30 am

It’s bad enough that Iowa has a district (not my district thank goodness) represented by the stupid and loathsome Steve King.

But the determination of several Republicans in the Iowa Legislature to do their impression is the kind of thing that is bound to keep the GOP on the cutting edge of social issues — in that they will bleed badly from them.

Truly bringing out the intellectual firepower

By: Thursday March 28, 2013 1:30 am

Over the years National Review has regularly rolled out really powerful arguments such as “We must defend the Southern Way of Life“; “White Men Only“; “I Dream of a Shirtless Mitt Romney“; “I’m too busy to understand what I say?”; “Why are the pages of my GOP Platform Sticking Together?” and, of course, “Beyond Thunderdome“.

But none may ever match the glory of Kathryn Lopez’s plan to eliminate the need for gay marriage.

Nearly 30 years later

By: Tuesday March 26, 2013 1:30 am

Today the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in which they will determine whether California Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage is Constitutional.

For the Court to be deciding this question, versus the question they were asking in 1986 in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick and the questions they asked is telling in how society has, and hasn’t changed.

Follow Firedoglake
CSM Ads advertisement