Showing posts with label rejected. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rejected. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

SMACKDOWN! New Hampshire House rejects gay marriage ban


The New Hampshire House smacked down a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage!

CACR 28 defined marriage in this state by saying it can only be between a man and a woman.

It was rejected by a wide margin, 201-135, short of a simple majority and far below the three-fifths majority -- 238 votes -- it needed to advance to the Senate.

Sponsors tried to delay a vote on the bill until March 17, so local voters could weigh in on petitions at town meeting that ask for a popular vote on the amendment.

"All we're trying to do here is put this on the ballot," Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, arguing voters should have their say.

Whatever, David. Sit it down and shut it up.

source

Friday, January 29, 2010

UPDATE: No ManCrunch


CBS will not air the broke ass gay dating site ManCrunch.

However they said, "the ad is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday"

They have standards? Ha!

source

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Senate Finance Committee isn't Feeling Public Option


Not cute news, the Senate Finance Committee rejected public option
Members of the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday rejected an amendment to a sweeping health-care overhaul bill that would have created a government-run insurance plan option.

Authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the amendment failed by a vote of 15 to 8. Rockefeller said a so-called "public option" would have offered a competitor to private insurance companies. There are other amendments to come that would also create a government option.

Hopefully, this isn't over.

source

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Question of the Day


After being rejected from the Federal Prop 8 case, what will Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union do now?

And what did they learn from this?

The story is here

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to DADT, but it's not a huge Defeat


Since this news hit, many LGBT blogs are ready to burn Obama to ashes. But me, I had to find the truth, so I found this bit of info that's helped me understand what REALLY happened.
The action taken today was denial of certiorari, which ultimately means that there were not at least four justices willing to accept the case.

So, today’s action was not a decision on the merits of the case; the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

What’s more, the decision, particularly coming right now, likely tells us little about what the members of the Court actually think about the constitutionality of the policy. Why? Because a justice, say Justice Ginsburg, might believe the policy is unconstitutional but could vote against cert because she was uncertain of the Court’s other members’ views and did not want to risk losing the argument. Additionally, with the Court is in the midst of a personnel change, I’d think we’re unlikely to see many high-profile, likely 5-4 outcome case, cert grants before a new justice takes the bench.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this case came to the Court with a very odd background posture. As detailed here, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a legal group dedicated to supporting lesbian and gay soldiers, had been involved in this case, originally representing the 12 individuals challenging the policy. The organization, however, was no longer representing James Pietrangelo when he sought certiorari. SLDN continued to represent the other 11 individuals and filed a brief opposing having the Court accept this case. The lawyers representing the 11 wrote:

Petitioner and the eleven Cook respondents originally filed a single complaint challenging the constitutionality of DADT, on its face and as applied to them. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, without allowing any opportunity for discovery or the compilation of a factual record. Petitioner seeks review of the First Circuit’s decision affirming that decision.

The Cook respondents agree that the court of appeals erred; that DADT is not only bad policy but violates, on its face and as applied, the constitutional rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans; and that the issues at the heart of this case may at some point require resolution by this Court. If the Court grants review in this case, the Cook respondents will support reversal of the judgment below. Unlike petitioner, however, the Cook respondents believe the Court would be better advised to defer review at this time.

So, this was not even a case that the legal organization dedicated to helping to overturn this policy — with support from lawyers at WilmerHale — thought should be heard by the Supreme Court.

Then, in an even more odd turn, Pietrangelo filed a brief with the Supreme Court seeking to strike, or toss out, the SLDN brief. He argued that this should be done because the group had earlier been representing Pietrangelo as well. SLDN then filed a brief withdrawing from representation of the other 11 individuals, noting that it was doing so “in order to avoid any possibility that this dispute between petitioner and counsel might prejudice either the Cook respondents [the other 11 individuals] or petitioner in this proceeding.” Substitute counsel replaced SLDN and the WilmerHale lawyers representing the “Cook respondents.”

In short, I don’t think that this is a case that anyone should want to be the Supreme Court challenge to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Court is experiencing change in its membership, the factual record is not well-developed (which we definitely want since the factual records in so many of these cases are very compelling, as with the case of Lt. Dan Choi), the 12 individual being kicked out of the military in the case disagree on whether the case should be heard, and the organization existing solely to fight Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is no longer involved in the case.

Yes it long, but I hope it helps folks process what happened.
Thanks to JMG for posting this and Law Dork for researching the info

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Rejected!


Well, Roland Burris was denied his Senate seat this morning as he hoped to waltz into office.

His credentials were not accepted or deemed in order. Now Burris's attorneys will take over. But seriously, he should've known this would happen. I'm still confused with why he would want to be in all of this drama. If it was me, I would wait until all of this mess blows over. As I said before, he should've known better.

Now he looks like Boo Boo the fool, standing in the rain with no seat.And now our tax dollars will be wasted as this drags out in court. Burris, I know you want this, but please wait. Just wait until Rod Baloney Sandwich is cleared or arrested.
More info here

The Stuff

My photo
Viktor is a small town southern boy living in Los Angeles. You can find him on Twitter, writing about pop culture, politics, and comics. He’s the creator of the graphic novel StrangeLore and currently getting back into screenwriting.