Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Maryland Attorney General Says Same Sex Marriages Should Be Recognized

Uncategorized

by Brian Leubitz

In Maryland, the Attorney General had some good news for the LGBT community:

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) declared Wednesday that Maryland will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and that its agencies should immediately begin affording gay married couples the same rights as heterosexual ones. (Washington Post)

You’ll notice that it doesn’t that same-sex marriages are valid in Maryland, just that the state should be providing gay married couples the same rights. That’s a distinction that has a fair bit of meaning, for symbolic terms. However, for practical purposes, under Gansler’s opinion, the state should recognize few legal differences between straight and gay couples. The full report was about 50 pages (PDF), and steeped in legal background and Maryland history. The state courts ultimately have final say on the matter, but Gansler’s opinion lays out a solid legal roadmap for the process.

But, the right-wing anti-equality types won’t just let it go that easily. In fact, one legislator is calling for the impeachment of AG Gansler:

“It is not up to the attorney general, and that’s the reason I will be bringing charges of impeachment,” Dwyer said. “The opinion doesn’t change the law. It in effect usurps law.”

Of course, the law and most legal experts tend to disagree with Del. Dwyer. But, what are facts and legal scholarship for these people?

Congratulations to the people of Maryland. See more for the Attorney General’s press conference. You can find many more videos on Equality Maryland’s YouTube Channel.

From the comments DavidT says:

That Dwyer guy is a f#&$# idiot. It says right in the report:

An Attorney General opinion is not itself the law of Maryland in the same sense as a statute enacted by the Legislature or court decision elaborating the common law or construing a statute. Rather it is an interpretation of the statutory or common law that can guide a client agency and may be persuasive to a court reviewing agency action based on the opinion . . . Thus, what we say in this opinion is a prediction, not a prescription, as to the how the Court would approach this issue under current law.

The AG is saying, in effect, that yes, it is possible under MD law to recognize SSM. He goes further, and gives his opinion that, when confronted with this question, the MD Court of Appeals will probably rule in favour of recognizing out-of-state SSM. Finally, he remarks that any state agency that intends to change it’s policy based on his opinion should proceed very carefully.
This is not a broad affirmation of SSM rights. It is a carefully crafted legal opinion, with many caveats and conditions.

This is exactly right. The Attorney General of the State of Maryland has authority to review and advise, but does not have ultimate authority. And that is exactly what the Gansler has done; he has provided advice for state agencies on how to treat same sex couples married outside of Maryland. He rightly defers to the legislative branch for their action, or the judicial branch for theirs. Dwyer is just trying to score some cheap political points with his base.

75 Comments

  • 1. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 25, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Brian, if I remeber correctly, this came about because another Maryland official asked whether Maryland's state constitution allowed them to recognize same sex marraiges perormed in other states. And when a lawyer is asked a legal question, isn't part ofhis job to research that legal question so that he or she can provide an informed, proper answer to the question? So how in the world is that Maryland legislator saying that the AG went beyond his job? Oh, that's right–he is a right wing radical who is homophobic because he doesn't want the world to know that he is gay.

  • 2. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 25, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    As happy as I am for Marylanders (fingers crossed), I can't help smirking about measures like that (just like in New York that recognizes same-sex marriages, but refuses to perform them) — if you recognize these marriages, there is no good reason not to perform them, au contraire, you lose money because your people have to travel out of your state in order to get that marriage license and perform their wedding… I hope, NY will wake up soon and realize that, too — they've even had a gay mayor not so long time ago, for crying out loud!

    –Kirill, Russia

  • 3. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:14 am

    “It is not up to the attorney general, and that’s the reason I will be bringing charges of impeachment,” Dwyer said. “The opinion doesn’t change the law. It in effect usurps law.”

    So they are trying to impeach and sue him for voicing his opinion on the matter?!!!!……….WOAH!!!!!…ummm Freedom of Speech……Now the reich is really letting their teeth show….they are violating his freedom of speech…but we can't do it to them?……Keyboard meet head…..BOAW!!!…..BOAW!!!!…….BOAW!!!!!

  • 4. Dave T  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:18 am

    That Dwyer guy is a f#&$# idiot. It says right in the report:

    An Attorney General opinion is not itself the law of Maryland in the same sense as a statute enacted by the Legislature or court decision elaborating the common law or construing a statute. Rather it is an interpretation of the statutory or common law that can guide a client agency and may be persuasive to a court reviewing agency action based on the opinion . . . Thus, what we say in this opinion is a prediction, not a prescription, as to the how the Court would approach this issue under current law.

    The AG is saying, in effect, that yes, it is possible under MD law to recognize SSM. He goes further, and gives his opinion that, when confronted with this question, the MD Court of Appeals will probably rule in favour of recognizing out-of-state SSM. Finally, he remarks that any state agency that intends to change it's policy based on his opinion should proceed very carefully.

    This is not a broad affirmation of SSM rights. It is a carefully crafted legal opinion, with many caveats and conditions. Is it too much to ask that these morons read what they're commenting on before opening their mouths?

  • 5. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:20 am

    Actually, it is worse than that. This idiot is trying to impeach the AG for actually doing his job. when an attorney is asked a legal question, he or she is supposed to look itno te question to see what the law says. That is what this man did. This is just a publicity stunt for Del. Dwyer. Unfortunately, it is a publicity stunt that may end up with some ugly ramifications.

  • 6. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:21 am

    Yes, it is. They don't want to be confused with the facts, because they have already made up those two little divorced brain cells they have that are not even in communication with each other. They just want to grab headlines.

  • 7. Linda  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:24 am

    ha ha ha ha ha…:)

    This sort of thing really is a day-brightener for me. We HAVE to be driving all those religious nuts…well, nuts! They think they have us under control, and then…Oops! There's another fire to be put out! And another, and another!

    "Those damn LGBT's just won't take no for an answer."

    NO! WE WON'T!

    They'll keep trying to repress us, of course. But I think that all this back-and-forth is going to become quite wearing to those moderates who have just kept their nose out of it so far. I think that they're going to get sick of all this wasted money, time and energy and finally stand up and say, 'ENOUGH! Let the gays have their g*d d*mned marriages! We need to focus on other, much more important matters.'

    I'm really looking forward to that. :)

    Love,
    Linda

  • 8. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:36 am

    Hell, yes!

  • 9. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:37 am

    So am I!

  • 10. Linda  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:42 am

    They don't need facts; they've got the Bible.

  • 11. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:45 am

    I think when this starts to get extremely violent on both sides ….and eventually it will…..because are civil rights movements do….They gov. will finally say enough is enough Give the LGBTQQIA community what they want……it happened for AA civil rights, womens rights, segregation, sodomy laws, racial discrimination, and now hate crimes laws….also it happened with the rev.war and civ.war…but the one battle that was never won was the rights of Native Americans…..it is really ad when this county's Natural inhabitants have been pretty much endangered if not extinct….NA only make up 1.5% of the USA population…when at one point they were the majority…and how did that happen?…..white christians…..enough said…..<3…Ronnie

  • 12. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:56 am

    When that bitch Nancy Elliott (R-NH) was talking out of her ass about gay sex being taught in Nashua schools, no one raised a question that bigots and liars like her must be impeached from the legislature…

    But when an Attorney General simply explains in all his capacity that the law has no reason not to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, he gets backlashed. It's his job — to explain the law. They scold him for doing his job!

    Talk about double standards!

    –Kirill

  • 13. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:59 am

    unfortunately Linda…..The Bible is not a legal document and doesn't hold up in a court of law….for proof look at all the precent court cases that made equality for others legal……You would think they would lean that…but it shows how FOOLISH they really are……<3…Ronnie

  • 14. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:59 am

    That is because one was lashing out against us, and the othe was issuing an opinion that is in our avor. Yes, that is the double standard. At least here we are able to stand up and register our complaints about it, and make people aware of te unfairness and injustice.

  • 15. G.Rod  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:03 am

    But in the press conference thereafter he acknowledges that out of state SSM will be recognized for purposes of providing directions to state agencies.
    And this is the standing direction until the legislature or the courts provide an alternate directive.
    The Governor on being asked his response, says that the AG is the State's top lawyer, and he is inclined to follow the direction given by him, particularly when issues as an opinion.

  • 16. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Okay, this my seem slightly OT, but I am going to post it anyway. This is the link to the Video "Free" by Scott Free and Friends. This ties so many of our threads on this site together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jELAwrxx18o&fe

    Hope everyone enjoys it!
    ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

  • 17. Joe  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:09 am

    Linda, as I like to put it, "Yeah, sorry we exist, and that makes YOUR life so complicated!" :-)

  • 18. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:09 am

    @Richard
    The most disgusting and sad thing is that those people KNOW they are discriminating against us, FOR NO GOOD REASON, but they are FINE with that, they are FINE with DISCRIMINATION! I could never understand how people get that way… are they taught that in school or something? that white male heterosexual supremacy is their inborn right?

    –Kirill

  • 19. G.Rod  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:09 am

    Legal commentators suggest that the 'delegate' [representative] should go to law school before he makes these assertions. There are three or four behaviours for which impeachment could be considered. Issuing an opinion at the request of a Representative is not one of them.

  • 20. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:14 am

    Yes, Kirill, they are taught that, especially if they go to certain mainstream churches. They are taught that if someone does not look like you, dresslike you, shop at the same stores as you, eat the same types of food as you,they are not worth being allowed to live. In short, conformity is widely taught, especially in churches that have a history going back to the era of male supremacy, women and children as property, and people of color being inferior races. Look at the literature that has been produced throughout the era of Christianity. Art imitates life quite well.

  • 21. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:17 am

    And Joe, do I detect a symphony of sarcasm? Love it!

  • 22. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:21 am

    They SHOULD be teaching gay sex in schools. They teach STRAIGHT sex.

    Why should gay students have ABSOLUTELY ZERO INSTRUCTION on how to keep themselves sexually safe???

    It couldn't be that they don't WANT to keep young gay men safe or anything, right??????

  • 23. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:22 am

    I also think that subliminal messaging is involved…..since they say all the same things in the exact same way for the exact same reason…..Zack!!!!….Zack!!!!…..Zack!!!!……."Conform! Free thinking is overrated! There is no Area 51!"………"Jerkin' is the new cool! Orange is the new pink!" (eww orange NOT!!)……"Fiona is the most jerkin' babe on the planet! "…….."Josie and the Pussycats is the best movie ever! "……hehehe……<3….Ronnie

  • 24. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:25 am

    @Richard
    We've had something like that in USSR… all students at schools all over the country had to dress in the same kind of uniform; women were wearing same clothes, shoes, coats, not to mention men — it's even easier for them in their suits to get lost among myriads of people who look exactly like them… It was brought to extreme! And where did it get us? To the end of USSR era!
    Destroying individuality, self-expression, uniqueness of every person is the way to nowhere. And there is no reason for it. Wake up, US of A, while you still have a chance for salvation! Give up misguided conformity standards and embrace the rainbow of love! Cheesy finale…

  • 25. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:26 am

    These anti-gay folks like Dwyer, who is trying to get the AG impeached, are always boo hoo'ing that they can't express their 'opinions' on ss marriage without being 'attacked.'

    Yet, the Maryland AG expressed HIS opinion on ss marriage, and Dwyer not only attacks him, but tries to have the man impeached. So, only the people AGAINST ss marriage are allowed to have an 'opinion???'

    I think I just threw up some hypocrisy in my mouth a little bit…

  • 26. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:29 am

    @Bill
    They don't want to keep young gays safe, they want us all to get AIDS and die, remember? You know, "the gay disease"… How is this different from Uganda? Not so much in reality…

  • 27. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:31 am

    You areso righ, Bill–they DON'T want to keep young gay men and women safe from illness. they want us to die. They hink we are evil, yet they continually forget the injunction from rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth to remove the beam from their own eye. They forget about empathy, humanity, compassion. All in the name of "the Bible" and "Protect the Children," never wanting to see just how badly they are not only neglecting the children, but in all actuality abusing the childen.

  • 28. Warner  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:33 am

    Would it be possible to impeach this dwyer guy.

    if you find out the person you hired to teach spanish can't speak it, you fire them…

    … therefore, if a politician does not understand the law and role of goverment, then you should fire them too.

    the deathblow to a sizeable chunk of the fundemental far right of the republican party…

  • 29. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:40 am

    This is what the religious conservative Reich want……<3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbNh6QubxCM&fe

  • 30. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:44 am

    Although a little awkward…..not O.T. at all…..its a video about equality and politics…..<3…..Ronnie

  • 31. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:01 am

    PLEASE DO ENJOY:
    http://www.afterelton.com/blog/snicks/thats-gay-0

  • 32. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:06 am

    That's what the elective process is supposed to manage, but is almost never the case.

  • 33. Jorge  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Ugh… I bet the Yes on 8 side won't publish this call to fire the Maryland AG the way he complained about the radicals against prop 8 calling for the dismissal of that old Oakland man…

  • 34. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Thanks for that. I don't watch that show that often, but I do enjoy it quite a bit.

  • 35. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Had the AG said MD need not give any legal recognition to out-of-state marriages, Dywer would have been running up and down the halls shouting Hallelujah!

  • 36. Linda  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Oh, didn't you know? AIDS is God's punishment on us for being gay.

    Now, all those other STD's….hmm……God's punishment for being hetero? Logic would dictate…..

  • 37. Linda  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Goodness, G. Rod–he doesn't have to know the law! He just needs to know the Bible.

    'nough said!

  • 38. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:35 am

    But then why didn't "God" stop heteros and hateros from getting HIV…..you see there is always a rational answer to debunk their fiction…..<3….Ronnie

  • 39. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:36 am

    A great article about Weir and stereotyping on ESPN, of all places.
    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/st

  • 40. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Yes, Linda, you have presented their case. However, they are forgetting the fact that 2/3 of all new cases are in the straight community. And to be honest, that does NOT surprise me. After all, it was the LGBTQQIA community that stood up and fought so hard for research funding. We are the ones who have all the event to cover the expenses of living with HIV/Aids for ALL patients who have limited resources. We are the ones who started the ball rolling to find treatment options, make those options available, and keep up the research and the funding to improve those treatment options. And which group is showing the greatest longevity of health after a diagnosis, on average? The very ones who are supposedly bing punished by G-d for being born LGTQQI. But then, they can't get their heads out of the radical fundevangelists' behinds long enouh to learn, remember, and respect the trut and act on it. All they can do is act on superstition and fear. And do all they can to instill more of the same.

  • 41. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:44 am

    And short of that, they want all of us who even dare to think for ourselves to have frontal lobotomies.

  • 42. nightshayde  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Are closing arguments today, or have they been postponed?

    *blushes* I haven't been keeping up with this site all that often while waiting for February 26th to arrive. >.>

  • 43. Linda  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:51 am

    "The earth is not flat; it is round."

    "Heresey! Kill him!"

    "The sun does not move; the earth does."

    "Heresey! Kill him!"

    "Homosexuality is an inborn trait, not a choice."

    "Heresey! Kill him!"

    …sigh…..

  • 44. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Today was the day Judge Wlker was supposed to set the date for closing arguments. However, Spero approved the h8ers motion for disclosure of documents, so that will probably delay the date for closing arguments. Still, I am glad to know that you are okay. And it looks as though we may get to see the closing arguments on TV.

  • 45. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:55 am

    To add to LInda's comment above:

    Women are equal to men.

    HERESY! Kill him!

    All races are equal.

    HERESY! Kill him!

    You see, it is a pattern. Whenever an unpopular group is coming up for equality, the radical fundevangelists and all their sheeple fall back on the same thing–calling it heresy.

  • 46. Audrey  |  February 26, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Apologies for going off-topic. I posted this at the end of yesterday's open discussion and am re-posting here in the hopes of getting some help.

    I’m interested in looking at the amicus briefs filed on behalf of Proposition 8. Does anyone know if there’s a place where these are aggregated? If they’re anything like the ones filed last year when Prop 8 was upheld, they’re probably pretty wild. Those are archived on the court’s website: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highpr

    Thanks!

  • 47. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:07 am

    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/amicus-

    These are the ones for the Plaintiffs. I don't know where the others are listed, though.

  • 48. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Interview with Johnny Weir. I am liking this guy more and more. I especially like most of ESPN's take on the situation and the way they are presenting him. Skater first, person second. The interviewer does discuss sexuality, but I like that he has a conversation about it, not a projection.

  • 49. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Wouldn't let me embed: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4819112

  • 50. Audrey  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Thanks, Alan. For some reason the ones on the plaintiff side are more readily accessible. I've found the Family Research Council brief: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10A20.PDF

    If anyone has more links to other pro-Prop 8 amicus briefs, that would be great.

  • 51. nightshayde  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Aaaah – thank you.

    I realized that I had been spending WAY too much time on this site while at work & thought it would be best to give it a rest for a while.

    Seeing the closing arguments on TV would be quite cool.

    Hope you (and everyone else here) are doing well!

  • 52. Dave T  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Normally I avoid sports (and especially sport journalism) like the plague, but I have to agree: that's a very well written article. It's nice to see someone involved in a "manly" field like sports actually thinking about gender issues in a healthy and intelligent way.

  • 53. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:30 am

    It was only a matter of time before Maggie Gallagher and her NOM-NOMs got their panties in a twist about this one, huh…

    http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&s

  • 54. Linda  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Heresy–I knew that word didn't look right when I wrote it! :)

    How about this train of thought–

    "God hates divorce!…well, except in some cases; I mean, sometimes it just doesn't work out. It's not his 'perfect' plan, but…you know….we're human, after all…."

    "If you divorce, you are not to remarry; this would be adultery!….Well, again…in today's world…well….yeah, see we're imperfect. We freely admit that!"

    "A deacon can only have one living wife!….Yeah, that refers to the divorce/remarriage thing. They didn't practic polygamy. THEY DIDN'T, DIDN'T, DIDN'T!!! Marriage has always been one man/one woman. ALWAYS!!!"

    "Jacob married Leah, and her sister Rachel; and also had concubines!…..well…hehe…yeah, but….well, that was Old Testament; and we don't follow the Old Testament rules, because Christ came and negated all that stuff. And besides, only the sons by Rachel and Leah counted. All those other kids were….uh…..unimportant…..uh…..hmm….tsk…that was just the culture of the day. Poor Jacob really only wanted to marry Rachel; he was forced into all that other stuff."

    "God hates adultery!…true, but….well, sometimes people are just so vulnerable to Satan's attack. He's sneaky, you know….thank goodness God is a forgiving God…and we should forgive, too! Who are we to judge…"

    "Women are not to speak in church! ….Oh, that's easy….see, that was just the culture at the time. God didn't really intend for us to take that part of the Bible seriously."

    "Do not eat pork!….well, that's the Old Testament law; Christ came and made all that stuff unnecessary! Isn't that wonderful? We have a new life in Christ. Hallelujah!"

    "Homosexuals are an abomination and should be put to death! …Absolutely! God said it, and there's no arguing with him. It's right there in black and white. And the Bible is God's Word–infallable and inerrant. There's no arguing, no changing, no omitting, no explaining away!"

  • 55. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Yes, and Ihave to wonder how solid their marriages are, since they are so worried about stopping ours. Especialy MagPie who can't beother to bring her hindu husband along with her when she is supposedly touting the beniefits and superiority of "traditional marriage." If they would spend more time on their own marriages, they would not have time to worry about making ours llegal. That in and of itself shows you that their marriages are far from solid.

  • 56. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:54 am

    If she brought out her Hindu husband, then the 'Christians' that Maggie steals money from to fund her bigotry would no longer donate to NOM once they found out her husband worships a clay statue as god.

    She's fat, ugly and bigoted, but not stupid.

  • 57. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Oh Bill where do I start with that one….

    "issued a statement responding to the news that Maryland will now recognize gay marriages performed out-of-state." – – ummm NO!!!…..he said Maryland can now recognize gay marriage….meaning it is not a law just an OP….twisting words id so fun…yeah?

    ""Maryland’s statutory law clearly states that ’Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid’ in Maryland." – – although true…there is a bill on the table to repeal that and D.C. is not a state it is a district within Maryland therefor making DOMA illegal by default

    "What part of the law doesn’t the Attorney General [Gansler] understand?" – – HYPOCRITES…..Marriage Equality was LEGAL in California….What part of the law don't you understand NOM?

    "What other laws is he unwilling to enforce?" – – he enforced a law?….WTF are you smoking he stated his legal opinion and practiced he freedom of speech.

    "This is an outrageous example of running roughshod over the rights of the people of Maryland in pursuit of a private political agenda," wrote Brian Brown, executive director of NOM." – – But Brian Brown…..what are you are trying to do the LGBTQQIA people of every state that has already legalized marriage equality other then making an outrageous example of running roughshod over the rights of the LGBTQQIA people of America in pusuit of a private religious and political agenda?…….PWND…..<3…..Ronnie

  • 58. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:07 am

    I don't know about you?……but I have never met "Satin"….no snake told me to eat Adam's Apple…..I don't hear other worldly voices that are saying….."The call is coming from inside his pants….be Gay….Be Gay!!!"…..an I'm sure If a burning bush said "I am God"….it would most likely scare me even further away from every bush on Earth….including George W……..<3….Ronnie

  • 59. fiona64  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Ronnie, I'll take that as a compliment — at least, I think it was a compliment. :-) <3

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 60. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Linda, for those who say that only the sons borne to Yakov by Rachel and Leah count, then why is there an accounting of each and every son and daughter, even the ones by Leah's maid and Rchel's maid.The sons of Jacob (I will use the Greek spellings rather than the Hebrew) are:
    From Leah-Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dinah
    From Rachel-Joseph, Benjamin
    From Zilpah-Gad, Asher
    From Bilhah-Dan, Naphtali
    so, you se, those who say that only the children of Rachel and Leah are listed do NOT know their bible.
    All of these children count in G-d's eyes.

  • 61. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:20 am

    lol….Fiona64….first is started out as making fun of the pod people…..and then after i hit submit…I was like hehehe…fiona is going to like this….but yeah you can take that part of it as a compliment….because you are totally one of the most Jerkin' Babes on the planet….<3…Ronnie

  • 62. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:58 am

    You can try sorting through this site. Look for entries that include the word amicus. This site includes listing for both sides. Some of the filings include the brief and for others, the brief is a separate filing, so it takes a bit of searching.

    Example: document #375 is a motion to file from The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (on behalf of D-Is) and document #376 is the brief. If you want to download a document, click on the number (link), then look for the "Download PDF" link on the right.

    Hope that helps.

  • 63. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Oops! Didn't post the link for the site! http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/cas

  • 64. Ed-M  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Brilliant, Joe!!! And whenever they quote Leviticus at us, I'd like to say, "Yeah, if I sleep with a woman, we're ONLY SHARING THE BED."

  • 65. Audrey  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Kathleen, This does help. I visited this site, but the separate filing set me off the track.

    Thanks so much!

  • 66. Ed-M  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:43 am

    To me, this "Equilibrium" movie is a comic book and a bad one at that… much like the fundievangelicals' interpretation of the Book of Revelation, fleshed out in Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series which culminates in a demonic Jeebus who magically fillets and guts all the soldiers at Megiddo, Israel, and the horses they came in on (all 2-400 million of them), and incinerates people with red laser beams that come out of his eyes. Now they've even come out with a video game that depicts a Christian version of the US Armed Forces invading Iraq, only in the game they're invading Manhattan and are converting or (usually) killing all the non-Christians. This includes all the gay men even the closet cases who subscribe to their brand of Christianity. As if being gay can be turned off like a switch. Yes, they really DO want to kill us!

  • 67. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:29 am

    Brian…awesome article. Love the explanation on what the AG's realm is. Wonder if the TX AG has the same authority or lack thereof. That is, the TX AG's opinion that the recent divorce of two married Austin women is just that…an opinion.

  • 68. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:29 am

    sorry..meant "…TX AG's opinion ON the recent divorce…"

  • 69. Ed-M  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Johnny did dodge the question of his sexual orientation but I think there are three reasons why: first of all, one or more of the athletic federations he belongs to frowns on athletes actually coming out and saying "I'm gay;" second, it's not as important to younger people whether someone's gay or not (this is because they're less homophobic); and third, he could actually be hetero! Although there's at lest a 75% chance that someone who's this gay-acting and appearing is, in fact, gay. http://www.amazon.com/Sissy-Boy-Syndrome-Developm
    But being gay or not and being gender-stereotype conforming or nonconforming SHOULDN'T MATTER! And that's exactly what Johnny is saying. Instead of people asking well-known people, are you gay? They should be asking: do you have any love interests? And they shouldn't be shocked or disapproving when the person they're interviewing reveals his love interest is someone of the same sex. This is why I am furious at the judges and the Quebecois and Australian commentators being all homophobic and transphobic over Mr. Weir. Because it makes it NOT SAFE for well-known, yet still socially vulnerable, gay men, lesbians, etc. to come out and be honest about who they are and who's in their love life. And it harms ALL kids, LGBTIQQ and straight.

  • 70. Sean  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:08 am

    I'm proud of my state (and about damn time, too!!)

  • 71. G.Rod  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Bill, I have often commented on the clarity and wisdom of your views. And I enjoy your humour.

    The published OPINION on a legal matter by the AG of any state, particularly when it is written in reply to a [loaded] question of an elected representative, carries significantly more weight that the opinion of most anyone else, except judges of courts in that state when they are issuing THEIR JUDGEMENTs. This opinion will guide all the state agencies until the courts have spoken on the matter, particularly since the governor says he defers to his AG.
    HIS OPINION apparently came only weeks after a Bill in the House not to recognize out-of-state marriages failed for a variety of reasons. The speaker of the House, who has a role in moving impeachment forward, see no grounds or interest in doing so.

    HIS OPINION was arrived at after those people who were against SSM, and those for it submitted briefs to the AG.

    Naturally we all have opinions! Yours I usually agree with. What were you ingesting? It’s not good to throw up over a keyboard, even if it’s just a little bit.

  • 72. JonT  |  February 26, 2010 at 11:35 am

    My favorite segment :) Thanks.

  • 73. O Dog  |  February 27, 2010 at 1:45 am

    So am I. It's such a great feeling knowing that my home state has come so far in seeing me as equal.

  • 74. 332678  |  September 26, 2011 at 11:22 am

    332678 beers on the wall. sck was here

  • 75. _______ ________ ___  |  October 30, 2013 at 11:18 am

    There is definately a great deal to know about this issue.
    I love all the points you made.

    my web page :: _______ ________ ___

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!