3 days left
June 28, 2011
By Adam Bink
To vote for us to get $50,000 from Pepsi, no strings attached, to fight LGBT bullying (not to mention, do less fundraising for projects from folks like you!). We’re in #3 and if we are still in the top 10 at the end of the day on June 30th, we’re in the money.
And vote again (using a different account if you like).
And text our voting code (106897) to the number 73774 on your mobile phone.
You might even share it on Facebook and Twitter when you’re done, if you really could take a second and go the extra mile.
You all rock!
Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!
17 Comments
1.
nightshayde | June 28, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Just voted. =)
2.
Maggie4NoH8 | June 28, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I've been voting everyday, faithfully!!!!
3.
JacobRD | June 28, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Me too!
4.
Maggie4NoH8 | June 28, 2011 at 4:47 pm
OT, but I just had to share:
1 – the email blast from NOM
2 – my "reply" back to Brian Brown (he's never acknowledged any reply I've sent – I just like doing so)
NOM'S EMAIL BLAST:
We Pledge $2 Million to Reverse SSM in New York
Will You Stand With Us?
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Dear Marriage Supporter,
Last night we were sold out by the Republican Party in New York. Shortly before 10:30 last night, the New York Senate voted 33 to 29 in favor of same-sex marriage. Four Republicans – Jim Alesi, Roy McDonald, Steve Saland, and Mark Grisanti provided the margin of passage.
But this fight is far from over. In response to last night's vote, I have doubled our pledge to New York, committing at least $2 million dollars to make sure that New York Republicans understand that voting for gay marriage has consequences.
Marriage isn't a partisan issue – in fact, the hero of the past month has been Democratic Senator Ruben Diaz, a courageous friend who has withstood threats, bigotry and hatred while working tirelessly to protect and defend marriage. NOM pledges to stand with Senator Diaz and any Democrat who would share his courage in standing for marriage.
But the responsibility today rests squarely with the Republican Party. The Republican Party has torn up its contract with the voters who trusted them. When Democrats are in control, they regularly refuse to permit a vote on a marriage amendment. When they are in the minority, they may even leave the state to prevent a vote when their base disapproves. And yet, last night the Republican Party has sold out, and it is the Republican Party that will pay the worst price for this vote to redefine marriage.
Selling out your principles to get elected is wrong. Selling out your principles to get the other guy elected is just plain dumb.
It's time to change the way business is done in Albany. Politicians who campaign one way on marriage, and then vote the other, need to understand: betraying and misleading voters has consequences, too. We are not giving in – to the contrary, we begin today in a renewed push for a constitutional amendment that would give the people of New York the right to vote on marriage.
In order to give the people of New York that right, we're going to have to change the leadership in Albany, bringing new pro-marriage majorities to both houses of the New York Legislature. That's why NOM is committing at least $2 million to New York in 2012, both through independent expenditures and through NOM PAC New York.
Will you join us with a generous donation to NOM PAC New York? With your help, this battle has just begun. Your gift of $50, $100, or even $1000 or more will help get us off to a powerful start. In the next sixteen months we will change the faces of Albany.
And the first order of business will be to replace the senators who betrayed us last night.
Thank you for standing with us.
Faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
President, National Organization for Marriage
Treasurer, NOM PAC New York
AND MY REPLY:
Dear Brian,
Actually, I think Sens Saland and Grisanti thoughtfully reviewed the situation, including the fact that the people of New York actually do support marriage equality, and came to a well-reasoned, rational and logical conclusion that was reflected in their votes on this issue.
I do not believe they have misrepresented themselves, or their constituents, and should not be "punished" for this.
I will be supporting both of their future campaigns.
I would also like to suggest the financial resources of NOM might be better utilized feeding and clothing under-privileged children, or perhaps strengthening marriage through counseling programs for couples who do not have the financial resources alone to access these services, rather than on political action.
Sincerely,
(my real name)
5.
jpmassar | June 28, 2011 at 7:03 pm
DoJ to appeal same-sex couple bankruptcy decision
6.
Ann S. | June 28, 2011 at 7:24 pm
OK, this is weird. The DOJ is not defending any of the other DOMA cases.
So why would they appeal this bankruptcy court ruling striking Art. 3 of DOMA? I don't get it.
7.
Tasty Salamanders | June 28, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Hmm it does seem odd, I guess one way to look at their thinking is to see if they have requested a stay or not.
I mean let's say they haven't and don't request a stay then we have this: Them claiming it is unconstitutional + appealing a case where 20 of 25 Judges signed the opinion that it was unconstitutional + not trying to stop the ruling from taking effect.
I guess it could be that they feel they will lose the case because a 20 Judge opinion will not easily be ignored in the appeal court, or that they won't properly defend it, or both. Plus while the Republican controlled house has chosen to step in on this case maybe they feel that by appealing and keeping the case alive they can pile more work onto Republicans in the future or force them to not appeal a case later in the future if this appeal fails and the DOJ doesn't appeal again which I guess could look really bad for their side.
Really there could be many complex reasons they are appealing this case in particular and not all of them might be good reasons or even complex eg. This is a bankruptcy case and they suddenly realised they may have to help many bankrupt same-sex couples on top the opposite-sex couples, such a reason would be cold and heartless and should be condemned. Or it could simply be that they lied when they said they wouldn't defend any more cases relating to this.
So yeah, there is a bunch of simple or complex and good or bad reasons they could be doing this and I wouldn't put money on any of the reasons, though I hope it's a simple and good reason of that they think they could quickly and easily lose the appeal and get a binding precedent at the 9th Circuit.
8.
Michguy | June 28, 2011 at 10:03 pm
It appears that this ruling strikes all of DOMA and not just section 3 as you stated above. This DOMA challenge also appears to be as applied and not facial challenge but none the less it still seems to strike "ALL" of DOMA so thats good. I think it is a good idea to appeal it to a higher court especially since the court will be in the 9th Circuit which will be more likley to side with equality.
9.
Ann S. | June 28, 2011 at 10:41 pm
There is some language in the ruling that does appear to strike all of DOMA. That wouldn't make sense, though, because Section 2 had no relevance to the case (Section 2 governs whether one state must recognize a marriage of a same-sex couple performed in another state). I'm not sure how that one will shake out.
However, Section 2 is pretty much irrelevant. States are already not required to recognized marriages performed in other states that violate the laws of the first state. This has been true since long before DOMA.
10.
Tasty Salamanders | June 28, 2011 at 11:05 pm
I'm not that familiar with US law but I thought that states ARE required to recognise marriages from other states due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and it was DOMA that allowed states to not recognise marriages from out of state if they are same-sex by allowing an exemption to the Constitution which means that it is clearly unconstitutional.
But yeah, I was under the impression the Bankruptcy ruling was only on Section 3 since Section 2 didn't seem to have anything to do with the case.
11.
Ann S. | June 29, 2011 at 8:58 am
Tasty, my parents were married in California after Perez v. Sharp invalidated laws against interracial marriage in the state, but before Loving v. Virginia. Their marriage was considered illegal in some states we lived in when I was a little kid.
A California marriage (as in this example), valid in California, that violates a public policy in Missouri (one state we lived in where their marriage was illegal), does not have to be recognized by Missouri.
So I don't really care about Section 2 of DOMA.
12.
Fluffyskunk | June 28, 2011 at 10:27 pm
"and vote again?" You know if you guys win and they find out you had openly encouraged ballot stuffing on your site, they could disqualify you. :-/
13.
Adam Bink | June 29, 2011 at 6:40 am
They allow one vote per day via Facebook, one via Pepsi account, and one via text message.
14.
Fluffyskunk | June 29, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Hey, thumbs down person. I want them to win too. That's why I wanted to warn them, duh.
15.
juliecason (JC) | June 29, 2011 at 4:11 am
I wish I had a more appropriate post to share this link on, but a friend of mine just shared this blog post with me and it is eye-opening. I now have a much better understanding of why NOM and the Prop8 folks act so darn irrationally and seem so impervious to reason. I feel like I can now have some compassion and understanding for them, instead of blind rage, which is very helpful to my own peace of mind…. Hope you all enjoy reading this, too. Warning: it's long! Grab a cup o' tea or coffee… http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-f…
16.
Ozymandias71 | June 29, 2011 at 8:09 am
EXTREMELY good article! Definitely worth a read!
17.
Sam_Handwich | June 29, 2011 at 5:57 am
This is way off topic, but i just stumbled across this press release at marriageequalityri.org…
"Marriage Equality Rhode Island joined with prominent national marriage equality advocates to call on Gov. Lincoln Chafee to veto civil union legislation if the State Senate passes it with the controversial and discriminatory Corvese amendment included"
So, is this to say: "civil unions are okay as long as they don't discriminate too much". ?
Anyone know what's going on in RI? What their strategy is?