Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Equality news round-up: Still waiting on Supreme Court’s decision in the marriage cases

Conversion therapy cases LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

It's time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
It’s time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
– Yesterday, the Supreme Court released orders and opinions. The Court didn’t issue the opinion in Obergefell, the marriage equality case, but it did decide a case involving (different-sex) marriage and immigration, Kerry v. Din. A US citizen’s husband was denied entry into the country, and the justification given was only a citation to a law that bans people involved in terrorism, among other things. His wife, the US citizen, sued, arguing that she has a procedural due process right to live with her husband in the US because there’s a fundamental right to marry. The Court disagreed, though without a clear majority. SCOTUSBlog commented that the decision may have implications for the marriage equality case. So did Professor Ruthann Robson and Noah Feldman

– The White House does not have a backup plan if the Court upholds same-sex marriage bans. A ruling upholding the bans seems unlikely, but if it were to happen, there would be problems with Social Security and veterans’ benefits for couples living in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage.

– The EEOC has information about protections for LGBT workers.

– Equality Case Files notes that today is the last day of the plaintiffs’ case in the trial in New Jersey against JONAH, a group that practices so-called “conversion therapy.” They’re being sued for consumer fraud.

48 Comments

  • 1. TimATLGA  |  June 16, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    SCOTUS just added Thursday, June 18th for opinions.

  • 2. SethInMaryland  |  June 16, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    interesting

  • 3. TimATLGA  |  June 16, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    And two weeks from today is likely the last date for opinions, as the term doesn't typically spill into July. The final countdown is on!

  • 4. Elihu_Bystander  |  June 16, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    True, but it can. as noted by other EQoT'ers, it could be extended into July. But,
    probably not later than 2-July-2015.

  • 5. Rick55845  |  June 16, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    expected

  • 6. guitaristbl  |  June 16, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    They have announced it a week ago actually..

  • 7. mu2  |  June 16, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    It doesn't appear the SC in "Din" has mitigated the right to marry, just that being married does not automatically bypass immigration laws.

  • 8. brchaz  |  June 16, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    Marriage-based immigration is not easy at all. It involves a series of immigration forms, each of which comes with a filing fee of about $800 and demands huge amounts of information with supporting documents. Plus your spouse gets to stay overseas for a year while the first immigration form s l o w l y gets processed. Then your spouse has to pass a visa interview. And during the "permanent resident" phase (1st 3 years of US residence), if your spouse gets caught violating ANY law, it isn't just a fine or jail time, it's Uncle Sam's huge boot kicking your spouse's ass out of the country with little or no hope of ever coming back. The pain only ends when your spouse becomes a US citizen, many years and thousands of dollars later.

  • 9. Rick55845  |  June 16, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    If the spouse entered the country legally on a valid visa and is still in the country when the application is made, even if the original visa is expired, then spouse can remain in the country while the application is being processed. Leaving the US and then reentering without a valid visa, however, screws the pooch.

    It's best to secure the services of an immigration attorney to guide you through the process and represent you. Try to fill out the forms and get all the required documentation together yourself, and you'll see why.

  • 10. brchaz  |  June 16, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    You only need an immigration attorney if you have some horrible complicating factor. For ordinary or mildly complex cases, just study http://visajourney.com and you'll be fine.

  • 11. sfbob  |  June 16, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    That's my take as well. Not really pertinent to marriage equality.

  • 12. Waxr  |  June 17, 2015 at 7:22 am

    As I understand it (and I rarely understand legalese,) it is a plurality decision, rather than a majority decision, therefore it is not binding on future decisions. Is that correct?

  • 13. wes228  |  June 17, 2015 at 7:52 am

    The judgment is binding precedent: American citizens do not have their due process rights violated when their alien spouses are denied a visa in the same manner as to what occurred in this case.

    What is not binding precedent is the reason why. Group A (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas) says that there is no such constitutional right inherent in due process period. Group B (Kennedy, Alito) says that there is no reason to determine if there are due process rights implicated here, but even assuming so, due process was satisfied when the consular officer cited the federal statute he used to deny the visa.

    Group B's rationale, being decided on the most narrow grounds, is considered the most authoritative.

  • 14. Lymis  |  June 17, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    Not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the way it works is that, essentially, anything that the majority agreed on is binding precedent going forward.

    So if 4 Justices rule that The Decision is that the plaintiffs win because A and B are so, and 1 Justice writes a concurrence that says that only A is so, but that B is not, and 4 Justices dissent that neither A nor B is so, then the plaintiffs win, but only A is binding on lower courts in the future. B will likely float as well, but won't be binding, and it's anyone's guess for a case where B applies but A does not.

    On the other hand, if 3 Justices rule that the plaintiffs win because A and B are so, and 2 Justices rule that the plaintiffs win because C and D are so, the plaintiffs win, but there is no binding precedent on lower courts to use either specific rationale. though it's likely that a lower court with a substantially similar case who ruled that the plaintiffs lose would be overruled – on what basis would remain to be seen.

    So such a plurality generally ends up being binding only if the case is substantially similar, but the rationale of it usually can't be extended to a broader range of cases.

  • 15. Lymis  |  June 16, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see the applicability to same-sex marriage of US citizens to each other.

    If it's his point that this may indicate that Scalia and Thomas might turn out to be less than deferential to same-sex marriage, well, to use technical legal language, DUH. Roberts has always been iffy on SSM and few people are counting on him.

    The only possible extension of the logic of this to marriage equality is the idea that a majority will find that there is a right to marry, but not the right to have a state actually issue the license or record the marriage. That, essentially, as long as there's a state anywhere in which you can marry, your rights are being honored (presumably as long as the state recognizes it.) – and that enough justices would go there to created a majority or plurality ruling against us.

    But even then, that would require someone to rule that it's okay for a state to choose to marry straight people but not same-sex couples under the 14th – which would require simultaneously declaring marriage to be a fundamental right and allow states to choose to treat its citizens unequally. Of all the possible outcomes, that seems one of the least likely.

    If we lost at SCOTUS, I don't see how it could be related to this.

  • 16. VIRick  |  June 16, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    "…. Scalia and Thomas …. to use technical legal language, DUH."

    Indeed!! LOL

    Actually, given the amount of venom spewed by Scalia, it's obvious to me that it's an overflow and a continuation from his upcoming dissent in "Obergefell," where he didn't get his way, and thus, is now having a major hissy-fit as a result, taking it all out on poor Ms. Din.

    Just like a spoiled child, Scalia is famous for having his melt-down hissy-fits whenever he doesn't get his way.

  • 17. whistleblower1  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    I don't think it's about what the decision at hand means; rather how Justice Kennedy did not join the analysis of the plurality. Justice Kennedy's restraint in simply saying assuming due process applies, she got due process by way of the notice she received leaves him room to not contradict himself if he finds there is a substantive due process interest in marrying someone regardless of gender that warrants striking down marriage bans.

  • 18. VIRick  |  June 16, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Latest quote from the Notorious RBG:

    “The court is not a popularity contest, and it should never be influenced by today’s headlines,” Ginsburg said. But she added that “inevitably it will be affected by the climate of the era. I think that’s part of the explanation of why the gay rights movement has advanced to where it is today — the climate of the era.”

    So, yes, "the climate of the era" is upon us.

  • 19. Waxr  |  June 17, 2015 at 7:25 am

    Unfortunately, in most states judges are elected, making it a popularity contest.

  • 20. SethInMaryland  |  June 16, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    if we win our case could it help MS. Din in any way? for instance if the court said it was fundamental right to marriage , could that help even though she lost her case?

  • 21. whistleblower1  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:44 pm

    It is unlikely. The Court has already expressly stated marriage is a fundamental right on many occasions. Notwithstanding the fundamental right, the court still ruled the way it did today. Our case is very different because in MS Din there already is a valid marriage. Here, we are deciding whether same-sex unions warrant the status of marriage.

  • 22. Lymis  |  June 17, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    This in no way impacts her status as married. They didn't annul her marriage or force her to divorce, nor presumably, did they invalidate her claim to some benefit of marriage that doesn't involve living together or living in this country. She's still married – they didn't take that away from her.

    What they said is that the mere fact that she is married doesn't give her any additional clout to outweigh the decision not to let her husband into the country. It sounds roughly parallel to the idea that "the right to live together with your spouse" doesn't mean that the state can't lock your spouse up when convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison.

    It sounds like the case hinged on the idea that the reasoning given by the clerk who denied the visa wasn't considered sufficient and that the government needs a good reason to keep one's spouse out of the country, and that SCOTUS didn't agree that the reason given wasn't good enough.

  • 23. VIRick  |  June 16, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    More gratuitous pics, this time from the Capital Pride Parade in DC: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/06/16/photos-

  • 24. aiislander  |  June 17, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    Speaking of gratuitous, did everyone see Tatum Channing and Matt Bomer et al. dancing on a float in the Los Angeles gay pride parade? Woof!!!
    http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/watch

  • 25. MichaelGrabow  |  June 18, 2015 at 6:37 am

    So many stupid comments.

  • 26. whistleblower1  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    I just read an interesting article exploring the possibility that the Court will not rule on marriage but rather elevate sexual orientation to heightened scrutiny and send the cases back to the 6th to re-consider with heightened scrutiny -which will mean the 6th's hands will be pretty much tied in favor of ruling for marriage. Then all the other circuits will follow and SSM becomes the law of the land without SCOTUS ever ruling so -but with SCOTUS making a much more broader decision elevating sexual orientation to heightened scrutiny (the last time SCOTUS did this was in 1977 when an attorney by the name of Ruth Brader Ginsburg managed to convince the court the classifications based on 'sex' warranted intermediate heightened scrutiny). It seems like a way out for SCOTUS while still giving proponents of SSM everything plus a big bonus…. Any thoughts?

  • 27. RnL2008  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    Do you have a link to this story? I'd love to read it…….and this is a possibly, but it will also delay Marriage Equality in those States and others waiting on this ruling.

  • 28. whistleblower1  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Sure…see the link below. Well, it will delay ME in 13 states for a very short period of time. But if this is how the Court rules it basically kills two birds with one stone because state legislatures will have a very hard time passing laws that target gays and lesbians even if they appear facially neutral. For example, the law that just passed in North Carolina would be subject to federal review with heightened scrutiny and likely not survive as it is obvious it was simply passed in reaction to ME and because the state does not like gay people getting married to persons of the same-sex. Imagine if in post Loving v. Virginia states would be able to pass laws like the one that recently passed in North Carolina. Elevating sexual orientation to heightened scrutiny may cause a short delay in getting the other 13 states on-board, but in the long run it would be the 'home run' -which coincidentally is also what the Obama Administration argued for–that sexual orientation warrants heightened scrutiny because gays and lesbians meet all the prongs under a formula adopted in another case to determine what classes/groups get 'suspect classification' warranting heightened scrutiny.
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/16/gay

  • 29. RnL2008  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:45 pm

    The article certainly is an interesting take on a possible outcome that has not been discussed, but it is possible that SCOTUS go this direction as a way to prevent the possible threats and backlash that some have threatened…….yet, by doing this….the delay could take another year or so and some anti-gay folks could try many ways to prevent this from becoming law.

    I don't understand why the Court just DOESN'T rule that marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right and that WITHOUT a State compelling reason or interest that the State CAN'T infringe on that right by placing unconstitutional gender restrictions…….but I can see where this is a possibility and now we must wait to see how the Justices rule.

    Thanks for the link by the way.

  • 30. SethInMaryland  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:56 pm

    i mean this is possible , but very unlikely in my opinion . like Rnl said , I don't think Kennedy wants the court the deal with the issue much longer , them doing this scenario could give the antigay folks in Alabama and Kanas wiggle room to continue to do what they been doing

  • 31. RnL2008  |  June 16, 2015 at 11:01 pm

    Evening Seth,
    That's my thought process and the ONLY way I see the Justices sending this back to the 6th is with a big ole butt whipping smackdown because the 6th refused to follow the comments made by the Justices……..but that would be the ONLY reason.

    Just like some think they will uphold the ruling from the 6th, and the chaos such a ruling would bring would keep this issue in front of SCOTUS for years to come and I honestly DON'T believe they want that either.

  • 32. whistleblower1  |  June 16, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    Anytime… 🙂

    All I can say is that saying that gay marriage is a fundamental right is a really, really, big deal. (That is not to say that there are not other ways to find for marriage, just not framing it as a fundamental right.) When you talk about fundamental rights it usually involves going back to the time when this nation was founded and what the Founders deemed fundamental. I think for many people (and I think this is something Justice Kennedy probably gives great deal of thought to) the notion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right is not very palatable because I think we can all agree that SSM is not something the Founders probably had in mind at a time when anti-sodomy laws were on the books. I mean, they did not even think it was a fundamental right for blacks to be free from slavery… So, and at this point I am going to make a prediction that the ruling will be favorable, I think Justice Kennedy is going to find a very unique way to make ME happen–I just don't know what he has in store. (And of course, Ginsburg, Kagan, and probably Sotomayor believe it is in fact a fundamental right –but that is because they believe the Constitution evolves with the times.) As you stated, all we can do is wait–but I have a feeling something good will be in order. And the MS Din case, by the way, is why I am now predicting a favorable outcome. Kennedy's restraint in the case says a lot.

  • 33. RnL2008  |  June 16, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    See the problem is that by using "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" in front of marriage, you like others keep trying to make this some NEW right, when in reality, all Gays and Lesbians want is the right to marry the person of their choosing WITHOUT the State infringing on that right by placing Unconstitutional gender restrictions on that right.

    Again, I'd have to disagree with you on the meaning of Fundamental rights that our founding fathers might have meant…….how can interracial marriage be ruled a FUNDAMENTAL right, but marrying someone of the same gender as one's self is NOT?

    I have truly always believed that SCOTUS would rule in our favor with regards to marriage……I mean how can I have a FUNDAMENTAL right to marry a man I just met, but that right goes away because I want to marry a woman I have known for a bit of time……this is why I believe SCOTUS will rule in our favor……how the written ruling will come down is something else, but over the last 7 years, I've had people tell me that marriage is a Privilege, yet when asked why I can't participate in that privilege, they twist the words once again.

    Marriage is either a FUNDAMENTAL right for ALL without gender restrictions or it is a "SPECIAL" right only for those who want to marry someone of the opposite-sex and our Constitution says that CAN'T happen UNLESS there a COMPELLING interest and the State has NONE!

  • 34. whistleblower1  |  June 16, 2015 at 11:32 pm

    There is no need to be accusatory. I am merely pointing out the arguments that are being made by others – you make not like them or agree with them – but everyone (including yours truly) has the right to frame this argument however way they'd like.

    Regarding your point–it is well taken. Gays and Lesbians are not seeking a new right and it was argued in SCOUTS. As was argued the fact that allowing gays and lesbians to marry fundamentally changes the meaning of marriage because as Justices said during argument up until the Netherlands legalized gay marriage there was no society that recognized such unions as marriage.

    Regarding fundamental rights and interracial marriage, the answer is simple: the Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery (13th amendment) and provide equal protection of laws (14th amendment) –that is why race neatly falls under fundamental classification (we even had a civil war over this).

    Again, you make a valid point in your 3rd paragraph.

    Compelling only applies to laws that target suspect classes and as of this writing sexual orientation is not a suspect class, thus not much to argue about compelling interest. As of right now, the test is 'rational basis' and typically the state wins under rational basis review because it is very simple to meet (procreation can be a rational basis to justify denying same-sex marriage even though many heterosexuals choose not to procreate–so can 'accidental pregnancies').

    BTW: you won't find the word marriage anywhere in our Constitution.

    Rose, I have to tell you the truth. I would do you a disservice by simply telling you what you want to hear.

    Also, I think it may actually do good to frame this as gay marriage; otherwise anyone can argue that they are not seeking to redefine marriage – only join in marriage. That would include polygamist (even though in many parts of the world that is a kind of marriage that is perfectly acceptable). Point is that by framing it as gay marriage -the union of two spouses regardless of sex–you can discard all the folks that argue slippery slope.

  • 35. RnL2008  |  June 17, 2015 at 12:10 am

    I apologize if you felt I was accusing you personally of something, that was not my intent……it just is a pet peeve of mine when the words "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" is used in front of the marriage…..no where on my marriage license do those words exist and the anti-gay like using those words to imply we are seeking some "SPECIAL" right and we aren't.

    Actually in my area of the Country, sexual orientation is a protected class by the rulings from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but I do understand where you are coming from…..and if sexual orientation is NOT a protected status because some think it's a choice, then religion should NOT be a protected status as it too is a choice.

    You are correct, Marriage itself is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but SCOTUS has ruled Marriage to be a Fundamental right in several cases. SCOTUS also ruled procreation a fundamental right as well, but SCOTUS never actually ruled that they must go hand hand with each other.

    True, and I am not here for someone to sugar coat their own opinion, though it appeared the other night that I was trashed all because I have a very vocal opinion about Santorum…..but that's another issue with another person.

    To some degree I can understand the reason to use the term "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" in front of marriage, but at some time, we need to remove them, as for the slippery slope argument regarding polygamy…….well, I believe that the State will have a compelling interest that will justify keeping marriage between 2 individuals. As I have been reading articles on this issue, it appears that in 2001, polygamy was roughly discussed like less than 7%, it took 14 years to like 16% and in this article, it predicated that polygamy may be legal by 2040, but as long as there are social issues like domestic abuse and forced child brides, I seriously doubt it will happen in my lifetime and if it does, more power to them…..but I gotta tell ya, I've watched a few episodes of Sister Wives and they may claim they're happy, but that's not what I see……either way, until a polygamist group opts to challenge the bigamy laws and Reynolds vs The United States, I just don't see it happening for some time and the argument we used on the gender restriction is NOT going to work on the number restriction and it has failed in Canada.

    One more thing, Same-Sex rituals, marriages or whatever they were called, have taken place throughout different parts of history, they just NEVER were sustainable.

  • 36. whistleblower1  |  June 17, 2015 at 6:15 am

    Agree with everything you say. And yes, it is great that the 9th has elevated sexual orientation. (That is why we got the swift outcome in Guam recently in the ME decision there.)

    I am glad you understand we are on the same side.

    p.s. One day soon, many folks (especially the new generation) even many younger folks in this generation and others (when all the legal rambling is over and the dust is settled) will simply refer to all marriages, including yours simply as 'marriage.' This includes yours truly 🙂

  • 37. josejoram  |  June 17, 2015 at 4:19 am

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/16/supreme-cour

  • 38. whistleblower1  |  June 17, 2015 at 6:20 am

    Certainly encouraging, Jose…

  • 39. scream4ever  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:41 pm

    I suppose it's possible, but considering that the issue of scrutiny wasn't brought up during the trial, I suspect it won't be brought up in the ruling.

  • 40. whistleblower1  |  June 16, 2015 at 10:46 pm

    Yup. Well the Obama administration did bring it up, but I don't think the Justices had much to (publicly) say about it. Like Ted Olsen says, "you never know what the Supreme Court is going to do."

  • 41. josejoram  |  June 17, 2015 at 4:24 am

    They may say: "if sexual orientation is a matter of choice or not, it is not the question, the question is that the preferente by a partner of a sex or another, is included in the most intimate liberty of individual, and this liberty is not capable of taking off nothing to nobody else"…

  • 42. VIRick  |  June 17, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    José, can I please assist you in translating your Spanish thoughts into English?

    "The question is not whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice. The question is whether the preference by one partner for one sex or the other is included within the most intimate liberty of an individual, and this liberty is not capable of being or becoming anyone else's business or concern."

    The last part, "nada que nadie más," is a wonderfully apt expression in Spanish, one with which I wholeheartedly agree, but for which I do not have a good translation.

  • 43. Rick55845  |  June 17, 2015 at 5:34 am

    That is an interesting idea. It will result in a slower path to ME in the states that continue to resist. In fact, applying heightened scrutiny to laws that make distinctions on the basis of sexual orientation does not shut the door on such laws altogether. It just means that states have to meet a higher standard of review to justify the law when it is challenged. The fact that the current laws haven't been able to survive even rational basis review in recent court decisions doesn't mean that the states won't continue to try, possibly dragging the battle for ME out for years.

    It's more difficult for me to understand Scalia's rant in Din if the decision of the majority in Obergefell holds only that heightened scrutiny applies to laws that distinguish on the basis of sexual orientation. His rant makes more sense in the context of a fundamental marriage rights decision in Obergefell. Of course, Scalia likes to rant regardless of whether it is necessary or even wise for him to do so, as when he schooled Federal judges on how to overturn anti-gay marriage laws in his Lawrence and Windsor rants. So after all, you can't read too much into the fact that Scalia wrote another delightful rant in Din.

    The best outcome, in my view, would be to get both a ruling on marriage as a fundamental right and striking down anti-gay marriage laws on equal protection and due process grounds, plus heightened scrutiny for laws that make distinctions based on sexual orientation. That's highly unlikely, of course, but one can dream. 🙂

  • 44. jcmeiners  |  June 17, 2015 at 7:21 am

    I personally think just the opposite will happen: We will get a narrow ruling reiterating that marriage is a fundamental right that not only bi-racial couples, prison inmates and deadbeat dads, but also gay and lesbian couples have. And the court will go out of its way to avoid the broader scrutiny issue for sexual orientations, as it has implications that go far beyond the case before them. Eventually they will have to cross that bridge, though, as a circuit split is already developing on that question.

  • 45. wes228  |  June 17, 2015 at 7:55 am

    I agree. Kennedy has been reluctant in the past to embrace the rigid tiered scrutiny levels of Equal Protection analysis. We are seeing the breakdown happen in the lower courts with the adoption of "rational basis with bite" (never officially sanctioned by the Supreme Court but hinted at) and "heightened scrutiny" (what used to be a term encompassing intermediate and strict scrutiny has now become a tier of scrutiny in its own right, some sort of mushy in-between of strict and intermediate when the court doesn't want to make a commitment either way).

  • 46. Lymis  |  June 17, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    I won't be surprised if the Court makes exactly that distinction but takes it in the other direction – ruling that same-sex couples have the same right to marriage precisely because it is a fundamental right and punting completely on the scrutiny question. Because by long SCOTUS precedent, fundamental rights require strict scrutiny, and banning same-sex couples won't pass that hurdle.

    That gives them the option of completely ignoring heightened scrutiny on all other issues. I've been concerned about that ever since they narrowed the question specifically to marriage and marriage recognition under the 14th Amendment – which pretty much exactly translates the whole thing into the question of whether same-sex marriage is legally the same thing as opposite sex marriage or whether it's a new and distinct thing. If it is the same, all the rules for marriage and for states being required to offer things equally to all citizens apply. If it's a new and different thing, then those rules don't apply.

    If they were prepared to declare an across-the-board heightened scrutiny, they could have included the groundwork for it more clearly in Windsor, and they could have framed the Obergefel question differently.

    I truly sincerely hope I am wrong an you are right. Even with the brief delay in implementation as lower courts re-ruled based on heightened scrutiny, we would still be further ahead in the long term than without it. But I don't expect it this time. It will arise in the inevitable lawsuits over "religious liberty exemptions."

  • 47. RemC  |  June 17, 2015 at 7:00 am

    Slate article analyzes Fox News' The Kelly File. Here's an excerpt:

    "Fox News’ core audience is more than just a particular slice of the larger consumer marketplace. It’s a group of people with firm convictions and a coherent ideological worldview — not unlike orthodox Marxists back in the early 1900s. And part of what Fox does is make this worldview seem even more coherent — and impervious to information that might undermine or contradict it. That’s actually what its viewers want, and, from the start, Ailes and FNC have eagerly given it to them."
    http://www.salon.com/2015/06/17/i_watched_megyn_k

  • 48. RnL2008  |  June 17, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    So, I was reading an article just now that was about Pride celebration being allowed to go forward in South Korea……..and while doing so, I found this article from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/blog/2

    It shows why Pride Week is so important to us and the struggles we have overcome, as well as the challenges we will face.

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