News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile

Your blogmistress is in need of a real vacation...

I've made it to the initial round for favorite progressive blogger in the Air America Cruise Contest. I have to stay in the Top 5 before the second voting round begins, so your vote is appreciated! First voting round:
Nov. 16th - Dec. 3rd, 2009



Join Stop Taser Torture on 12.4.09


33|175:175

About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.


Open thread: discussion about Nadler live blog on DOMA repeal bill

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 13:50:00 PM EDT


UPDATE: Nadler answered the question that I discussed with Joe earlier:
Q: Can you explain the value of submitting DOMA repeal legislation even if it's not likely to pass this session? Finally putting the issue on the table seems to give us a sense of which elected officials are with us -- and who isn't there yet. What are other benefits from your perspective?

Nadler: First, even if DOMA repeal is not likely to pass this session, we must begin the fight if we are eventually to repeal it. Introducing repeal legislation, as Pam said, enables us to find out who is with us and who we need to work on. We begin now a period of outreach and political organizing to bring about eventual passage. The sooner we begin the fight, the sooner we will prevail.

Join people over at Americablog for a live chat with Congressman Jerrold Nadler at 2PM ET. This thread is an open chat for reactions. Some information on what will be discussed is below.
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) recently introduced a bill to repeal DOMA, filed as The Respect for Marriage Act.
REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed, and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.

SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''§ 7. Marriage
''(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
''(b) In this section, the term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.''

Rep. Nadler noted on his own site that the range of supports is indicative of the need to repeal the law:
Among the bill's backers are former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law in 1996, and former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), who first introduced DOMA.  They join the dozens of civil rights organizations and 91 original co-sponsors of the bill who are pushing for a full repeal of DOMA.

Today, President Clinton said: "I want to thank Congressman Nadler for his leadership on this issue, and Reps. Baldwin, Polis, Conyers, Lewis, Velazquez and Lee, for introducing the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives.  Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind.  When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter.  Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy."

Today, Bob Barr said:  "I join with former President Bill Clinton in commending Rep. Jerry Nadler for introducing the 'Respect for Marriage Act of 2009.'  This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted.  Rep. Nadler's legislation would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and by so doing, remove the federal government from involving itself in matters of defining 'marriage,' which historically and according to principles of federalism, are properly state matters and not federal."

One elected official not supporting the bill is Rep. Barney Frank. Read why below the fold.
Pam Spaulding :: Open thread: discussion about Nadler live blog on DOMA repeal bill
Frank has two major beefs with the bill: 1) he fears the timing of the introduction will distract from other LGBT priorities - hate crimes, ENDA, domestic partner benefits for federal employees, and repealing "don't ask, don't tell" - all of which he says can be accomplished in this two-year Congressional session; and 2) he believes the "certainty provision," which guarantees that the federal government will recognize legally performed same-sex marriages regardless of which state you live in, is strategically problematic.

Mr. Chairman started by declining to cosponsor the bill, then he said, "Given that there is zero chance of this bill becoming law in the near future, it is a mistake to explicitly introduce this crossing state lines issue."

By Friday, he was telling Roll Call newspaper , "I do think it can complicate things electorally for Members ... People will interpret this as exporting marriage."

For anyone hoping the new Respect of Marriage Act (RMA) might gain a little traction this Congress, Frank's statements tilted the toxicity meter. A number of activists lamented that he had given his Democratic and Republican counterparts a perfect reason not to back the legislation.

As I told Joe Sudbay today, if Frank wants to take that POV, he's entitled, but what can be gained by tossing a bone to the right wing like that? Has he unlearned the use of the appropriate phrase "no comment"? When I attended Equality Alabama's gala on Saturday night and witnessed the keynote of civil rights hero and ally Rep. John Lewis, it made me weep wondering why the passion with which Lewis acts on our behalf -- talking and walking the walk -- is so flaccid among our own leaders; they are content to cocktail party their way to equality. (Read Rod McCullom's post about Lewis's inspirational speech.)

In any case, folks should drop by Americablog for the chat. I've asked Joe to ask Rep. Nadler to describe the value of submitting repeal legislation even if it will likely fail -- people need to hear that putting the issue on the table ensures that elected officials have to show their hand and own their positions. And that is valuable work to open up dialogue between constituents and those pols.

Related:
* Frank bio: Barney Frank's 'Left-Handed Gay Jew' No Tell-All"

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
In other words, Barny doesn't want to uphold the
U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit clause. He needs to be impeached.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.-- Thomas Jefferson

A legitimate issue
The Bay Area Reporter (B.A.R.) has an article about a legitimate difference with Nadler's bill regarding the lack of inclusion of Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships. Unfortunately, no one brought that up today and I haven't seen or heard it discussed very much elsewhere.

Nadler's bill represents pure equality, putting same-sex marriages on the exact same footing as different-sex marriages, including marriages (like those involving first cousins and teenagers) that are not recognized by some states. If a straight marriage is legal where and when it was performed, it is recognized by the federal government.

The problem is that there are so few states recognizing same-sex marriages and most of them are located on the east coast. Not everyone can afford the trip. About half the states allow first cousin marriages to some extent, so you don't have to go very far to find one. Teenagers eventually become adults, so your talking about a temporary inconvenience at most.

On the other hand, what about straight people in DPs? What about cities that have DP registries in states that don't recognize same-sex relationships? As the B.A.R. articles mentioned, some people don't want all the obligations that come with marriage which may involve paying more in taxes or losing SSI or other federal benefits. When California switched from Domestic Partnerships Light to 99% of the Rights and Benefits of Marriage (except for the name), over 2000 couples chose to dissolve their partnerships.

It's a tricky issue, but it deserves to be discussed and debated.


here's a SPECIAL comment I got at BreibartTV
The subject is using Federal Funds for artists using their talents to promote political causes...Hannity also has this bug up his hoo hoo about Buffy Wicke's phone call.

"Steve F   September 21st, 2009 - 3:10 pm
Mark the DEMS do have MORE Old Queens...that is for sure and you and Barney Frank would be a "goodlooking" cough, cough, "couple! I am sure it would be a fight on to see which one has the bottom sans dentures! How is the "Viral load" thinge going?"

  http://www.breitbart.tv/explos...

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small


this same shitwit responded how he knew MY KIND
in San Francisco trying to be infected.

I ansered with the angels in america

  Description of Heaven - Jeffery Wright and Al Pacino
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

"race, taste, and history finally overcome....and you ain't there"

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small


[ Parent ]
answered...typo


What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small


[ Parent ]
David Mixner's column on HIV/AIDS and Healthcare.....from HuffPo
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Tip of the Hat to David, keeping AIDS in the National debate

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Report TOS Violations



Join the Blend Chat Room



Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox