I get divorce, even a lack of civility and kindness. But how can a millionaire rock star rationally deny that the woman who helped raise her FOUR children, including the two she gave birth to, not to mention helped her through cancer, does not deserve alimony?
I guess marriage brings out the best and worst in LGBT couples, too. Sigh.
You go Tammy Lynn ... don't let her power, wealth and fame intimidate you. If she was a male rock star, the women would be howling in outrage.
ps: I'm not buying that horrid single or the album either.
This legislation which would give Foster Children some protections was stripped of protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the House version which passed in May.
This is one of those under the radar, but very important issues for our community. I worked in foster care and can testfiy that there are plenty of parents who would not be supportive if a child in their care came out or was out when they were placed. That child would end up in a group home setting PDQ and there's also nothing to protect them there.
This is where we need decisive leadership to work with legislators to protect our children. The stripped down version of the bill passed unanimously, which is good for foster children in general, but very telling about the value our elected officials place on some of the most vulnerable kids in our Commonwealth.
Let's all contact Daylin Leach who sits on this Senate Committee to see what we can do to get the language back in or at least learn if its viable. If you tweet, @daylinleach.
This is one of those baby steps we need to take for our children.
As we look toward the future, we must be sure that what we honor and venerate in these documents is not their words alone, but the ideas of liberty which they express. ...
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence can live only as long as they are enshrined in our hearts and minds. If they are not so enshrined, they would be no better than mummies in their glass cases, and they could in time become idols whose worship would be a grim mockery of the true faith. Only as these documents are reflected in the thoughts and acts of Americans can they remain symbols of a power that can move the world.
That power is our faith in human liberty. That faith is immortal, but it is not invincible. It has sometimes been abandoned, it has been betrayed, it has been beaten to earth again and again, and although it has never been killed, it has been reduced to impotence for centuries at a time. It is far older than our Republic. The motto on our Liberty Bell, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof," is from the book of Leviticus, which is supposed to have been written nearly 1,500 years before Christ. In the 35 centuries since that date, the love of liberty has never died, but liberty itself has been lost again and again.
sdf
So many people believe that Constitutonal principles require a strict adherence to the words themselves, not the absorption of their meaning and a reflection in our everyday lives. This is one reason why I cannot understand that people who believe they have a constitutional right to religious liberty would deny other liberties to other groups. I would stand up for them, but too oft I find myself standing against the encroachment of religous liberty into my personal liberties. At the same time, I see my fellow LGBTQ disparage people who properly exercise their religious liberties.
The problem, as I've said repeatedly, is that this is a false dichotomy. You are free to practice your religion, but not impose it on others. That's the end of the debate. If your religious beliefs proscribe homosexuality, you are fine as long as you don't interfere with the liberty of others. Participation in the public sector requires you play ball with the public rules.
So it is really about changing those rules to allow religious liberty to exceed its Constitutional defined liberty.
Elena Kagan's nomination drew fire from Republicans because of her controversial decison around Don't Ask, Don't Tell while at Harvard.
Speaking of Kagan, here's some footage courtesy of the Bilerico Project of wing-nut hater extraordinaire, Tony Perkins, testifying against here. Why isn't he building a soup kitchen or something?
Pam has a rather depressing analysis of the crumbs tossed by the White House and a sound ass-whipping for the gay apologists aka The Pink Beltway. Maybe we could do something with that here in Pgh given our Belt System ... the Pink Belt? I like it! Onorato and his Pink Belt. Sounds like a 1950's ladies undergarment for our "special time" of the month. LOL.
We might have a state budget. It is depressing b/c when the feds don't come through, human services could take fatal blows to funding. So line up, private citizens, because your poor and unwanted will need all that extra money you have from taxes that aren't raised. Ha.
Fourth of July plans? We are having a cook out tonight and tomorrow I will be in my idea of hell -- trapped on a river cruise for multiple hours to watch fireworks. What we do for our loved ones. Ah, love ...
Your search feature is not working. It brings up stories from three months ago with the current date. I have emailed and called repeatedly to no avail. If you can post about the blog changing, you can post about the status of your search feature.
It is embarrassing that the Trib trounces you in terms of technology. Do you seriously expect me to renew my PG+ membership if I can't even search for an article?
A public law school did not violate the First Amendment by withdrawing recognition from a Christian student group that excluded gay students, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.
The case, involving a clash between religious freedom and antidiscrimination principles, divided along familiar ideological lines, with the court's four more liberal members and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said it was constitutionally permissible for public institutions of higher education to require recognized student groups to accept all students who wished to participate in them.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the four dissenters, said the decision represented a triumph for the principle that there is "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."
Strike another blow against the ongoing attemps to pit equal rights for the LGBTQ community against "religious freedom" in the public realm. Religious freedom is always limited in public institutions, but that very freedom permits individuals and groups to set up their own private religious institutions. You can't have it all ways.
