Tag Archive for marriage equality

Two huge decisions



Last night, for what seems the millionth time since my son died from medical neglect, I cried myself to sleep. But the tears were different this time. Mixed with feelings of loss were feelings of gratitude that the Affordable Care Act is finally safe from the wolves on the Right.

In fact, in his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts pretty much scolded opponents, telling them the law will not be overturned unless Congress is able to do it.

Then today, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court upheld the right of any two consenting adults to marry. My tears were strictly tears of joy this time.

From Justice Kennedy’s decision:
“The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.
“Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.”

rainbow flag

I wish I was home in Asheville tonight for the party, but I will do my celebrating here in New Jersey with friends.

The screamers on the right have gotten it wrong again, and in both these cases, their defeat is complete.

The people who call themselves “pro-life,” but assert that it was OK for 45,000 Americans to die each year from lack of access to health care, can go away now.

Of course, the first reaction from House Speaker John Boehner was that he will keep trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I imagine the haters will try to pass a Constitutional Amendment again, defining marriage in their own narrow view, but that won’t happen. Too many people get it that we all deserve the freedom to marry the person we love.

Too many people understand that the Affordable Care Act is saving tens of thousands of lives a year, even as opponents continue to block Medicaid expansion in nearly half the states. That, by the way, is causing the deaths of 17,000 Americans a year.

While that’s a lot better than we were doing, it is still 17,000 human beings. That’s the same as wiping an entire small town off the map. You can’t say that’s OK and continue to be credible when you call yourself pro-life.

Justice Scalia huffed and puffed over the Affordable Care Act decision, calling it “pure applesauce.” I don’t think he’s happy about being a relic, and I would think Justice Thomas may realize his status as a relic of a more hateful time any day now.

I have friends and family who are getting health care now who couldn’t get it before the ACA, and they would have been booted out of coverage had the court ruled the other way. I would have lost coverage.

I also have friends whose marriages were affirmed by the decision on marriage equality. When my friends Bruce and Christopher were married this year after more than 20 years together, I wept through the entire ceremony. Christopher said he could hear me sobbing on the video, and he loved it.

It may well be the most joyous wedding I ever attended.

Thank you, SCOTUS, for getting it so right two days in a row. I never thought I’d be able to say that about this court, but there you go. Miracles happen.





I won’t vote for a bigot

Tom HillAfter the Democratic primary, I posted that I believed we had made a mistake nominating Tom Hill for Congress in the 11th District of NC.

I still believe that to be true.

Tom has accused me of being a one-issue voter and a one-issue blogger because I won’t vote for anyone who opposes marriage equality. I wouldn’t vote for a racist, either, and I am NOT accusing Tom of being a racist.

Tom is an accomplished man, but he stands on the wrong side of an issue that is very important to me, even though he is on the right side of many other issues.

His comments in response to my blog post show me that he is just plain wrong for the job. Instead of trying to open a conversation, he immediately assumed I am a one-issue voter. He could have read previous posts. He could have read subsequent posts. Instead, he chose to label me based on his own prejudices. He chose to lump me in with racists and insist I don’t care about other issues. He chose not to listen to my response. These are not the traits I want in someone I would choose to represent my interests.

I am convinced that he is wrong for the job. I will write in someone’s name rather than give him my vote. Just look at the comments below:

“WE” did not make a mistake by choosing Tom Hill in the 2014 primary. You and other one issue people did all that you could to defeat my open and honest campaign based on closing off-shore tax shelters, ending the Mid-East wars, reforming immigration with a pathway to citizenship, protecting Social Security and Medicare, supporting women’s and veterans’ rights. cleaning up the environmental messes, rebuilding the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, and other meritorious Democratic goals. And you did so by supporting a candidate who never once stated his position on any of these issues. But what really frosts me is your intolerance for people whose values may disagree with your own. Whether or not my district endures another two years or more of Mark Meadows will depend in part on whether one issue people like yourself are able to demonstrate some maturity. BTW, you have the option of running for office yourself rather than sitting on your butt and finding fault with those who do. I do not see your personal identifier anywhere.


  • Tom, my sister was a lesbian who endured the hatred of people who didn’t know her. She and her spouse deserved the same rights my husband and I enjoy. As for one-issue, I am NOT. If you knew me at all, you would know my biggest issue is health care. But I have a great deal of trouble voting for anyone who would deny basic human rights to people based on a religious prejudice.


  1. Leslie,

    Despite your denial, your response proves that you are a one-issue blogger. You deny the truth, just like the Obama haters deny that they are racists. You did not address a single matter that I raised, and I will not trade quips with you on the only issue that truly concerns you. BTW, we all have gays in our families. Some of us just have different opinions about the meaning of marriage, irrespective of religion.


    • My son died because he was denied care. A birth defect — a pre-existing condition — prevented him from getting insurance and he was denied care and died. To call me a single-issue blogger again proves that you are responding with a knee-jerk reaction — another bad quality for a politician. Did you look at previous posts on this blog? I am a multi-issue voter, and basic civil rights is important to me. You have shown yourself to be a religious bigot. You have shown yourself to be overly sensitive to people who disagree with your bigotry against an entire class of people. I agree with most of your stands on the issues, but you do not have the personal traits necessary to hold high office and I am deeply offended by your insistence that I only care about one issue, even when I have shown myself to be a mullti-issue voter, You look no deeper than the surface, see what you want to see and let your bias run wild. You will not get my vote. Oh, and these comments are public.


Love, validated

This is the motto og the United Church of Christ, which was the first mainline Protestant denomination to come out in favor of marriage equality.

This is the motto of the United Church of Christ, which was the first mainline Protestant denomination to come out in favor of marriage equality.

Today the US Supreme Court struck down the misguided Defense of Marriage Act and upheld the right to marry in California.

It’s a big day for millions of gay and lesbian people who have long deserved to marry and enjoy the same rights as straight couples. Since the only objections I’ve ever heard come from opponents’ religious beliefs, the ban on gay marriage is obviously unconstitutional. Any two consenting adults should have the right to enter into the legal contract of marriage.

Despite the statements of opponents who say it will lead to bestiality, child rape and the fall of civilization, marriage equality just means two consenting adults can enter into this contract, whether they be opposite sex or same-sex couples.

My sister and her spouse were married in Massachusetts in 2006, and I couldn’t have been happier for them. They deserved the same rights as my husband and I get. When my sister died of lung cancer, her spouse was able to make the decisions they had agreed upon. No one could come in and claim they had a superior right to make those decisions. That gave both of them the peace of mind they deserved in my sister’s final days.

This morning’s ruling told gays and lesbians across the country that they have every right to love whom they please and the state has no right to discriminate against them.

This afternoon, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the military would extend benefits, including health care and housing, to same-sex spouses as quickly as possible.

Rep. Michele Bachmann went on a rant about how God created marriage and, well, blah, blah, blah, or to quote Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Who cares?”

Justice Antonin Scalia’s angry scree of a reply was just the ranting, childish tantrum of a poor loser. Although many people have said he is brilliant, I don’t believe anyone with such a closed mind can be brilliant.

Opponents will carry on for a little while, but the tide has turned in favor of equality, just as it did for African-Americans in the 1960s. Eventually, every state will accept marriage equality, and a little farther down the road, the bigots will age and die, leaving society to wonder what the big deal was anyway.



a world of progress site | woven by WEBterranean