LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A judge on Friday struck down Arkansas' ban on same-sex marriage, saying the state has "no rational reason" for preventing gay couples from marrying.  :cheers:

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza ruled that the 2004 voter-approved amendment to the state constitution violates the rights of same-sex couples. He didn't put his ruling on hold as some judges have done in other states, opening the door for same-sex couples in Arkansas to begin seeking marriage licenses, though it was not clear whether that would happen before Monday. :hug:

"This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality," Piazza wrote. "The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent."

State Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's office said he would appeal the ruling and asked Piazza to suspend it during that process.

"We respect the Court's decision, but, in keeping with the Attorney General's obligation to defend the state constitution, we will appeal," spokesman Aaron Sadler said.

Piazza issued his ruling late Friday, about half an hour after the marriage license office in Pulaski County closed.

Arkansas courthouses typically aren't open on weekends, but with the state in its early-voting period for a May 20 primary, several clerks' offices will be open Saturday. However, clerks reached by The Associated Press after Piazza issued his ruling said they hadn't been formally notified of it and weren't prepared to begin issuing marriage licenses.

At least one couple who sued over the ban said they hoped to wed quickly. Kathy Henson said she and her girlfriend Angelia Buford planned to seek a marriage license in neighboring Saline County as soon as offices opened.

"We think that (Piazza) did a really great job and that he ruled on the right side of history," Henson said.

The ruling came a week after McDaniel announced he personally supports gay marriage rights but would continue to defend the constitutional ban in court. Sadler said McDaniel sought the stay because "we know that questions about validity of certain actions will arise absent a stay."

The amendment was passed in 2004 with the overwhelming support of Arkansas voters. Piazza's ruling also overturns a 1997 state law banning gay marriage.
In his decision, Piazza cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 decision that invalidated laws on interracial marriage.

"It has been over 40 years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice," Piazza wrote, referring to that ruling. "The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it."

The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that a law forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Since then, lower-court judges have repeatedly cited the decision when striking down some of the same-sex marriage bans that were enacted after Massachusetts started recognizing gay marriages in 2004.

Federal judges have ruled against marriage bans in Michigan, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Texas, and ordered Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

In all, according to gay-rights groups, more than 70 lawsuits seeking marriage equality are pending in about 30 states. Democratic attorneys general in several states — including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Oregon and Kentucky — have declined to defend same-sex marriage bans.

The head of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights, praised the ruling.

"This victory is an essential step on the journey toward full equality for all," said HRC President Chad Griffin, an Arkansas native.

But the leader of the group that campaigned for the ban said the judge was undermining the will of voters.

"This ruling undermines marriage because once people start redefining marriage, there seems to be no place to stop," Arkansas Family Council President Jerry Cox said.
McDaniel, a Democrat in his final year as attorney general, is the first statewide elected official in Arkansas to support marriage equality.

CINCINNATI —A federal judge on Monday ordered Ohio authorities to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states, the latest court victory for gay rights supporters.
Judge Timothy Black ruled that refusing to recognize gay marriage is a violation of constitutional rights and "unenforceable in all circumstances."

"The record before this court … is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the state's ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," Black wrote.
The order does not force Ohio to allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.

The state plans to appeal Black's ruling, arguing that Ohio has a sovereign right to ban gay marriage, which voters did overwhelmingly in 2004.

Black delayed deciding whether to issue a stay of his ruling pending the state's appeal in the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until after attorneys on both sides present arguments on the issue by Tuesday
.
However, Black said he is inclined to stay his ruling pending appeal, except for a portion that applies to the four gay couples who filed the February lawsuit that led to the court case. That would mean the state would immediately have to recognize their marriages and list both spouses as parents on their children's birth certificates.
If Black declines to stay his broader ruling, that would allow gay couples in Ohio to obtain the same benefits as any other married couple in the state, including property rights and the right to make some medical decisions for their partner.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine told The Associated Press last week that he believes marriage is between a man and woman, and that Ohio voters decided the same in 2004 when they passed the statewide gay marriage ban.

"My job as attorney general is to defend statutes and defend Ohio's constitutional provisions," he said Wednesday. "This was voted on by voters so my job is to do that."
DeWine declined to speculate what the outcome of the state's appeal will be or the future of gay marriage rights as a whole.
"Every state is having a lively debate over this and I think that's a proper thing to do," he said. "I think it's pretty obvious that all these issues are going to be resolved by the 6th Circuit and some cases are going to get to the Supreme Court. They're going to have a decision in the United States Supreme Court and we're all going to have to accept that."

Attorneys representing the four same-sex couples who filed the lawsuit that triggered Black's ruling argued that it amounts to state-approved discrimination and likened it to when interracial marriage was illegal in the United States.
Gay marriage is legal in 17 states and Washington, D.C. Federal judges recently have struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia, though stays have been issued pending appeals.

Similar to Ohio's ruling, judges in Kentucky and Tennessee have ordered state officials to recognize out-of-state gay marriages. The Kentucky decision has been stayed pending appeal, while Tennessee's ruling applies to only three couples.

Al Gerhardstein, the Cincinnati civil rights attorney who has filed three gay marriage lawsuits in Ohio since June, said several gay couples who want to win the right to marry in Ohio have contacted him. He's considering filing a new lawsuit on their behalf aimed at striking down Ohio's gay marriage ban entirely.
"The ultimate goal is full marriage equality," Gerhardstein said.

South Carolina lawmakers voted to defund a Spartanburg university reading program because it allegedly glorifies homosexuality.

The United States South Carolina House voted last month to cut $17,146 from University of South Carolina Upstate's budget—the exact cost of the institution’s reading program. Conservative representatives took issue with this year’s required book, “Out Loud:  The Best of Rainbow Radio,” a short story collection from South Carolina’s first gay radio show.

Republican state Sen. Mike Fair went so far as to state that the school is “recruiting” gay people. The University booked a show called "How to Become a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less."

“The title of ‘How to Become a Lesbian in 10 days or Less,’ while deliberately provocative, is satirical in nature but has not been received as such. The controversy surrounding this performance has become a distraction to the educational mission of USC upstate and the overall purpose of the bodies of knowledge symposium. As a result, we have canceled this segment of the symposium,” assistant vice chancellor for university communications Tammy E. Whaley  wrote.

The South Carolina legislature also cut funding for a College of Charleston reading program that had assigned a gay-themed book, the graphic novel "Fun Home."

So as you can see Hard Right wing 'Tea Party' Republicans in the United States are bringing back ,figuratively speaking, the old fashion practice of book-burning from the dark ages in relation to gay Educational materials in the United States  :blind:

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant

! attribution: Phil Bryant (facebook) Melanie Thortis]

Mississippi Republicans have passed an anti-gay "religious freedom" law.  :afr:

There seems to be uncertainty about what the bill, which the Associated Press describes as "vaguely worded," would actually do, but Adam Serwer reports that :  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mississippis-religious-freedom-law

contrary to the beliefs of the Mississippi Economic Council, religious right activists clearly envision the Mississippi law as empowering businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples in the name of religion. Shortly after the Mississippi law passed, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Center, released a statement saying as much.
“Whether it’s someone like Pastor Telsa DeBerry who was hindered by the Holly Springs city government from building a new church in the downtown area, or a wedding vendor, whose orthodox Christian faith will not allow her to affirm same-sex ‘marriage,’ the provisions of RFRA would apply to prevent the government from discriminating against religious exercise,” Perkins said. ”The Founders never envisioned a government forcing Americans to choose between the basic teachings of their faith and losing their livelihood.”

It's a law now, and religious right activists are feeling good about it, so, hey, let's take it on faith that it's not going to lead to horrible discrimination. After all, it's being enforced by the government of Mississippi, a state with no legal protections for LGBT people to begin with.

Westboro Baptist Church Picketers Run Off By 2000 Protestors In Oklahoma

This truly was a delight to write. :hug2:

It was a 'no contest' showdown, when thousands of folks in Moore, Oklahoma, came out in the cold and rain, to counter-protest the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). The vile WBC group was scheduled to picket a school, where children had died in last year's horrific tornadoes. Their allotted time was 2:00 - 2:30 on Sunday, April 6. The police were there to enforce free speech, but were hardly a deterrent when the large crowd began crossing the road towards the hate group. Within two minutes, the WBC picketers realized the danger, stuffed themselves, and their signs, into their vehicles - and left the scene rather quickly. Smart move on their part. No arrests were made.

watch KOCO  News video here : http://www.koco.com/news/counter-protesters-push-westboro-baptist-church-members-out-of-moore/25350082

That the Alabama House passed a resolution. Wednesday April 2, calling for a constitutional convention in order to ban same-sex marriage nationwide forever 'n ever is not all that surprising. More surprising is that apparently most of the representatives involved didn't know what the hell they were voting for:

According to the resolution, the convention would specifically propose an amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and bar legal recognition of any other form of marriage.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Richard Laird, I-Roanoke, calls for an Article V convention, which would require 34 states to ask Congress to call a convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to the resolution, the convention would specifically propose an amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and bar legal recognition of any other form of marriage.

Democrats on the Rules Committee wouldn’t have signed off if they’d known what it was, Todd said. The description of the resolution on a summary sheet provided to committee members, she said, only mentioned that the state would call for a convention to make an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It did not specify what the amendment would address.

“It’s deceptive,” she said. “They know if they put a full description on here that I would get up and say something.”

The resolution passed on a voice vote of the chamber.  :afr:

The Obama administration announced on Thursday that same-sex married couples can qualify for Medicare hospital and physician benefits for the first time.

The decision, coming after a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a federal ban against same-sex marriage, allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to determine the eligibility of married gay applicants to Medicare, the federal government's healthcare program for the elderly and the disabled.

The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)said the government has begun the enrollment process for some same-sex spouses while handling requests for special enrollment periods from others. CMS oversees the $635 billion Medicare program. But SSA determines eligibility.

"If you're in, or are a surviving spouse of, a same-sex marriage, we encourage you to apply for Medicare if you think you might be eligible," CMS said in a web posting.

WASHINGTON – In a victory for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from a New Mexico photographer who claimed a free-speech right to refuse to shoot a wedding album for a same-sex couple. :cheers:

The photographer was charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination law, which requires businesses to serve customers and clients without regard to their race, religion or sexual orientation.

The case of Elane Photography had drawn wide attention because it posed a religious-freedom challenge to state anti-discrimination laws. It was credited with spurring legislative campaigns in Arizona and Mississippi to strengthen the religious-freedom rights of business owners.
Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, said she took photos of “traditional” weddings but that it would violate her religious beliefs to shoot photos of a wedding of two women.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal is not a ruling, but it is significant that the appeal did not attract the four votes needed to grant a hearing.

Last month, the court heard arguments in a somewhat related issue over whether family-owned corporations have a religious-liberty right to refuse to pay for the full range of contraceptives required under the federal healthcare law.

However, the appeal in the Elane Photography case focused only on the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech. Lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom said the New Mexico anti-discrimination law would force the photographer to “create expression” in violation of her beliefs. Critics called the law a form of "compelled speech."

The appeal argued that a state anti-bias law, when applied broadly, would “require individuals who create expression for a living -- like marketers, advertisers, publicists and website designers -- to speak in conflict with their consciences.”

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro had filed a separate brief urging the court to hear the case. They said the 1st Amendment should protect writers, singers, actors or artists whose work involves expression. But they said this protection was limited in scope and should not extend to “denials of service by caterers, hotels, limousine service operators and the like.”

Ruling against the photographer, the New Mexico Supreme Court refused “to draw the line between ‘creative’ or ‘expressive' professionals and all others.” For example, its judges said, a “flower shop is not intuitively ‘expressive’, but florists use artistic skills and training to design and construct floral displays.” And the same is true of bakers and wedding cakes, they said.
“Courts cannot be in the business of deciding which businesses are sufficiently artistic to warrant exemptions from anti-discrimination laws,” the state court concluded.
On Monday, the court issued a one-line order saying it would not hear the case of Elane Photography vs. Willock.