Lounge of Tomorrow - The Gay Thread

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Lounge Lizard (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=11)

- - The Gay Thread (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=9947)

Actually, the shoes are the least "gay" thing about the whole outfit.

Oh, please. I can think of three gayer outfits he's worn. And that's just in the last two months. He themes every Saturday class and wears an outrageous costume. Here's his movie day Black Swan get-up:

We haven't talked about it a whole lot on LoT, but he is mentoring Tom & I. He gave us both scholarships and we're his featured members for March.

We were there for Lady Gaga day (he wore the outfit you posted) on Saturday, and we've attended every class he's taught since we started Jan 11. (Except for the one we missed for Ingrid's birthday party last week.)

So far we've lost a combined total of 37 pounds. Richard is crazy-amazing.

Rad, Rad, Rad, Rad.

Of course, they're LYING about it on, d'uh, Fox News - and saying the government will no longer enforce DOMA, which is certainly not the case. They will no longer defend it in lawsuits, because a particular suit in the Second Circuit opened up an avenue to find gays deserving of some kind of strict scrutiny in lawsuits* The suits in other circuits so far have come with the "local" precedence of "rational basis" determination - a much lower bar for constitutionality.

Basically, Obama is now free to declare gays are deserving of strict scrutiny, because the 2nd Circuit has never ruled that out. So Obama says they are, and therefore Article 3 of DOMA (which is the one where states are allowed to ignore the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if they are grossed out by The Gay) is ... wait for it ... UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Finally a back-bone, Mr. Obama. Welcome to the human race.

Hahahah, Maggie Gallagher declares Obama's saying Gay is like Black. Well D'UH, Maggie, you stupid cow. That's exactly right. Get.Over.It you loser B!tCh.

Oh, they are also lying that Obama MUST defend laws on the books. Not so. The Justice Dept DOES NOT have to defend laws it deems, in its own judgment, to be unconstitutional - just as it can decide whether to enforce ANY LAW on the books based on any decision-making process it chooses for which crimes to prosecute and defend.

BUT - individual members of Congress CAN step in to defend DOMA and other laws IF the Justice Department declines to do so ... probably gonna happen.

* (There are several levels "strict scrutiny" consideration - Obama did not specify which he believes gays are entitled to in courts of law.)

.

CA Senator Dianne Feinstein says she'll introduce a bill to repeal DOMA

Quote:

As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that.

I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed.

I misread that. Was having a weird brain vortex since I was sure DADT had already been repealed. Pleased with any and all efforts to repeal DOMA but I assume that won't get through the House.

Out of curiosity, did she introduce similar bills (even if just symbolically) back when her party actually had the responsibility for passing it?

I have no recollection either way.

Some interesting reading (to me at least):

A 1996 DOJ memo detailing past instances of the president refusing to defend the constitutionality of statute and/or refusing to even implement/enforce statutes it felt unconstitutional.

Not Work Safe!
I'm NOT gay!
two guys trying to prove that they're NOT gay

They're just not even TRYING to pretend Ken dolls are straight any more, are they?