Former President George W. Bush on Thursday said that he was not “weighing in” on the current debate over same sex marriage, even though he supported a constitutional ban on marriage equality and may have won a second term because anti-LGBT ballot measures brought evangelical…
Monsanto doesn’t want you to know what you’re eating
The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, will soon descend on the state of Washington to try their best to defeat I-522, a citizens’ ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Voters should prepare themselves for an onslaught of discredited talking points, nonsensical red herrings, and outright lies designed to convince voters that they shouldn’t have the right to know what’s in the food they eat.Topping the biotech industry’s propaganda playlist will no doubt be this old familiar tune: that requiring retailers to verify non-GMO ingredients in order to label them will be burdensome and costly, and the additional cost will be passed on to consumers who are already struggling to feed their families.Playing to consumers’ fears of higher food costs makes good strategic sense, especially in tough economic times. But the argument doesn’t hold water, say food manufacturers and retailers who already have systems in place for verifying non-GMO, as well as rBGH-free, trans fat-free, country of origin and fair trade. The system involves using chain-of-custody, legally binding affidavits, not expensive testing.Continue Reading… … Read More
Reagan daughter says mom Nancy supports gay marriage
Patti Davis, the daughter of former President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan, announced in a radio interview this week that her mother supports marriage equality.This is the second proxy Reagan endorsement for gay marriage to come from Davis in recent weeks. In an interview with The New York Times earlier this month, Davis said that her father would have supported marriage equality because he explained to her as a child that “some men are born wanting to love another man,” and counted a lesbian couple among his closest family friends. Davis also cited Reagan’s opposition to a ballot measure that would have barred gays and lesbians from working in public schools during his time as governor of California as more gay marriage credentialing.When asked if her mother supported gay marriage, Davis responded “she does,” adding that her mother likely agreed with her about the Gipper’s stance on equal marriage:Continue Reading… … Read More
New Poll Finds Overwhelming Majority of D.C. Residents Supporting Legalizing Marijuana
The D.C. area’s first medical
marijuana dispensaries–including
one run by a rabbi–will open any day now, but the headaches
don’t end there for a Justice Department and a Congress that have
heretofore ignored growing public support for legalizing
marijuana. ;
A poll conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP) and
co-commissioned by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and the Drug
Policy Alliance (DPA) found that 63 percent of D.C. residents
support taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol, and that 75
percent of residents think the drug should be decriminalized.
In fact,
no matter which liberalization scenario PPP presented–a $300
fine for cultivation with no jail time, a $100 fine for possession
with no jail time, tax-and-regulate, unregulated legal possession
for adults over 21, broadening the criteria for medical
marijuana–a majority of respondents favored lessening or
eliminating penalties for marijuana offenses. ;
The poll results were so promising, says Mason Tvert, director
of communications for MPP (and the brains behind Colorado’s
Amendment 64), that marijuana advocates in D.C. “will be talking to
community leaders and elected officials about various options for
adopting a more sensible marijuana policy in D.C., including
the ;possibility of a [decriminization] ballot initiative
campaign as early as 2014.”
In 2011, the last year for which the D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department ;claims
to have data available, there were 5,759 marijuana-related arrests
in the city, up from 4,445 in 2009, and 1,884 in 1995. ; … Read More
Supreme Court Appears Unwilling to Legalize Gay Marriage Nationwide
Washington, D.C.—The Supreme Court heard oral argument
today on California’s 2008 ballot initiative Proposition 8, which
amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage. The
upshot appears to be that while a majority of the Court believes
Prop. 8 to be misguided, including both the four liberal justices
and Justice Anthony Kennedy, those justices are not willing to
strike Prop. 8 down as unconstitutional and therefore legalize gay
marriage in all 50 states. As Justice Kennedy declared in perhaps
the most significant statement of the morning, this case asks the
Court “to go into uncharted waters.”
Kennedy’s comments are certain to disappoint gay marriage
advocates. As the author of the Court’s rulings in both Romer
v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Kennedy
is one of the Court’s strongest voices in favor of gay rights. Yet
he gave no indication this morning that he saw the case against
Prop. 8 as a proper vehicle for establishing a sweeping win for gay
marriage. In addition to referring to the “odd” rationale of the
federal appellate court ruling against Prop. 8, Kennedy wondered
whether the Supreme Court should have even agreed to hear the Prop.
8 case in the first place. “I just wonder,” Kennedy said, “if the
case was properly granted.”
For the Court’s liberals, on the other hand, the main impediment
to legalizing gay marriage nationwide appeared to be the question
of jurisdiction. Because the state of California announced that it
would no longer defend Prop. 8 in court, the law’s legal defense
was taken up by a group of individuals who had supported the
original ballot initiative. So in addition to the constitutionality
of Prop. 8, the Supreme Court also considered today whether or not
those ballot supporters possessed the legal standing to defend the
law.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set the skeptical tone right from
the outset. “Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot
initiatives?,” she asked, know that the answer would be “no.”
Justice Elena Kagan promptly followed up. “Could the State assign
to any citizen the rights to defend a judgment of this kind?” she
questioned, her tone suggesting that she thought not. Chief Justice
John Roberts also voiced skepticism, declaring at one point, “a
State can’t authorize anyone to proceed in federal court…I don’t
think we’ve ever allowed anything like that.”
Taken together, the combination of Kennedy’s hesitation about
entering “uncharted waters” and the apparent liberal consensus on
standing means the Court is unlikely to rule on the constitutional
merits of Prop. 8 and will instead limit its decision to the
particular circumstances present in California. That may still mean
the legalization of gay marriage in the Golden State, but the
ruling won’t go any further than that. … Read More
Ralph Nader explains how voting for the ‘least worst’ candidate corrupts democracy
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader on Monday decried the lack of choices at the ballot box and predicted super rich candidates would run in 2016. Speaking on C-SPAN, Nader said the influence of money on the political process along with the weakening of unions had prevented candidates from addressing…
How the Supreme Court could avoid ruling on gay marriage
The highly anticipated Supreme Court rulings on Proposition 8 and DOMA could wind up being a big let-down for gay marriage advocates, if the Court decides that it lacks standing to decide whether or not each law is constitutional.Each case, set for arguments before the court Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, presents for the Justices the issue of standing – the determination of whether or not a party has a proper stake to bring the case before the Court.In the case of Proposition 8, California’s ballot measure that banned gay marriage, the Justices will consider whether supporters of the law have standing to bring the case by virtue of their sponsorship of the ballot measure. Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they do.But if the Supreme Court decides that Prop 8 backers lack standing, it means that the highest court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the case. It would also, in turn, vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision, since the backers of the ban were the only party that brought an appeal.Most likely, then, the decision would kick back to the District Court level, and Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, would stand.Continue Reading… … Read More
