Chicago City Council Relaxes Zone to Accept Great Erection

The City Council gave developer Christopher Carley and world-renowned architect Santiago Calatrava the zoning change they need to proceed with the $550 million project at 420 E. North Water, opposite Navy Pier.

"He's a great architect. It's really unique and different," Mayor Daley said. "It's a great symbol. We have great skyscrapers here. And they employ a lot of people in construction -- and even afterwards. So, it's great for the city."

Daley has such a great way with words!

All Politics is Loco

"A trial is set to begin Oct. 3 for the mayor and 13 others charged in an investigation of voting fraud and government corruption in a tiny southwest Virginia coal town, the prosecutor in the case said Tuesday.

"Most of the 14 face multiple felony counts in the 269-count indictment that alleges a conspiracy to rig the 2004 council election in Appalachia, a town of less than 2,000."

[...]

"The investigation began after several residents of a government-subsidized housing complex said they were approached by a supporter of one of the candidates and offered cigarettes, liquor and in one case a bag of fried pork skins for their votes."

By SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press Writer

Unclear on the Concept

“Homosexual activist groups like GLN and Rick Garcia’s Equality Illinois call Jim Oberweis a ‘bigot’ merely for supporting the [sic] Protect Marriage Illinois,” [Peter] LaBarbera said. “What is hateful about giving Illinois voters a chance to cast a vote for marriage as one-man, one-woman this November?”

Well, Peter, from your own FAQ (or "FAQS" as it is called on your site -- what does the "S" stand for, I wonder):

Q: Is the definition of marriage an appropriate topic for a constitution?

A: Yes, absolutely. The constitution is a place to enshrine fundamental rights, basic liberties and the limitations of government.

You're absolutely right about what the constitution is for. Unfortunately, a marriage amendment corrupts all three facets you listed. Instead of enshrining fundamental rights and liberties, it restricts rights, effectively stripping liberty from some; instead of limiting government, it would give power to government, enshrining discrimination based on nothing more than a sense of moral disapproval. Legalizing bigotry.

Get it, bigot?

____________________________

Update: Ex-Gay Watch is reporting on how LaBarbera is so disenchanted with the gay-friendly Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Barr Topinka that he says he "may vote for the Constitution Party candidate or simply not vote for governor at all."

The Constitution Party candidate is Randall C. Stufflebeam (presumably having a part in an upcoming J.K. Rowling book), who exclaims in a Freudian slip on his site, "I don't not fear the homosexual!"

The Constitution Party is opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage. That's because they would simply make it illegal to be gay. Ex-Gay Watch notes that "the Party counts white supremacists among its candidates, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

State Fare

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Lambda Legal seeking marriage for same-sex couples. The webcast of the arguments can be seen here. Lambda's case was made by a Mr. Buckle who seemed slightly, but endearingly, nervous. His argument, however, was concise and familiar: the New Jersey Constitution provides protection for all citizens under the law and therefore discriminating against same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

How did the state's argument come off? Well, here's the reaction when confronted with this quote by Sandra Day O'Connor from Lawrence v. Texas: "... we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."



Patrick DeAlmeida: "But she notes that it was moral disapproval with nothing more. Here, the state is asserting something more. It's asserting an interest in maintaining marriage as it has been."



Justice Virginia Long: "Why is that an interest? The interest in maintaining marriage 'as it has been'?"



DeAlmeida: "Because it is such a fundamental institution in society that it is a reasonable thing that the legislature not change it radically. There are some things that make up our society that are so fundamental that a change in them is something that belongs to the elected representatives of the people."



Justice Barry T. Albin: "Didn't Virginia argue that in the Loving case? When they tried to support banning interracial marriage -- in fact criminalizing them?"



DeAlmeida: "They did."


At which point Ogre interjected:


"NERDS!"

So, the next time you hear neo-cons say that you can't make the comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage, just remind them that their side is doing exactly that.

(By the way, Ogre, calm down. That's not Lewis.)

Turnabout is Fair Play

Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

Efforts to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children are emerging across the USA as a second front in the culture wars that began during the 2004 elections over same-sex marriage.

Steps to pass laws or secure November ballot initiatives are underway in at least 16 states, adoption, gay rights and conservative groups say. Some — such as Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky — approved constitutional amendments in 2004 banning gay marriage.

"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," says Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.

_________________________

Ohio lawmaker to propose ban on GOP adoption
BY CARL CHANCELLOR
Knight Ridder Newspapers

AKRON, Ohio - If an Ohio lawmaker's proposal becomes state law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.

State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to "introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents." The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.

On Thursday, the Youngstown Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.

Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.

[...]

To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.

Just as "Hood had no scientific evidence" to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.

Hat tip to InternetJunkie and jillan.

A Brief History of the Gay Cowboy

2006

Willie (ahem) records "Cowboys Are Secretly, Frequently (Fond of Each Other)"
.
.
.

2005

Brokeback Mountain
.
.
.

2003

The Rawhide Kid
.
.
.

1995

Woody. Need I say more?
.
.
.

1989

It was only a rumor, although Troy sure likes his sausage.
.
.
.

1977

Well, duh.
.
.
.

1976

International Gay Rodeo Association
.
.
.

1930
.
.
.

1890
.
.
.

c. 1,000,000 B.C.