The good that can happen when you get rid of Mike Pence

The latest draft of the new [Indiana GOP] platform removes language labeling strong families as ones that are "based on marriage between a man and a woman." That phrasing was inserted into the party's platform during Vice President Mike Pence's time as governor.

[...]

Delegates to the June 9 Indiana Republican Convention in Evansville will vote on the platform in addition to nominating three incumbents for the statewide GOP ticket: Secretary of State Connie Lawson, Treasurer Kelly Mitchell and Auditor Tera Klutz. The convention is the state GOP's first since Pence left the governor's residence in January 2017 to become President Donald Trump's No. 2.

  Indy Star

DOMA

Okay, this is probably par for the course, but it appears that Obama has instructed the DOJ not to defend DOMA.  Eric Holder has just stated, "The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases."

I am happy for gay folks, but isn't it interesting that the President can decide unilaterally that something is unconstitutional?  I guess we can just follow the laws we want.  If we're president. And, the par for the course part:  it's still the law.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE: As it should be, although they should strike the whole damn thing.

In a 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns -- to same-sex couples legally married.

  CBS

DOMA Must Go

The Pentagon has officially extended some military benefits to same-sex partners, but said provisions such as medical coverage would not be offered to gay troops' spouses due to legal barriers.

[...]

The move, which defence officials had signaled last week, will provide same-sex partners with military identity cards, hospital visitation rights, access to youth and education programmes and financial compensation in the event their military spouse dies, a Pentagon memo said.

[...]

Panetta acknowledged that federal law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, remained an obstacle to extending the full array of military benefits.

"One of the legal limitations to providing all benefits at this time is the Defence of Marriage Act, which is still the law of the land," Panetta said.

  alJazeera

And Furthermore

One of the first actions of the new useless majority of the House Of Representatives was to continue to fund legal actions in defense of the Defense Of Marriage Act. There is no reason to waste money on this kind of thing — The question of same-sex marriage is currently before the Supreme Court — except to be publicly mean and stupid. The country has moved on. The country has acclimated itself to gay people's getting married faster, frankly, than I thought it would. And, employing the most fundamentally American metric of them all, people are turning a fine buck on gay people's getting married. (This should be a cautionary tale for, say, Missouri. Are you telling me that gay marriage wouldn't be a gold mine in, say, Branson? Please.) This is the kind of thing to keep in mind whenever a member of the new useless majority goes on your electric teevee set to talk about The Deficit. They won't spend money to ease the lives of the old and the sick. But they'll spend it to be mean and stupid. The ignorance subsidy is untouchable.

  Charlie Pierce

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Exactly

Hooray for Austin!

The council’s strongly worded resolution (PDF) condemning the Defense of Marriage Act, the nation’s ban on same sex marriage, was supported by a diverse coalition of civil rights groups, including Equality Texas, the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Anti-Defamation League and the Human Rights Campaign. The resolution was also backed by a petition signed by more than 1,800 people living in and around the Austin metro area. It passed by unanimous vote shortly after 11 a.m. Central, which happened to coincide with events in Washington, D.C. promoting National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.

  Raw Story

And the second Texas city to endorse marriage equality will coincide with the day that Satan skates to work.

Actually, Austin isn't really a Texas city. It's a progressive city that happens to lie inside the Texas borders.  We still wonder how it got here.

"Progressive."  What I really mean is that Austin is actually in the 21st century, unlike much of the rest of this country.

What the Hell IS the Difference?

Tackle

When Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo voiced his support for marriage equality, a Maryland state lawmaker asked the team's management to censure him. But he was countered Friday by a letter from Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who had several choice words to support his fellow football player.

Maryland Democrat and minister Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote a letter August 29 to Ravens Owner Steve Bisciotti, saying that he found it "inconceivable" that Ayanbadejo was supportive of gay rights and marriage equality.

"Many of my constituents and your football supporters are appalled and aghast that a member of the Ravens Football Team would step into this controversial divide and try to sway public opinion one way or the other," he wrote. "I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football Franchise Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee, and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayambadejo [sic] is doing."

The Advocate

[The letter]

Well, Minnesota Vikings Chris Kluwe decided Representative Burns ought to learn of one. Choice words, indeed.

h/t Marty.

A Spot of Good News

U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant [appointed to the bench by President George W, Bush on April 2, 2007 today held in a federal case in Connecticut that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act — the federal definition of marriage — is unconstitutional.

Bryant, in a case brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, follows several other federal judges over the past two years to have reached the same conclusion. Federal judges in Massachusetts, California — in two different courts — and New York also have found DOMA's provision defining "marriage" and "spouse" as only being unions of one man and one woman in all federal laws unconstitutional, as well as one federal appeals court.

[…]

The ruling comes as the Supreme Court is facing requests in several cases to decide the question of DOMA's constitutionality once and for all.

   Buzzfeed

It's Sunday

Traditional Marriage (Source: King James Bible)

h/t Marty