Where does ‘Cathi’s Clown’ stand on the Religious Bigotry bill?

The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) stealth candidate for governor of Arizona is the only candidate yet to take a position on the Religious Bigotry bill. Cathi Herrod from CAP is on State Treasurer Doug Ducey’s campaign steering committee (he proudly displays her endorsement on his campaign web site).

Where does “Cathi’s Clown” stand on the Religious Bigotry bill? Ducey told Howard Fischer only that he is “studying it,” saying he will “approach this as both a man of faith and a businessman.” Head of economic development group asks Brewer to veto controversial religion bill.

Read more

Please don’t make the religious bigot bill look like a “both sides” thing

Crossposted at DemocraticDiva.com

Opponents of SB1062, the bill that could basically allow any form of discrimination so long as it was “sincerely religious” are planning to amass at the Capitol today to protest this outrage and encourage the Governor to veto it.

Several of these signs will be available at the rally, and some have already been spotted on shop windows throughout the state. (more after the jump)

Oregon AG will not defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban in court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Oregon is the latest state to announce that it will not defend its same-sex marriage ban in court because it is unconstitutional in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Oregon ends defense of marriage ban:

EqualState officials in Oregon notified a federal court on Thursday that they will no longer defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, following similar switches by state officials in Nevada and Virginia.  The Oregon filing (.pdf) came in one of two consolidated cases in Eugene challenging the state ban, which was imposed by voters in 2004.

The key statement in the new Oregon document, which was in the form of an Answer to one of the lawsuits, said state officials “will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation.  Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review.”  The paragraph added, though, that they would continue to enforce the ban as a legal duty unless and until it were struck down in court.  Officials had not made that statement in their response in December to the other case in the pair that are now being considered together.