On the Golden Globes last night, I kind of found it a little disappointing that those in attendance were a bit uncomfortable with the Bill Cosby lines put out by Amy and Tina during the opening monologue. Come on Hollywood!
I think George Clooney maintains his photo in the dictionary besides the word “cool.”
I am thinking Salma Hayek is wondering why she had to be paired as a presenter with that Kevin Hart fella from “Ride Along” – not funny.
J-Lo – “I have the nails.” Jeremy Renner – “You’ve got the globes, too.” Juvenile!
Commentary has been trying to follow the same-sex marriage court challenge here in the Lone Star State and was kind of caught off guard Friday evening when I read that the state threw out the term “subsidy” in their defense – huh! Here is the definition of subsidy you and I know from the dictionary:
money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function,
And:
a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public,
I am kind of a bit baffled on the state pulling this one out. So I am thinking sooner rather than later? I am talking about same-sex marriages here in the Lone Star State in a few months. 18 months or so ago I wouldn’t have bet it was on the horizon but after Friday’s hearing in New Orleans before a panel of the Fifth, supporters are encouraged. Here is from Saturday’s Chron:
Same-sex marriage advocates were buoyed by a long-awaited hearing in a New Orleans federal appeals court Friday, as a majority of the judges who will decide whether to knock down bans on gay unions in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi appeared skeptical of the states’ reasons for continuing the fight.
Attorneys spent the better part of four hours telling a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals why it should uphold gay marriage bans in those states, arguing that overturning the laws would amount to an improper federal intrusion into state sovereignty.
Two of the three judges, however, appeared critical of their arguments, especially Texas’ core assertion that marriage is a state-controlled “subsidy” primarily meant to encourage responsible procreation.
And from the Trib:
Signaling significant doubt about the constitutionality of Texas’ ban on same-sex marriages, two federal appeals judges on Friday questioned a state attorney’s argument that marriage is a “subsidy” that the state has the right to grant and withhold.
In sharp exchanges with two judges of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Jonathan Mitchell of the Texas attorney general’s office argued during the roughly hourlong hearing that defining marriage should be left to the states, not the courts or the federal government. He added that the state should not be forced to recognize marriages that are not between a man and a woman because such marriages do less to “further the state’s interest” in the procreation of its residents.
Mitchell likened the recognition of marriage to subsidies for school lunches, saying that the state chooses to subsidize lunches for poorer Texas children — and not the full school population — because it’s more likely to advance the state’s interests. Opposite-sex marriages receive recognition by the state because they are more beneficial to the state’s interests by helping prevent unplanned, out-of-wedlock births, he said.
“So marriage is just a subsidy and not a right?” Judge James E. Graves, an Obama appointee, asked Mitchell during the hearing. Mitchell said marriage is a right that comes with benefits the state is entitled to control.
I do, podnuh!
“Boyhood” was a big winner last night. Name the ‘Stro player who hits a dinger during the flick?
It looks like a federal judge struck down key parts of the City of H-Town’s fundraising ordinance. Here are parts of Teddy Schleifer’s piece from the Chron:
A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked a law limiting when candidates in Houston municipal elections can raise money, prompting a scramble to contact donors sooner than campaigns had intended.
And:
Mayor Annise Parker said Friday the city had no plans to appeal the injunction and that it would respect Lake’s decision, though it disagreed with it.
“While we fundamentally disagree with the plaintiff – in fact, having a period where candidates cannot raise money benefits challengers much more than incumbents – we will accept this federal judge’s ruling,” she said.
I really don’t think it has much of an impact in this year’s races because it only moves up fundraising three weeks. It will change the way we handle campaigns in the future though.
I am having a problem trying to understand how challengers may have an advantage over incumbents. Whatever happened to the power of the incumbency? Maybe when I run into the Mayor she will ‘splain it to me.
From last Saturday’s Chron E-Board Thumbs Down:
(Thumbs down) While you’re at it, (Astro owner) Jim (Crane), please get rid of those horribly dull uniforms. Bring back the rainbow.
Please don’t! We’ve had way too many uniform changes!
Former ‘Stro Jason Lane of course smacks a dinger in “Boyhood.”
I can’t think of another Golden Globe winning movie that has a scene from The Yard!
Camposcommunications' Blog 