Texas State Legislature is considering passing a law that would mandate teachers to out young gay kids to their parents

At first glance, this new bill proposed by Texas Sen. Konni Burton seems harmless. Do a little digging, however, and its intention is crystal clear: The bill would require teachers to out LGBTQ students to their parents. The public knows this because Burton said as much herself.


Chelsea ( @opensmother-lippedlover​ ) and I ( @jessjust​ ) met December 5, 2012 on Tumblr (Yup, I remember dates well). Immediately I noticed how sweet, polite, and interesting she was. We continued to talk here and there, and making our relationship official months later. We dated for about six-months. Initially everything was great, but the long-distance was awful and we were too young to know how to handle it. We called it off. We went our separate ways; fell in-love here and there with other people. 

Years later I was working for the Texas Legislature, near done with my undergrad degree, and with the flexibility to move anywhere. I then realized how much I kept thinking about her, wishing to share the precious memories I was making at my job, how supportive and uniquely proud she would be — and truly how much love I still had for her. Not knowing where she was in life I decided to reach out to her, told her how I felt and she left me waiting (lol) Some time later she finally came around and told me she felt the same way. Well the rest is really history. 

(The day she asked me to be her girlfriend)

We left Philadelphia and houston, and we moved to Chicago after I got a scholarship at DePaul Law School, and she began her education to become a Veterinarian. Most importantly we created our own little family with our baby Gatsby, a cavalier King Charles Spaniel. Now I’m proud to call her my fiancée. I would give my life for her. 

We’ve had bumps here and there like any other couple, but we love each other enough to fight for each other. That’s what’s important. And why I proposed December 17, 2016 at the art institute!

She may still get mad at me when I forget to place the new toilet paper in the holder and I may still get annoyed when she talks through a movie. All in all, that’s what a relationship is about loving each other and ironing out the little differences.

We want to share our little story with details sometimes left out by the media. With our relationship on the spotlight I hope this encourages others to love and work hard for their relationships ❤️ love is out there, it’s just hard to keep.

(This is an old video Chelsea’s dad filmed of the first time we saw each other again after years apart)

More photos of the engagement can be found in our Instagrams: Cnicolem_ and J.essrdgz

I love so many things about this clip: Jared and Gen getting recognition for when they spoke at the Texas Capitol in support of the anti-bullying bill, Jensen clapping about it, and Jared talking about how much of a badass Gen is for talking about Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign in front of the Texas Legislature: 

“We’re humans and we’re raising some funds and awareness for humans, so suck it.” <3 (x)

anonymous asked:

What do you hope to accomplish this year in terms of helping the community of LGBTQIA+ ?

My goal this year for the LGBTQI community centers around stopping SB6 in the Texas legislature. I firmly believe that if Texas passes this bill it will be a signal to other states that they should do the same. I also believe that even though these types of bills are aimed squarely at the trans community, they are the precursor for an attempt to roll back the hard-earned rights of the LGB community. Where will it stop? Reproductive rights are certainly always on their mind, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The proponents of these bills see the 1950s as the model for America.

Dallas Stars become 1st Texas team opposing 'bathroom bill'

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) – The NHL’s Dallas Stars have become the first Texas professional sports franchise to officially oppose a “bathroom bill” targeting transgender people.

Team President James Lites said in a statement Wednesday that the Stars are “strongly opposed to any legislation perceived as discriminatory.”

The NFL and NBA have previously joined dozens of powerful businesses in opposing a proposal requiring transgender Texans to use public restrooms corresponding to the gender on their birth certificates.

Texas’ Republican-controlled Legislature failed to pass the bill during a legislative session that ended in May. Gov. Greg Abbott convened a special session to revive the issue, but it looks unlikely to pass before that ends next week.

A similar law in North Carolina sparked national uproar and costly boycotts before lawmakers rolled back much of it.


Josefa ‘Chipita’ Rodriguez was a 63 year old Mexican American woman who lived in San Patricio in South Texas. She ran a sort of motel on the Nueces river, renting her porch out to sleep on and feeding weary travelers. One such traveler was a man named John Savage. His body, brutally murdered with an axe and stuffed in a burlap sack, was discovered in the river not too far from Chipita’s place. She and a man named Juan Silvera, who may have been her illegitimate son, were both arrested and indicted for murder. The evidence was purely circumstantial with nothing at all to link the man to Rodriguez or Silvera. Still, she went on trial for the murder. She refused to testify on her own behalf, only saying that she was completely innocent. Some said that she was covering for Juan Silvera, but it can’t be confirmed. She was found guilty and sentenced to death. On Friday November 13th, 1863, she was hung from a mesquite tree in downtown Dallas near the current location of the Old Red Courthouse. Her last words were: “No soy culpable”, I am not guilty. In 1985 the Texas Legislature passed a resolution stating that she hadn’t received a fair trial, but they did not posthumously pardon her. Pictured above: a few depictions of Chipita and how she died, a plaque dedicated to her, the Old Red Courthouse where she was hung,the Nueces river, a mesquite tree like the one used for her execution and a map of Texas indicating where the crime occurred.

Texas adoption agencies could ban Jews, gays, MuslimsTexas adoption agencies could ban Jews, gays, Muslims

got this off the wire so it’s real.

 Not really for this tumblr but jesus what is WRONG with the United States? I grew up believing that the US was the place to be, they had more freedoms than we did, were more progressive and prosperous than us. As I get older it become more and more clear that the states is closer to a dictatorship than democracy when it comes to the political scale. . 

Sat 1:24 pmSat 12:53 pmSat 10:39 amSat 10:21 amSat 9:55 am
Meredith Hoffman, The Associated Press

Texas adoption agencies could ban Jews, gays, Muslims

AUSTIN, Texas — Parents seeking to adopt children in Texas could soon be rejected by state-funded or private agencies with religious objections to them being Jewish, Muslim, gay, single, or interfaith couples, under a proposal in the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Five other states have passed similar laws protecting faith-based adoption organizations that refuse to place children with gay parents or other households on religious grounds — but Texas’ rule would extend to state-funded agencies. Only South Dakota’s is similarly sweepingly.

The bill had been scheduled for debate and approval Saturday in the state House, but lawmakers bogged down with other matters. It now is expected to come up next week.

Keep reading

Speaker Straus won’t run for re-election (podcast) - On this week’s TribCast, Emily talks to Evan, Ross and Aman about House Speaker Joe Straus’ bombshell decision not to run for re-election, and what it means for the Texas Legislature.

Made with SoundCloud

A Victory in Austin, but the Texas Legislative Session Isn’t Over Yet

Moments ago, a majority of the more than than 20 pieces of anti-LGBT legislation before the Texas Legislature failed to be considered by the House as time ran out at the stroke of midnight Thursday. 

Most importantly, the House failed to hear HB4105, which is now dead for the session. HB4105 was Rep. Cecil Bell’s last-ditch effort to shamefully try to stop marriage equality in Texas as the Supreme Court considers a case that could lead to nationwide marriage equality.

HB4105 attempted to prohibit state or local employees from recognizing, granting, or enforcing a same-sex marriage license or any funds being used for an activity to license or support these marriages but with the clock running out at midnight it can no longer be considered by the House of Representatives. 

Yesterday, the House passed SB206/HB2433 after Rep. Sanford pulled his discriminatory amendment, which would have added anti-LGBT language regarding adoption to an important child welfare bill. HRC worked with child welfare organizations and distributed a letter from them opposing this harmful amendment. This amendment could still come up in the future and we will monitor any desperate attempts by Rep. Sanford to pass his hateful bill. 

We congratulate and thank our partner organizations in Texas, which worked for months to oppose these bills. We are proud to continue to work alongside Texas Freedom Network, ACLU of Texas, and Equality Texas in coalition this legislative session. The session is not over yet and our work will continue until every single piece of discriminatory legislation is finally dead in Texas. 

Since the beginning of the legislative session in Austin, HRC supporters in Texas have generated over 40,000 emails or phone calls to state lawmakers. HRC also worked to mobilize corporate supporters of equality. 

While we celebrate this victory tonight, the Texas legislative session is not over yet and later this morning we will be back in the Capitol working to defeat any last minute attempts to legislate hate in Texas.


Very powerful images, great student work!

Do you like eating in public restrooms? Or does the sight of a toilet and the acrid scent of piss ruin your appetite?

Johnathan Wenske and Kris Haro, both juniors at the University of North Texas, created these ads depicting young mothers breastfeeding on toilets—to support bill HB1706 in the Texas legislature, which would protect mothers from harassment and discrimination when they breastfeed their children in public.

Rejecting Texas’s latest effort to do away with abortion rights, the Supreme Court served the antiabortion movement some very bad news Monday. The justices didn’t believe Texas was just trying to help its poor, hapless women out. Instead, according to Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s majority opinion: “In the face of no threat to women’s health, Texas seeks to force women to travel long distances to get abortions in crammed-to-capacity superfacilities.”

From now on, the court warned, it would no longer, as the White Queen said in “Through the Looking Glass,” believe “as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Not even about abortion. Not even, the Court emphasized, when the impossible suggestions, like looking after women’s health, come from the legislative branch. You want to help women out, Breyer wrote? You gotta prove it to us.

The Court’s opinion seems to be the death knell for two decades of antiabortion activism, which has cloaked itself in unsupported assertions that women need to be protected against abortion rights. The strategy of purporting to help women, which has, until today, been stunningly successful, started with the attack on so-called “partial birth abortion” in 1995. It reached its high water mark with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s hotly contested 5-to-4 decision upholding the restrictions on such procedures in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007. Kennedy found medical disagreement about the safety advantages of the procedure. Importantly, he then deferred to the findings of the legislature that women would be safer and better off without partial birth abortion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg devoted her dissent in Gonzales to eviscerating his decision to defer, with special emphasis on the way that Congress got to its findings about the safety of partial birth abortion and the findings themselves.

The link between helping women and restricting their access to abortion, never very convincing, grew more and more attenuated as conservative state legislatures took Kennedy’s majority opinion in Gonzales to mean open season on abortion. As long as they found for themselves that they were helping women, they thought, they were protected from the Constitution. A bunch of legislatures passed such laws. The Texas law requiring surgical standards and admitting privileges with a hospital, which the court struck down Monday, is just one extreme example of the anti-choice strategy. But Breyer’s opinion and, implicitly, Kennedy’s vote with the majority indicate that Texas did not help its cause by pushing the envelope. Defending its law, Texas’s lawyers contended that more rigorous standards for doctors who perform abortions and for abortion facilities were needed to help women. However, “when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement [requiring admitting privileges] would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case,” Breyer wrote.

Needing Kennedy’s vote in the Texas decision, Breyer emphasized that even Gonzales didn’t say the court always had to defer to the legislature on factual matters. Breyer wrote: “Gonzales went on to point out that the ‘Court retains an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake.‘”

This portion of Breyer’s opinion looks like a clean sweep for Ginsburg and the dissenters in the prior case. But here’s the rub: Breyer’s distinction is a fragile one, given the language and outcome in Gonzales, so he buttressed it by noting that the Texas legislature hadn’t even made any findings in the current law. Uh oh. A bunch more laws like Texas’s law are waiting in the wings in lower courts. And Alabama’s law, for example, includes a long recitation of legislative findings.

And that’s where Ginsburg weighed in with one of her signature futuristic concurring opinions. When the news broke that RBG was concurring, the initial reaction was puzzlement. Why would Ginsburg need to write separately from a pro-choice opinion by her liberal colleague Breyer? Looking at her concurrence, however, the explanation is clear.

The concurrence is less than two pages. She dismisses Texas’s argument about its interest in protecting “the health of women who experience complications from abortions,” by countering that “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” She recites a laundry list of studies of how safe abortion is, and then she delivers the message: “So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that ‘do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,’ Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection.” [Emphasis added.]

She is writing into law the factual finding that abortion is safe, full stop. When the court turns to the Alabama law, with its “finding” that women need abortion to be restricted, she wants that future court to be able to cite to her opinion that they do not.


The Washington Post“How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Just Won the Next Abortion Fight.”

The notorious RBG, y’all. Mic drop.

senators being escorted out of the chamber shortly after the bill UNCONSTITUTIONALLY passed. republicans called for a voice vote at 12:01 am and then proclaimed votes were taken at 11:59 pm to make this seem legal. votes. we’re. taken. after. midnight. SIGNAL BOOST THIS IS NOT OKAY

photo by Hannah Beck