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

Texas lawmaker fears SB 8 could make driving someone to an abortion appointment a crime

  • The Texas legislature recently passed Senate Bill 8, that includes some of the strictest abortion restrictions that state has seen in years.
  • SB 8 criminalizes two abortion procedures, which should apply only to the doctors who perform them. 
  • But as the Texas Observer reported, Rep. Joe Moody worries physicians wouldn’t be the only ones open to prosecution if SB 8 becomes law. 
  • Because of the legislation’s broad wording, Moody argued, the bill could be interpreted as applicable to anyone involved in the procurement of the “unlawful” abortion — even if that involvement is as peripheral as booking the appointment or driving the patient to the clinic.
  • Moody, a criminal justice expert and former prosecutor, pointed to an existing Texas law that can hold people “criminally responsible” for another’s actions. In this case, Moody fears, it could be argued that the person who drives a friend to an abortion appointment is “acting with intent to promote or assist in the commission of the offense,” in violation of the law of parties. Read more (5/31/17)

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.

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.

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


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.

Hey everyone!! So, I just wanted to get this out there, if you live in Texas, PLEASE call governor Abbott today and let him know you’re AGAINST passing a ‘bathroom bill’! There’s talk of Abbott calling a special session in order to get it passed, and Dan Patrick has been literally red-in-the-face angry about the lack of progress the proposed anti-LGBTQ+ bills have made. So, please take some time to call your reps, call the governor, and tell them that Texans DO NOT want this bill, or any bill that discriminates!! 

frasierfan  asked:

FrasierFan anon here. I'll send more later when your life has calmed down a bit, but just wanted to (hopefully) send a quick note to clarify the situation on the anti-bullying bill in Texas. The state legislature may have indeed passed the bill, but it appears the governor has not yet signed it. J and G's appearances MAY have been to increase public awareness in Texas so the governor WILL sign it. In most states in the US, the "executive" not signing the bill is tacitly vetoing it.

@me2bme: Re: David’s Laws - It passed in both the House and the Senate in early May.  The bill went to the Governor on Friday, where he has 10 days to either sign it into law, veto the bill, or allow it to go into action unsigned (after the 10 days are up).  The point of Friday’s spectacle was to give it more notice / life as it headed to the governor.

Hello, both of you lovely people!

Thank you so much for correcting me! I come from a different culture where consensus rules what the leader does, so at first I thought their appearance was unnecessary. I’m not prone to coming to rash conclusions, but it’s something that does occasionally happen. Under these circumstances, I can definitely see a good reason for them to stand puclicly in support of the bill. I hope the law passes!

Frasierfan, can I just tell you how glad it makes me that you’ve created a blog? I’m looking forward to seeing you on my dashboard! ;) Let’s talk more once things settle down!

Anyway, thank you both for providing me with this background information. The system in the US is very different to the one we have in Finland, so my point of view is flawed and narrow in matters such as this one. I hope you both have a very lovely week ahead of you!

Originally posted by mooseintheocean

Texas State Legislature (again)

The Texas House of Representatives approved legislation Monday that would require transgender schoolchildren to use bathrooms that correspond to their “biological sex,” putting the state on the verge of enacting a “bathroom bill” similar to one that drew controversy in North Carolina.

The bathroom measure moving in Austin was attached as an amendment to an unrelated school hazard preparedness bill Sunday night, and that bill then won final approval from the Republican-led House early Monday on a 94-51 vote. It is considered likely that a version of the measure will pass the Republican-led Senate.

Gov. Greg Abbott ® has in the past expressed support for bathroom restrictions and is expected to sign a measure if it reaches desk. If it becomes law, Texas would be the only state with a statute restricting bathrooms for transgender schoolchildren. (WAPO)

Right. Despite the monumental failure and economic calamity that was HB2 in North Carolina (Which has been repealed but not fixed), the great state of Texas has decided that they need to do similar. The bill requires that schools, and only schools, have separate, single-stall bathrooms available for those that feel uncomfortable using the usual bathrooms. 

The argument in favor of the bill boils down to protecting their daughters. 

The argument in opposition of the bill boils down to Separate but Equal has already been struck down. 

The Texas Legislature had two other bills that would apply similar laws to all public buildings, but they failed to pass after backlash from businesses.

Lyft and Uber will return to Austin on Monday
Ride-share companies Lyft and Uber plan to resume their operations in Austin, Texas, on Monday, more than a year after both companies pulled out of the city following the rejection of a measure that would have restrictions on the ride-share companies in the city. The return for both companies follows the passage of HB100 by the Texas legislature, which Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign on Monday. The bill stipulates that the ability to regulate ride-share companies is controlled by the state, not municipalities. Read more
Texas Republican 'assaulted' by Dems on House floor

(WASHINGTON TIMES) Democratic members of the Texas Legislature reportedly assaulted and threatened a Republican colleague over his call to immigration authorities, prompting the GOP lawmaker to say he’d defend himself with deadly force if the Democrats followed through on their threats.

Rep. Matt Rinaldi, Irving Republican, said the altercation began when he called Immigration and Customs Enforcement in response to repeated disruptions of the day’s proceedings by illegal-immigrant demonstrators over a bill targeting sanctuary cities.

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.

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.