before today’s supreme court ruling, same sex couples were denied two thousand different rights in the us. these ranged from small, simple things to massive issues like visitation rights in hospitals, death benefits, etc. even if same-sex marriage was legal in the state you lived in, there were still between eight hundred to twelve hundred different rights denied to same sex couples on a federal level. and, taking my earlier example, a hospital in a same-sex marriage legal state could deny visitation due to the fact that the couple’s marriage wasn’t federally recognized. marriage equality isn’t a “safe” issues, marriage equality is a seriously important issue that protects millions of people of various sexual orientations. and since this is a supreme court decision, anyone who attempts to deny a same sex couple their right to marry will be violating the united states constitution which is the legal equivalent of stabbing a judge in the face while standing in front of a cop while a news reporter is recording you.

before today, gay/bi/ace/pan/etc people who wanted to marry someone of their gender were second class citizens in the us. now they’re equal.

Ariel Levy writes how the ongoing efforts of activists like Edith Windsor resulted in the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of marriage vows—for people of all sexual orientations—today.

President Obama—who had called to congratulate Windsor on that hot June morning two years ago, when she won her case—came on television and spoke of “the countless small acts of courage of millions of people across decades who stood up” and incrementally advanced gay rights. “Sometimes,” the President continued, “there are days like this when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.”

Read more of “A Party for Edith Windsor” on

This cover illustration is “Wedding Season,” by Barry Blitt. 

I wholeheartedly believe that at one point, Andrew hauls off and punches a mascot at one of the games. It doesn’t really matter which one, either the home team mascot or the opposing teams’. Maybe the guy in the costume is pestering Andrew too much, trying to get him to smile, or getting in his face to hype him up. Maybe Neil’s having one of his Bad Days, and the mascot won’t leave him alone and is crowding him. It could be anything, really. All I know is that an oversized foam head goes flying, the spectators are screaming, there are tears (probably from Neil trying not to laugh).

Please feel free to expand on this ^=^. I just have a very clear image of Wymack face-palming and muttering about how he doesn’t get paid enough for this.


3 Crestmont Court, Melbourne, Australia   |  Homeadverts

Beautifully built and orientated large single level residence opening to private North-West facing terrace garden with in-ground pool.


took a walk, showered, and now i’m browsing tumblr until i have to go to my teen court orientation !!!!

I am pleased that the democratic process has resulted in my nomination. I am proud to continue to serve this country, this time from the Supreme Court.

While some deny that her sexual orientation is relevant, others insist that it plays a fundamental role in what she can bring to the table.

It’s Official, Puerto Rico’s First Openly Lesbian Judge Has Been Appointed to the Supreme Court
BREAKING: Federal Agency Urges Court To Include Sexual Orientation Under Sex Discrimination Ban
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argues in a federal appeals court filing on Wednesday that “sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination, and such sex discrimination violates Title VII.”
By Chris Geidner

The federal agency charged with enforcing existing civil rights laws has urged a federal appeals court to rule that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination and therefore illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

In a filing at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission wrote that “sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination, and such sex discrimination violates Title VII.”

In supporting the appeal of Barbara Burrows, whose lawsuit against the College of Central Florida was tossed out by a trial court judge, the EEOC wrote, “The district court’s treatment of sexual orientation discrimination as distinct from sex discrimination is untenable and based on a fundamentally flawed premise.”

The move is the latest step from the EEOC and advocates in an effort to protect LGBT people from discrimination under existing civil rights law.

A series of EEOC rulings and court cases have aimed to provide protection to transgender people through rulings that gender identity is covered under Title VII, as well as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. A second set of rulings and cases, including Burrows’s case, has focused on providing protection to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people through rulings that sexual orientation is covered under Title VII and Title IX.

The EEOC ruled in July 2015 that “allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex” barred by Title VII. That ruling, while applicable to federal agencies and in the EEOC’s own work, is not binding on federal courts. The move in Burrows’s case is an attempt to get federal courts to affirm its interpretation of the law.

In explaining its argument in Burrows’s case, the commission wrote Wednesday that there are three reasons that sexual orientation discrimination should be covered by existing laws against sex discrimination.

First, the EEOC argues, sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves gender stereotyping, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said is banned under Title VII. “[A]n employer who discriminates because of an employee’s homosexuality necessarily discriminates because of that employee’s failure to conform to a gender-based stereotype: the stereotype of opposite-sex attraction,” the EEOC’s lawyers write.

Second, it argues, sexual orientation discrimination is a type of associational discrimination, which also violates Title VII. “If a plaintiff is in a relationship with someone of the same sex, and an adverse employment consequence results from that relationship, discrimination has occurred ‘because of [the plaintiff’s] … sex,’ in violation of Title VII,” the EEOC lawyers argue in the brief.

Finally, and most basically, the EEOC argues that sexual orientation discrimination is, definitionally, a type of sex discrimination. “[S]exual orientation discrimination is also inherently sex-based discrimination because sexual orientation cannot be understood without reference to an individual’s sex (in conjunction with the sex of those to whom the individual is physically and/or emotionally attracted).”

As the commission lawyers conclude, “[S]exual orientation discrimination necessarily requires impermissible consideration of sex. It should therefore be held illegal under Title VII.”

In December, a federal judge in California agreed with the EEOC’s interpretation of the issue, finding that sexual orientation discrimination is covered under the sex discrimination ban in Title IX.

The Justice Department formally supported the EEOC’s position as to gender identity at the end of 2014. Since then, Justice has taken that position in a handful of court cases, through the filing of statements of interest or amicus curiae briefs in cases from Texas to Virginia.

The Justice Department has not, however, weighed in yet on the sexual orientation question at issue in Burrows’s case.

Read the EEOC brief’s conclusion:

Read the full EEOC brief:

In March 952, National News, an Ottawa periodical distributor, was charged with distributing obscene materials. It was convicted on all counts and an appeal was rejected. One of the obscene items was the novel Women’s Barracks, which included depictions of sexual relationships between women, and it became the center of the court case, eclipsing the more heterosexually oriented materials that were also found to be obscene. The representation of sex between women was considered more obscene and shocking than that of sex between women and men…This decision fueled the legal construction of queer representations more obscene than similar heterosexual examples- a construct that continues to this day.
—  Gary Kinsman & Patrizia Gentile (The Canadian War on Queers)
Court vacates Indiana sexual orientation bias ruling; will rehear case
A federal appeals court has vacated a decision by three judges who ruled in an Indiana case that existing nondiscrimination laws do not cover sexual-orientation.

The three-judge panel of 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in July upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed in 2014 by Kimberly Hively of South Bend, Indiana, a former part-time instructor who said Ivy Tech Community College in her hometown didn’t hire her full time because she is a lesbian. Civil rights groups said in filings calling on the 7th Circuit to do what it has now done that Hively’s case is a chance “to correct its outdated and unworkable interpretation” Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and to expand the scope of its protections to include LGBT workers.

A brief, two-sentence order posted Tuesday by the 7th Circuit didn’t explain why a majority of the nine active judges on the court asked for the full-court session, called an “en banc” rehearing. A date for lawyers to argue their positions in court should be scheduled soon. A decision to rehear an issue already decided by a smaller panel is rare, occurring in the 7th Circuit no more than a few times a year. It can indicate that some judges believe an initial ruling was flawed.

Keep reading


repost with the information of your muse, including headcanons, etc.

when you’re done, tag 15 other people to do the same!

tagged by: @achangelingandmage

Verse: Dresden Files

NAME: Thomas Raith
AGE:  47
SPECIES: White Court Vampire
ORIENTATION: Largely horizontal
PROFESSION: Slacker, professional vampire, backup, accidental supernatural consultant



BODY TYPE: Is ‘hot’ a body type?

HAIR: Black, shoulder length

EYES: Oh you know, whatever. I fail the Mary Sue litmus test on this attribute alone. Also every other attribute in this category probably. And on this questionnaire…

SKIN: Extremely white.

HEIGHT: Not exactly 6′ but let’s round up anyway.




Born to a vampire and a wizard in an unholy and ill-fated union. There’s a whole gaggle of sisters and no surviving brothers. None that can be proven, anyway.


Right, because wearing a wedding ring would go so well for me.


yes  [  ]   ||   no  [ x ]  



Physical Prowess:

Good with stabby things, shooty things, and fists. Maybe some other things, too. Regenerative, which really just means you can keep stabbing me and it never stops being fun. For you, not for me. Well, until I eat you.


Like Sonic without the blue. And the ring obsession. Definitely no ring obsession.




Whatever. White, grey, silver, blue, and such are usually associated with me but I’m not really attached to anything.


People. Actual people, not all the artificial chemicals and scented soaps they use. Pizza. Food in general, really. Sex.


Petite brunettes, but I’m not picky.


I’m just going to answer yes to the next question and call it a day.


yes  [ x ]  ||   no  [  ]


This question needs a bit more context. Favorite whats?!




yes  [  ]   ||   no  [ x ]   ||   occasionally [ ]  ||  very rarely [  ]


yes  [  ]   ||   no  [  ]   ||   occasionally  [ x ]  ||  very rarely [  ]


yes  [ x ]   ||   no  [  ] 


no  [ x ]   ||   yes  [  ]   ||   almost/detained  [  ]  


DONE! now tag 15 other people to do it!:

I don’t have 15 friends. I don’t even know 15 people. I’ll just tag @childofawoundedgod @andiemmeundying @studiocitypsychic @botanyandbrilliance and @rangerlake and let them tag the rest.