Tuesday Tidbits

Happy Tuesday Hope everyone is having a great week so far! Had a great weekend! Saw Cher in concert! all I can say is WOW! will report on the show later this week!

Johnny Weir and Victor Voronov Weir's Divorce "Back On" After 2 Alleged Altercations? Get the Details

Loading... 

Victor Voronov, Johnny Weir

Johnny Weir and husband Victor Voronov Weir announced their split in March, but in April, an alleged postnup between the spouses seemed to indicate they were at least trying to smooth things over.
But now in May, it seems that the figure skater turned broadcaster and his lawyer love are definitely headed for divorce again following two alleged altercations between them this weekend.
Victor's legal crisis manager Wendy Feldman tells E! News "police were called" to the scene Friday night, "but nothing happened." On Saturday, though, she claims "there was another altercation, and that one was physical."


Wendy says the pair, who wed Dec. 31, 2011, in a civil ceremony in New York, "gave it a shot. They went to marriage counseling and they tried..." She also believes that Johnny "had a different agenda" than her client, saying, the fashionable athlete "was on a fact-finding mission to gather evidence for the divorce rather than pursuing an actual reconciliation."
So what does this mean for the couple moving forward? According to Victor's legal crisis counselor, the "divorce was never pulled, so the terms still stand."


"Victor is currently at the apartment," she says. "Johnny pays the rent and expenses, and it's where Victor remains."
Oh Johnny Weir please go away you are not a good roll model for gay marriage or just being gay in general! very sad!

Pennsylvania Gay Marriage Ban Tossed as States Are Now Evenly Split

 

Pennsylvania became the 25th state to legalize gay marriage after a judge struck down its ban, evenly splitting the nation almost a year after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling triggered a race for the courthouse.

Gay marriage has been upheld in half the states and the District of Columbia through court rulings, popular votes or statute. While some bans remain in place as appeals are pursued, such unions are currently permitted in almost 20 states.

"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history," U.S. District Judge John E. Jones in Harrisburg said today in his ruling.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have won at least a dozen consecutive victories since the Supreme Court overturned part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that said the federal government could only recognize heterosexual marriage. The high court also rejected an appeal of a decision that threw out a voter-approved California gay marriage ban.

The twin decisions spurred challenges to state bans across the country. Yesterday, Oregon's same sex-marriage ban, having gone undefended by state officials, was struck down as well. Today's ruling means same-sex marriage is available to 44 percent of the U.S. population, said Charlie Joughin, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

Reviewing Ruling Josh Maus, a spokesman for Pennsylvania's Office of General Counsel, said in an e-mail the office is "reviewing all of the legal issues." He declined to comment on whether Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett will seek a stay, or petition the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The state has 30 days to challenge the ruling, which allows marriages immediately.

In Texas, not counted among the 25, state officials are fighting to keep a gay marriage ban on the books as proponents seek an injunction while their suit proceeds.

Several other state cases where bans were struck down have reached federal appellate courts, which may send the issue back to the Supreme Court next year, said Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation with the gay-rights advocacy group Lambda Legal.

‘Steady Drumbeat'

"We are seeing a steady drumbeat of rulings from federal as well as state courts saying that same-sex couples have the right to marry and to have their marriages respected wherever they live," Sommer said in a phone interview.

Frank Schubert, a director at Washington-based National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said courts are misinterpreting the Supreme Court's ruling and overstepping their authority.

"It's very disappointing that these judges would assume for themselves the power to define marriage when the decision has been made by the people of their respective states," he said in a phone interview. The Supreme Court "is going to have to decide whether the constitution recognizes same-sex marriage or leaves it to the states," Schubert said. "We believe the court will rule our way."

Like other federal judges across the country who have struck down similar bans, Jones likened the restrictions to laws from the previous century enshrining racial discrimination.

"That same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional," Jones, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, said. "Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, ours would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of separate but equal."

Philadelphia Register of Wills Ronald Donatucci said today that his office will remain open until 5:30 p.m. to accommodate couples applying for marriage licenses.

Northeast States Pennsylvania's ban was the last among northeast U.S. states to have a ban in place.

Mark Aronchick, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the case was decided on the view that gays are a protected class under the constitution.

"Anyone reading it can understand if those vows are good enough for me, they're good enough for anybody," he said.

The ruling comes amid growing momentum for marriage equality nationwide in the decade since Massachusetts became the first state to allow such unions. More than half of all Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted in March by Selzer & Co.

The Pennsylvania suits are among more than 70 marriage equality cases pending in 29 states and Puerto Rico, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, said. At least nine cases are seeking federal appellate review, HRC said.

At least four lawsuits were filed over a 1996 Pennsylvania law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Jones's ruling came in a case filed on behalf of 11 gay couples and a widow.

Dropped Corbett

The ACLU dropped Pennsylvania Governor Corbett, a Republican, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, as defendants in its lawsuit in November. Kane said in July that she wouldn't defend the ACLU's challenge to the state's ban, which she called unconstitutional.

Kane applauded today's decision as one that "brings justice to Pennsylvanians."

"The constitution prevailed," Kane said in an e-mailed statement. "Inequality in any form is unacceptable and it has never stood the test of time."
Recognition In addition to prohibiting gay marriages, the 1996 Pennsylvania law also barred recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere. Jones held that provision to be invalid.
His decision came as a Philadelphia federal judge was weighing a challenge by a lesbian couple seeking recognition of their 2005 marriage, performed in Massachusetts.
Their lawyers argued last week that Pennsylvania's law is discriminatory and irrational and stigmatizes the couple, Cara Palladino and Isabelle Barker, and their 5-year-old son.
Barker, an assistant dean at Pennsylvania's Bryn Mawr College, said the ruling marked an "historic day" for her family.
"I didn't expect to feel quite this excited and relieved," Barker said in a phone interview.
The ACLU case is Whitewood v. Corbett, 13-cv-01861, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg). The Philadelphia case is Palladino v. Corbett, 13-cv-05641, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).

Disclaimer:This blog does not claim credit for any images, videos, or other media items featured on this site, or sites linking to it, unless otherwise specified. All visual content, copy and images, are copyright to it’s respective owners. If you own rights to any of the featured images and articles and do not wish it to appear here, please email me and it will be removed from this blog. Bear in mind that the media items found within this site were all found publicly on the web, so removal from this site is not removal from the entire World Wide Web. I do my best to provide the most accurate information but errors and inaccuracies can occur. I do however not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the blog’s content. Should you encounter an error or inaccuracy, please inform us so it can be corrected. This is just all in good fun!