Jill Stein Wins Green Party Nomination, Courting Disaffected Sanders Supporters – JESSICA TAYLOR August 7, 2016 12:00 AM ET

Jill Stein nabbed the Green Party nomination for her second presidential bid on Saturday, after running in 2012. She hopes the wave Sanders supporters will help make her a viable third-party challenger.

Jill Stein nabbed the Green Party nomination for her second presidential bid on Saturday, after running in 2012. She hopes the wave Sanders supporters will help make her a viable third-party challenger. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The Green Party officially nominated Jill Stein for president and human rights activist Ajamu Baraka as her running mate on Saturday, at a convention in Houston that attracted many disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters.

Much of the three-day gathering was an explicit appeal to former backers of the Vermont senator to join their fold, and several speakers argued that Sanders had been treated unfairly by the Democratic Party.

“I want to thank Bernie Sanders supporters who refused to let the political revolution die,” Stein said in her acceptance speech. “We have a tremendous opportunity before us. The American people are longing for a change. They are ready to do something different, and we have to be the vehicle for that difference.”

She cast herself and the Green Party as the precursor to the Sanders movement, arguing they had first championed many of the same ideas that fueled his unlikely rise.

“We have been ahead of the curve in so many ways — on climate change, on green energy on demilitarization, on marriage equality, on free public higher education and canceling student debt, on stopping the [Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal]. On ending the war on drugs and the incarceration state, on providing reparations for slavery and to the indigenous people. On opposing war crimes committed by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and war crimes and occupation committed by the Israeli government in Palestine,” Stein ticked off.

Article continues:

Nevada’s GOP Stopped Opposing Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage. Here’s What Happened Next. – By Josh Harkinson| Tue May 13, 2014 4:27 PM EDT


Last month, the Nevada GOP voted to strip opposition to abortion and marriage equality out of its official party platform. This really shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone who’d been paying attention: Brian Sandoval, the state’s Republican governor, is pro-choice and doesn’t want the state to defend its same-sex marriage ban in federal court. And even Bob Cashell, the 74-year-old, Texas-born, former truck driver who serves as the mayor of staunchly conservative Reno now backs marriage equality.

Even so, a lot of Republicans in other states are freaking out.

“The Nevada GOP action to remove marriage and life from their platform is a disgrace,” wrote Oklahoma Republican National Committee member Carolyn McLarty in a recent email to some 100 Republican National Committee delegates. “Both are direct attacks on God and family.”

But so far, Nevada’s GOP delegation stands by its decision. “Nevada is home to many diverse people, including a large LGBT population,” Nevada Republican National Committeewoman Diana Orrock wrote in a letter released on Friday at the RNC’s spring meeting in Memphis. “The GOP is by definition a party of inclusion not exclusion.… Excluding an entire group of American citizens based solely on their sexual preference towards the same gender is not only divisive but in the 21st century it is unacceptable.”

Anyway, so much for the idea of hosting the 2016 Republican National Convention in Las Vegas. It sure would have been fun.


Same-sex marriage moving swiftly back toward Supreme Court – By David G. Savage February 16, 2014, 10:15 p.m.

Same-sex marriage in Virginia

WASHINGTON — The legal campaign for marriage equality is picking up speed, moving at a pace that has surprised even longtime advocates and increasing the likelihood of a definitive Supreme Court test as early as next year.

Efforts by some lawyers to plan a careful strategy for which cases to push forward to the high court have largely been put aside amid a rush of lower-court rulings striking down bans on same-sex marriage. The most recent came Thursday in Virginia, the first such ruling in the South.

“I don’t think there is any way to predict” which case will arrive at the Supreme Court first, lawyer David Boies said Friday following the Virginia ruling.

In the last eight weeks, in addition to the Virginia decision, federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma have struck down laws limiting marriage equality. A federal judge in Kentucky ruled the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other states. And in Ohio, a federal judge issued a more narrow ruling that cast doubt on the state’s ban.

Increasingly, the judges are saying they can see no legitimate justification for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. With the Supreme Court having said that states cannot validly base marriage laws on traditional religious disapproval of homosexuality, the remaining justifications offered to defend the laws fail to pass muster, the judges have ruled.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen in the Virginia case began her opinion with a lengthy quotation from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff who successfully challenged Virginia’s law against interracial marriage in the high court in 1967.

That opening served notice that the judge, a former Navy lawyer appointed in 2011 by President Obama, did not accept Virginia’s argument that history and tradition were enough to justify the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

She also forcefully rejected the state’s argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is good for children. She noted that one of the two couples who sued — Mary Townley and Carol Schall — have a 16-year-old daughter, Emily.

“Like the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples, [Emily] is needlessly deprived of the protection, the stability, the recognition and the legitimacy that marriage conveys,” the judge wrote. Though the state has “compelling interests in protecting and supporting our children,” they are “not furthered by a prohibition on same-sex marriage.”

Article continues: