Boy Scout Delegates Vote 61-38 to Allow Gay Scouts (But Not Adults)

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Thu May 23, 2013 at 06:20 PM CDT

The policy will become effective January 1, 2014. The National Committee additionally noted that because of the expansive process involved, it has "no plans to further review this matter."

"Based on growing input from within the Scouting family, the BSA leadership chose to conduct an additional review of the organization's long-standing membership policy and its impact on Scouting's mission. This review created an outpouring of feedback from the Scouting family and the American public, from both those who agree with the current policy and those who support a change.

"Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting's history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America's National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. The BSA thanks all the national voting members who participated in this process and vote.

Read the full statement from BSA.

The public at large has been polled about this outcome.  

In the new poll, 63 percent of Americans support allowing gay scouts to join, and the public opposes the plan to continue to ban gay adults from Boy Scout leadership by a 56 to 39 percent margin. The results contrast with a USA Today/Gallup poll last year, where only 42 percent said openly gay adults should be able to serve as leaders.

Tom DeLay's Lawyer James Bopp Drafts Response to Boy Scout Policy on Homosexuality

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Thu May 23, 2013 at 04:05 PM CDT

Still, a good read either way. Check it out below the fold.  

Celebrate Passage of Fair Pay For Women, Castigate The Republicans Who Voted Against It

by: Katherine Haenschen

Thu May 23, 2013 at 01:54 PM CDT

This is a milestone and a significant achievement for State Representative Senfronia Thompson, who introduced HB 950, and Senator Wendy Davis, who have championed this issue.

Also deserving of thanks are the bill's additional authors in the State House, Democrats Nicole Collier and Carol Alvarado, and Republicans Sarah Davis and Jason Isaac. (Credit where due, y'all.)

This is a major economic issue for Texas: if working women are paid less than men for the same day's labor, then they're being denied the economic opportunity to fully participate in society that they've earned. If working mothers are shortchanged on their paychecks, it hurts the entire family -- and Texas school children have suffered enough at the hands of the Republican Legislature as it is.

However, the bill didn't pass unanimously in either chamber -- far from it. The Senate gave the bill a narrow 16-15 victory, and in the House the margin was 70-65 on second reading, 79-50 on third reading.

Click below the jump to find out which Republicans -- and which Republican women, for crying out loud -- don't think women deserve redress for pay discrimination in Texas.

Dallas DA Craig Watkins Backs Marriage Equality

by: Edward Garris

Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:00 PM CDT

According to the article, Watkins supports a domestic partner registry. In an interview with the Voice, Watkins made this argument for equality:

"This is America, and we shouldn't discriminate against anyone for whatever reason, and so I think it's a disservice for us as Americans to say that just because you are a certain lifestyle, that you can't have the same rights as someone else," Watkins told the Voice. "I think it goes towards, you know, when we were going through the civil rights movement, issues that we dealt with back then, which, basically, I can understand very clearly because of who I am. ..."

"It goes back to quality of life issues, and as a DA, I'm responsible for improving the quality of the lives of all of the citizens I represent," Watkins said. "I'm the lawyer for everybody in Dallas County, and so I can't be against something that will make your life better. So I'm for whatever we need to do in Dallas County to make the quality of life better, and in my opinion to have that - marriage equality and the registry - it makes lives better for citizens of Dallas County."

While gay marriage is as yet not recognized in Texas, currently, several jurisdictions in Texas recognize domestic partnership benefits.  They include Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas, and Fort Worth, as well as El Paso County, Travis County, and the Pflugerville ISD.  The issue was brought to the fore nearly a month ago when Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a non-binding, advisory opinion that political subdivisions in Texas could not recognize domestic partnerships and notably, Austin City Manager Marc Ott volleyed with a perfunctory: "[W]e do not intend to change domestic partner eligibility for our benefits program at this time."

Calendars Committee Racks Up Over $20,000 Tab For End of Year Party

by: Chaille Jolink

Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:40 PM CDT

The Texas Tribune posted an eye-opening article earlier today, part of their amazing regular series "Bidness As Usual," regarding an end of session party that the House Committee on Calendars, one of the most powerful committees in the Legislature, had last Sunday night. The party was held at III Forks Steakhouse and apparently it was a big bash.  

It is very common for committees in the Legislature to have end of session parties and invite staff and friends of the committee. What is not probably too common is the final tab the party racked up, which was $18,584.55, with a 20% tip of $3656.48 added, the total tab was $22,241.03.

Now according to the receipt 121 people had dinner, which is also a considerable amount of people for the 15 member committee, and at $95.00 bucks a pop it totals to half of the entire tab. The other half, around 7,000 was spent on booze, including three $135 bottles of Cabernet, an explicative ton of liquor, some more wine, and one lonely bud light.

According to the article, the tab was split 65 ways, each person paying roughly about $400. However, as tradition, no one from the committee paid, it was all paid for by lobbyists. This is all perfectly legal, and relatively common, but still it gives one pause when as much money to buy a car or a starting salary, is spent in one night on a party celebrating some of the most powerful leaders in the Legislature, making some of the most important decisions in this state.  

The Legislature is currently still in session right now, after working to up to midnight last night, the deadline to pass Senate Bills on the House Floor. The Democrats were successful at killing SB 11, which required drug testing for TANF applicants. TANF is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and is generally treated as an emergency entitlement. No word on if the House has reached a deal on SJR 1, the bill ensuring a budget deal is resolved regarding water funding . Currently the Senate is taking up HB 1025 which is the supplemental appropriations bill.  

If the Legislature cannot negotiate a deal between these two bills, a special session is almost imminent. The last day of session is Monday, May 27th.  

Republicans Vote to Fast Track Keystone XL & White House Pushes Back, Some

by: Joe Deshotel

Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:33 PM CDT

According to the statement, H.R. 3, would,

"(1) declare that a Presidential Permit is not required for the Keystone XL crude oil, cross-border pipeline, including the Nebraska reroute evaluated by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality;
(2) deem that the final Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Department of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act requirements; and,
(3) deem that Secretary of the Interior actions satisfy Endangered Species Act
requirements enabling the needed right-of-way."  

In a talking points memo obtained by the Huffington Post, Organizing For America is reaffirms its position in support of the President's, stating that, "OFA supports and respects the process as it is currently underway." The organization prefers to work on changing the conversation on climate change and clean energy more generally.

That seems to be smart at least politically, because according to Pew, 2/3s of Americans want to see the pipeline built, and that is up from a Gallup poll taken last year. The political problem with the pipeline, even though it is expected to only create 35 permanent jobs and most of the oil will be shipped overseas, is that it fits neatly into the narrative about "Middle East" energy independence. In reality it only delays how soon the USA itself will be energy independent.

The President promised an "all of the above" approach to energy, so instead of making his stand in tar sands he's going to let the process unfold. Having the lengthy permitting process and opportunity to veto its subjugation from executive approval, allows him to show his diligence to the environmental community and gives them more time to organize against the pipeline. Some groups like Bold Nebraska are organizing at the county level around property and water rights issues and there is a film, "Above All Else", being made about the landowner who did a tree-sit on his property in Texas.  

OFA says that it will, "work with local communities to switch to clean energy and promote the transition to renewable energy in cities and states nationwide.", "expose climate deniers as extreme and dangerous," and probably most important, "ask those in the middle, 'what's your plan?'." The 3rd part is crucial, and until the answer is no longer "build the pipeline", the most you will likely hear from the Administration until the next phase of permitting is mum.

Texas House Passes Three Amendments to CISPA-Like Bill

by: Ben Sherman

Wed May 22, 2013 at 00:00 PM CDT

On Tuesday, the Texas House added three amendments to the CISPA-like bill flying through the Legislature. Clearly, all the attention now directed at this terrible bill is spurring action by state lawmakers. But the amendments completely fail to address the bill's serious privacy violations and some make the bill even worse.

Amendment 2

This amendment changes the target of government seizures from "an electronic communications service" to a "remote computing service". All this does is make it more clear that websites not based in Texas are going to be forced to comply with this bill.

The amendment also appears to remove the limit on how far back the state could seize personal records. The bill previously only applied to electronic communication that was less than 180 days old (so it prevented really old fishing expeditions). Under this version of the bill, it appears the government could seize years - or even the totality - of a person's online communication. This is a terrible change.

The amendment also made an important change by removing the ability of a "Designated law enforcement office or agency" to collect the data, leaving it to authorized peace officers. But this doesn't improve the bill very much - authorized peace officers are state agents who also should not be empowered with these broad abilities to seize private communications. It removes the ability for some political hack in a specific office or agency to file a request for electronic information - which is a good thing - but doesn't address the glaring privacy violations in this bill.

Read about the rest of the amendments below the jump.

House Committee (Including Several Texas Reps) Votes to Cut SNAP Benefits for 2 Million Families

by: Emily Cadik

Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:00 AM CDT

This month, the House Agriculture Committee approved a farm bill that would cut $20 billion from SNAP benefits (also known as food stamps). If enacted, the cuts would result in 2 million families losing their assistance, and over 200,000 children losing eligibility for the free school lunch program.

These cuts come at a time when the Recovery Act's temporary increase in SNAP benefits is already set to expire in November.

The Senate Agriculture Committee also approved cuts to SNAP in its version of the farm bill, but by only $4.1 billion. Fortunately, neither of these are close to where Paul Ryan wants the cuts - his latest budget reduced SNAP by $135 billion.

Read more after the jump.