Visas Are Now Available For Same-Sex Couples

Among the clear winners in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor are bi-national same sex couples who had heretofore been unable to get visas for the non-U.S. spouse and often faced having to move abroad to stay together.  Yesterday, the State Department announced that effective immediately same sex spouses would be treated equally and have the same visa rights as heterosexual couples.  We can expect flying spittle and hyperventilating among the Christofascists in reaction to this development.  Metro Weekly has details:

In a policy change announced Friday by Secretary of State John Kerry, the United States will begin processing visa applications for same-sex couples effective immediately. 

"If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world," Kerry said during an appearance at the U.S. embassy in London.

The announcement is the latest repercussion following the Supreme Court's June decision striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Now, as long as a marriage has been performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes it so that it is legal, then that marriage is valid under U.S. immigration laws, and every married couple will be treated exactly the same, and that is what we believe is appropriate," Kerry added.

According to Freedom to Marry, sixteen countries permit same-sex marriage — Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, New Zealand, Uruguay and Britain — while certain regions of the U.S. and Mexico also allow same-sex couples the right to marry.

The new State Department policy will also impact the children of the foreign national spouse by considering them "step-children" of the parent who is a U.S. citizen.

"Today, the State Department, which has always been at the forefront of equality in the federal government, I'm proud to say, is tearing down an unjust and an unfair barrier that for too long stood in the way of same-sex families being able to travel as a family to the United States."

Read More

Why Ken Cuccinelli and the Virginia GOP Are Bad for Virginia

As Ken Cuccinelli continues to bring negative publicity to Virginia through his quest to reinstate the sodomy statute which has been twice ruled unconstitutional, Bob Witeck, the president of Witeck Communications who provides consulting services to Fortune 500 corporations and nonprofits on LGBT issues, has an op-ed in the Virginian Pilot that lays out why Cuccinelli and the Virginia GOP's anti-gay agenda is bad for Virginia and its economy.  Here are some excerpts:

Virginia has been among America's economic leaders and why so many successful multinational and high-tech firms find their welcome here.

Last month, however, that welcoming reputation darkened when Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli overreacted to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Declaring that for 400 years Virginians have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, Cuccinelli then insisted that the repeal of DOMA had no relevance for Virginians.

Such a mindset creates a chill for the state's leading companies and multinational businesses because they walk the walk on nondiscrimination and fairness. Many have earned high scores from the Human Rights Campaign for their equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers.

Volkswagen, Hilton Corporation, Rolls Royce and 32 out of 50 of Virginia's top employers have workplace nondiscrimination policies that include LGBT Virginians. Those companies also include SAIC, Dominion Virginia Power, Lockheed Martin and Capital One - all competing for the same pool of highly educated talent.

This appetite for talent explains why 278 U.S. corporations and employers, including many with workers in Virginia like Marriott, Xerox, Cisco Systems and Starbucks, also urged overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. They know that treating all employees equally is good business - and now that the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages performed in 13 states and Washington, D.C., they can also save money and streamline their own complex payroll and administrative systems.

Consider the greatest irony. Virginia has the nation's largest concentrations of women and men serving on our combined military and federal payrolls. With Don't Ask, Don't Tell lifted, thousands today may also serve openly and proudly regardless of their sexual orientation. And with DOMA consigned to the dustbin, married same-sex couples - even those living in Virginia serving in uniform - will be recognized as married by their employer, Uncle Sam. They will be treated equally under federal tax laws and with health benefits. But not yet by our backward-looking commonwealth.

The competition for superior talent goes hand in hand with appealing communities and welcoming cultures. Very few openly LGBT executives and managers eagerly await job transfer, with spouses and children too, to states like Virginia that insist on denying equal legal protections and stability, or whose leaders neglect the changes that our dynamic economy will bring.

Increasingly, in post-DOMA America, same-sex married couples will align their ambitions with their best interests in choosing to live and work in states that offer them the full respect and equal treatment under the law they need and want for their families. They will find refuge in states where well qualified, openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people today hold civic offices, among them senators, representatives, judges, mayors and council members. They will see that most Americans judge us on the content of our character and not by whom we love.

[D]iscrimination extracts a price too high for any global competitor. Leading companies expect nothing less from their public leaders.

As noted in the past, I regularly receive calls from LGBT individuals considering a job transfer or promotion that would bring them to Virginia.  Many turn down the jog prospect so that they can remain in more gay friendly states.  I encourage them to tell their employers or prospective employers, as applicable, why they will not be taking the offer.  If these companies hear this story line often enough, they can and will put pressure on politicians prostituting themselves to the Christofascists and hate groups like The Family Foundation.

Read More

The IRS's Gay-Marriage Tax Problem

One of the questions that I keep getting asked by many LGBT couples as an estate planning attorney and an attorney with many LGBT clients is what is the status of their marriage vis-a-vis federal rights post Windsor.  On many issues, the answer continues to be, 9I0 that things are still up in the air and that federal agencies are working through the issue and that hopefully answers will be forthcoming soon, and/or (ii) it depends on where you live and whether or not your home state recognizes gay marriage.  One such area is with respect to taxes and whether or not couples can or should file joint returns with the IRS.  A piece in Business Week gives a good current overview of this uncertain issue.  Here are highlights:

During the runup to the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, one number kept recurring: The government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages meant gay couples were denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that straight couples enjoy. Now that the justices have struck down DOMA, gays can look forward to equality under U.S. tax laws. That is, just as soon as the Internal Revenue Service can figure out how to make equality happen. The tax agency has promised to “move swiftly” to recognize gay unions, but for many couples it won’t be as simple as checking the “married” box on their 1040. 

Those living in Washington, D.C., or the 13 states that allow same-sex marriages can file a federal tax return next April just like other married couples. Not so for the thousands of gay couples who took their vows in one of those states but who live in one of the 37 others where same-sex marriage isn’t recognized. It’s not yet clear whose definition of marriage the IRS is supposed to follow in evaluating their taxes—the state where the couple got married, or the one in which they reside. And will the federal government recognize gay couples in civil unions who file a joint return?

To avoid confusion, a single nationwide rule makes the most sense, says Patricia Cain, a tax law professor at Santa Clara University in California. “The IRS has the power to construe the Internal Revenue Code,” she says. “So for them it’s, ‘What does the word spouse mean?’ ” President Obama has weighed in, saying it’s his “personal belief” that same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as married couples regardless of where they live. He’s asked federal agencies to research legal issues that might stand in the way. Such a ruling, though, could cause headaches for the IRS, which until now has typically followed states’ definitions of marriage, says David Herzig, a tax law professor at Valparaiso University. “You may solve this problem,” he says, “but you may open up another.”

Many gay couples might not like what marriage equality looks like on a tax form. Until now, they’ve been able to take advantage of their separate status to maximize tax savings—claiming multiple capital-loss deductions unavailable to opposite-sex married couples or multiple tax credits for adopting children. Straight married spouses with roughly equal incomes typically pay a marriage penalty under the tax code, because more of their income is subject to higher marginal tax rates. Gay couples would get hit with the same penalty. And unless the IRS exempts them from paying back taxes, some same-sex married couples could owe penalties for underwithholding during the time they’ve been married, even though the federal government didn’t recognize their unions until now. 

On the other hand, gay couples with unequal incomes would get the same marriage bonus as straight couples and could seek a refund for the extra taxes they paid in recent years. Typically the IRS allows taxpayers three years to redo their tax returns. “One of the biggest issues is what to do retroactively,” says Elda Di Re, a partner at Ernst & Young in New York. “One would think that the IRS will allow there to be filing refunds—but not mandate filing to pay additional tax.”

Another potential mess: what to do about payroll taxes workers paid on employer-provided health insurance for their same-sex spouses, which isn’t taxable for married couples. The IRS could allow refunds, and then businesses would have to figure out how to distribute them to employees and ex-employees. Some companies pay married gay employees extra to cover their health-care tax burdens; they would have to decide whether to seek reimbursements from workers who get income tax refunds. And the IRS has to figure out whether or how to tax alimony payments from gay marriages that end in divorce, and money inherited from the retirement account of a same-sex spouse.

All these decisions will be made with a skeptical—and sometimes hostile—Congress ready to call foul. The IRS is already under scrutiny for its clumsy probes of political groups, and its efforts to formalize gay marriage in the tax code are likely to provoke congressional hearings and lawsuits. “No matter what they do,” says Herzig, “it’s such a volatile issue they’ll end up getting a challenge.”

Read More

House Republicans Cave On Defending Marriage Statutes

In a move that will cause spittle to fly amongst the Christofascist elements of the GOP base, House Republicans have announced that they will cease defending anti-gay marriage statutes akin to DOMA.  One must hope that with lawsuits multiplying and public approval of gay marriage soaring the sane elements left in the Republican Party will grow sufficient spine to politely tell the Christofascists to do something rude and crude to themselves.  Hate groups like Family Research Council and The Family Foundation here in Virginia may want to continue their rear guard war against modernity, but long term, the GOP has to face reality.  An article in BuzzFeed looks at the House GOP's capitulation.  Here are highlights:

House Republican leaders announced in a court filing Thursday that they will not defend remaining statutes similar to the Defense of Marriage Act that ban recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages.

The move comes three weeks and one day after the Supreme Court ruled in Edith Windsor’s case that the federal definition of marriage in DOMA was unconstitutional because it banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages.

“[T]he House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute,” lawyers for the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), controlled by House Republicans, wrote about veterans’ benefits statutes that similarly ban recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages.

“The document from the legal team speaks for itself,” House Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, told BuzzFeed, when asked for comment on the move.

Judge Richard Stearns had asked the parties in a lawsuit addressing the rights of service members and veterans and their same-sex spouses to give “any reasons why judgment should not enter for plaintiffs in this case,” following the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA.
In addition to challenging DOMA, the plaintiffs — led by Maj. Shannon McLaughlin, a judge advocate general in Massachusetts Army National Guard, and her wife, Casey — challenge two statutes in Title 38 of the U.S. Code regarding veterans’ benefits that define “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex.”

BLAG’s lawyers on Thursday, however, wrote:

The Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. __ (2013), 2013 WL 3196928 (U.S. June 26, 2013). The Windsor decision necessarily resolves the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality in this case. While the question of whether 38 U.S.C. § 101(3), (31) is constitutional remains open, the House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute. Accordingly, the House now seeks leave to withdraw as a party defendant.

The spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, however, pushed for additional, immediate action.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling is clear. Rather than trying to delay justice for particular married gay and lesbian couples and their families, Speaker Boehner should immediately file motions to end House Republicans’ involvement in the remaining cases and stop spending taxpayer dollars to defend unconstitutional discrimination,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told BuzzFeed.

In addition to the McLaughlin case, there at least remains unresolved a case challenging similar statutes brought by Tracey and Maggie Cooper-Harris in federal court in California. Additional cases outstanding include Cardona v. Shinseki and Bishop v. United States.]

It will be interesting to see how NOM and Bryan Fischer try to describe these events as a "win" somehow. 

Read More

PA Pastors Attack Attorney General for Refusing to Defend Unconstitutional Law

With all the corruption, hypocrisy and batshitery that surrounds much of organized religion - not to mention the fact that there is supposed to be no established religion in America - elected officials and the media continue give far to much attention and deference to those peddling myths based on stories passed down from wandering nomads of 2,500+ years ago and the unkown authors of the New Testament.  A case in point is the collective conniption fit by a bunch of wingnut pastors in Pennsylvania who are beside themselves with Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane who has refused to defend that state's unconstitutional DOMA law against a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.  The Pittsburg Gazette looks at the spittle flect protestations of these windbags.  Here are highlights:

Citing Biblical verses, a group of pastors and conservative GOP state House members called on Attorney General Kathleen Kane to reconsider her decision not to defend the state's law against same-sex marriage.

Ms. Kane, a Democrat, made national headlines last week when she announced her decision not to defend the 1996 law, saying she believes it is unconstitutional. The law will now most likely be defended in a federal lawsuit by the Corbett administration's Office of General Counsel.

 

On Wednesday morning, a group from the Pennsylvania Pastors Network and several Republican House members said they believe Ms. Kane must reconsider.

 

"The issue is one of defending heterosexual marriage," said Sam Rohrer, president of the pastors network. Mr. Rohrer is a former state representative and 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate before losing in the primary to now- Gov. Tom Corbett.

 

Mr. Rohrer added, "We see a moral imperative for heterosexual marriage due to the revealed truth of God based on eternal law."

It is far past time that fundamentalist religious belief be eliminated from the nation's laws both  at the state and federal level.  These pastors are free to belive whatever garbage they want, but they do NOT have the right to force their ignorance and bigotry on others.  Would that politicians had the spine to tell them so.  One article reader summed up reality well:

Nothing at all is happening to heterosexual marriage. There is nothing about "traditional marriage" that needs defending. The marriage equality movement was never an effort to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone. The overwhelming majority of humans are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay couples do the same.

These laws are all about stigmatizing and punishing gays for refusing to conform to the Christofascists' dogma.  It's all about animus and nothing else.  Which is precisely why DOMA was struck down in the Windsor ruling.  

Read More

NYT: The Future of Gay Marriage

With George Zimmerman literally getting away with murder of a young black and the United States Supreme Court's cowardice in its narrow ruling in the Proposition 8 case last month, one thing is clear about America: some citizens are deemed lesser in their rights and humanity than others and America's laws reinforce this inequality and at best second class  citizenship.   In a main page editorial, the New York Times laments the situation and slams New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his cowardice in pandering to Christofascists on the issue of marriage equality in New Jersey.  Here are excerpts:

In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, is standing by his 2012 veto of a measure to allow gay couples to marry and is refusing to free Republican legislators to follow their conscience on an override vote. Mr. Christie is imposing a large ideological tax on thousands of couples and their families whose interests he is supposed to protect. He is depriving them of federal benefits, which their tax payments help underwrite.

The Defense of Marriage Act ruling struck a blow against injustice, but it also accentuated the unfairness to same-sex couples who would like to get married but live in states that do not permit it and therefore cannot take the same advantage of more than 1,000 federal benefits available to other couples (unless they get married in one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal). By disposing of the California case on narrow procedural grounds, the Supreme Court avoided the necessary reckoning about the fundamental violation of equal protection created by state laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. It perpetuated a mean and irrational patchwork in which duly wed couples may not be considered married when they cross state borders.  

Eliminating that unfair system will require a multipronged effort — to add more states to the list of 13 that permit same-sex marriage and to challenge remaining state laws that violate the standards of equal protection as the Defense of Marriage Act did. Last Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that allows marriage only between a man and a woman and rejects other states’ marriage equality laws.

These suits aim to build on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act, including his insight that the federal government’s refusal to recognize some marriages denied married same-sex couples a “status of immense import” and deprived children of “the integrity and closeness of their own family.” The same can be said of denying gay couples the right to marry in the first place, . . . . .

House Republicans spent millions of taxpayer dollars on private lawyers’ fees to defend the Defense of Marriage Act’s indefensible discrimination when the Obama administration decided it would no longer do so.

Even now, though, there is a serious risk that legally married individuals will lose out on valuable Social Security and veterans’ benefits because language in the applicable statutes seems to determine whether couples are married based on where they live rather than where their marriage was celebrated.  

The Times gets it right.  These bans on gay marriage do not "protect marriage."  They have one purpose and only one purpose: to harm sames sex couples and punish them for failing to conform to Christofascist religious dogma.  Once again, religion proves itself to be a vicious evil.  Shame on Chris Christie.

Read More

Post DOMA Legal Rights and Federal Benefits of Married Same Sex Couples

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor many questions remain as to what federal rights will now be available to married same sex couples.  It will be a matter of time before the availability of many federal benefits becomes clarified.  Federal employees will benefit under new rulings of the Office of Personnel Management regardless of whether or not they live in an anti-gay state like Virginia.  The impact on benefits under Social Security and other programs/benefits remains unclear.  One thing that is clear is that couples with civil unions and domestic partnerships will not receive federal benefits.  Here is a summary via a Washington Post story:

FEDERAL BENEFITS:
The Obama administration responded to the Supreme Court ruling by making health, vision and dental benefits available to all same-sex spouses and children of legally married federal employees. In a memo on Wednesday, OPM said those guidelines will apply to all federal workers, regardless of whether they live in states that have banned same-sex marriage — Virginia, Ohio and Mississippi, for example.

That means same sex couples living anywhere in the U.S. will qualify for federal-employee benefits as long as they hold marriage licenses from any of the 13 states that recognize same-sex marriage, as well as from the District of Columbia, which has also legalized such unions.

SOCIAL SECURITY/VETERANS BENEFITS:
Questions remain about how the administration will treat same-sex couples and domestic partners outside the federal workforce, including with Social Security, tax and veterans’ benefits. The agencies that handle those programs have not issued guidance.

OPM has given legally married same-sex couples until Aug. 26 to apply for federal-employee benefits and two years to change their status for retirement benefits.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS:
couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs.” However, any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact, OPM said.

Here are excerpts from OPM's July 3, 2013 Memorandum:

[A]ll legal same sex marriages that predate the decision are being treated as new marriages; enrollees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 (i.e., until August 26, 2013) for enrollment actions.

Benefits coverage is now available to a legally married same sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of the employee’s or annuitant’s state of residency.

Legal same sex marriages entered into following this decision will be treated in the same

manner as opposite sex marriages, regardless of an employee’s or annuitant’s state of residency.

Coverage is available to a legally married same -sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of his or her state of residency.  This decision does not extend coverage to registered domestic partners or  individuals in civil unions.

In addition, the children of same sex marriages will be treated in the same manner as those of opposite sex marriages and will be eligible family members according to the same eligibility guidelines. This includes coverage for children of same sex spouses as stepchildren.

One thing is clear:  in Virginia and many other anti-gay states, same sex couples will continue to hold an inferior level of citizenship and will have no employment non-discrimination protections and will be deemed legal strangers under state law.  There remains much work to be done.

  

Read More

Washington Post-ABC Poll: Most Americans Support Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings

A new Washington Post-ABC poll provides more bad news for the Christofascists and anti-gay extremists within the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.  Most Americans believe the Supreme Court got it right in ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and - to be candid, was motivated by anti-gay animus.  The findings make clear that opponents of gay marriage will largely die off within a generation or less and that the GOP is courting long term disaster by prostituting itself to the Christofascists.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post:

Most Americans think the Supreme Court got it right last week in decisions that bolstered same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The court by a 5-to-4 margin struck down part of the the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which withheld federal recognition and benefits from same-sex couples who are married in states where it is legal. The poll found that 56 percent approve of the ruling “providing legally married same-sex couples with the same federal benefits given to other married couples,” while 41 percent disapprove.


By a smaller margin, 51 percent to 45 percent, Americans say they approve of the court’s decision to let stand a lower court ruling that will return same-sex marriage to California.

In the Post-ABC poll, the gay marriage decisions drew strikingly different partisan reactions, while the decision on voting rights showed a deep racial disparity.

On the question about DOMA, support for the court’s decision is defined heavily by ideology, partisanship and age. The poll showed that 79 percent of self-described liberals and 68 percent of Democrats approve of the decision, while 62 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of conservatives are opposed. Over six in 10 independents and moderates approve of the decision.

The age difference was also pronounced: two-thirds of 18-29 year-olds approve, while 56 percent of those over 65 take the opposite view.

The decision was supported in every region of the country except the South, where people were pretty evenly split.

Read More

Wingnuts: DOMA Ruling Was As Bad As Pearl Harbor

The hysteria from the far right over the DOMA decision earlier this week continues and provides yet further proof that the Christofascists truly do either (i) live in some warped alternate reality or (ii) need serious mental health interventions.   How else to explain the intense need they display to cling to very selective passages of a book written thousands of years ago by ignorant nomads and which biblical scholars agree contains many forgeries and irregularities that make it more then obvious to sentient individuals that it's anything but the inerrant "word of God."  Illustrative of this batshitery is the ranting and whining of Lisa Van Houten of the American Decency Association (yet another "family values" organization aimed at keeping charlatans employed and living the good life while trampling on the freedoms of others).  Right Wing Watch looks at Van Houten's deranged lament:

The American Decency Association’s Lisa Van Houten is warning that the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision “will live in infamy” just like Pearl Harbor. Van Houten claims that pastors will “be prosecuted for preaching” against homosexuality and refusing to perform same-sex weddings, people will be “charged with discrimination” if they don’t “embrace homosexuality,” anti-gay groups will lose their non-profit status, and, worst of all, America will face divine punishment.

As we look back on history there are dates which we now see were crossroads, turning points for nations and cultures. July 4, 1776; June 6, 1944. December 7, 1941; January 22, 1973. Battles fought, decisions made – some establishing goodness and justice, others are dates that “will live in infamy.” 

I believe today, June 26, 2013, is the latter. A date when the United in favor of same sex marriage, and undermined true marriage – one man and one woman – which States Supreme Court ruled was instituted, not by any government, but by God. 

The homosexual agenda cannot and will not abide peaceably alongside the true, biblical institutions of marriage and family as ordained by God. As the homosexual agenda is legitimized – even by the United States Supreme Court - marriage, family, and our religious liberty will be undermined.

Consider the following short list of what may be in our future :

1. Hate crime laws will be increasingly instituted and enforced. Will pastors be prosecuted for preaching what God’s Word says regarding homosexuality and refusing to perform same sex “marriage” ceremonies?

2. Homosexuality will be a protected class by the government. Christian school teachers and administrators, pastors, business owners, etc. could be charged with discrimination if they speak out against or refuse to embrace homosexuality.

3. Organizations such as our own American Decency could easily lose their (c)3 tax-exempt, non-profit status as we continue to call homosexuality what it is - SIN.

4. God will not bless a nation that puts a stamp of approval upon that which he calls an abomination. The evidences of God’s displeasure are evident and becoming more so with each passing day.

Item No. 3 is probably her biggest worry.  That said, one can only assume that Van Houten hasn't read her Bible lately - especially the Old Testament - or else she'd know that POLYGAMY, not one man, one woman is the biblical norm for marriage.  She also needs to read the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness while she's at it.  One has to wonder what these people would do if they had to get real jobs instead of making a living disseminating lies and shaking down the gullible and ignorant.  Van Houten is little more than a con-artist trying to hide behind a veil of respectability.  She and those like her deserve no respect and certainly no deference of any kind.

P.S. Among the things Van Houten's group rants and raves is the depravity of Glee.  And not surprisingly, it has some ties to anti-gay hate group, AFA. 

Lisa Van Houten

Lisa Van Houten

Read More