The other day we learned that Republican US Senate candidate Mike McGavick supports amending the US Constitution to prohibit states from recognizing gay marriage… the first time that hallowed document would contain language specifically denying a right.
But the Tacoma News Tribune reports that at this weekend’s annual gathering of the “Mainstream Republicans of WA”, McGavick took the exact opposite approach to the issue of gay civil rights:
McGavick refused to take a position on the gay civil rights bill the Legislature passed this year, saying it’s a state and not a federal issue. The mainstream group supported the bill, which bans discrimination in housing, jobs and other areas.
So, um… let me get this straight: McGavick is for writing discrimination into the US Constitution, but against writing anti-discrimination into WA state law. If the states, through their own legislative and judicial processes choose to confer the right to marriage to same-sex couples, then we need a Constitutional amendment overriding the policy. But when it comes to legislation prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment, insurance and lending… well, that’s a state issue, not a federal one.
Perhaps I’m missing his nuance here, but we’ll never know for sure, because his response was so weasely; McGavick refused to take a position on what for three decades has been one of the most contentious legislative issues in the state — an issue he may be asked to vote on this fall. But in the absence of a clear, honest statement, I think it is fair to view his silence in the context of his prior statements.
McGavick chose to speak out against gay marriage. Given the opportunity, McGavick chose not to speak out in support of gay civil rights.
To me, that speaks volumes about where McGavick stands on this issue, especially given that his comments (or lack thereof) came in the context of a meeting of self-described “moderate” Republicans — an organization of which McGavick made a point of saying he was not a member.
So anybody who still thinks that McGavick is a moderate Republican, I suggest you take him at his word that he is not.
Should your story read “McGavick refuses to support Tim Eyman referendum efforts”? My understanding is that Eyman and the pastors asked McGavick to support their signature gathering efforts, and that McGavick refused to take a position on the matter.
Unless Eyman gets enough signatures, HB 2661 will become the law on June 7 or 8 — i.e. the day after the signature deadline expires. So if McGavick refuses to support Eyman’s signature gathering efforts, then he is in favor of letting HB 2661 become law.
It is just like Goldy to twist and distort everything possible against Republicans.
It is just like Goldy’s earlier distortion of Mike McGavick’s position on same-sex marriage. McGavick strongly prefers allowing the LEGISLATURES in each state determine whether same-sex marriage should be legally recognized or not.
Anyway, if there was a provision in the U.S. Constitution that prohibited states from recognizing same-sex marriage, how could Goldy say that it would be the first time that the Constitution “contain[ed] language specifically denying a right”?
Historically, there was no “right” to same-sex marriage. This “right” is now recognized in only one state, Massachusetts, and due to a court decision just a few years ago, as opposed to legislative action.
There are plenty of long-recognized historical “rights” that have been expressed denied in the U.S. Constitution. For example, the “right” to manufacture, possess, and consume alcohol. This “right” existed for hundreds of years, but was denied by the 18th amendment in 1919. Granted, this was repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933, but this “right” was specifically denied for 14 years.
There also used to be a “right” to own slaves, which existed from 1619 to 1865. This “right” was specifically denied by the 13th amendment in 1865.
There was no “explicit” right to own slaves.
WTF are you talking about?
I realize that this issue is of major concern to maybe 3% of the population, but how about issues that really count?
Where does Maria stand on pork spending and earmarks? So far her votes are more in favor of secret spending and bigger govt.
What about illegal immigration? She’s against English being the designated language for the country, and against a fence. What is she for? What is her answer to the problem, besides doing whatever Harry reid tells her to do?
The problem for McGavick and most Republicans is that they have to take a position that will play with self hating homosexuals like [JCH].
There was no “explicit” right to own slaves.
WTF are you talking about?
Commentby rujax206— 5/22/06@ 10:31 am
The U.S. Constitution (pre-1865) says a lot more about slavery, albeit indirectly without expressly using the word “slavery”, than the present U.S. Constitution says about same-sex marriage (absolutely nothing whatsoever).
Many states had statutes in force that expressly recognized slavery, and provided legal protection for the “rights” of slave owners.
These state laws were wiped out by the 13th amendment.
Likewise, in 1919, many states had laws on the books that expressly recognized the right to produce and consume alcohol.
These state laws were wiped out by the 18th amendment.
Please tell me which states have laws on the books that expressly recognize the right to same-sex marriage.
Absolutely none — not even Massachusetts (court decision only).
So the adoption of a federal constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage would not override a single law that has been enacted by a state legislature anywhere.
There was no “explicit” right to own slaves.
WTF are you talking about?
Commentby rujax206— 5/22/06@ 10:31 am
The U.S. Constitution (pre-1865) says a lot more about slavery, albeit indirectly without expressly using the word “slavery”, than the present U.S. Constitution says about same-sex marriage (absolutely nothing whatsoever).
Many states had statutes in force that expressly recognized slavery, and provided legal protection for the “rights” of slave owners.
These state laws were wiped out by the 13th amendment.
Likewise, in 1919, many states had laws on the books that expressly recognized the right to produce and consume alcohol.
These state laws were wiped out by the 18th amendment.
Please tell me which states have laws on the books that expressly recognize the right to same-sex marriage.
Absolutely none — not even Massachusetts (court decision only).
So the adoption of a federal constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage would not override a single law that has been enacted by a state legislature anywhere.
Lots of people are against a two thousand mile long fence, Janet, from Chuck Hagel to Alberto Gonzalez.
I realize that this issue is of major concern to maybe 3% of the population, but how about issues that really count?
Folks said the same thing about black folks and their civil rights.
I only stated the two parts of the immigration debate that I knew of for Maria’s views. I also don’t think that we should build a 2,000 mile fence, but a more limited one in areas that are frequently crossed would not be a bad idea, and that is what was on the table. And Maria voted against it.
What are her views? Anyone know? Does she support unregulated border crossing? How do we deal with those who are here? Or is she still waiting for Harry to tell her how to think?
Pope
Your suggestion that the Thirteenth Amendment abrogates a “right” takes sophistry to a remarkable level. As you should recall from law school, our constitutional system reflects Enlightenment notions of rights–for instance, John Locke’s concept of the natural rights of humankind. In this context, when we speak constitutionally of rights, we’re not dipping into common vernacular concerning “rights.” Rather, we’re talking about those rights which permit freedom of association, expression, etc. Neither the “right” to drink alcohol (as precious as some of us may consider such a privilege) nor a “right” to own slaves is in the same category as the right to due process, and you damned well know that. So, Goldy’s point is right on. The Republican capacity to spin never ceases to amaze me.
Yeah…like “proud leftist” said.
Aaaaand…
STATES having laws re: slavery is one thing…the CONSTITUTION granting the right to abrogate the basic human rights of an individual by “owning” them as a “slave” (or “property” by the common definition of the time) is quite another. Save the B.S. for your next campaign mailout.
[Let’s see if old Bill Jefferson is treated the same way as Duke Cunningham. Both are dirty, and both need 10 years in the slammer.] A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer.
At one audiotaped meeting, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company’s deal for work in Africa.
As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the lawmaker’s family might receive, the congressman “began laughing and said, ‘All these damn notes we’re writing to each other as if we’re talking, as if the FBI is watching,'” according to the affidavit. …
As for the $100,000, the government says Jefferson got the money in a leather briefcase last July 30 at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington. The plan was for the lawmaker to use the cash to bribe a high-ranking Nigerian official — the name is blacked out in the court document — to ensure the success of a business deal in that country, the affidavit said.
All but $10,000 was recovered on Aug. 3 when the FBI searched Jefferson’s home in Washington. The money was stuffed in his freezer, wrapped in $10,000 packs and concealed in food containers and aluminum foil…
Republicans are the albatross around the neck of humanity.
You can spin and spin as much as you like, but your dream administration is an abject failure , as are the ideas that motivate it.
For Michael the Wingnut on the previous thread, here is all the proof you need on Republican corruption: http://forums.therandirhodessh.....opic=73535
Janet S @ 10
“What are her views? Anyone know? Does she support unregulated border crossing?”
I am not sure, but I heard she is in favor of unregulated border crossing so long as the babies of those crossing are eaten.
Baby eating seems to be your turf, Janet S., so perhaps you could comment on the veracity of this rumor.
Interesting – someone can’t be a moderate if he is against legalizing gay marriage? Is that because such a large percentage of the American people favor legalizing gay major sucn that anyone with an opposing view is on the far right of the issue? Right.
The facts are this: the American public is split about 50-50 on supporting a “ban on gay marriage” admendment. Slightly more than 50% of Americans oppose gay marriage (in most polls). For a politician to agree with 1/2 the American people hardly paints him as some radical in our political spectrum (and that’s what the word moderate refers to, isn’t it, our politics here in the USA?). There isn’t a radical position on this issue. Both sides have a large amount of support.
That said, I think he is wrong on this issue. But disagreeing with me or Goldy doesn’t mean someone isn’t moderate… maybe I am a far-left progressive out-of-the-mainstream non-moderate myself, or maybe Goldy is…
:)
In the Wingnut mind, if a right isn’t specifically enumerated, it doesn’t excist — unless it’s something they want to do , in which case they claim that it’s not specifically forbidden, so it’s OK.
This frame of mind comes from years of reading the 30,000 plus verses in the Bible until they find one that says God told them to do what they wanted to do in the first place, or, failing that, interpreting and twisting meanings until they MAKE the Bible say what they want it to.
Wingnuts are the rotting corpse of an albatross tied around the neck of humanity.
Neither the “right” to drink alcohol (as precious as some of us may consider such a privilege) nor a “right” to own slaves is in the same category as the right to due process, and you damned well know that. So, Goldy’s point is right on. The Republican capacity to spin never ceases to amaze me.
Commentby proud leftist— 5/22/06@ 11:04 am
But you are making value judgments about “rights”. Apparently, you consider the “right” to marry a partner of the same gender to be a valuable and positive right, while the “right” to drink alcohol is merely a nice privilege, and the “right” to own another human being to be a terrible abomination. It remains to be seem what you would think of the “right” to marry more than one partner.
Personally, I have a strong moral opposition to all four of the “rights” mentioned in the previous paragraph, and find all of them to be personally offensive. I don’t favor same-sex marriage, I don’t favor alcohol, I don’t favor slavery, and I don’t favor polygamy. But no matter how morally wrong these “rights” may be, they are still “rights” that SOME people at least have considered to be rather valuable.
And all four of these “rights” have been restricted, either by statute or by constitutional amendment, during the course of U.S. history.
Slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment in 1865, overriding many state laws then on the books which allowed and protected slavery.
Various federal laws were passed against polygamy in the late 19th century. I am not sure whether the federal laws are still on the books (does anyone have a citation to the United States Code), but they were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. These federal laws took precedence over state and territorial laws which allowed someone to have more than one spouse.
The right to make, use, or possess alcohol was abolished by the 18th amendment in 1919 (which was then repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933). In 1919, there were still a number of state which had laws allowing alcohol, but these were overridden by federal law.
So having either a federal constitutional amendment, or a federal statute, prohibiting same-sex marriage would not be unprecedented.
Perhaps the Republicans should simply try to adopt a federal law outlawing same-sex marriages, with provisions similar to the federal law which outlawed marrying more than one partner. It would be much easier to get a 50%+1 majority in both houses of Congress, than to get a 2/3 majority in both houses, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already determined that the federal government has the constitutional power to enact laws regulating marriage — I believe the polygamy cases relied on the Commerce Clause. And so long as there is no right to same-sex marriage determined to exist in the federal constitution, such federal laws would be constitutional, and would override state laws and state court decisions based on state constitutions (such as Massachusetts and who knows what will happen in Washington).
Gorditos de los Alberto @ 17
“Wingnuts are the rotting corpse of an albatross tied around the neck of humanity.”
or…
Wingnuts are a pimple on hemorrhoids on the ass of humanity.
Gavick’s position on gay rights is in stark contrast to Maria “Stand for Nothing” Cantwell, who apparently has no position. At least, that’s what her website is telling me, because when I looked there I couldn’t locate even a single occurrence of the word “gay.” Compare that to Sen. Murray’s website where she makes unequivocal stances on marriage equality and gay rights. Presumably Maria is still checking her weather vane to find out where she stands on equal rights for gay Washingtonians and gay Americans in general?
Oops, I did not mean to post that anonymously (comment #20).
In any event, less than 3% of the people really care about the fake issues that Goldy is trying to create here. And Mike McGavick is truly a moderate on these issues anyway. He does not support Eyman and the pastors who want to get signatures to force a referendum vote on HB 2661, the gay civil rights bill. And McGavick supports the rights of state legislatures to decide the same-sex marriage issue by legislation.
What really upsets Goldy is that McGavick is proving to be more popular than Cantwell on the issues that people really do care about. Issues such as SPENDING and IMMIGRATION. That is why McGavick is only five points behind Cantwell in the polls, and consistently narrowing the gap — in spite of Cantwell’s massive fundraising advantage.
Gordo – just curious, but if you have public financing of campaigns, who gets to decide which candidate is funded?
Seems to me like you’ve just traded corporate power for bureaucratic power. At least in the current process, the candidate has to have been some kind of success in life, or, in the case of the Kennedy’s, have been born into power. But the voters know where their guy got his money. Why should we let some govt official decide that he likes Candidate A’s message, and so should get some cash?
“At least in the current process, the candidate has to have been some kind of success in life, or, in the case of the Kennedy’s, have been born into power.”
This is doubly true of the Bushes, Janet Planet.
William [Cold Cash] Jefferson, DEMOCRAT, LA [hehe]
Ten percent of Mexicans now live in the United States.
Fifteen percent of the Mexican workforce lives in the U.S.
One in every 7 Mexican workers “migrates” to the U.S.
Mexicans make up 56% of what the Chronicle refers to as the “unauthorized U.S. migrant population.” I’ll translate: Mexicans make up 56% of illegal aliens in the U.S.
There are some Mexican communities that have almost no workers left. They’ve gone to the U.S.
Mexicans in the U.S. send about $20 billion a year back to their homes in Mexico. This amount exceeds Mexico’s income from all oil exports and is much higher than Mexico’s revenue from tourism.
The $20 billion that Mexicans send back home exceeds the entire foreign aid budget of the United States.
In five Mexican states the money sent home by those who have invaded the United States exceeds total locally generated income.
Sounds like a rather successful illegal alien invasion, don’t you think?
BOSTON – Dozens of faculty and students turned their backs and waved protest signs when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received an honorary degree from Boston College on Monday.
Dozens? How many dozen? Out of 25,000? And THIS is a story? The anti-Bush whores at Reuters carrying the water of the islampignazis again, making a mountain out of a molehill. Gee, such brave little pampered “progressive” Democrat brat rich kids and their leftist commie professors, whose very right to protest is protected by the military and the Commander in Chief who is wielding it to their ultimate benefit. Note that NONE of these little “progressives” will ever serve in uniform [a la Clinton, Goldystein, Left Turn, etc]
JCH, were you turned down by a Mexican man who you proposed being the “power bottom” for? Your obsession is worrying your mother and I, and we’re going to send you to a place where you can get the help that you need.
Roger and Gang how will Seattle make a living with two cows?
Two Cows
DEMOCRATIC
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.
REPUBLICANISM
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk
the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the second one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have down sized
and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow
and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give
excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don’t know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don’t milk them because you cannot touch any creature’s private
parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find
alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.
POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he’s French, other times he’s Flemish.
The Flemish cow won’t share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow’s milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally
vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can’t figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you
think is the best-looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
Richard:
“Perhaps the Republicans should simply try to adopt a federal law outlawing same-sex marriages, with provisions similar to the federal law which outlawed marrying more than one partner. It would be much easier to get a 50%+1 majority in both houses of Congress, than to get a 2/3 majority in both houses, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures”
Um, maybe they could call it the Defense of Marriage Act? And President Clinton could be brought back to sign it into law?
Seriously, though… federal law to blow away state jurisprudence is generally a bad idea for the concept of federalism (consider that there’s actual state law allowing civil unions in Vermont- would you blow that away as well?). I thought was respecting states’ rights against federal encroachment one of the principles of Republicanism. Apparently, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Also, as I recall, the way polygamy was outlawed in Utah was that the State of Utah was required to outlaw it in their constitution as part of the terms under which it was admitted into the Union (in other words, the rest of the country was freaking out about those goddamned Mormons):
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.....5219833754
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~cod....._02030.htm
Also, please note that Reynolds v. United States case that is the Supreme Court jurisprudence on US statutes on polygamy was based on law governing organized territories (which, since they are not states, don’t get all the bennies of dual sovereignty, as Congress is SPECIFICALLY given supreme jurisdiction), or places where the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....ted_States
It’s been a while since ConLaw, huh, Richard?
Wow, it continues…
“In any event, less than 3% of the people really care about the fake issues that Goldy is trying to create here. ”
Er… you’re saying if the minority is small enough, nobody cares? How about people who’ve read some Martin Niemöller quotes?
“And McGavick supports the rights of state legislatures to decide the same-sex marriage issue by legislation.”
Nice parsing, but you certainly know that state legislatures are only ONE branch of state government. Popular sovereignty with regards to “rights” has issues when taken to an extreme, as a certain Republican Senate candidate pointed out in some debates with Stephen Douglas you might be familiar with.
More Mind Mush from Janet S.: “At least in the current process, the candidate has to have been some kind of success in life……….”
This is not a requirement for candidates for any office in our fair country. Look at the kid who was elected as mayor in a small town in Oregon. Look at Tom DeLay. Of course, it may help the election effort, but it is not a requirement.
JCH, were you turned down by a Mexican man who you proposed being the “power bottom” for? Your obsession is worrying your mother and I, and we’re going to send you to a place where you can get the help that you need.
Commentby Anonymous— 5/22/06@ 1:24 pm [Goldystein, Maybe a few years in the military [American military, Goldy, not Isreal’s.] might make a man out of you. Maybe you wouldn’t feel so guilty that others serve in the USA to protect your freedoms.
Mushier Mush from Janet S.: “Seems to me like you’ve just traded corporate power for bureaucratic power.”
Amazing!!!! Please visit your local wingnut talking point 12-step program. You’ve just gone off the reservation.
So tell us all how we would be worse off in such a situation, hmmm, Janito Esso?
“Maybe you wouldn’t feel so guilty…..”
[JCH] maybe if you stopped posting here, you wouldn’t be known so widely to be a fucking moron. I wouldn’t dare to presume to know “how you feel”. Or what, for that matter.
Some say your were a deserter, [JCH].
Here is a quote from Reynolds v. United States:
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....8;page=145
So does this mean that polygamy laws are based upon racial and religious prejudice, and should therefore be struck down as unconstitutional? That polygamy is something practiced by blacks, Asians, and other non-whites, but not tolerable among white Europeans? That right thinking Christians (and Jews) abhor polygamy, which is something acceptable only among heretical Christmas, Moslems, and other infidels?
If same-sex marriage has to be allowed as a matter of constitutional rights, then government must recognize a marriage consisting of more than two people, regardless of whether it is two men and a woman, two women and a man, three men, or three women.
Can anyone make a rational argument, using a consistent “interpretation” of the constitution and other fundamental principles, under which a same-sex marriage of two persons must be recognized, while a polygamous marriage of three or more persons can be prohibited?
It’s been a while since ConLaw, huh, Richard?
Commentby eponymous coward— 5/22/06@ 1:29 pm
I guess it has been. Back in the late 1980’s, same-sex marriage was not a major constitutional battleground. Instead, the issue was whether sodomy could be prohibited, Bowers v Hardwick, and how that case could be reconciled with Roe v Wade.
So nowadays, I am sure the same-sex marriage issue is talked about a lot in constitutional law classes. But do they also discuss Reynolds v. United States in this context, and how same-sex marriage can be (or whether it should be) rationally distinguished from polygamy?
Pope at 18
“But you are making value judgments about ‘rights’. Apparently, you consider the ‘right’ to marry a partner of the same gender to be a valuable and positive right, while the ‘right’ to drink alcohol is merely a nice privilege, and the ‘right to own another human being to be a terrible abomination.”
Of course I’m making value judgments about rights. That’s what Jefferson and Adams did, and it’s what every serious political philosopher from Socrates to Ronald Dworkin has done. Equating an ability to do something (e.g., piss wherever we might want) with a right, which is what you do when you reference the “right to own slaves,” makes a mockery of the concept of human rights. Our constitutional/jurisprudential system has always considered rights to be those matters which are necessary to enhancing individual freedom within a society of laws. We’re talking here about speech, press, religion, jury trials, etc. Naturally, no clear line separates that which is a right from those concepts entitled to lesser, or no, legal protection. We make value judgments, informed by history and moral philosophy, to identify rights. Issues concerning who may we associate with, or marry, tend to fall within the penumbra of the right of privacy, a right which lies at the heart of many of the rights articulated in the first 10 amendments to our Constitution.
Well, Richard, here ya go, Utah v. Holm, hot off the presses.
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinio.....051606.pdf
see paragraphs 54 and 55, especially.
Here’s the thing- Goodridge (the Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage in that state) depended on language in the STATE constitution in part (MA’s version of ERA), and Lawrence (decriminalizing sodomy on due process grounds) only spoke to private consensual behavior. Utah’s state constitution explicitly bans polygamy (and defines marriage as one man/own woman, incidentally)… so it seems pretty airtight that they don’t have to allow same-sex marriage, unless you want to write it into the federal constitution.
I know I didn’t completely answer your question, Richard- because I think there isn’t definitive jurisprudence on the issue of polygamy at the federal level since Reynolds, which is over 100 years, and there isn’t definitive Supreme Court jurisprudence on DOMA, either. It’s all kinda muddled in state courts right now.
Maybe you wouldn’t feel so guilty that others serve in the USA to protect your freedoms.
Commentby REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX]— 5/22/06@ 1:41 pm”
WHEW!
I sleep better at night knowing that losers like JCH are NOT flying multi-million dollars fighters and are instead watching over the paper clips, order forms, socks, pens, laundry soap, paint, etc.
Thanks for your “service” JCH. Supply officers dispensing pens one at a time in an orderly fashion all in the name of FREEDOM.
God Bless You supply jock.
“Support Our Supply Troops, they’re important, too.”
Jeez, that must mean that I was “serving Freedom” when I did my stint with the Paymaster at T.I. instead of just helping to get all the TDY’s and transients drunk.
Commentby eponymous coward— 5/22/06@ 2:15 pm
Did you get a chance to read the dissent by Chief Justice Durham in Utah v. Holm, which starts at Page 49 of the opinion?
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinio.....051606.pdf
The Chief Justice makes some interesting points on the bigamy portion of the prosecution. Namely, that the defendant and the plural wife in question, as well as the religious sect that performed it, considered all marriages after the first to merely be religiously valid, and not civilly valid.
So if a man in Utah simply cohabits with two women, and is not civilly or religiously married to either one of them, he commits no crime that Utah can prosecute — and certainly not bigamy. Same thing applies if the man is legally married to the first woman, but not married to the second woman in any way whatsoever.
And obviously the Utah bigamy law will punish a man who is “legally married” to two women at the same time. Presumably, since no county clerk will knowingly issue a bigamous marriage license, the couple (especially the already married man) has to lie on their marriage license application in order to get a marriage license issued for the second “marriage”.
But the Utah bigamy law also punishes a man (maybe the woman too?) who enters into a purely symbolic religious ceremony, while already married. Not only does the State of Utah not recognize the second religious “marriage”, but it imposes criminal punishment in the state penitentiary for the man (and maybe the woman too?) merely for having engaged in a religious ceremony that their religious sect holds sacred.
I would have to agree with Chief Justice Durham on this issue. The State of Utah has no business punishing people merely for engaging in a religious ceremony, regardless of whether that ceremony has any legal effect or not.
Like Chief Justice Durham, I have no problem whatsoever with the conviction for statutory rape — i.e. unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Since the subsequent marriage was not legally recognized, the man was guilty of raping the minor girl that he purported to marry. The punishment for this crime is based on unlawful sexual intercourse with the underage girl, and not upon having engaged in a religious “marriage” ceremony with this girl.
HISTORY OF MATH TEACHING IN THE UNITED STATES:
Last week I purchased a burger and fries at McDonalds for $3.58.
The counter girl took my $4.00 and I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies.
While looking at the screen on her register, I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters back, but she called the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she
just stood there and cried.
Why do I tell you this? Because of the following evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:
Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?
Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80.
What is his profit?
Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80.
Did he make a profit?
Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
Teaching Math In 1990
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands.. He does this so he can make a profit of
$20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the
question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong
answers.)
Teaching Math In 2005
Un ranchero vende una carretera de madera para $100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos tortillas se puede comprar?
Some say your were a deserter, [JCH].
Commentby Proud To Be An Ass— 5/22/06@ 1:48 pm [………………………My DD-214 “sezs” otherwise. And yours???? hehe, JCH Kennedy]
Thanks for your “service” JCH. Supply officers dispensing pens one at a time in an orderly fashion all in the name of FREEDOM.
God Bless You supply jock.
“Support Our Supply Troops, they’re important, too.”
Commentby GBS— 5/22/06@ 2:29 pm [……………………The “chops” were onboard and deployed for the duration as well. I was 1110. You were an E-3. Enough said.]
There is a MAJOR difference in how Utah (and perhaps many other states)treat plural marriages (polygamy) and how other states (including Utah) treat same-sex marriages.
None of the 50 states (including Massachusetts) recognize plural marriages as valid. Only the first marriage (i.e. the first one that is still effective) will be recognized, and all subsequent marriages are considered void ab initio.
As for same-sex marriages, only Massachusetts recognizes their validity if performed within their own state borders. Most, if not all, of the other 49 states not only do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in their own state, but presumably would not recognize a same-sex marriage that was performed in Massachusetts. Many have DOMA’s expressly stating this, and the federal DOMA does not require such recognition.
However, NO STATE makes it a CRIME to enter into a same-sex marriage. Many religious denominations — including Reformed Judaism and the Metropolitan Community Church — perform religious same-sex marriage ceremonies.
By contrast, Utah and most other states make it a CRIME to marry a person of the opposite gender if one is already married to a person of the opposite gender. And, at least in Utah, this bigamy law will apply to a purely religious ceremony, even if the participants, officiant, and religious denomination recognize that the religious marriage is not legally valid.
So if two men want to engage in a religious same-sex marriage ceremony in the Metropolitan Community Church in Salt Lake City, they have not broken any criminal laws of the State of Utah:
http://members.aol.com/slcmcc/
However, if a man is already married to a woman, and engages in a religious marriage ceremony with another woman in some rural corner of Utah, then both participants are guilty of a felony under Utah Code 76-7-101.
You can tell the GOP is worried about this issue. Their paid stooge Janet S tried to make this about Maria. She tried to take the focus off what Mikey said. Don’t blame her because it’s bad for his chances here.
It’s about Mikey trying to pander to two different groups and failing mizerably at it. Alaska’s senate candidate McGavick should stick to lying about his support from big oil and the insurance companies.
Imagine the outcry if Utah (or Mississippi) passed a law that made same-sex marriage a FELONY punishable by imprisonment in the PENITENTIARY — just like bigamy is already punishable in the vast majority of the states.
And imagine if this FELONY law was applied to (a) religious same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in Utah, (b) people who had religious same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in other states, and then came to Utah to live together, and (c) people who had civil same-sex marriage cermonies performed in Massachusetts, and then came to Utah to live together.
Just keep in mind that same-sex marriage and polygamy are not treated the same under current law. The former simply is not legally recognized, while the latter can also earn someone a stretch in the state penitentiary.
So it simply isn’t a major denial of rights for a state not to recognize the legality of same-sex marriages, when same-sex couples can openly enter into religious marriage ceremonies and live together without any fear of criminal punishment.
Interesting that the GOP is all for state’s rights, unless the state is say, Orego which wants to make death with dignity a right – then the GOP says it’s not up to the states. In short, the GOP is all for state’s right so long as the state goes along with the GOP position. Otherwise, they love big government!
Commentby Proud To Be An Ass— 5/22/06@ 1:48 pm [………………………My DD-214 “sezs” otherwise. And yours???? hehe, JCH Kennedy]
So what are you hiding? Why have you not released your records? Coward.
Some say [JCH] is a coward. Want proof? See above.
The GOP is nothing but a bunch on nanny staters–nanny state for the rich. In the absence of a widespread socialist left in this country, this is where the fundamental divide occurs: Liberals support markets, but seek to blunt unenviable market outcomes. Wingnuts seek only to redistribute income upward by using government assistance.
The Utah bigamy statute is interesting:
76-7-101. Bigamy — Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.
Not only does it punish a second marriage ceremony — including a religious purported marriage — but it also punishes cohabitation. This makes it illegal for a man to live with his lawful wife and then have a second woman move in for cohabitation, regardless of whether any ceremony may be proven.
And it also would apply to a married couple who were estranged and no longer living together. If either spouse cohabited with another person prior to the divorce becoming final, both the estranged spouse AND their partner (in the partner’s case, assuming the partner was aware the divorce was not final) would be guilty of bigamy — simply for living together.
Historically in Utah — including during territorial times under the law in Reynolds v U.S. — many bigamy prosecutions were proven simply by evidence of a man cohabiting with more than one woman. It was often difficult to get the defendants or their spouses to testify, or to prove that religious ceremonies had in fact taken place for the subsequent “marriages”.
Richard Pope,
Just what, exactly, is your point? If you “believe” that people should be free to discriminate against gays, why just so plainly state. If you believe that gay marriage should not be sanctioned in the same manner as monogamous heterosexual marriage, say so. And then tell us why that should be the case.
And be so kind as to cease with the slippery slope arguments. Slippery slopes go both ways. I should think you are intelligent enough to realize this. Sadly, most wingnuts are not.
Hey. I been noting a bunch of comments regarding [JCH’s] cowardice. Any truth to those rumours?
Richard Pope @ 37
“Can anyone make a rational argument, using a consistent “interpretation” of the constitution and other fundamental principles, under which a same-sex marriage of two persons must be recognized, while a polygamous marriage of three or more persons can be prohibited?”
Probably not, but I can point out a structural flaw in your polygamy analogy. non-same-sex marriage already exists in our society. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage exclude people by particular sex-based rules.
The analogous situation with polygamy would be this: Suppose it was already common and legal for men to have multiple wives (polygyny) but not for women to have multiple husbands (polyandry). The question would then be whether or not women have a right to polyandry given that men have a right to polygyny.
This analogy preserves sex-based exclusivity in the marriage pattern that is key to the gay marriage issue.
Proud To Be An Ass, YOUR military service? Yeah, I thought so. About the same as Goldystein’s. Bottom line: I served. You’re a pussy. JCH Kennedy
In reality, Utah rarely prosecutes cases merely for bigamy.
Most bigamy prosecutions involve the “marriage” of an underage girl. If the “victim” is under 18 years of age, the defendant is subject to more serious charges under “child bigamy”, Utah Code 76-7-101.5, as well as the appropriate level of statutory rape charges (since an invalid marriage is no defense).
In addition, there is often welfare fraud involved. Few men are productive enough to support multiple non-working wives and gaggles of children in today’s society with today’s standards of living. So usually, the subsequent wives will file for welfare and food stamps for themselves and their children, since they are not legally married. On their applications, they will fail to disclose who the father of the children is, or that they are living with the father of their children.
As a practical matter, I would say that Utah hardly ever prosecutes bigamy cases where the participants were adults at the time of the “marriage”, and where no welfare or similar type of economic fraud is involved.
And there are probably no bigamy cases whatsoever in the last fifty years or more in Utah involving estranged spouses waiting for their divorces to be final who have decided to shack-up with someone in the interim.
The analogous situation with polygamy would be this: Suppose it was already common and legal for men to have multiple wives (polygyny) but not for women to have multiple husbands (polyandry). The question would then be whether or not women have a right to polyandry given that men have a right to polygyny.
This analogy preserves sex-based exclusivity in the marriage pattern that is key to the gay marriage issue.
Commentby dj— 5/22/06@ 3:18 pm
Your argument is interesting, but not on point. You would be treating polyandry differently than polygyny simply based on gender. A man could have more than one wife, but a woman could have only one husband.
A similar example to your argument would be if the state allowed two men to marry each other, but did not recognize the marriage of two women. In that case, men could engage in a same-sex marriage, but women would be prohibited from doing so.
Both bigamy laws and DOMA laws deny legal recognition in certain cases when people want to marry other persons of their own choosing. And bigamy laws can send violators to prison, while no states have criminal laws against people engaging in “homogamy”.
Richard Pope is kicking ass today. It doesn’t take him out of the realm of this guy, http://www.mauricesbbq.com/index.html but still kicking ass. Who wears white around so much smoked pork?!?
Ever noticed that when the wingers are in trouble they start beating the gay marraige drum? War in Iraq kills 1000s, wounds tens of 1000s, cost trillions, but the GOP is talking about gay marraige. Gas prices at an all time high, but the GOP is talking about gay marraige. Katrina leaves one of the great cities in this country devistated far worse than ANYTHING the Taliban could ever throw at us, hundreds die, but the GOP is talking about gay marraige. Our budget deficit is at an all time high. Our trade deficit is at an all time high, but the GOP is talking about gay marraige. The Bird Flu threatens not just America but the world, but the GOP is talking about gay marraige. America has millions without health care, but the GOP is talking about gay marraige.
Am I missing something? Are there tons of gay people wondering the streets looking for someone to marry them?
63, Leftturn, Are you gay?
If you ever doubt that the LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS have totally lost their alleged minds, get this………..
In addition to honoring the “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transexual’s” for PRIDE in their sexual preference, these assholes have dreamed up yet another category to polarize us with.
IT’S CALLED……………..drum roll pulllllease………….
The QUESTIONING COMMUNITY!!!!!
ROLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE QUESTIONING COMMUNITY!!!!!!
WTF!!!!
Goldy—
Is this YOUR addition to the clusterfuck??????
LeftTurn @ 63: “Ever noticed that when the wingers are in trouble they start beating the gay marraige drum?”
Uuuuhhhh…and Goldy’s post today was regarding what??? So the fact that people are actually commenting on the post means what?? Help me out.
Seems like you’re saying that Cantwell is in trouble becuase Goldy is bringing up gay marriage.
Both bigamy laws and DOMA laws deny legal recognition in certain cases when people want to marry other persons of their own choosing. And bigamy laws can send violators to prison, while no states have criminal laws against people engaging in “homogamy”.
Of course, same-sex sexual acts were potential criminal acts until Lawrence- so gays didn’t exactly have it easy, and in this state you can be told “We don’t hire your type here, or let them live here” if you are gay, and you have no recourse… at least until certain legislation is enacted into law. So it’s a bit of a mischaracterization to make it look like gay people have it easy on the civil rights end compared to bigamists, isn’t it?
That being said, comparing DOMA and bigamy/polygamy is a more valid comparison. Here’s the thing, though- what’s the compelling argument for taking it out of state hands? Vermont and Massachusetts have law and jurisprudence on the issue that differs from other states- so what’s the big deal? Alaska doesn’t criminalize pot possession for personal use. Big whoop. What’s the matter with having a “labratory of democracy”, as Louis Brandeis put it?
Richard @ 61
“Your argument is interesting, but not on point. You would be treating polyandry differently than polygyny simply based on gender. A man could have more than one wife, but a woman could have only one husband.”
Yes…that is a subtle twist on my point. For both gay marriage and this fictitious polygamy situation, sex composition rules are made that privlidge some sex combinations for marriage over others.
“A similar example to your argument would be if the state allowed two men to marry each other, but did not recognize the marriage of two women. In that case, men could engage in a same-sex marriage, but women would be prohibited from doing so.”
Yes…this would be an example consistent with my example.
“Both bigamy laws and DOMA laws deny legal recognition in certain cases when people want to marry other persons of their own choosing. And bigamy laws can send violators to prison, while no states have criminal laws against people engaging in “homogamy”.”
Yes, but my point is this: Polygamy laws prohibits all polygynous marriages, regardless of the sexes of the individuals involved. There is no discrimination against a group based on sex—the polygymy prohibition is universal.
Whereas with (monogamous) marriage laws, certain types of marriage are allowed based on the sex of the individuals and other types are excluded based soley on the sex of the individuals.
I think the sex-specific exclusions that defines what is a legal marriage (versus a blanket prohibition) that puts the gay marriage issue into the relm of civil rights. That is, gay rights violates equality under the law. Polygyny laws are just ordinary law because the apply to all equally.
Granted, the we stray very slightly from individual discrimination by sex to discrimination of pairs of individuals by sex. That is, pairs of individuals are not treated the same way under the law as are other pairs.
I have no feeling for the constitutional issues over rights for pairs of individuals, but I suspect it would be unconstituional to, for example, enact laws that limited people in housing, education, finance, etc. based soley on whether or not they are married. If so, then one might argue that the constitutional protection of equality under the law can apply to pairs of individuals in some circumstances.
Leftturn, Do you “know” GBS or Bob from Boeing? Do you give them the anal Democrat “Tookie Williams” love that they crave? Why is it that after queer sex, gay Democrats get HIV or AIDs and then expect everyone else to pay for their health care? I mean, why is it Democrat homos “rheem” each other anally, and then expect everyone to say, “Well, Gee, that’s nice!” Don, GBS, Leftturn………I’m certain you all have strong opinions on this subject!!!!!!
Oops…I meant to say:
That is, prohibitions on gay marriage violates equality under the law.
Let’s look at the situation:
Goldy writes a long screed about McGavick’s stance on gay marriage. No where does he mention what Maria’s stance is on the same issue. No where does Maria say what her stance is.
But if we bring it up, we are the ones afraid of the gay marriage issue?
My view is that the gay marriage issue is a minor one, compared to the Iraq war, illegal immigration, porkbarrel spending, campaign finance, etc. When will we find out Maria’s views about these issues? Goldy seems to focus on McGavick, and gives Maria a total pass. Must be because her views are either not known or not compatible with his views.
BTW, I don’t understand Eyman’s obsession with this issue, or why he felt it necessary to bring a referendum. But he did. And Goldy gives him lots of publicity about it. Seems a little odd. One might think that Goldy is just as hung up about it as Eyman. Or maybe just hung up on Eyman.
“Hey. I been noting a bunch of comments regarding [JCH’s] cowardice. Any truth to those rumours?
Commentby Proud To Be An Ass— 5/22/06@ 3:17 pm”
Here’s confirmation on the lying aspect of JCH’s character.
How to catch a Conservative in the act of lying:
Note the date/time stamps.
http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=1332
108, Libertarian, I never attended flight school. Hence, I never “washed out”. All a figment of GBS’s vivid “imagination”. All my training was done in Newport, RI and Coronado, Ca, as well as the old Philadelphia Ship Yard. Then, three WESTPACs of 6 monthe each , one ten month IO cruise, and a tour in Coronado at the NAB. Four years at sea, and two ashore.
Comment by Myron [JCH] Silverstein, ESQ— 2/24/06 @ 3:04 pm
@ 123
JCH: Are you saying GWB served in combat then? Just askin’
Comment by windie — 1/24/06 @ 3:59 pm [No, but, Windie, have YOU ever “buckled up” in a Mach 2 F-106? Not for pussies. I washed out of Naval Air [bad GI] and served Surface Line [1110]. Flying [and training] in military jets are not for the Bill Clintons of the world.]
Comment by JCH — 1/24/06 @ 4:37 pm
@ 125
FLY NAVY
DA WO
Comment by YO — 1/24/06 @ 3:59 pm [YO, I’m sure you are correct and I was mistaken. Thanks for the help. Anyone who flies has my respect. I was not up to the stress. Not many are. JCH, LT, USN [1110, 76-84]]
Comment by JCH — 1/24/06 @ 4:44 pm
BREAKING ! Pope’s idol, Drudge got caught in lie – Pope aligns himself with liar!
Drudge has retracted his Dean story.
Too bad so sad Pope-A-Dope. I can see it now. Pope in court, your honor, we’d like to quote 384 F2d 384 but I can’t quote facts or law so I’ll quote crap – Matt Drudge.
What’s that sound? What’s left of Pope’s credibility being flushed!
Janet S
Your holier-than-thou attitude in everything you post is quite tedious. Any chance you might recognize what a hypocrite you are? You plead for balance in a political and media world that tilts so far to the right that those of us on the left scarcely ever get heard above the clamor. Your partisanship is far too apparent for you to ever have any credibility on issues of fairness.
Proud Leftist @76
“Your holier-than-thou attitude…”
Interesting. I always read Janet S’s comments as “dumber-‘n- dirt.” Most of the time she doesn’t understand much about the issues she is raising—probably a paid troll getting stuff to post from her employer.
It is probably best to completely ignore her, or to mock her heavily :-)
Proud To Be An Ass, YOUR military service? Yeah, I thought so. About the same as Goldystein’s. Bottom line: I served. You’re a pussy. JCH Kennedy
Commentby REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX]— 5/22/06@ 3:20 pm
Sorry, [jch]. This is about you, not me. You’re the one who trots out your alleged service record. You are a lying sack of shit, and a coward. You prove it with every racist, anti-semetic post.
You have a service record? Prove it, jacknape.
78
Hey I would help you out with a fake document but were talking about a Kennedy here. Donks don’t cheat other donks.
BREAKING ! Pope’s idol, Drudge got caught in lie – Pope aligns himself with liar!
Commentby LeftTurn— 5/22/06@ 5:05 pm
Looks like Matt Drudge did take his story back.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5noo.htm
Drudge flap: DNC strongly denies hit team against Nagin
The Democratic National Committee is strongly denying an exclusive report by Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge, that the Democratic National Committee, headed by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, sent political operatives to work against the reelection of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.
In Monday editions, Drudge reported that the DNC teams worked against Nagin under the guise of a voting rights program run by the DNC. He said these efforts were coupled with a fundraising campaign that tapped donors from across the country.
Drudge later issued a retraction, saying, “The Drudge Report takes chaiman Dean and his spokesman at their word” that the DNC did not, in fact, engage in a campaign to defeat Nagin.
http://www.nola.com/weblogs/no.....tml#143521
I think William Jefferson, DEMOCRAT, LA, should be on the 2008 Democrat ticket with Cindi McKinney. Both represent the best of the Democrat Party. [hehe] JCH
LeftTurd—
Are you part of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or………..the newest class called “the QUESTIONING community”??
You fuckers are mighty entertaining!
JUST REMEMBER LEFT TURD IS JUST A TURD.
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER AGREES THAT GOLDY IS AN ASSHOLE:
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Referendum 65: Pass the petition
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
Churches played a key role in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, delivering a message from the pulpits denouncing discrimination. This past weekend’s attempt to enlist some of the state’s churches to roll back civil rights legislation was woefully out of character with that tradition.
We don’t know just how many congregations took part in “Referendum Sunday,” part of a drive to gather signatures for Referendum 65. If enough signatures are garnered, voters would be asked in November if they want to throw out a law the Legislature passed earlier this year making it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation in housing, employment and lending.
Not two weeks earlier, clergy led prayer services in eight Washington cities in support of the new gay rights law, thanking God for creating and loving all people “just as we are.”
Hmmm. Which would Jesus attend?
The pulpit is a legitimate political stage. The unavoidable duality of spiritual human beings is reconciling the teachings of their faith with the realities of life around them. Churches, synagogues and mosques are natural forums for contemplation and discussion of ways to achieve that reconciliation. Part of the First Amendment tradition is a community of faithful people free to express and practice as their beliefs guide them.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....lpited.asp
Richard Pope @ 85
“SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER AGREES THAT GOLDY IS AN ASSHOLE”
What the fuck???? What kind of wingnut mushroooms were you ingesting to come up with that conclusion????
@ 76 Media tilting right? And exactly what planet is this happening on?
Clue: Other than talk radio, FOX News and a HANDFULL of newspapers, both the MSM and educational systems are most definitely left leaning.
It’s certainly not a fake issue whether a U.S. Senate candidate supports employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, nor is it, as McGavick said, only a state issue. The question whether to amend federal employment discrimination law to add sexual orientation as a protected class is a continuing one, and several years ago the U.S. Senate came a couple votes from passing it, with some Republicans voting in favor. McGavick would have to take a position in the event he won, so why shouldn’t he do so now?
“Hmmm. Which would Jesus attend?” — Our Favorite Pope
I daresay the ones who are actually Christian. As opposed to those that are Satanic, like those of Ken Hutcherson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Destroy-the-Northwest-Please-God-So-I-Can-Maintain-My-Hold-On-The-Evil-Stupid Robertson, and others. Christ Almighty, you can’t tell the Xians from the purported Satanists without God’s Own Scorecard these days…ask Jack Abramoff…
Jack Burton @ 87:
First, can you define “tilting left” for me? It gets repeated, but it’s hard to put a metric on it. Since you have an opinion, maybe you can help.
In the mean time, I’ll do my definition.
I am a gun-owning, ZOG-hating, white supremacist living in rural Washington State. I support overthrowing the current government. In its support of Israel, Bush is deeply, deeply in bed with ZOG. His talk on immigration last week demonstrates he supports continued race mixing in the United States.
My research project has been analysing the content of the MSM. I have taken one stack of articles that give fair airing to my thesis of a ZOG-dominated effort to keep the Aryan down through promotion of secular humanism and forced breeding with inferior brown people. In the other pile, I put ZOG-promulgated propaganda refuting this.
It’s clear to anyone who looks. The entire media is so strongly pro-ZOG that only a brainwashed sheep would bother reading it!
Try it yourself kids, it’s fun! You don’t have to be a white supremacist or a goofball leftie to play. Pick your pet issues, pick your sources, and set your own line. With the correct inputs, you can make the media tilt left, tilt right, or tilt in favor of alien invasion.
I was wondering about this, thanks for the information.