California ruling hijacks middle ground on marriage
May 21st, 2008 – 2:47 AMThe debate over same-sex marriage has roiled for over a decade. On one side are people who believe that marriage is properly limited to one man and one woman. On the other are those who argue that lack of access to marriage is unfair to gay couples, because it deprives them of benefits that flow from the marriage certificate, such as survivor rights, hospital visitation and insurance coverage.In recent years, a sort of middle ground has developed. Called civil unions or domestic partnerships, this new arrangement is often promoted as a way to preserve traditional marriage while bestowing many of its government benefits on gays.
The major Democratic presidential candidates have embraced civil unions as a compromise on same-sex marriage. Some Minnesotans promote the approach as well.
But last week, this middle ground disappeared — courtesy of the California Supreme Court. In ruling California’s marriage laws unconstitutional, the court made clear that, far from preserving traditional marriage, domestic partnerships are actually likely to hasten its demise.
The California court has no direct impact on Minnesota, but it is often viewed as a bellwether for rulings around the country.
California citizens have tried hard to find a middle ground on same-sex marriage. In 2000, they approved a state initiative defining marriage as a one-man/one-woman institution with 61.4 percent of the popular vote. But voters also wanted to extend government benefits to gay couples. In 1999, the California Legislature had done just that by adopting the Domestic Partner Act.
Over the years, the Legislature added to the benefits that registered domestic partners enjoy. These range from automatic inheritance to equal treatment on state income taxes. Today, as the court noted in its recent decision, California gives same-sex couples the opportunity “to obtain virtually all of the legal benefits, privileges, responsibilities, and duties that California law affords to and imposes upon married couples.”Despite this, the Court ruled last week, in a 4-3 vote, that the state’s one-man/one-woman marriage law violates the California constitution.
The court put no stock in the state’s argument that same-sex and opposite-sex couples already have equivalent rights under California law. In fact, the majority found that the Legislature’s decision to treat gay relationships as worthy of marriage-like benefits actually bolstered plaintiffs’ argument that domestic partnerships are discriminatory. Since the Legislature has treated same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally, said the court, withholding the marriage label from gays is a “mark of second-class citizenship.”
Ironically, the court suggested that it might have reached a more moderate conclusion — such as requiring the Legislature to institute domestic partnerships, rather than to redefine marriage — if lawmakers had not already given substantial benefits to gay couples.
Minnesotans can draw two lessons from the California decision. First, it vindicates the approach taken by the proposed Minnesota marriage amendment, which the Minnesota House of Representatives passed in 2006 but the DFL-controlled Senate killed by keeping it bottled up in committee. The amendment would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Opponents sometimes slammed this dual prohibition as mean-spirited, but the California decision now reveals it to be far-sighted.
Second, the California decision vindicates Minnesotans who argue that a constitutional amendment is the only way to safeguard traditional marriage. During the 2006 debate, then-Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson and OutFront Minnesota both maintained that the amendment was unnecessary, because our state already has a “defense of marriage” act and because the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected same-sex marriage in a 1971 case.
But when it tossed out California’s one-man/one-woman voter initiative — which the state’s Legislature cannot overturn on its own — the California majority showed how far arrogant, activist courts will go in disregarding the will of the people.Fallout from the California decision may create two perverse reactions that will haunt same-sex marriage supporters.
First, citizens who once favored more benefits for gay couples may begin to oppose them, knowing now that expanded benefits and same-sex marriage constitutionally go hand in hand.
Second, support may grow for amendments that enshrine traditional marriage in state constitutions. In California, citizens will likely have a chance to vote on such an amendment in November. Before their state’s high court tossed out California marriage laws, voters there might have paid the subject little heed, confident that they had found middle ground.
Anyone who has followed the abortion debate knows what happens when a court cuts out the middle ground, as the U.S. Supreme Court did on abortion 35 years ago in Roe vs. Wade. Toxic social division is inevitable when courts usurp the people’s rights.
322 Responses to "California ruling hijacks middle ground on marriage"
It sad to see liberal activist judges abuse their powers and go against the will of the people like this. This proves that Dean Johnson (DFL) was wrong as usual, and we needed the amendment to protect traditional marriage which the Minnesota House of Representatives passed in 2006 after all. Too bad liberal democrats blocked it.
D2- I have a serious question for you. And I don’t say this to mock or jest or anything.
Do you dislike Muslims??
A lot of your posts make me feel you do.
Just want to point out that the CA “activist” judges were all appointed by Republicans. I guess you have to be careful what you wish for, huh? It also makes me sad to see the amount of money spent on this issue — gosh, maybe we could bridges that don’t fall down, schools that aren’t overcrowded or child protection that aren’t losing funding instead of legal fees to fight about this.
Two dog-eared phrases, trotted out once again:
1. “Toxic social division is inevitable when courts usurp the people’s rights.” Earth to the esteemed columnist: Gays and lesbians are people, too, and they seek the same rights available to the heterosexual citizens of this great nation of ours.
2. “Arrogant, activist courts.” Why is it we never see conservatives slap this label on the U.S. Supreme Court in the conservative majority’s politically motivated decision in Bush v. Gore?
“In recent years, a sort of middle ground has developed. Called civil unions or domestic partnerships, this new arrangement is often promoted as a way to preserve traditional marriage while bestowing many of its government benefits on gays.”
MMMM that sounds a LOT like Separate but Equal discrimination put forth by Jim Crow folk in the south against Blacks. Of Course it was Rarely EQUAL. Please NOTE that it was Illegal under the ‘California’ Constitution. Not the US Constitution
“Gays and lesbians are people, too, and they seek the same rights available to the heterosexual citizens of this great nation of ours. ”
Obviously she was talking about the will of the majority. Why bother nit-picking when you’re just going to sound like an idiot??
I love it how they’re always “activist judges” to the side that doesn’t agree with them. I thought these “activist judges” were put in place by republicans. If you really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, which I honestly don’t think people like Kersten want to do, why not push for an amendment that makes it almost impossible to get a divorce. What a joke. Keep trying to legislate hate behind smoke and mirrors….
A lot of anger today.. do you guys need a nap already??
The courts job is not to bend to the will of the majority, it is put in place to protect the miniority. That is why they base their opinions on the constitution instead of just taking a poll. (For the record, I have no idea what the CA constitution says, which is what this decision is based on)
“Toxic social division is inevitable when courts usurp the people’s rights.”
S/he who smelt it, dealt it, Katherine.
I saw the headline, rolled my eyes, and started reading.
I was surprised that I actually found myself in agreement. With Katherine Kersten! About the marriage compromise! Of course that couldn’t last.
I’ve said before that I would find domestic partnerships or civil unions to be an acceptable compromise (as long as they’re truly equal to marriage in all ways – and ideally the government would instead offer domestic partnerships or civil unions to all couples, same- or opposite-sex, leaving marriage as something conferred by religious institutions).
Katherine, you argue that the people of California saw domestic partnerships equivalent to marriage as a compromise. Maybe I was reading something into your column (or maybe the Vicodin hadn’t completely worn off yet), but you seemed to think this was a good compromise.
But then you wrote:
Minnesotans can draw two lessons from the California decision. First, it vindicates the approach taken by the proposed Minnesota marriage amendment, which the Minnesota House of Representatives passed in 2006 but the DFL-controlled Senate killed by keeping it bottled up in committee. The amendment would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
This doesn’t make sense. Why would you advocate a constitutional amendment that would invalidate the very compromise that had been established?
I told you it couldn’t last.
What remains to this day is the inability of people opposed to same-sex marriage to explain exactly how and why same-sex marriage would affect anyone who isn’t in one. How would government recognition of my nineteen-year-plus relationship affect anyone else? I mean, my husband and I are already living together, having sex, and all that, and it hasn’t yet affected anyone else.
Massachusetts hasn’t fallen into the ocean. Canada hasn’t fallen into the ocean. A slice of California may fall into the ocean, but not because of same-sex marriage. So someone please explain to me how or why Minnesota would fall into the ocean if it recognized same-sex couples (via marriage or some other way).
If anyone wants to read the California decision, here’s the link:
“MMMM that sounds a LOT like Separate but Equal discrimination put forth by Jim Crow folk in the south against Blacks. Of Course it was Rarely EQUAL. Please NOTE that it was Illegal under the ‘California’ Constitution. Not the US Constitution”
Don’t go there…don’t dare match this with slavery..ZERO comparisons ZERO…
Last time I checked Gays weren’t being whipped and chained…
Well unless they consented to it…that sh^t goes on…but other then that.
Don’t compare this with slavery, its not even close.
“Why is it we never see conservatives slap this label on the U.S. Supreme Court in the conservative majority’s politically motivated decision in Bush v. Gore?”
My God, will you get over this already? PS, Wellstone is dead, you can remove your stupid bumper sticker!
Well, KK, it didn’t take long for you to pen another of your “toxic,” anti-gay columns.
Called civil unions or domestic partnerships, this new arrangement is often promoted as a way to preserve traditional marriage while bestowing many of its government benefits on gays.
“Many” benefits does not mean “all” benefits, KK.
[The court wrote]…“to obtain virtually all of the legal benefits, privileges, responsibilities, and duties that California law affords to and imposes upon married couples.”
“Virtually all” does not mean “all.”
Since the Legislature has treated same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally, said the court, withholding the marriage label from gays is a “mark of second-class citizenship.”
Exactly, KK. The USSC took a dim view of “separate but equal” many years ago.
First, it vindicates the approach taken by the proposed Minnesota marriage amendment, which the Minnesota House of Representatives passed in 2006 but the DFL-controlled Senate killed by keeping it bottled up in committee.
KK, this might come as a surprise to you, but there is no automatic right to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment in Minnesota. If, and only if, both houses of the Legislature pass a proposed amendment, is the proposed amendment then handed down for a popular vote. It is called the “will of the people,”…in this case the Legislature.
The amendment would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Opponents sometimes slammed this dual prohibition as mean-spirited, but the California decision now reveals it to be far-sighted.
Now you finally reveal the truth, KK. You oppose that middle ground. In fact, you oppose any kind of legal recognition for same-sex commitments. And you talk about “toxic social division[s]?”
Again, KK, please tell us how your anti-gay marriage amendment will preserve “traditional marriage” in Minnesota which, in 2005, had a 54% divorce rate? (Data from the Minnesota State Court Administrator’s Office) You can’t blame gays and lesbians for this statistic.
Make a good argument as you will, but don’t pretend this is equivalent to slavery.
“Well, KK, it didn’t take long for you to pen another of your “toxic,” anti-gay columns.” I don’t see her column as anti-gay. Is she saying she wants gays removed from society? Locked up? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make their opinions anti anything or hateful!
Is she saying she wants gays removed from society? Locked up?
She hasn’t come out and said so, but I believe that she’d be leading the cheers were either to happen. I’m sure she’d justify it with Bible passages.
Jim Crow laws weren’t about slavery. These laws continued well after slavery had ended and segregated based on “seperate but equal”. Saying this is similar has nothin to do with slavery. The court did not decide that African Americans are only people because their ancestors went through slavery.
tiny:
You might want to check your history book. Separate but equal was not in place during slavery. It came -after- slavery and was a way to ensure that the ’second class citizen’ label kept those that were different from actually enjoying the full rights as citizens they were entitled to.
It is a very appropriate comparison. Here, we have a set of rights being denied a group of people solely based on a (you can agree to disagree if you like) uncontrollable characteristic that makes them different than the majority. The California decision recognizes (at least in Cali) that there is a fundamental right to marriage, and denial of that right is discrimination. Admittedly, reading the opinion, it establishes for the first time (that I’m aware of) that discrimination based on sexual orientation is entitled to the same scrutiny as discrimination based on race or gender. That may be questionable (even if I agree personally), but we’ll see what future decisions do with that.
Still, your argument that people should not compare this to slavery is misplaced. No one is comparing it to slavery, they are comparing it to Jim Crow.
Maybe California, the land of the extreme liberals will experience the big one and fall into the ocean before it infects the rest of the country.
I don’t see her column as anti-gay.
KK supports the proposed 2006 marriage amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions. Yes, this is another of her anti-gay columns.
Tiny, you moron shut the he11 up.
While a compromise might have been the best result, I’d rather err on the side that lessens discrimination rather than maintains it. Maybe the results would have been different had conservatives actually been willing to discuss the issue. Now the chickens have come home to roost.
Separate but equal has always been the first and never the second.
Traditional marriage supporters had better check that plank in their own eye - you know, the one that says “divorce” - before they complain about the speck-tacular impact that gay-marriage will have.
“Gay Iranian wins deportation battle”
“LONDON (AFP) - A gay Iranian who says he faces death if forced to return home has won a deportation battle and been granted asylum in Britain, officials said.
Mehdi Kazemi, 19, came to London to study English in 2005 but later said he had discovered that his boyfriend had been arrested by Iranian police, charged with sodomy and hanged.
Authorities refused his asylum application last year, as did Dutch authorities, but in March Britain agreed to reconsider the case after “new circumstances” came to light.”
If being charged and hanged for being gay is not a good enough “circumstance” then I don’t know what is.
“Tiny, you moron shut the he11 up.”
GypsyBiker you may want me to shut up and that’s fine. But that still doesn’t take away the fact that you’re by far, hands down the stupidest person to have ever posted on this blog. Right above BM on the list, and man that’s not easy to do.
But tell us what you think about this. I’d be interested to hear the viewpoint of someone at the Junior High Level.
Wait for it. Wait for it. Wait it’s comming. I can feel it getting closer.
Anytime now.
“The Man Up Manifesto”
Two things:
1.) I am curious what Katherine Kersten’s comments are per fellow conservative David Brooks active support of same-sex marriage. It seems to
me that Brooks and other conservatives (such as Andrew Sullivan, Barry Goldwater, and Mary Cheney…) have made the strongest argument:
Conservatives should be demanding marriage for same-sex couples since it’s the best practice for the larger social fabric. It’s also worth noting
that Brooks wrote his column in November 2003 and it has only gotten better with time.
The Power Of Marriage
By DAVID BROOKS
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06EEDF133BF931A15752C1A9659C8B6
3&sec=&spon=
2.) I would like Katherine Kersten’s comments on whether or not the Loving v. Virginia (1967) US Supreme Court decision, which made interracial
marriage uniformly possible across the USA, was an activist ruling. It’s worth reading the SCOTUS decision since the following rationale was used
by the Virginia judge who told the Lovings (a white man and a black woman) that they’re marriage violated the law: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and
he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that
he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
It’s only a matter of time until same-sex marriage is made fully legal across this Nation and it will be classical Conservatives who make it possible. “Traditional marriage,” in its current political use, has been largely defined in theological terms. That’s fine– but US law is a secular system. This is a point not lost on Conservatives such as David
Brooks.
My problem is with extremist on the left, extremist on the Right, extremists on anything. If I though this would all end with granting gay marriage I’d be for it. But it won’t be the end. Militants are militants and they don’t stop even when they have achieved what they first started out to achieve.
Example it wasn’t enough to have equal housing, no discrimination based on sexual orientation and all that stuff.
You read about the Gay movement 10-20 years ago not a word will be mentioned about marriage.
tiny:
The reason you read about the ‘gay movement’ to use your term, not mentioning marriage 10-20 years ago is because they were working towards not gettin beat up when they were publicly gay, or at least not being taunted publicly and the butt of jokes.
Just like the civil rights movement, at its earliest, it was about actually getting a vote, getting to own property, etc…people didn’t immediately start talking about marrying non-blacks, or anything like that, because there were more immediate issues. It doesn’t mean that there still weren’t rights denied.
And I’m failing to see your point about how this won’t end with ‘granting’ gay marriage? First off…there is no ‘granting’ to be done. It is simply recognizing that discrimination is legally wrong. No one ‘granted’ blacks the right to marry outside their race. We merely realized that laws passed prohibiting such marriages were wrong.
Second, what are you worried will be next?
“The reason you read about the ‘gay movement’ to use your term, not mentioning marriage 10-20 years ago is because they were working towards not gettin beat up when they were publicly gay, or at least not being taunted publicly and the butt of jokes.”
So you’re saying they stared out small…My point. I don’t know whats next. Is this the end of it then? Marriage is the last thing on the “To Do List”
Or do we still need to have a law that makes a gay persons life more important in the eyes of the court then mine.
I mean murder is murder pretty hateful who ever you kill.
Tiny, after gay marriage, where do you think this is going to go? Do you think gays are going to try to legislate that everyone become gay? What, exactly is your concern?
Yes, there is still debate over racial discrimination because simply passing laws doesn’t make it end. Is there lass discrimination now than 50 years ago? 20 years ago? Of course, but that doesn’t mean it still doesn’t exist.
“Don’t go there…don’t dare match this with slavery..ZERO comparisons ZERO…”
You’re right Tiny, Jim Crow had nothing to do with slavery.
Muz I don’t know if your gay or not, but like in many many many movements the average level headed person needs to work and doesn’t have the time to devote everyday every moment to the cause, so the extremists take control.
I don’t know what’s left on their list, but there’s more I’m sure.
tiny:
I don’t think so far, anyone has suggested that a gay person be ‘more important’ in the eyes of the court than you? True, the court treats discrimination against certain groups with more distrust than others. Because traditionally/historically/factually those groups have seen more discrimination that has no legal/rational basis.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone (at least not anyone I’d support) advocating for -more- rights for homosexuals. I think its just the same rights as heterosexuals that people are looking for. What if we had a prohibition on black people getting married? They could enter civil unions, enjoy -most- but not all of the rights of a marriage. Would anyone question that such treatment was wrong? Why is it so hard to extend that to another couple that wants to be married and enjoy those same rights, privileges, and yes obligations?
I understand some people (wrongly in my view) see homosexuality as biblically wrong, and thus we should not sanction it under any law…but such a value judgment was missplaced when we justified slavery and same race marriages. Lets not use that same justification now.
“I don’t think so far, anyone has suggested that a gay person be ‘more important’ in the eyes of the court than you?”
Ok no use talking to you anymore..Christ almighty we’ve been talking about this hate crime BS for the past 10 years..Nobodies calling for….give me a break.
tiny:
I fail to see how my sexuality has any bearing on any of what I’m saying. Essentially your argument is…and pardon me for paraphrasing, but…
Don’t give them equal rights because I’m afraid they will want more than equal rights?
So if I applied that to any other group, you’d be okay with that? Don’t give blacks/hispanics/women equal rights because they might want more?
I’m not trying to be a jerk, just suggesting that your logic leads down a path that I’m questioning if you know you are on. If you want to go down that path, feel free, but its one with a lot of discrimination, lawlessness, and morally wrong judgments on it.
This topics been rubbed into the ground already….lets let Evil and MOI hammer this out.
I just love people who claim they’re sick of “extremists on the Left, extremists on the Right”, yet only rail against the liberals. Just like they claim they’re “not religious”, yet only rail against Islam, never Christianity. What frauds!
tiny:
hate crime being ‘more’ rights than other people? The legislature is able to make policy choices to establish greater penalties to criminal acts. For instance, using a gun in the commission of a crime recieves a greater penalty than using no weapon at all, regardles of whether you fire that weapon.
Its no different in adding a stiffer penalty to a crime motivated by hate. Its is the difference between manslaughter and murder, where the jury is allowed to conclude that the defendant had some sort of intent when they committed the crime. Here, the intent is simply hate and a desire to hurt a person solely based on their race/gender/sexual orientation. Although I think such examples are rare, my understanding of the laws are that they could apply to you as a white male (my assumption on your race/gender) provided your attacker was motivated solely by your gender/race to hurt you.
As for criminalizing speech…I think that is a tougher argument to make. But when it is used to incite violence, then I think it draws a clear enough line. I’m going to have to disagree with criminalizing anything that is offensive however, although I’m not sure the laws go that far.
Well GypsyBiker you haven’t been paying attention. But I’ve been paying attention to your posts. I read them and I think, god this guy has to be the dumbest blogger that’s ever been on this board. Its like reading BM’s post.
“Jim Crow had nothing to do with slavery.”
It’s a whiskey, right??
This topics been rubbed into the ground already….lets let Evil and MOI hammer this out.
Oh, tiny, you’re hilarious! Don’t you realize that moi and I both favor legalized same-sex marriage? The only difference we have on this topic is how to get there — and I freely agree that his way would be preferable if only it would happen soon! Ours is more an argument of philosophy than of what the end result should be.
“It’s a whiskey, right?? ”
I think you’re putting Old Crow and Jim Beam together.
I think Im gonna puke.
If you weren’t such an idiot you’d see plenty of post where I go off on the Sunday morning preachers. GypsyBiker if you didn’t have the attention span of teenagers we’d know that.
“No runoff — Adams is city’s next mayor”
“Portland Wednesday, May 21, 2008
ANNA GRIFFIN
The Oregonian Staff”
“Sam Adams, a child of poverty, an openly gay man and a self-professed policy wonk, will be Portland’s next mayor.”
“Adams, whose family relied on food stamps and public housing when he was a boy, will become the first openly gay mayor of a top-40 U.S. city.”
the California majority showed how far arrogant, activist courts will go in disregarding the will of the people.
the California majority showed how far arrogant, activist courts will go in disregarding the will of the people when their constitution clearly directs them to do so.
There, fixed it.
As happens every time, Tiny, your post fails to address my point. Show me a past post where you attacked extremeists on the Right or Christians with the same bile as your usual targets. God, you are such a predictable phony……in addition to be being a gutless idiot.
I just answered you question GypsyBiker..hey go change your diaper!
“My problem is with extremist on the left, extremist on the Right, extremists on anything.”
Yet you rail only against the fruitcakes and nutjobs. What gives?
I was widestancer at onetime on this blog. Listen I’ve already gone through the fightin’ with teenagers deal. Its a pain in the @ss…I don’t see a difference when I argue with you.
“Yet you rail only against the fruitcakes and nutjobs. What gives?”
they are the extremist on the left, are they not, Markie?
“they are the extremist on the left, are they not, Markie?”
Thats my point. We almost never hear you rail against crazies on the right. You give D2 a hard time but who doesnt?
Oooh boy, here we go again.
I’ve stated my belief (I don’t think on this blog, though) that one of the reasons gays are having a hard time getting equal legislation on this issue is because we are one of the few minorities where there isn’t a visible difference. Race and gender are visible–it’s hard to look someone in the eye that looks different than you and tell them they don’t deserve the same thing.
But sexual orientation is different. It exists in different cultures, economic strata, geographic locations, and, yes, sides of the political aisle (heck, it’s possible that we’ve even had a gay president). But in modern history, the fact that it isn’t visible makes it also easy to hide. And, really, why would you make differences about yourself known if you knew it could lead to discrimination, harm, etc. etc., even if you felt no shame?
And then people start to realize legal rights are denied because of something they cannot change (I don’t believe gay is a choice, I know some do). And we’ve now started to stand up for those rights. Nothing more, nothing *special*. But I’d like to be able to be guaranteed to visit my partner should she be hospitalized (granted, neither of our families would deny us that right, but the hospital staff might). I’d like to file my taxes jointly. I’d like to combine us onto one health insurance plan at one of our employers.
And, yes, if we ever found that we could no longer make our relationship work (as do 50-some percent of Minnesota heterosexual couples), I’d like there to be legal grounds and procedures for a divorce.
Of course, the other solution is to remove marital status as an indicator of legal rights–keep it in the church as a religious ceremony. And I respect various church’s decisions to allow or not allow gay marriage as according to their interpretation of what is moral and in-line with their beliefs–and leave civil unions regardless of sexual orientation up to the government.
It’s both a tricky and exciting time to be gay, and be in a relationship that I forsee lasting a very long time, to which we are both committed to making it work. But for today I’m going to sign off, because while some comments on here are exciting to read, many more are disheartening to the point where I think that, wow, it’s never really going to happen in this country.
I always thought fruitcakes and nutjobs applied to both left and right but tall buildings and straw hats was explicitly the left. Widestancers was to the right.
Tiny, you obvviously don’t know how to read, so have someone read this to you and explain it to you, sh1t-for-brains. I said “Show me a past post where you attacked extremists on the Right or Christians with the same bile as your usual targets.“. You think an occasional jab at TV preachers makes you a centrist? Then I guess my occasionally agreeing with KK makes me a conservative! God, honestly, I took a dump last night that was smarter than you.
“I said “Show me a past post where you attacked extremists on the Right or Christians”
Its 10:18 thats about as much time I have for you.
GypsyBiker at least at some level I take shots at both sides. You’re a MOVEON’er all left all the time. Which is All dumb all the time.
What’s with all the “you’re more immature than I am” whining on here? Now I remember why I haven’t bothered with these boards in a few months. Everyone calling each other poopoo heads.
Towelie Rules
“God, honestly, I took a dump last night that was smarter than you.”
Gypsy,
I must warn you that you are about to step over the line into my sphere of expertise. Please step back from the edge of that abyss and no one gets hurt. Human bodily functions and/or excretments are my domain. It’s in the blog manuel, page 12, section8, paragraphs 9 - 12.
Let me quote to you a sample-
So it shall be written, so it shall be done. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt not speak in words or print of moral or immoral bodily functions including, but not limited to, stools, turds, corn an/or peanuts on this, the almight KK blog of Think Again, towards thy neighbour and/or thine enemy. Said thought, speech and posts remains the explicit domain of one G.S.A.H.A. (affectionatly known as GO).
Censorship rules
the California decision vindicates Minnesotans who argue that a constitutional amendment is the only way to safeguard traditional marriage…
…or to enshrine same-sex marriage and opposite sex marriage alike as a right. I’d prefer to see the latter outcome, but I agree that a constitutionl amendment is called for here. Even the most “activist” judge knows they can’t declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Plain old laws are fair game.
I’m confident that the bond I have with my wife will not be diluted, corrupted or otherwise screwed up by my fellow citizens also getting married, even if it’s a dude in the bride’s dress.
GO, you can have exclusive rights. I realize after his last post, comparing Tiny to my dump was an insult to my sh1t.
Tiny, in just the past 2 weeks, I (1) agreed that KK shouldn’t be fired; (2) agreed completely with her carpentry/rehabilitation column and (3) agreed with her on the absence of parental involvement with misbehaving school kids. And that’s just in the last 2 weeks!!
God man, if you’re gonna make stuff up, at least get someone smarter than you to help you with it. Your current attempts are just pathetic.
Again, KK, please tell us how your anti-gay marriage amendment will preserve “traditional marriage” in Minnesota which, in 2005, had a 54% divorce rate? (Data from the Minnesota State Court Administrator’s Office) You can’t blame gays and lesbians for this statistic.
KK, I’m still waiting for your answer. Don’t have one? What a surprise!
Correct me if I’m wrong GypsyBiker but jokes about some young girl getting shot and killed at her church are not at all amusing.
That’s a first impression that keeps you on the list.
What does this decision mean to various churches in CA? Do they have to perform same sex marriages or can they still refuse? Or does this have nothing to do with any church, just a certificate from the state?
I’d be fine with Civil Unions for all.
AG:
I’m pretty sure this ruling only affects civil marriages, the certificate from the state. I don’t think any law could constitutionally mandate that a church engage in a certain practice, despite its level of discrimination provided that discrimination takes place only on church grounds.
“Tiny, in just the past 2 weeks, I (1) agreed that KK shouldn’t be fired; (2) agreed completely with her carpentry/rehabilitation column and (3) agreed with her on the absence of parental involvement with misbehaving school kids. And that’s just in the last 2 weeks!!”
Are you sidagreeing with those takes Gypsy?
The middle ground…don’t like same sex marriage, then don’t get one.
Muz…you made a comment earlier on gays/bible, what’s your take?
Tiny, thanks for comfirming you do make it up. Not only did I tell you that I never made that statement, other people told you that also. But hey, since it doesn’t fit in your Redneck World, keep believing what you want to believe. Even when the facts prove you wrong.
Do they have to perform same sex marriages or can they still refuse?
Was a church in CA allowed to refuse me a Jewish wedding before this ruling?
Ironically there were churches that were performing the same-sex ceremonies before it was legally recognized law. This isn’t about who churches can and cannot give a wedding ceremony to, it’s whether or not the state will recognize the union after the fact.
In the mean time you might want to brush up on your First Amendment. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
“I understand some people see homosexuality as biblically wrong…”
Muz - I know you don’t agree, can you pull from the bible where it is wrong?
Just curious.
GypsyBiker says:
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wiil they start a Jump Up Fundamentalist Christian Gunman Rescue School?
You’re permanently on the list..And don’t tell Tiny what’s been posted and what hasn’t.
GypsyBiker says:
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wiil they start a Jump Up Fundamentalist Christian Gunman Rescue School?
The day after the Colorado shooting
GypsyBiker says:
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wiil they start a Jump Up Fundamentalist Christian Gunman Rescue School?
Tiffany Johnson, 26, of Minnesota. And you seemed to find it amusing. A “Jokeable” moment
“Tiny, thanks for comfirming you do make it up. Not only did I tell you that I never made that statement, other people told you that also. But hey, since it doesn’t fit in your Redneck World, keep believing what you want to believe. Even when the facts prove you wrong.”
GypsyBiker says:
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wiil they start a Jump Up Fundamentalist Christian Gunman Rescue School?
Eat my shorts you lying prick!
Toxic social division is inevitable when courts usurp the people’s rights.
If you hold a paper bag over your mouth and breathe in it for a while, it may stop the hyperventialtion.
Once you get a good deep breath, Katherine, what right of yours has been infringed by this court ruling in CA?
Your right to make dumb morally based laws that don’t jive with the Constitution? I’m pretty sure the Constitution provides for judicial review as a check against the creation of dumb laws.
Why does a Minnesotan care about who marries who in Californica anyway? Aren’t conservatives all about letting the States have it their way?
You don’t like Roe v. Wade?
I don’t blame you for that, but you’ve had 30 years to try to overturn it through the legislative process or by electing presidents who appoint your preferred kind of activist judge. That you haven’t had your way in 30 years suggests that maybe the majority of Americans don’t agree with you.
GypsyBiker says:
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wiil they start a Jump Up Fundamentalist Christian Gunman Rescue School?
FIRST POST OF THE DAY..like you couldn’t wait to find joy in these people getting killed.
GypsyBiker says: “I never made that statement”
GypsyBiker says:
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wiil they start a Jump Up Fundamentalist Christian Gunman Rescue School?
Whoops, mis-spelled “hyperventilation”. My bad.
Same Latin prefix as “hyperbole.”
My misspelling of California was deliberate though.
AW:
Well my understanding (my religion classes are well in my past, although I’m sure a google search would help) is that the Soddom/Gommorra passages form a bulk of the justification for anti-homsexual sentiments from the biblical crowd.
in just a quick search, there are apparently passages which suggest a man leaving his family to be with his wife, which of course literal readers suggest means only a man and a woman. There is also Leviticus, which forbids lying with a man as one lies with a woman.
I think at the heart of it, biblical justifiers use these passages and others to support their idea that there is a ‘natural law’ to things, which homosexuality flies in the face of. Their argument is that god created men and woman, since Eden, to be together and produce offspring and anything that goes against such a pairing is against god’s law, which is thus forbidden.
Personally, I think its crazy to read any book written by multiple sources, 2000+ years ago literally, especially when you cherry pick what you take literally and what you don’t. Have you sacrificed your bull to God today? If not, check Leviticus (I think that’s it) to find out how to do so and why its required.
Muz? You there? Can you sneak in between Gypsy and Tiny please and answer my question?
Thanks Muz
“If not, check Leviticus (I think that’s it) to find out how to do so and why its required.”
God Hates Shrimp!
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
““I understand some people see homosexuality as biblically wrong…”
Muz - I know you don’t agree, can you pull from the bible where it is wrong?
Just curious.
American Woman:
Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
To name a few.
GypsyBiker says:
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wiil they start a Jump Up Fundamentalist Christian Gunman Rescue School?
You want to talk about some bigotry there’s some right there.
Well…thanks to all of you!
Tiny - honey…breathe…you made your point. I believe we understand your anger.
“nor drunkards”
Bull. I know my grampa Jimmy is there right now having a drink as I shall be when its my turn to leave this rock.
gsaha - they have programs out there for people no you know. (Just a joke, ha,ha)
Don’t want to rile up Tiny again.
GO,
“when its my turn to leave this rock.”
Crack is wack.
gsaha - they have programs out there for people now you know. (Just a joke, ha,ha)
Don’t want to rile up Tiny again.
It also says do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love your neigbor as yourself. All kinds of stuff we don’t do.
“Crack is wack.”
WRONG ROCK BABE.
Hi, all,
On the “trade school” column, I like very much what that outfit is doing. On TIZA, I don’t know enough to form an opinion.
On today’s subject, I’ve said before all I know how to say, and I have a lot of heavy work to do today, so I’ll just say hello and wish you all a good day.
Take care . . . Peace!
“………– and ideally the government would instead offer domestic partnerships or civil unions to all couples, same- or opposite-sex, leaving marriage as something conferred by religious institutions).”
This sentiment, expressed by Mr. Fauvel, I agree with 100%. All problems arose when the church crawled into bed with the government, and formed their unholy alliance.
Under this proposal, all people would receive equal treatment under the law, and religious institutions and the government would be separate. what could be more perfect than that? It is time for the government and religion to come to terms with, a long overdue divorce.
“they have programs out there for people now you know”
AmericanWoman,
Ya sure, ya know dat I know dat don’tcha know.
I do wonder if Ms. Kersten even bothered to read the CA opinion. But regardless what the Court ruled, Kersten would spin it – absurdly in this instance - as a vindication for the anti-gay marriage forces, suggesting she is not terribly interested in reason, logic or plain old constitutional matters of equal protection. Rather, she waves the same standard issue vapid soundbytes like so many pathetic little flags (“activist judges,” “sanctity of marriage”) thinking this a worthy substitute for an argument, something in fact she has yet to offer. And that’s because she fails to take a grip of her own true, core belief and sentiment.
For what it’s worth, perhaps its time folks like Kersten stop dancing around with the pseudo debates, shallow demonizing rhetoric, soundbytes and the like and openly make the only argument – if it can be called that – that folks like Kersten were truly interested in making: that gay people count less as citizens under the constitution and are unworthy of equal protection under the law. Of course, the ploy over the last several years from people like Kersten has been to make the claim that marriage excludes same sex couples while simultaneously insisting they weren’t bigots for saying so, a disingenuous discussion at best. Problem is you can’t exactly ignore, disavow and erode nagging question of equal protection without the oinking sound of piggy bigotry in the background.
So, I say: it’s time for Kersten to own the pig within her and make the claim openly. Of course, we all know that bigotry is a lousy basis for law and social policy and doesn’t make for sound arguments for either law or policy – but it seems Kersten and her ilk still do not fully grasp this fundamental animus that animates their position. In any case, if they were to state their true claim, at least we wouldn’t have to listen to the phony shell game rhetoric that anti-gay marriage advocates like Kersten continually offer while doing an end run around the core oinkery at the heart of their thinking. It’s time for Kersten to wrestle with what she herself really thinks and come to face–to-face with its inherent failure as thinking.
“Don’t want to rile up Tiny again.”
Hey I don’t mind arguing with people that bring to this blog their honest opinion on things. You might get called a Fruitcake or a Nutcase but those are labels that don’t caring much meaning. And after that we can joke and have laughs. But what I can’t stand are people who come here and do the MOVEON.org thing almost word for word in every damn post they make.
Tiny, your again posting the same thing over
and over
and over
and over
doesn’t make it true. See D. Dan @ 9:12, jack @ 9:23 and 4B @ 11:36. They all got the point! Again, it’s not my freakin’ fault if all your inbreeding results in you being too stupid to figure it out
EBF
Oh, tiny, you’re hilarious! Don’t you realize that moi and I both favor legalized same-sex marriage?
Come on EBF stop inflaming with rhetoric phrases like “legalized same-sex marriage”!
Using word like that lead people to believe that if we need to legalize something, it must be illegal now.
Same sex marriages are not illegal now. What same sex marriages are not is they are not legally recognized by the gov’t. Which is a far cry from illegal.
The only difference we have on this topic is how to get there — and I freely agree that his way would be preferable if only it would happen soon! Ours is more an argument of philosophy than of what the end result should be.
Well that is true. I am for the democratic process, following the constitution, and the rule of law. EBF is for usurping the democratic process, cicumventing the constitution, and suspending the rule of law. Now EBF’s reasons for doing so may be just and right, however, if we allow it (even for what we think is just and right) - then what is to stop the next group to do it again for reasons they think is just or right.
I find it unsettling that a side of the political aisle is jumping up and down because Bush is trampling the constitution because they don’t agree with the reason for bush trampling the constitution, however, that same side condones trampling on the constitution when it is for a reason they agree with.
“the oinking sound of piggy bigotry in the background.”
“to own the pig within her”
“the core oinkery”
I’ne heard all the other stuff before but this pig fetish thing is something new.
But GypsyBiker you said you didn’t say anything. You did just up there in that post. Well you did. And you did it on the first post of the day. So don’t comeback and try to make me look like the fool. You’re the fool and you’re the liar. Your posts are a best moronic and your jokes are at best in bad tastes.
Keep it up I’ll rub you face into the blog ground.
You mean this post right here where you claim you never made such a statement.
GypsyBiker says: “I never made that statement”
And heres the statement.
GypsyBiker says:
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Wiil they start a Jump Up Fundamentalist Christian Gunman Rescue School?
Really funny after 3 people where killed for doing nothing more then going to church.
I’ne heard all the other stuff before but this pig fetish thing is something new.
They don’t call it animus for nothing. Seems fitting.
So GypsyButt, is it Funny that Ted Kennedy has a brain Tumor..got any Yuck Yucks for that.
Come on GypsyButt whip us a good Ted Kennedy Brain Tumor joke.
GypsyBiker - you couldn’t have been actually serious in your blog form Dec. 11th, 2007 could you. If you were..bad form, sad, really sad. Can understand tiny’s resentment. You that much of an @ss hole?
GypsyBiker - you couldn’t have been actually serious in your blog from Dec. 11th, 2007 could you. If you were..bad form, sad, really sad. Can understand tiny’s resentment. You that much of an @ss hole?
Beckwith10 posts (among other things)
that gay people count less as citizens under the constitution and are unworthy of equal protection under the law…..Problem is you can’t exactly ignore, disavow and erode nagging question of equal protection…
Beckwith10 - All political rhetoric aside. Please repond to the following.
What article or amendment of the US Federal Constitution establishes that it is a violation of someone’s rights that the gov’t does not recognize same sex unions while simultaneous recognizing opposite sex unions.
Furthermore, please cite USSC case law that supports your contention and explain how it supports your contention.
If you cannot do this, are you not doing the same thing KK is, just hiding your true feelings and spouting rhetoric?
“The Science Museum of Minnesota sold more tickets to “Star Wars” in just three hours than the 1,315 sold on the entire first day that tickets went on sale last year for “Body Worlds,” which became the most-attended exhibit in Science Museum history.”
-Strib 05/21/2008
Wow. Usually you have to go to a convent or monestary or something to see that many virgins lined up in one place.
AmericanWoman I have people on this blog that I really get ticked at yet I can separate their political views and have sh^ts and giggles with them. But people like GypsyBiker..no way..no way.
When I see this sick prick post all I can think of is that he thought it was worth a sick joke when some 26 year-old woman was killed. For going to church..for going to church.
I understand.
Sick to my stomach now…think I’ll go puke all over gypsy’s tricycle….bass turd!
Then he does that back peddling BS and tries to lay these racial labels on me. Instead of saying it was in bad taste or apologizing he persists in denying it.
All of us here have at one time or another made a statement that maybe didn’t sound right or was flat out wrong. Most of us step up and admit it.
A 26 year-old, still a kid in my mind. Her whole life ahead of her.
In Minnesota, married people can receive a legal separation, but still remain married. I would support a proposal where licenses were issued by the the state for civil unions, and not for marriage. I would also have the state continue to recognize legal separation, and discontinue the recognition of divorce.
Civil unions and legal separation for the state. Marriage and divorce for the religious institutions.
Under this proposal Mr. Fauvel and his partner can receive their civil union, the same as any other citizens. Then, just like any other citizens, if he and his partner choose to marry, they can find a religious institution to perform the marriage.
Because of my religious beliefs, I personally would never recognize his marriage, but I would recognize and respect his rights under the law, as they pertain to his civil union.
You read about the Gay movement 10-20 years ago not a word will be mentioned about marriage.
I’ve been reading through the California decision and found this, tiny:
In the mid-1970’s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses from
county clerks in a number of California counties…
If my math is correct, the mid 1970s are now 30+ years in the past. So it seems that same-sex marriage has been part of the “Gay movement” (thanks for that proper, er, adjective status, tiny!) for quite a while.
Most likely gypsybiker is a one percenter that doesn’t care about anyone or anything but himself.
“They don’t call it animus for nothing. Seems fitting.”
“”but it seems Kersten and her ilk still do not fully grasp this fundamental animus that animates their position”"
beckwith10,
Yes animus. Now it makes sense. I thought you said “Anus” the 1st time I read it. Which also seems fitting considering the topic of the day.
Evil whats several? A few?..it wasn’t the mean thrust of the movement. When it became thats when people got worked up. And its not just religious people. I still think a “make them feel compassion and fairness” is a better approach then having it slammed down their throats.
More of an Evil approach then a JonR one. That JonR one just gets peoples back up.
Come on EBF stop inflaming with rhetoric phrases like “legalized same-sex marriage”!
Point taken, moi. I should have said “government-recognized same-sex marriage.” It was not my intent to spout inflammatory rhetoric, and I offer my apologies to all who took my statement as such and were offended.
EBF is for usurping the democratic process, cicumventing the constitution, and suspending the rule of law.
Alas, another instance where moi and I disagree. I do not see the courts and the decisions that they make as circumventing the constitution.
Well, tiny, looks like the typsytiker took a hike. No defending this because you proved your point once again.
Hey GO I managed to get the word “thrust” and the word “throat” in the same post…should have worked a But in there I suppose.
“You might get called a Fruitcake or a Nutcase but those are labels that don’t caring much meaning”
If you were a guy from Iowa or Wisconsin your nutcase would be much smaller. I’d like an alligator skin nutcase if I were to buy one or receive it as a gift.
Evil whats several? A few?..it wasn’t the mean thrust of the movement.
Well, tiny, you did say “not a word.” That’s a bit different from the “mean thrust of the movement,” don’t you think?
and a case of armorall or mink oil to keep it clean and shiny
heh! heh! heh!
EBF said “mean thrust of the movement,”
heh! heh! heh!
FYI…
if anyone is thinking of getting me a nutcase it would be bigger than a coin purse and smaller than a breadbasket…………
Yeb alligator shin nutcase lined with pubic hare fur.
“Yeb alligator shin nutcase lined with pubic hare fur.”
Oppsy, alligator SKIN.
Shin. that just makes me sound crazey.
EBF said “mean thrust of the movement,”
But I really can’t take credit for this one; I was quoting tiny!
wow gsaha way to stay focused.
EBF
Point taken, moi. I should have said “government-recognized same-sex marriage.” It was not my intent to spout inflammatory rhetoric, and I offer my apologies to all who took my statement as such and were offended.
Wow. Let us all stop and take a moment to recognize the achievement that EBF has accomplished. EBF has taken one giant leap of growing a pair. He has manned up and taken some personal responsibility. And I say the following with a little tear in my eye - I am so proud of you. keep it up.
squash
Alas, another instance where moi and I disagree. I do not see the courts and the decisions that they make as circumventing the constitution.
But you must agree on this though, you don’t really know the interworkings of the consitution do you. You are a lay man. So to say you don’t think it is curcumventing the consitution is like a non-mechanic making a claim about the inner workings of car engine.
Mr. G, Pigs are very intelligent animals. Smarter than any dog, and much more intelligent than a horse or a cat.
I grew up in the country, and the smell of pig sh#t, brings back many memories.
City folk often don’t like the smell of pig sh#t when they drive through pig country. I love the smell of pig sh#t, and I highly recommend it.
People sometimes talk to their pets. If I wanted to talk to an animal, I would talk to a pig. I would never talk to a stupid cat. I would talk to a woman, or a pig. Those are the only two mammals. Of course I would always talk to men. Especially Irv. Irv, women and pigs, that pretty much does it for me.
I am just telling you this Mr. G, because, I know that you know, that there is more sh#t, than just pig sh#t, out there in the country.
oh oh I said “lay man” and EBF in the same post. EBF I am sorry for anything out of context that G or Tiny posts because of my post.
MOI:
I’m not sure how judicial interpretation is trampling on the constitution? Unless you are willing to suggest things like Brown, Miranda, Roe, Blakely, Lawrence, etc. are also improper usurpations of the Constitution?
We have entrusted the third branch of government with interpreting and ruling on the laws of our other two branches. Just because they don’t agree with a certain interpretation does not make that an improper exercise of judicial power. We can agree to disagree as to what a judiciary should or should not do with issues not properly before the court…but when a challenge is proper and a judge can make a ruling on it with proper jurisdiction, that is quite proper in our consitutional framework. Simply because you prefer legislative action, does not make it wrong that the judiciary must protect the rights of a minority sometimes.
Mr Leland,
You are correct. Also, I consider all this talk about sh#t as a very clever way to stay on topic.
“mean thrust”
Oh Ya baby…
MOI,
Let’s agree on something…neither EBF nor I will ever accept your Federalist Society rhetoric regarding the role of the judiciary.
PS to KK…
I am still waiting for your answer.
“FYI…
if anyone is thinking of getting me a nutcase it would be bigger than a coin purse and smaller than a breadbasket………… ”
Yes, but if you rub it, it’s as big as a suitcase!
“EBF has taken one giant leap of growing a pair. He has manned up and taken some personal responsibility.”
Hey, alright. Woo Hoo. Lets all pitch in and get him a nutcase. Any preferences EBF?
I can understand how people would be uncomfortable with their first graders being taught gay stuff in school. I think moves like this are terrible strategic mistakes. I think having this type of court deal may seem like a victory now, but I think it’s another strategic mistake.
Work on public opinion. Keep a low profile. Stay away from the fight. Get a Gandhi gay guy for a national spokesman. That’s how you get this thing done.
tiny:
Spoken like a person who has not experienced the discrimination. Just wait it out…
“You are a lay man. So to say you don’t think it is curcumventing”
MOI how do you know EBF has been Curcumventsised? Have you been peeking?
MOI’s a peeker.
I guess I should talk. I haven’t wanted anybody to tell me what to do since the day I was born, so I figured getting married might conflict with that.
You can have my marriage ticket.
Muz
Brown - ok with that - 14th amendment
Miranda - ok with that - 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment
Roe - not ok with that - nowhere in the consitution
Blakely - ok with that - sixth amendment
Lawrence - not ok with that - nowhere in the constitution
I think you can see my point. As you are probably aware there is a limitation on the third branch of the gov’t - it is the constitution itself.
Simply because you prefer legislative action, does not make it wrong that the judiciary must protect the rights of a minority sometimes.
If protecting the rights of a monority involves creating new laws then the courts are overstepping their jurisdiction and our consitutional framework. its that simple.
“Lawrence - not ok with that - nowhere in the constitution”
Steve Lawrence or Lawrence Welk?
“Spoken like a person who has not experienced the discrimination. Just wait it out…”
And stay away from the victim angle to. That sh^ts been rubbed in the ground. No elasticity left in that BS.
I’m bald I’m a victim too.
MOI:
As a lawyer (at least you’ve suggested you are/were) I’m sure you are aware that it is the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret the laws as written. As text, they are open to interpretation in many instances (despite J. Thomas’s opinions on the subject). Roe, while you may disagree with it, is legally defensible based on prior precedent, as affirmed in Casey. Lawrence is definitely legally precedential, particularly viewed in light of things like Loving v. Virginia, which I hope even you can’t disagree with.
No one has created new laws, that is a sad fiction that pundits have managed to bleed into our public consciousness. The judiciary only creates new procedures or recognizes rights that are already there. Just as we didn’t recognize the right that blacks had to be free, so too can we recognize later rights that we once were not cognizant of.
Much of the US Supreme Court’s civil rights jurisprudence is, while expansive, rooted in text, and clearly against the majority will in many instances. Brown was hailed as judicial activism at its height, but today even you can defend it. I fail to see where ‘education’ is written in to the 14th Amendment, but the justices found it there. How is it that it works for you, but Roe and Lawrence do not? (and Loving by extension?)
Wow. Let us all stop and take a moment to recognize the achievement that EBF has accomplished. EBF has taken one giant leap of growing a pair. He has manned up and taken some personal responsibility. And I say the following with a little tear in my eye - I am so proud of you. keep it up.
Thanks, moi – but I’m just trying to be more polite today, especially given the topic du jour.
But you must agree on this though, you don’t really know the interworkings of the consitution do you.
I think you must agree that there are many people – including judges and lawmakers – who subscribe to different philosophies than yours, and even though you may disagree with their schools of thoughts and/or their reasons for having them, other such philosophies do exist.
I do not find your disagreement with certain court rulings, and/or the reasoning by which those rulings were made, offensive; but I do find offensive your summary dismissal of other schools of thought and the implication that the intelligent, educated and learned people who hold them are somehow inferior to you.
I can accept a disrespect of a school of thought or philosophy with which you disagree; I have a difficult time accepting a disrespect of individual people simply because their philosophy differs from yours. You do come across this way to me; if this is not your intent, perhaps a clarification from you is in order.
tiny:
No one said you or I or anyone else were playing the victim. Its just completely disingenuous to tell someone else who is experiencing discrimination you have no concept of…to wait it out. Just be patient. You are welcome to do it, I’m just calling it out as poor form.
MOI,
On a serious note, per your experience would/could the guys that grabbed the KSTP cameramans camera be charged with assault?
JonR
MOI,
Let’s agree on something…neither EBF nor I will ever accept your Federalist Society rhetoric regarding the role of the judiciary.
See JonR this is where you start to show your ignorance. My belief was shared by both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. In fact, it was espoused in the USSC ruling that established the major powers of the courts. (Marbury v. Madison).
Here let me help you - what you want to say I am is an originalist (or if you want to call me a bad name - a strict constructionist - although I am not).
What you seem to believe in is doctrinalism or developmentalism or a “Living Constitution”.
So now that we got that straight. What are you trying to say?
jokes about some young girl getting shot and killed at her church
Yes, Tiny, I deny making a joke about it. In fact, I gave you posts from 3 different prople pointing that out to you. Show me where I said I was joking about it. You’ve made the statement, back it up you worthless piece of sh1t..
Muz
Come on - you can’t be serious. You are supporting your case with previous case law. Thats fine. But you can’t just stop with the previous case. You need to keep going back.
Lets go back to those earlier cases.
Loving - 1st part - good - thats the 14th amendment.
2nd part - nope - used previous case law - lets look at that previous cases - Skinner and Maynard - nope - not in the consitution.
Back to Brown - it was not about education - it was about equality of the races; i.e. the 14th amendment. That was passed by the majority.
“Steve Lawrence or Lawrence Welk?”
Joey.
G
Haven’t seen the tape yet.
MOI
As a former prosecuter would you advise pressing assault charges against the 2 guys that wrestled the camera from the KSTP crew?
Muz go ahead I could careless…I wouldn’t take my advise anyhow. But I believe if you keep the militants(and thats what they are)upfront in your movement, I’ll never see gay marriage in my lifetime. Which is fine with me. You have civil unions and for the average working man thats as fair as anything else.
Most if not all the legal issues you need are covered there. This marriage thing has become nothing more then a “rub it in your face” deal between you guys and the religious nutcases.
Thats what it is..be honest. YOU WANT PAYBACK!
MOI, sorry
please see KK topic yesterday and and lelands post for link. Seriously I am very interested in what a prosecuter would do.
“KSTP reporter in the TIZA “scuffle” identifies Asad Zaman, school director, as attacker”
and lelands post for link.
“leland8 says:
May 20th, 2008 at 9:56 pm”
EBF
I do not find your disagreement with certain court rulings, and/or the reasoning by which those rulings were made, offensive; but I do find offensive your summary dismissal of other schools of thought and the implication that the intelligent, educated and learned people who hold them are somehow inferior to you.
I can accept a disrespect of a school of thought or philosophy with which you disagree; I have a difficult time accepting a disrespect of individual people simply because their philosophy differs from yours. You do come across this way to me; if this is not your intent, perhaps a clarification from you is in order.
Please show me where I was disrespectful to the person themselves who is learned AND holds that belief. I would never ever disrepect Ginsburg, Souter, or anyone else because of their thoughts on the subject. However, I would disrepect their thoughts.
I wonder if you hole the same offensiveness toward your own crowd and their rhetoric about Scalia and Thomas. Do you remember what was said about them after Lawrence?
Now with that siad - if you aren’t learned AND hold the same opinion - then i am not going to be so respectfull.
I know I know its not very nice but you see - I am prejudice against some type of people - lemmings, blind followers, stupid people and I don’t respect them much.
You, on occasion, have come across that way. So sometimes I am disrepectful to you. Is that right. No. do I wish I was different. Yup. Is it fun. Sometimes. Oh welll you get the point.
MOI:
Well we are going to have to agree to disagree on constitutional principles. You are entitled to believe that the legislature is the sole souce of anything and that the court is simply there to adjudicate disputes.
I’m entitled (because its texually supported and clear in the early Supreme Court Jurisprudence, including Marbury) to believe that the judiciary not only settles disputes, but interprets and applies the law to cases/facts.
As for Brown, it was about a segregation as applied to education. The 14th amendment recognizes that no right guaranteed by the constitution shall be infringed upon regardless of race. In order for the supremes to have held the actions of the school board unconstitutional, they must have recognized a right that was implicated…the right to education. A right that is not written anywhere in the text of the constitution. Government action on its face alone is not violative of the constitution, it must violate a right guaranteed by the document itself: life, liberty or property.
You want nothing more then to have your marriage on top of Jerry Farwell’s grave. In the end you guys are no different then the bible people. Its my way or no way. If I don’t agree with Jerry I’m going to hell. If I don’t agree with gay marriage I’m a bigot.
I wish the both of Yez would put a cork in it.
WOAH - OH wait - take out the word ’stupid’ - it was not suppose to be in there.
Tiny:
Not sure why I respond to you, but whatever…
I’m not sure why I want payback, seeing as I’ve not been discriminated against either. I’m not gay, nor black, nor any minority that I’m aware of.
As for the militant argument you put forth. I’d argue that without militants, the civil rights movement would not have succeeded like it did, nor would the equal rights movement. It takes all kinds, and certainly the center is where a majority live, but loud voices have a place too and often pull the center along with them.
“I wish the both of Yez would put a cork in it.”
WOOOOOOOWWWW……
Oh wait you said cork. With an R!! Wooops.
“As for the militant argument you put forth. I’d argue that without militants,”
Without Mutants, Professor Charles Xavier wouldn’t have the X-Men to save the planet from Magneto and the Brotherhood of Mutants.
Muz
I’m entitled (because its texually supported and clear in the early Supreme Court Jurisprudence, including Marbury) to believe that the judiciary not only settles disputes, but interprets and applies the law to cases/facts.
You may want to go back and re-read marbury. The type of judicial review that it espoused was that of originalism not the “living constitutionalism” type.
In fact, the living constitutional type rulings didn’t start until maynard, Skinner, and the 30’s on. That judicial philosophy is fairly young compared to originalism.
Do you remember Dred Scot - terrible outcome - but a well reasoned opinion regarding judicial review.
As for Brown, it was about a segregation as applied to education. The 14th amendment recognizes that no right guaranteed by the constitution shall be infringed upon regardless of race. In order for the supremes to have held the actions of the school board unconstitutional, they must have recognized a right that was implicated…the right to education. A right that is not written anywhere in the text of the constitution. Government action on its face alone is not violative of the constitution, it must violate a right guaranteed by the document itself: life, liberty or property.
Again you need to go back and re-read this case too. It did not stand for the establishing a “constitutional right” to education. Pay particularly close attention to this line when you are reading…. “Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”
G.S.A.H.A. says:
May 21st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Mr Leland,
You are correct. Also, I consider all this talk about sh#t as a very clever way to stay on topic.”
I do my best Mr. G. I provide thoughtful remarks, and then, after awhile, I just lose interest. I can’t help it. I try to stay connected, in some way.
One thing I am certain of, is that everything that can be said about this subject has been repeated many times on Ms. Katherine’s blog.
All the legal, constitutional, moral and religious aspects, regarding this subject, have been gone over 7.2 trillion times.
I am going out to enjoy the beautiful weather. Goodbye for today, blog friends. I hope you have a lovely day, pondering Tinkerbell’s anus and rectum.
MOI:
Correct, but I did not say the constitution provided that right, only that there must be a right that implicates the langauge of the constitution itself. The 14th Amendment was not written to solely apply to blacks, thus…where there is unequal application of the law implicating a right established in either federal or state law…the 14th may apply. Just as it does in some of those other cases.
As for Marbury, I’m not talking specifically about what sort of judicial review, but rather that it exists. And the fact that it exists, allows for various types of it. Despite your disagreement with it, it is every bit as valid as your originalism.
The problem is the loud voices are calling people like me bigots. I have no problem with gays never have, but I have a problem with gay marriage.
So the Big Mouths cause people like me who might be persuaded, to dig in more and say hell no.
So sure let the Big Mouths take over..JonR himself has set gay marriage back 50 years with me just by the nonsense hes posts here.
So sure.
“Oh wait you said cork. With an R!! Wooops.”
Yes Mark its what you stick in the end of a wine bottle.
Correction its what people stick in the end of a wine bottle.
In the 70’s being gay was still something that was fairly hidden.
In the 80’s gay people were “coming out” more. In that time as it seems to be now…everything seems to be blamed on the gay community from Aids to Global warming. I’m rather tired myself of the topic being ground into the ground by society.
We all have our beliefs and concerns, we all have a right to them also. The arguing is educational and at times entertaining however, is it really getting us any place? Possibly.
See JonR this is where you start to show your ignorance. My belief was shared by both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. In fact, it was espoused in the USSC ruling that established the major powers of the courts. (Marbury v. Madison).
MOI, you seem to have a real problem with a court declaring a law, such as these so-called “defense of marriage acts,” unconstitutional because the acts were the “will of the people.”
Let me quote from Marbury, The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained…Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
Surely you do not suggest that a court is bound by “a law repugnant to the constitution” because the “will of people” demands it.
Muz
you posted this
The 14th amendment recognizes that no right guaranteed by the constitution shall be infringed upon regardless of race. In order for the supremes to have held the actions of the school board unconstitutional, they must have recognized a right that was implicated…the right to education. A right that is not written anywhere in the text of the constitution.Government action on its face alone is not violative of the constitution, it must violate a right guaranteed by the document itself: life, liberty or property.
Then you posted
but I did not say the constitution provided that right, only that there must be a right that implicates the langauge of the constitution itself. The 14th Amendment was not written to solely apply to blacks, thus…where there is unequal application of the law implicating a right established in either federal or state law…the 14th may
now which one is correct. The first on in which you say that they recognized an implied right to education in the consitution? Or the second one in which you said that the right to education was found in federal or state law?
MOI:
they are both right? The right recognized in the constitution is the right to equal protection under the law. The right implicated and thus not protected equally is the right to an education. Admittedly, I overstated the breadth of things by including the life, liberty, property aspect, although I’d argue that is the most broad term in the whole document and has been interpreted over and over again by the courts, which I would hope you’ve supported (when it suited your political viewpoints). Even if you can argue that life and property are unambiguous, certainly you can’t argue that liberty is anything but ambiguous.
Tiny / Muz,
I heard an interesting theory some time ago, although I cannot remember where I heard it. In a nutshell it was this:
Whichever side brings up a topic first regarding gay rights. They usually lose. If the “right” brings up limiting gay rights first they lose. If the “left” demands new rights first they lose.
(”right” and “left” are used only for the example)
I certainly can’t speak to the history of the gay rights, but I’ve often wondered if it was true or not.
“I heard an interesting theory some time ago, although I cannot remember where I heard it. In a nutshell it was this:”
Thats about the 115th time “nuts” has been posted on this topic. Not that I’m counting. Just an observation…..
JonR
Surely you do not suggest that a court is bound by “a law repugnant to the constitution” because the “will of people” demands it.
Yes and no. If the will of the people is a law then no. If the will of the people is a consitutional amendment then yes.
Lets look at the 18th and 21st amendment. The 21st amendment was surely repugnant to the constitution. In fact, so repugnent it overruled the 18th amendment - went directly against it!!!
That was the will of the people.
BTW - Nice post of marbury _ I am happy that you are spending time reading about how judges are to interpret laws.
You cited the passage regarding judicial review and how laws to be unconstitutional need to be look at through the constitution. This is the exact way I believe that judges should be review laws. But this is not the way all judges review laws. Judicial activism - at least the way I use the phrase - means not using the constitution.
Frankly I’m getting really tired of “My Rights” this, and “My Rights” that. Half the people whining about that sh^t have no idea what they are talking about. They are just repeating some nonsense someone told them. Or some BS they heard on TV or read on some whackjob website.
Sh^t “My Rights” has been used so much it has no damn meaning anymore. Its part of the self-centered road we’ve gone down. 1ST graders have rights. Airline Bill of Rights. Healthcare Bill of Rights. Bicyclist Bill of Rights. Sackcheckers Bill of Rights.
A bunch of nonsense.
The problem is the loud voices are calling people like me bigots. I have no problem with gays never have, but I have a problem with gay marriage.
So the Big Mouths cause people like me who might be persuaded, to dig in more and say hell no.
Well, tiny, many of us have tried to find out what problems you and people like you have with same-sex marriage and respond with reasoned arguments. I’ve done so many times on this forum.
You say you have a problem with gay marriage – you don’t specify what that problem is – and then say that you might be persuaded except for the “Big Mouths.” What this says is that you base your approval or disapproval of same-sex marriage not on the merits (or lack thereof) of the issue itself, but rather on your opinion of its most outspoken proponents.
Please, tiny, if you cannot come to a reasoned conclusion based on careful consideration of the facts, do us all a favor and stay out of the voting booth.
Look at some of our greatest entertainers…Liberace, Elton John, Rock Hudson, Andy Warhol, etc…gay. Talented people.
Then look at some of the Master artist’s (not all with a paint brush) that were drug addicts and alcoholics….Van Gogh and Edgar Allen Poe for instance. Their addictions destroyed them. Their art on canvas and paper lives on.
These are very talented PEOPLE. Yep, people. There are so many more. I guess I look at what people offer to society, not take away from it.
“Correction its what people stick in the end of a wine bottle.”
Wine goes bad. Why put the cork back in?
Pistachios turn your fingers red.
Judicial activism - at least the way I use the phrase - means not using the constitution.
I don’t understand. As I posted earlier, I’ve been reading the California same-sex marriage decision. It’s filled with references to and justifications/reasoning taken from both the California and Federal Constitutions – yet I believe you said that you found this decision to be activist. It seems to me that the California Supreme Court did indeed “use the constitution” – so how can it be labeled as “activist?”
gsaha, sure are focused on your nuts today…hmmm
“Look at some of our greatest entertainers…Liberace, Elton John, Rock Hudson, Andy Warhol, etc…gay. Talented people.
Then look at some of the Master artist’s (not all with a paint brush) that were drug addicts and alcoholics….Van Gogh and Edgar Allen Poe for instance. Their addictions destroyed them. Their art on canvas and paper lives on.”
You put Warhol in the wrong list AW.
I notice you left Clay Aiken out too.
If the will of the people is a consitutional amendment then yes.
Then what happens if a state enacts an amendment to its constitution that is “repugnant” to the Federal Constitution? Is the former binding upon the courts?
sorry 4b - my apologies…yes there are more.
Give Rob Halford his due.
“Well, tiny, many of us have tried to find out what problems you and people like you have with same-sex marriage and respond with reasoned arguments. I’ve done so many times on this forum.”
I told Ya..JonR calls us all gay haters if we don’t believe in gay marriage. And don’t kid yourself its about payback. You have all the legal avenues you need covered under civil unions.
“Please, tiny, if you cannot come to a reasoned conclusion based on careful consideration of the facts, do us all a favor and stay out of the voting booth.”
Just set gay marriage back with me another 50 years.
But hey don’t look in the mirror and maybe blame yourselves for why this isn’t moving in the general public…Not my fault. I wouldn’t even blame the religious people they only makeup a small percentage of the opposition. Normal everyday people have a problem with it.
But hell Just keep yellin’ and screamin’
Jonr
Then what happens if a state enacts an amendment to its constitution that is “repugnant” to the Federal Constitution? Is the former binding upon the courts?
No - state constitutions cannot be repugnant to the federal constitution. (Well it is binding until it is ruled unconstitutional)
Basically a state can grant more rights but they can’t grant less rights than the federal gov’t.
That is why a state law can be repugnant to a state constiution but not repugnant to the federal constitution.
And dont let Mic Jaeger fool you. He should be on the list too.
Mick is Bi 4b
Muz
Even if you can argue that life and property are unambiguous, certainly you can’t argue that liberty is anything but ambiguous.
Well there is the rub isn’t.
You have all the legal avenues you need covered under civil unions.
We don’t have civil unions in Minnesota.
I told Ya..JonR calls us all gay haters if we don’t believe in gay marriage.
So your only problem with same-sex marriage is JonR? That’s not very logical, tiny.
Just set gay marriage back with me another 50 years.
Why don’t you explain your reasoned conclusion for your opposition to same-sex marriage. (Sorry, your perception of JonR does not count as a “reasoned conclusion.”)
“Mick is Bi 4b”
Sleeping with Brazilian super models is just a cover up. If you are a dude and you slpet with David Bowie, you automatically become gay 100%.
Add Terrell Owens to the list. Any football player with a Volkswagen Beetle is gay.
Muz
We are going to go around and round on this argument but this is a fed issue and it isn’t the issue I have with the CA decision.
The CA court used legislative workings to establish a ‘new’ ca constitutional right for gay marriage. In other words, the majority said that since the legs is recognizing more rights for gays through laws then gays have more constitutional rights. Interesting considering the CA constitution can not be changed by the CA legislature.
“gsaha, sure are focused on your nuts today…hmmm”
i TENd tO TalK AbOuT tHE DiRECtIOn i’M GoiNG…..
HA!!!!
4b - how do you know about Bowie…you been there?
EBF
I wish it were that simple to explain here on this blog.
Hey I got an idea, we don’t you, me and JonR meet and I will try and explain all about this and all the other things you think are wrong with me on this blog. You might just come away with a better understanding and more tolerance for people like me.
I may have to start not blogging soon.
I think my wife is getting a little sick of me blogging so much.
Plus all of my good buddies are gone now. No ISOW, no Viking, FC only rarely posts. All we got are tiny and G - and they are obviously losing or have lost their minds.
Im sure Ziggie Stardust came from the deep dark regions of Bowies hetero side.
Aaaah…Ziggieeeee….oh yeah….inovative and before his time.
That was suppose to by
Hey I got an idea, why don’t you, me and JonR meet and I will try and explain all about this and all the other things you think are wrong with me on this blog. You might just come away with a better understanding and more tolerance for people like me.
MOI,
Thanks for the Honerable Mention.
It’s the same old tired topics. I’ll tell ya what I’m going to do. I’m going to post as someone else for a week and see if you can out me.
Starting Now.
“Hey I got an idea, why don’t you, me and JonR meet and I will try and explain all about this and all the other things you think are wrong with me on this blog.”
I can see the Strib Head line on that one……
“Public defender goes missing. Found after make over.”
Why are my ears burning?
“Why are my ears burning?”
Your hair is on fire?
ISOW,
Whats up? how been doin?
No - state constitutions cannot be repugnant to the federal constitution. (Well it is binding until it is ruled unconstitutional)
Ahhhh, so absent a Federal amendment banning same-sex marriages/unions, a court could rule the amendments in the 26 states that have such amendments unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution.
You have all the legal avenues you need covered under civil unions.
Civil unions are not allowed in Minnesota and if KK has her way, even those would be disallowed with her anti-gay marriage amendment.
ISOW I hope your doing well and I’ll see see ya next week.
Geeze go, its not too hard to find you.
gsaha looking for a little wisdom?
Mark A. — the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire! (not my hair)
G.S.A.H.A — I’ve been busy getting admitted to graduate school but I also stop on occasion to smell the roses, check the erudition of Think Again bloggers and of course, plant big, wet smooches upon porcine posteriors.
Here’s my litmus test:
If one advocates as vociferously for legislation and/or Constitutional amendments that a) Imposes certain conditions for heterosexual couples to marry (say, a waiting period, certain number of hours of counseling, maybe a parenting class or two) and b) makes divorce extremely difficult as one sputters on about “defending” marriage by denying two dudes a trip down the aisle, then I’ll buy that you really, really care about protecting marriage and families.
If you only blather on about legislation and/or Constitutional amendments to prevent Jill and Jill from eloping to Bemidji, then your agenda has nothing to do with defending marriage.
ISOW,
Very wise.
WOO HOO ITS ISOW!!!
JonR
Ahhhh, so absent a Federal amendment banning same-sex marriages/unions, a court could rule the amendments in the 26 states that have such amendments unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution.
I suppose but they would still have to find that the right to same sex marriage is protected by the US Federal Constitution.
I told Ya..JonR calls us all gay haters if we don’t believe in gay marriage.
Of course, tiny litess, you don’t “hate” gays, you just believe we should not enjoy the same rights and benefits under the law that you enjoy.
Hey I got an idea, we don’t you, me and JonR meet…
MOI, given my “ignorance,” as you put it, you offer to meet with me? You would stoop that low?
JonR and EBF
No taking on my offer. Hmmm…alright looks like you guys are the intolerant ones.
potato
Sorry MOI, ISOW has a date with the treadmill (that’s 71 lbs. gone for those scoring at home).
Keep the strict constructionist fires burning my old Borkian friend and I hope the little guy is thriving as well.
JonR
MOI, given my “ignorance,” as you put it, you offer to meet with me? You would stoop that low?
I only called you ignorant on constitutional law.
ISOW
NOOOO…I ain’t no bork - no strict constructionist here - I am a scalia fan - I am an originalist.
MOI - Originalist? In my humble/ignorant opinion you rely mainly on facts. What’s original about that? Not that your facts aren’t educational and true…I just don’t see alot of originality. Could be wrong.
I suppose but they would still have to find that the right to same sex marriage is protected by the US Federal Constitution.
Wouldn’t the court only have to find that the “civil right” of marriage extends to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, etc? As for finding that right, there is that part of the Constitution that states not all rights given are enumerated in the Constitution. I know, I know, that article is “little used,” but it is still a part of the Constitution.
As for your offer, you have my reply. Why should I meet with someone who has already judged me to be “ignorant”? Perhaps EBF has left for the day.
Hey,
Welcome back ISOW.
Regarding your point b, while I can’t speak for Katherine I get the distinct impression she would love to make it harder for people to divorce too.
And for all those who are miserable in their forced marriages, well they are consoled with the notion that suffering imparts virtue.
“Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Average-Guy, you should know better. The word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until ~150 years ago. How can you possibly trust a translation of the Bible that would use that word? My understanding is that none of the greek words that were used translates properly to “homosexual” as we understand the concept.
Hey I got an idea, why don’t you, me and JonR.
A blog Ménage à trios.
JonR
As for your offer, you have my reply. Why should I meet with someone who has already judged me to be “ignorant”? Perhaps EBF has left for the day.
No you haven’t replied. You just asked me why I would want to meet with someone who I said was ignorant. And then I said that I only think you are ignorant in the constitution. Thats not a reply.
Are you saying no?
BTW - do you think you are not ignorant in the constitution?
Searchie hows the coast to coast Fish-head sandwich franchising thing workin’ out for Ya.
Sounded like a money maker.
JonR
Wouldn’t the court only have to find that the “civil right” of marriage extends to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, etc? As for finding that right, there is that part of the Constitution that states not all rights given are enumerated in the Constitution. I know, I know, that article is “little used,” but it is still a part of the Constitution.
Are you referring to the 9th amendment?
That does have use. It basically says that there can be other rights that can be protected in the US constitution that are not enumerated. in other words, they can be added through the amendment process so that they are also protected from gov’t interferance.
What you seem to be advocating is that there are other rights not enumerated and those rights are protected too (even though they are not listed) - nice thought but not what the 9th means.
DJ says:
“D2- I have a serious question for you. And I don’t say this to mock or jest or anything.
Do you dislike Muslims??
A lot of your posts make me feel you do.”
Sorry if I sound so harsh. It’s really the Islamists I have a problem with.
I still feel MOI is un-original and hashes over the same things over and over again to try to educate us poor ignorant fools in blog land.
Time to go hug my husband and kid.
Man I knew it. I was going to say something this morning. I had that feeling this was coming.
Media/MSNBC
“The torch has been passed to a new generation.”
Test for a 100 blog dollars
1. Who is passing the torch?
2. Who is receiving the torch?
dubble_a_ron, thanks - the place is as comfy as an old pair of socks…and as smelly when certain — dare I say it? - posters breathe their halitosis riddled musings upon us.
As to my point b — If Mrs. Kersten has written as frequently and forcefully about either point a or b in my post above as she has about gay marriage, I am unaware of it (but could certainly be proven wrong by Mrs. K. herself).
Tiny, you old scourge of the Strib. My all fish head diet (I believe it was actually raw vegan but whatever) has worked wonders.
MOI, my apologies — I betrayed my ignorance by inferring a verisimilitude betwixt “strict constructionist” and “originalist.” I will now more properly refer to you as “Scalian” (although that does imply you may utilize the same application of 2-3 qts. of hair pomade daily as the SC justice).
Minneapolis city council. An Ordinance for idling your car for more then 3 minutes.
That Tiny he’s nuts…living in grass huts, it will never come to that. Saying things like they have agenda that has ZERO to do with the environment and everything to do with the way we live.What a moron he is.
“Tiny, you old scourge of the Strib. My all fish head diet (I believe it was actually raw vegan but whatever) has worked wonders.”
Fish-Heads keep Ya regular.
moi, I accept your offer to meet. I hope JonR will join us, but I will meet with you even if he will not. Do you still have my e-mail address that I posted recently? Please e-mail me there (or ask me to repost it) to work out the details.
MOI,
That I or EBF or anyone else does not have a law degree does not mean that person is “ignorant in the Constitution.”
As for meeting with you, that would have to be some weeks off. The next two weeks will be spent putting in the gardens and the middle two weeks of June I’ll be up north on a walleye expedition.
As for the 9th Amendment, where is it written that a court could not find a constitutional right under that amendment?
Consider Griswold, which concerned the right of marital privacy (a right not enumerated). Justice Goldberg, for the majority, wrote: The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments…Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment…Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.
In this matter, FindLaw’s commentary states, While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights.
I read this to mean that a court could use the 9th Amendment to find a right not enumerated, such as the marital right to privacy, and to subsequently “veto” or overturn a law that abridges that right.
Yes I digress. In the case of Beavis Vs Butthead the court decided Butthead was clearly in his lawful rights to beat on Beavis when he got out of control doing that Cornholio thing, Yesssssss.
Marketplace claims:
What you seem to be advocating is that there are other rights not enumerated and those rights are protected too (even though they are not listed) - nice thought but not what the 9th means.
No, in fact, what it means is the authors recognized that the Constitution, in its given form, was not the alpha and omega in its codification of rights – that yes, though not explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution, other rights may (and likely) exist. Hence, Marketplace, you know you’re being disingenuous when asking earlier: What article or amendment of the US Federal Constitution establishes that it is a violation of someone’s rights that the gov’t does not recognize same sex unions while simultaneous recognizing opposite sex unions.
That’s not how it works.
Marketplace of Ideas says:
The CA court used legislative workings to establish a ‘new’ ca constitutional right for gay marriage….
Having read through some of your comments, MOI, one comes to the conclusion rather quickly that you see virtually no path for legal recognition of same sex marriage. Gay couples are ideologically exempt by your cherry-picked judicial philosophy - or at least that’s what it comes down to, certainly when you employ ideologically charged neologisms like “new rights,” a term which, on its face, is laughably meaningless, if not condescending in its intent, which is merely to imply: a right you don’t deserve. Surprise Surprise. What you don’t address is, of course, the question of animus at the core of this - which puts you pretty much in the same boat as Kersten, with “failed thinking” for sails.
Your comments concerning Marbury and originalism were a hoot, by the way. “Orignalism” - the sort Scalia spout - is, in fact, a relatively new-fangled judicial philosophy gerry-rigged by the far right during the Reagan eighties as a way of attacking the precedents established by prior, more liberal Supreme Court decisions. The so-called “originalist” claim to be “faithful to the Constitution is merely code for over-turning precedents of the Burger and Warren Courts. In short, your “originalism” has little to do with the Constitution and a great deal to do with the ideologically craven agenda of the federalist Society/ neo-conservative movement - which has ridden roughshod over the Constitution.
First gain civil and equal rights- Then Gain the ability to marry like heterosexual couples- Then gain harsher sentences for murders and assaults commit on us in court of law- Then gain reciprocity money for past wrongs- Then gain preferential treatment in all areas or work, housing etc etc.
When will it end? I don’t see an end to it. If I thought it would end I say go ahead have your marriage. But it won’t end There’ll be something else, and on and on and on and on it will go.
Tell what the end is? I’m not trying to sound like a jerk. But whats the end game. When does it stop?
Oil hit $133 a barrel today and keeps climbing. How high does it have to go before liberal politicians controlling BOTH Houses of Congress will allow us to tap into our own vast oil reserves?
If OPEC sees us getting serious about drilling our own oil, the price will start to drop.
Oil hit $133 a barrel today and keeps climbing. How high does it have to go before liberal politicians controlling BOTH Houses of Congress will allow us to tap into our own vast oil reserves?
Please explain why Bush did nothing about this when he had Republican control of both houses for six years. Stop trying to blame just the Democrats for this problem. (And I agree, we should do more to develope domestic sources and build more refineries.)
If you can guarantee me I won’t see some guy on TV claiming he didn’t get the job because he’s gay. When really 50% of the reason he didn’t get the job was because he wasn’t qualified. The other 50% was because there was someone who was. In the end it had nothing to do with him being gay.
Promise me that nonsense would stop and I’ll help campaign for gay marriage.
In Oregon
Knock on GO’s door wearing leather. Tell his family I’m a “old friend”
Hand GO some gay marriage brochures and try to give him a big kiss….
I’ll do all those things. Just stop!
JonR,
I said liberal, not democrat. Many liberal RINO republicans voted wrong on this along with the democrats.
“Knock on GO’s door wearing leather.”
I heard there is a special on leather attire at Gays-R-Us this week.
d2si,
Once again, you ignore my post. There are conservative Democrats as well as liberal/moderate Republicans. During Bush’s first 6 years, Hastert was House Speaker and DeLay was Senate Majority Leader. Both are very conservative Republicans. There was no reason that Bush could not have had legislation passed to address these issues…more domestic drilling and more refineries.
Heck, in the aftermath of 9/11, all Bush would have had to do is declare it a matter of national security…which it is.
If you can guarantee me I won’t see some guy on TV claiming he didn’t get the job because he’s gay.
tiny litess, in the majority of states it is not illegal to refuse to hire someone or to fire someone because of sexual orientation. Pass a law changing those issues, and there you go.
“the middle two weeks of June I’ll be up north on a walleye expedition.”
JonR,
Wallleye fishin? I miss that. When I was back to see my folks last july I took my better 1/2 and kid up to Milacs walleye fishin. They loved it and plan on doing it again next time back. Alls we have here are salmon (Banned this year due to dropping numbers) and sturgeon (Barbless hooks and between 4-6 feet) and trout but the alpine lakes are still frozen for the brooders. Caught a 26 3/4″ 6 pound rainbow at Olallie lake last year on a worm. It really pissed off the purists.
Please give me details of your catch when ya get back.
Adios sombreros. see ya next week.
Promise me that nonsense would stop and I’ll help campaign for gay marriage.
tiny, neither you nor I can control what other people do. There’s no way anyone could honestly make the guarantee you request.
First gain civil and equal rights- Then Gain the ability to marry like heterosexual couples- Then gain harsher sentences for murders and assaults commit on us in court of law- Then gain reciprocity money for past wrongs- Then gain preferential treatment in all areas or work, housing etc etc.
The harsher sentences, financial reciprocity and preferential treatment need not be realted to marriage. If you have a beef about these issues, fine, but you need to realize that they are separate from the issue of marriage.
You seem to be asking that GLBT Americans give up their right to address their grievances, whether actual or perceived, in a court of law, and to give up their right to petition for legislation in exchange for your support of same-sex marriage. I think that’s a pretty unfair trade-off.
“in the majority of states it is not illegal to refuse to hire someone or to fire someone because of sexual orientation. Pass a law changing those issues, and there you go.”
Thats what I like about oregon. People here just don’t care about religion, sex, rax as long as your qualified for the job.
OK now I gotta go. I promised MOI. Till next week TAH TAH
realted
Oops, should be “related.”
When I was back to see my folks last july I took my better 1/2 and kid up to Milacs walleye fishin.
The problem with Lake Mille Lacs is that the walleye slot limit is so restricted that it is almost impossible to catch a limit of fish you can keep.
Alls we have here are salmon (Banned this year due to dropping numbers) and sturgeon…
Did you know that the oldest sturgeon caught in Minnesota was taken on Lake of the Woods and estimated to be 150 (!!!!) years old? Sturgeon are making quite a recovery on LOW. Fish in the +100 pounds range are not that uncommon.
beckwith10
Nice rewrite of history. I loved it. I guess you are going to have your on views on everything, including what my thoughts are, based on only your on delusions. Where did you get your law degree?
Still waiting on your an@lysis without rhetoric on unenumerated rights. If you are resting on the 9th amendment - you are really not even close.
Oh btw, do you know where the term animus is used and why its important in this discussion.
EBF
Sounds great - I think I still have it. Do you want to wait for jonR or do you think that you can handle meeting me on your own.
Wait should we both bring our better halfs?
Hey, BTW, could you let beckwith10 know that he has me pegged pretty wrongly, I just don’t have the energy tonight.
Sounds great - I think I still have it. Do you want to wait for jonR or do you think that you can handle meeting me on your own.
Wait should we both bring our better halfs?
Let’s discuss these details off-line. EvilBabyFauvel@gmail.com.
Hey, BTW, could you let beckwith10 know that he has me pegged pretty wrongly, I just don’t have the energy tonight.
I think you yourself just let him know!
?moi, I accept your offer to meet. I hope JonR will join us, but I will meet with you even if he will not. Do you still have my e-mail address that I posted recently? Please e-mail me there (or ask me to repost it) to work out the details.
As I stated previously, the earliest I could schedule such a meeting would be the end of June. If you, MOI and EBF, don’t want to wait…go for it…just keep me posted on the outcome.
And if you decide not to wait for me, MOI, why not take a paralegal along to record the discussion and post it here.
And, MOI, what is your reply to my comments about Griswold?
PS to KK,
I am still waiting for you to answer to my question.
PS to KK,
I am still waiting for you to answer to my question.
She has a lot to answer for, doesn’t she?!
I’m just kidding about the paralegal.
JonR
You mean a stenographer, right?
As for griswold, I am going to have to get back to you, later. I have to clean the house tonight. Yes I have to. I have no choice. Well I suppose I do have a choice. It would be between cleaning the house or getting a divorce. So I am going with cleaning the house.
It would be between cleaning the house or getting a divorce.
Don’t get a divorce. Then you would be in the majority, i.e., the majority of marriages in MN end in divorce.
So…how does it feel to be part of a minority?
D2 says-
“Sorry if I sound so harsh. It’s really the Islamists I have a problem with.”
Do you mean terrorists?? Because Islamists simply want what most religions want; to convert others to their own religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims, ect. all wish that we could all unite under their specific religion. If you mean terrorists, then of course you have a problem with them. Everyone who’s not a terrorist does.
D2 says-
“Sorry if I sound so harsh. It’s really the Islamists I have a problem with.”
Do you mean terrorists?? Because Islamists simply want what most religions want; to convert others to their own religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims, ect. all wish that we could all unite under their specific religion. If you mean terrorists, then of course you have a problem with them. Everyone who’s not a terrorist does.
Tiny says-
“If you can guarantee me I won’t see some guy on TV claiming he didn’t get the job because he’s gay.”
Jon R says-
“tiny litess, in the majority of states it is not illegal to refuse to hire someone or to fire someone because of sexual orientation. Pass a law changing those issues, and there you go.”
JonR, I have this to say to you. As a white american(which I assume you are, though I could be incorrect), do you not find it both insulting and unfair that blacks are still fighting for rights that place themselves above whites?? Blacks have the exact same rights that whites do, with the exception that they have “priveledges” to get certain jobs, get into schools, ect. simply because they are black. Not because they are better at the job than anyone else, but because of their skin color.
Now I would understand if you don’t think of this when it comes to gay rights. But as a white american, I find it hard to believe that the “gay rights movement”(as it has been labelled on this blog) will stop after marriage. What’s to stop homosexuals from claiming that they are being discriminated against(as there will definitely be some who will be) to allow them to more easily aquire jobs than straight whites?? You are just one step away from that.
As a caucasion, I feel discriminated against all the time. I live in south minneapolis and growing up, I have had a number of racial slurs thrown at me simply because I was white. Why is honky, white-boy, cracker, ect. accepted when I would never call a black person even something as simple as “black boy.”
The double standard in America has gotten out of control. The tolerance that people have to ignore the discrimination against whites(especially white Christians) is unacceptable to me. Few people see it because they are so focused on protecting everyone else.
Tiny sees it, and for that I commend him. Especially because he is not religious. I can only imagine that it is harder to pick up on as an atheist. It is much easier to just go with the flow and laugh at the “intolerant white Christians.”
My point is that I can see where Tiny is coming from. I hope that you can see it as well. I think that the “gay rights movement” is one step away from having their own affirmative action. This makes it hard for the rest of us to really support your cause when we are one step away from having more rights taken away from us because we are white.
(don’t worry, the conclusion paragraph is upon you)
I hope you understand that this is not an attack on the “gay rights movement,” but rather, an explanation, in hopes that you will understand, why certain people may have a problem with it.
p.s. MOI, I apologize if I used the term “rights” incorrectly in this post. You can feel free to call me out on it.
Correction: “This makes it hard for the rest of us to really support your cause when we are one step away from having more rights taken away from us because we are white” and hetero.
DJ says:
“Do you mean terrorists?? Because Islamists simply want what most religions want; to convert others to their own religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims, ect. all wish that we could all unite under their specific religion. If you mean terrorists, then of course you have a problem with them. Everyone who’s not a terrorist does.”
Islamists take this to the extreme and look at Islam as more of a political movement than a religion. Even the main Muslim pressure group CAIR has leaders who openly admit that they would like to see our Constitution done away with and have us turned into the Islamic States of America. I don’t believe it’s good to have people living in this country with goals like that, call me intolerant if you want to.
DJ I hope we have equal rights for all someday. And I think we are 90% there. ( except the democratic party they’re are a little behind on the race thing) But its just to easy because of “Personal Failure” to pull out that…”oh its because I’m [ Blank ] excuse. I hope that will end someday but as long as people give credit to ALL who claim this and not really look any farther then this nonsense will go on until the end of time.
That’s what I want an answer to. When will it end?
tiny! tiny! You’ve gotta win this one!
www.startribune.com/politics/state/19160729.html?location_refer=Homepage
“I can only imagine that it is harder to pick up on as an atheist.”
Its probably even harder for a christian to pick up on all the advantages and accomodations they get that they take for granted.
“As a caucasion, I feel discriminated against all the time.”
How so? Were you refused service or denied a job or promotion due to skin color?
“This makes it hard for the rest of us to really support your cause when we are one step away from having more rights taken away from us because we are white.”
You make it sound like an epidemic. And who is us? White people? Im white, and while Im against the idea of affirmitive action, Ive never been affected by it or known anyone affected by it.
“But its just to easy because of “Personal Failure” to pull out that…”oh its because I’m [ Blank ] excuse. I hope that will end someday but as long as people give credit to ALL who claim this and not really look any farther then this nonsense will go on until the end of time.
That’s what I want an answer to. When will it end?”
Does this go for white christians to who feel descriminated against and claim they are having rights taken away from them? I mean if we are going to hold everyone to account and ask them to stop complaining about missed opportunity due to race or some other destinction, lets be real about it.
All I know is that in terms of descrimination and avoiding it, Id rather be a white christian than anything.
“Its probably even harder for a christian to pick up on all the advantages and accomodations they get that they take for granted.”
Why do you be specific about those “advantages” and “accomodations”, do you have more than the old, tired “schools serve fish on Friday” tragedy?
“How so? Were you refused service or denied a job or promotion due to skin color?”
Are you so limited in your thinking that those are the only two possibilities?
“Im white, and while Im against the idea of affirmitive action, Ive never been affected by it or known anyone affected by it.”
Hey, thank goodness, I thought there still might be an isse but 4b hasn’t been affected and doesn’t know anyone affected so that must mean everything is ok- thank you for letting us know 4b, please keep us posted on any future developments, ok?
“Are you so limited in your thinking that those are the only two possibilities?”
No. Those were just the two I suggested.
“Hey, thank goodness, I thought there still might be an isse but 4b hasn’t been affected and doesn’t know anyone affected so that must mean everything is ok- thank you for letting us know 4b, please keep us posted on any future developments, ok? ”
Oh I get it. We can tell everyone else to shut up about their plight but we should be ultra senstive to the poor white man. I love the poor wow is me white man attitude. Constantly afflicted by descrimination. Such a cross to bare.
“Why do you be specific about those “advantages” and “accomodations”, do you have more than the old, tired “schools serve fish on Friday” tragedy?”
Better yet, why dont you enlighten me about all the trials a christian goes through in america on a daily basis. Its SOOOOOO hard to be a christian here that a candidate for president cant win unless they profess how christian they are.
“Oh I get it. We can tell everyone else to shut up about their plight but we should be ultra senstive to the poor white man. I love the poor wow is me white man attitude. Constantly afflicted by descrimination. Such a cross to bare.”
Like I said, soooooooo limited.
“Better yet, why dont you enlighten me about all the trials a christian goes through in america on a daily basis.”
Based on your answer, I’m guessing you have absolutely no examples to back up your claims, wow, I’m stunned.
I do sympathize with you though 4b, it’s so trying to be atheist in this society, I know you get dragged into prayer circles on a daily basis.
“Its probably even harder for a christian to pick up on all the advantages and accomodations they get that they take for granted.”
You know what, you don’t get a pass on this moronic statement, back up your whiny, lil’ claim, give me some examples, c’mon, let’s see ‘em.
“Like I said, soooooooo limited.”
You’re right. The other day a guy called me a honky.
“I do sympathize with you though 4b, it’s so trying to be atheist in this society, I know you get dragged into prayer circles on a daily basis.”
Im not descrimintaed against and I dont b:tch about it. I dont b:tch about being an atheist or white. I dont like other people b:tching about their “descrimination” problems and that goes for wh:te christians too. Everyone needs to shut the F up.
“Based on your answer, I’m guessing you have absolutely no examples to back up your claims, wow, I’m stunned.”
My guess is you have none either. Tell me all about the hardship of being a christian.
“I love the poor wow is me white man attitude. Constantly afflicted by descrimination. Such a cross to bare.”
Unfortunately, this doesn’t have to do with reality as much as it has to do with your incredibly sheltered, silver sppon, private education background. There’s actually a whole big world out there that you have absolutely no knowledge of and your posts reflect that.
“You know what, you don’t get a pass on this moronic statement, back up your whiny, lil’ claim, give me some examples, c’mon, let’s see ‘em.”
What are you the blog hall monitor?
“private education background.”
I knew it. Jealousy.
“There’s actually a whole big world out there that you have absolutely no knowledge of and your posts reflect that.”
And youd know all about that.
“Im not descrimintaed against and I dont b:tch about it. I dont b:tch about being an atheist or white”
Yeah, right, how many times have you whined and cried on here about those religion bullies and all the terrible things you encounter trying to go through life not believing in something, jeezus, now you sound like EBF trying to re-write history.
“I knew it. Jealousy”
Resorting to cute little lines instead of actually anything of substance, again, I’m stunned. You don’t refute it becasue you can’t.
“And youd know all about that.”
Yeah, which part do you want to know about? Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to understand, just keep those blinders on and none of your precious little, misguided beliefs will be threatened.
“What are you the blog hall monitor?”
Yes, so, again, give us some examples to back up your earlier claims, can you do it, do you have any at all?
or, gasp, were you just throwing out weak little jabs based on absolutely nothing at all, I can’t imagine you would do that (without papers).
“Yeah, right, how many times have you whined and cried on here about those religion bullies and all the terrible things you encounter trying to go through life not believing in something, jeezus, now you sound like EBF trying to re-write history”
5, 6 times maybe. You remind me of an old blooger I used to know.
“Resorting to cute little lines instead of actually anything of substance, again, I’m stunned. You don’t refute it becasue you can’t.”
Oh, I can, this is just more fun getting you to piss your pants in anger.
“Yeah, which part do you want to know about? Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to understand, just keep those blinders on and none of your precious little, misguided beliefs will be threatened”
My life? Tell me all about what I know and dont. This is a blog moron and what I contribute doesnt sum up the depth of my experience as a human.
“Oh, I can, this is just more fun getting you to piss your pants in anger.”
Actually, 4b, you have no effect on me whatsoever but your arrogance is duly noted, do you actually think I could be bothered by what some uninformed lil’ kid thinks?
But let’s get back to your “claim”, you said you can provide some examples, let’s hear ‘em. C’mon, do something original, back up your claims.
“This is a blog moron and what I contribute doesnt sum up the depth of my experience as a human.”
Exactly so why are you the guy on here every single day putting up posts that more or elss plead with everyone, “please think I’m cool, please think I’m cool”, it’s actually pathetic but hey, what do I know, I’m not the guy who only dresses in boots, jeans and t-shirts to be like James Dean. I am actually embarrassed for you having written that.
“My life? Tell me all about what I know and dont.”
Oh, I forgot, you have life mentors who can tell you about the real world.
“what I contribute doesnt sum up the depth of my experience as a human.”
Your depth of experience as a human? Seriously, did you just write that or were you watching Oprah again, honest to goodness 4b, you need to have prescription for testosterone filled, you are way low.
I’m sorry if I upset you 4b, it’s just fun to call you on your bs and knock you around sometimes, I just hope I wasn’t too rough with you and now you are sitting in the bathroom drawing pictures of sad clowns.
Don’t worry though, I will leave you alone now, you’ve grown tiresome- it’s like I said before, i’m a cat, you are a ball of yarn and the novelty wears off pretty quickl
“Actually, 4b, you have no effect on me whatsoever but your arrogance is duly noted, do you actually think I could be bothered by what some uninformed lil’ kid thinks?”
Yes I do. Your 15 posts directed at me this morning gives it away.
“But let’s get back to your “claim”, you said you can provide some examples, let’s hear ‘em. C’mon, do something original, back up your claims.”
All in due to time. be patient.
“Exactly so why are you the guy on here every single day putting up posts that more or elss plead with everyone, “please think I’m cool, please think I’m cool”, it’s actually pathetic but hey, what do I know, I’m not the guy who only dresses in boots, jeans and t-shirts to be like James Dean. I am actually embarrassed for you having written that.”
Wow, now Im scared that you remembered that. I thought it was of no consequence but for you to have remembered that is really scary. But you right, nothing I say on this blog matters to you.
D2 says-
“Even the main Muslim pressure group CAIR has leaders who openly admit that they would like to see our Constitution done away with and have us turned into the Islamic States of America.”
Don’t you think Catholics would like it to be the Catholis States of America?? Or the Jewish states of America for the Jews?? Isn’t a main point of most major religions conversion?? Wouldn’t any religious person like to see our country united under their one religion?? I don’t see anything wrong with this wish as long as you still accept that that’s not the way it is and you attempt to gain that goal through peaceful means. I think it is a commendable goal.
“Oh, I forgot, you have life mentors who can tell you about the real world.”
There is a blast from the past. Do you keep notes on me or what?
“Don’t worry though, I will leave you alone now, you’ve grown tiresome- it’s like I said before, i’m a cat, you are a ball of yarn and”
Yu got one thing right. Youre the cat. The difference is Ive got the lazer pointer and apparently you’ve been chasing it for about a year. Well Im glad to know Ive got a blog stocker.
“Its probably even harder for a christian to pick up on all the advantages and accomodations they get that they take for granted.”
I don’t think this is the case. I am very aware that in my neighborhood I can get glanced over by cops because I’m white. I know it’s true, and I appreciate it. It helps to not live in a suburb where cops have little better to do than write tickets. And that’s certainly not a cheap shot at suburban cops, it’s just the way it is. Nothing wrong with policing a safer city.
“Were you refused service or denied a job or promotion due to skin color?”
No, I have never been denied any of these things. I was more talking about affirmative action. Plenty of white people have been denied access to a better education b/c they are white. Isn’t that racist?? Is it less racist because it is against whites?? The government seems to think so.
“All I know is that in terms of descrimination and avoiding it, Id rather be a white christian than anything.”
Really?? As a white christian, I feel we are the floormat that the media wipes their shoes on every day. Who is the one group of people that it is totally PC to make fun of?? Countless number of times I’ve been looked at like I’m a racist. Why?? If I don’t like someone of another race or religion, I’m a racist and intollerant. Maybe the person is just an a$$ and I don’t like them.
If you see a prosperous black man, don’t you sometimes say(maybe deep down inside), “Good for him for doing something with his life.”?? Would you ever think that about another white bank manager?? Of course not. I say F that. I say good for anyone who does something with their life, but that’s what they should be doing. They talk about how blacks have to overcome SO many obstacles to be successful in life. Aren’t they in the same schools, getting the exact same education as everyone else?? If they actually pay attention in class and try in school, they should be able to do something with their life and they will have a better chance of it than their white classmate because of affirmative action.
Anyways, that’s my point, although i don’t think it’s very well phrased. Much more rambling disconnected though than points.
“Plenty of white people have been denied access to a better education b/c they are white. Isn’t that racist??”
Sure it is. If you’re pointing out a double standrard I get the point. If you’re claiming its a society of racism against whites we live in I disagree.
“Who is the one group of people that it is totally PC to make fun of?? ”
Muslims? I see people make fun of muslims everyday. But yes people make fun of christians. Shake it off Id say. You still live in a country where the majority is christian and share your values. Anyway its the ultra conservatives that seem to get the bad wrap.
“Countless number of times I’ve been looked at like I’m a racist. ”
Well those people are idiots. But Im not sure thats descrimination.
“I am very aware that in my neighborhood I can get glanced over by cops because I’m white.”
You think you’re targeted by the cops due to your race? I live in South Minneapolis too and I see the cops hassle everyone.
“You think you’re targeted by the cops due to your race? I live in South Minneapolis too and I see the cops hassle everyone.”
No, by glanced over, I meant that they don’t look at me twice because they see a white person who is reasonable dressed and don’t spend a second more thinking about me. I am saying that because I am white, I get something like a free pass from police in this area. I think if I were black, I would probably be watched more closely. This was my example of how being white can be advantageous and how I am aware of it.
“Muslims? I see people make fun of muslims everyday.”
Really?? Because when KK did her article about the school, it seems like a lot of people were saying how if it were teaching Christian morals, people would blow up(no pun intended) about it. People would be infuriated. Instead, Rep Greiling calls for her to get fired.
“Shake it off Id say.”
For the most part I do. I don’t feel discriminated against on the average day(in my personal life at least), so it really doesn’t bother me that much. It is just something that I wish didn’t happen and thought I would bring up. And I wanted to give props to Tiny.
“No, by glanced over, I meant that they don’t look at me twice because they see a white person who is reasonable dressed and don’t spend a second more thinking about me. I am saying that because I am white, I get something like a free pass from police in this area. I think if I were black, I would probably be watched more closely. This was my example of how being white can be advantageous and how I am aware of it.”
Are you listening to this Big B?
“Really?? Because when KK did her article about the school, it seems like a lot of people were saying how if it were teaching Christian morals, people would blow up(no pun intended) about it. People would be infuriated. Instead, Rep Greiling calls for her to get fired.”
And how many people blew up about the Muslim school? There were all kinds of people going after that school. Look at the news coverage its gotten and all the negative press. I dont see how anyone can claim people havent been all over TIZA. People may very well have gone after a christian school too, but you cant claim this Muslim school has had an easy time explaining itself.
“For the most part I do. I don’t feel discriminated against on the average day(in my personal life at least), so it really doesn’t bother me that much. It is just something that I wish didn’t happen and thought I would bring up. And I wanted to give props to Tiny.”
I think everyone complains too much. Many times people who claim racism and descrimination against whites and christians are the first to tell others to suck it up and stop complaining about their own percieved injustices.
OK, i just wrote a whole response to your comments, but then lost it. Stupid wireless. So I am just going to sum it up.
I think the majority of the school’s bad publicity only came after the “attack” was blown way out of proportion. Not much was said about the school not being up to code before that. Of course, it all happened very fast, so maybe it was going to become a bigger deal, I don’t know. But, no, the school is not having an easy time explaining itself and it is too bad that “attack” situation happened. KSTP should just admit that it wasn’t an attack at all.
I think everyone complains too much as well. I just get sick of people complaining about white christians as if we have it so easy. In some ways we do, in some ways we don’t. It’s the same for everyone else.
I was wondering why it was so quiet in blogland, but i see another entry has been made. That must be where everyone is.
Gay marriage is inevitable. The right can spend all its time/energy/money fighting it and it will still happen in the next 50 years. Might be 3 months, might be 3 years, might be 30 years, but it’s going to happen. The march of human rights being extended in free societies has been inexorably toward more freedoms, with only slight hiccups along the way, such as prohibition.
It WILL happen. So live bitterly afraid if you want, but partnering/nesting in general is a universal basic, positive human instinct and it’s only natural that basic human instincts are protected when they are between consenting legal adults.
“KSTP should just admit that it wasn’t an attack at all.”
Check out the change in verbage on KKs column from yeterday. Now it was a “confrontation” and a “Scuffle”.
“I think the majority of the school’s bad publicity only came after the “attack” was blown way out of proportion. ”
I disagree. The bulk of the reporting was done by KK and others before the attack. Why else would the new media be on school grounds. TIZA got caught and is paying the price. They arent getting a pass.
“I just get sick of people complaining about white christians as if we have it so easy. In some ways we do, in some ways we don’t. It’s the same for everyone else.”
Compared to the others, if I had to make a list, Id put christians and whites at the bottom of descriminated classes.
“I disagree.”
And you could be right about this one. I may not have payed close enough attention to what happened when. But I am willing to bet that there are 10 times as many reporters at the school now because of this “attack.” Unless police have banned them(cross your fingers).
“Compared to the others, if I had to make a list, Id put christians and whites at the bottom of descriminated classes.”
Let me put it this way. If I meet someone who is not white, I feel like i have to be extra nice to them just so they won’t think me a racist. If I meet another white person, I am perfectly comfortable being an a$$hole to them if I feel the situation warrants it. I don’t like having to be extra nice and not being able to be myself and call people out on their bull sh!t just because I don’t want to be called racist.
“If I meet someone who is not white, I feel like i have to be extra nice to them just so they won’t think me a racist.”
I cant help you there. I have no problem giving someone sh:t when its called for, black, mulsim hispanic etc etc. A55hole is a55hole.
” I don’t like having to be extra nice and not being able to be myself and call people out on their bull sh!t just because I don’t want to be called racist.”
Minnesota nice is a real b:tch. Let them call you a racist, who cares. As long as you are looking beyond their race or religion who cares?
“Let them call you a racist, who cares.”
You know, in almost every situation, I don’t care what people think. But for some reason the racist thing bothers me a lot. I think it’s because my parents moved to south minneapolis so that us kids would not be racist despite sending us to private, all-white schools. I should learn to let it go.
I love living in south minneapolis. I love the different people in my neighborhood. But if you go around worried about being considered a racist, I think people can smell that on you and maybe push you around a little as a way to get the upper hand?
From an intellectual standpoint, I can’t think of a more meaningless putdown than being called a racist. I can be dangerous to be labeled one however, especially in the workplace, so you’re pretty much obligated to defend yourself.
” ‘As a caucasion, I feel discriminated against all the time.’ ‘How so? Were you refused service or denied a job or promotion due to skin color? ‘ ”
The school where I did my MBA had a bidding system in order to allocate interview spots with companies. They also had a mixer beforehand when you could talk with the recruiters to find out a bit more about the company, to better allocate your bidding points. I was twice told by recruiters during the mixer not to spend points on their company, because they weren’t hiring white males.
I later got a job with a company that is famous for its ‘progressive’ HR policy. I remember conducting interviews for interns one year where we brought in 5 or 6 people, not one of them a white male. I had a conversation with one of them, black man from the Ivory Coast, where we touched a bit on the subject (very little - see my comment at the beginning of this post) and he told me that he found the whole affirmative action program bizarre, seeing as how he, a foreign student, was receiving beneficial treatment over Americans, but, as he said almost with a blush, “I’m not going to turn anything down”. After the round of interviews, we met to make a decision on the intern. In the room, a white woman (the manager), a Hispanic man, a black man, and a white man (me). The manager started by putting up the names of the potential hires and attributes on which we would rank them. First attribute - “diversity”. The manager started out with “Now while we don’t want to hire anyone based just on race or sex” - even though we’d only brought in women and minorities - “we need to keep our diversity goals in mind, so the first candidate, Dorothy, gets two checks because she is a black, woman; Ray gets one check as a Hispanic man, …” and so on an so forth.
Back in 86 (that was a long time ago), I was hired by a quasi-goverment, technology-consulting agency in Boston, where affirmative action programs were particularly strongly enforced. All the new hires came from programs such as Stanford, Rice, MIT, Dartmouth, Duke, with one exception: U Mass - Boston. Don’t know what it’s like now, but at the time, that school didn’t have much of a reputation. The hire from UMass? You guessed it, a black man. Turns out that we became pretty good friends, and he was definitely as smart as anyone there, but he told me he wasn’t even a good student at UMass, and he’d flunked out of Notre Dame before that: not due to lack of intelligence, but rather too much partying. And he didn’t dodge the issue at all; he’d tell you straight away that he’d never have been hired if he wasn’t black.
Affirmative action/Diversity programs definitely made sense in the 60’s and 70’s, probably did in the 80’s, in my opinion where already questionable in the 90’s, and are now very hard to justify.
Should be “It can be dangerous …”
DJ says:
***********************
D2 says-
“Even the main Muslim pressure group CAIR has leaders who openly admit that they would like to see our Constitution done away with and have us turned into the Islamic States of America.”
Don’t you think Catholics would like it to be the Catholis States of America?? Or the Jewish states of America for the Jews?? Isn’t a main point of most major religions conversion??
**********************
I don’t believe that’s true in Infidel religions. For example, I’m Lutheran but would much rather vote for a conservative Jew, Catholic, or Hindu over a liberal Lutheran.
Gopher says-
“he told me that he found the whole affirmative action program bizarre, seeing as how he, a foreign student, was receiving beneficial treatment over Americans, but, as he said almost with a blush, “I’m not going to turn anything down”.”
Thank you for sharing. I certainly don’t blame this man for taking advantage. I don’t see it as fault of blacks, but a fault of the government’s.
4Blahs says-
“But if you go around worried about being considered a racist, I think people can smell that on you and maybe push you around a little as a way to get the upper hand?”
I agree with you that this can happen. But I never let it get to the point of letting them push me around. If that starts to happen, they can call me a racist all they want, but I’m not going to put up with it.
D2 says-
“I don’t believe that’s true in Infidel religions. For example, I’m Lutheran but would much rather vote for a conservative Jew, Catholic, or Hindu over a liberal Lutheran.”
What about a conservative Muslim?? Reading your blogs, I still feel like you don’t appreciate their religion at all. And are you saying you really wouldn’t want the United States to be united under your religion?? Wouldn’t that be ideal if everyone believed in most of the same things(although, obviously, even within every religion, there are different opinions).
“Minnesotans can draw two lessons from the California decision. First, it vindicates the approach taken by the proposed Minnesota marriage amendment, which the Minnesota House of Representatives passed in 2006 but the DFL-controlled Senate killed by keeping it bottled up in committee. The amendment would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions.”
That bill died in committee because it was the right thing to do, the Minnesota Legislature is too smart to write blatant discrimination into our state constitution. Do I have to remind people that this is Minnesota, not Alabama, Georgia or Texas. An unusually high percentage of people in our wonderful state have achieved a higher education and we know better. Like it or not, secular Gay marriage will come to Minnesota, we are rarely the first with liberal/fair minded policies like these, but its also rare that we are lower than 10th on the list of states to grant such rights. It is part of our proud Minnesota history, at least the last 40 years of our history.
Again I think I need to remind many of the people who write socially conservative responses in this blog where they live, please see this map and look where Minnesota is, thank goodness for Minnesota:
Marriage is a meme. A meme is an unexamined behavior as a result of place…memes replicate like a virus. Please look the term up. Now apply it to yourself. There are lots of memes in our society…they should be examined closely to rid us of these infectious behaviors that are dividing us. Creating legislation based on memes is simply not very intelligent, IMHO.
Additionally, there are too many narrow minds in both political parties.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution provides equal protection under the law. Brown v. the Board of Education established that “separate but equal” is unconstitutional because it does not provide equal protection under the law. Offering civil unions as a “separate but equal” alternative is also unconstitutional.
Please leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Katherine Kersten writes a weekly column for the Star Tribune's Sunday Opinion Exchange section. The column covers a broad range of topics reflecting her experiences and interests.
In this blog, she will address many of the same issues, albeit in quicker, less formal fashion, along with pointing readers to other sources of interesting online commentary and coverage.
Subscribe to Katherine Kersten
Learn more about RSS
Books I Love
- Underdevelopment is a State of Mind - Lawrence E. Harrison
- The Schools We Need: Why We Don’t Have Them – E.D. Hirsch
- The Closing of the American Mind – Allan Bloom
- The Repeal of Reticence – Rochelle Gurstein
- Political Pilgrims – Paul Hollander
- The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism – Michael Novak
- A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
- Adam Bede – George Eliot
- The Brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevsky
- The Lord of the Rings -- J. R. R. Tolkein
Great Minnesota Blogs
Indispensible Think Tanks
Movies You Won't Forget
On Education
- Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
- Center for Education Reform
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Intercollegiate Studies Institute
On Marriage and the Family
Sites You Shouldn't Miss
Categories
- 2008 GOP Convention (11)
- Abstinence (3)
- ACLU (3)
- ADA (1)
- Adoption (1)
- Adversary Culture (3)
- Affirmative Action (3)
- AIDS (2)
- Airlines (1)
- Airport Taxi Drivers (3)
- Al Franken (5)
- Al Gore (3)
- Al Sharpton (1)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Animal Rights (3)
- Anti-Americans (1)
- art (1)
- Assisted Suicide (1)
- Athletics (1)
- Bikes (5)
- Bill Clinton (1)
- Bin Laden (1)
- Boy Scouts (1)
- Boys (2)
- Brainerd Lakes (1)
- Bridge (1)
- Bridge Collapse (8)
- British (1)
- Canada (1)
- Charter schools (1)
- Children (14)
- China (1)
- Chris Stewert (1)
- Christianity (8)
- Christmas (6)
- Cities (2)
- Clarence Thomas (1)
- Collectors (1)
- Colleges (24)
- Congress (2)
- Conservatism (8)
- Constitution (5)
- Contraception (1)
- Courts (9)
- Courtship (1)
- Crime (12)
- Critical Mass (2)
- Culture Wars (6)
- Cyberspace (1)
- Darwin (1)
- Dating (2)
- Dawkins (1)
- Death (2)
- Death Penalty (2)
- Delta Queen (2)
- Discrimination (8)
- Disneyland (1)
- Diversity (9)
- Divorce (2)
- Don Samuels (1)
- Drugs (5)
- Economics (10)
- Education (32)
- Emperor has no clothes (1)
- Energy Policy (1)
- Environmental Issues (11)
- Ethanol (2)
- Eugenics (1)
- Europe (8)
- Evil (1)
- Experts (1)
- Falwell (1)
- Fathers (4)
- Feminists (3)
- First Minnesota Volunteers (1)
- Flying Imams (12)
- Francis of Assisi (1)
- Free Speech (2)
- free will (1)
- Gambling (1)
- Garrison Keillor (2)
- Gas Prices (1)
- Gay Issues (4)
- Gay Marriage (8)
- George Washington (1)
- Germany (1)
- Global Warming (11)
- government gone wild (2)
- Happiness (4)
- Hate Crimes (3)
- Health Care (10)
- Hillary Clinton (2)
- Home Schooling (2)
- Huck Finn (1)
- Indomitable Human Spirit (6)
- Intellectual Freedom (1)
- Iran (1)
- Iraq (22)
- Islam (3)
- James Lileks (1)
- Jane Fonda (1)
- Joe Lieberman (2)
- John Edwards (1)
- John Kerry (2)
- John McCain (2)
- John Wesley Powell (1)
- Journalists (2)
- Keith Ellison (5)
- Larry Craig (1)
- law enforcement (3)
- Lawyers (3)
- Legislature (5)
- Lori Swanson (1)
- Love (2)
- Main (555)
- Manhood (3)
- Mark Ritchie (1)
- Marriage (14)
- Media (9)
- medical ethics (1)
- Melancholia (1)
- Michael Moore (1)
- Michael Vick (1)
- Michelle Bachmann (2)
- Mike Hatch (2)
- Military (19)
- Mitt Romney (1)
- Monster Houses (1)
- Morality (12)
- Mortgage Crises (2)
- Mother Teresa (1)
- Movies (3)
- Multiculturalism (4)
- Museums (1)
- Music (1)
- Muslims (17)
- Nancy Pelosi (1)
- Navy SEALs (1)
- New Orleans (1)
- Norm Coleman (3)
- Norman Borlaug (1)
- North Korea (1)
- Novels (1)
- Obama (10)
- Oberstar (2)
- Olympics (1)
- Outward Bound (1)
- Overcoming (1)
- Parenting (10)
- Peter Singer (2)
- Peter Swanson (1)
- Political Correctness (3)
- Political Pilgrims (1)
- Politics (68)
- Popular Entertainment (3)
- Pornography (3)
- Poverty (5)
- Princess Diana (1)
- Prostitution (1)
- psychology (1)
- Race (16)
- Rachel Paulose (2)
- Radical Islam (3)
- Rap Music (3)
- Religion (21)
- Rights Talk (7)
- ROTC (1)
- Salvation Army (1)
- Sara Jane Olson (1)
- Sarah Palin (4)
- Science (15)
- Self Esteem (2)
- Sexual Infidelity (1)
- Sexuality (16)
- Single Parents (1)
- Sixties (1)
- Skewering the Author (4)
- Slavery (1)
- Smoking (2)
- Social Security (1)
- Solzhenitsyn (1)
- Somalis (2)
- Sports (1)
- Statistics (1)
- STDs (1)
- Stem Cells (2)
- Suicide (1)
- Sustainability (1)
- Sweden (1)
- Tatoos (1)
- Taxes (6)
- Terrorism (6)
- There for Another (8)
- Think Again Readers (5)
- Thomas More (2)
- Tim Pawlenty (6)
- TIZA (6)
- Tobacco (1)
- Transgender (1)
- University of MN (2)
- Ventura (2)
- Video games (2)
- Vietnam (5)
- Violence and the Media (1)
- Virtues and Values (9)
- Voting (3)
- Wal-Mart (1)
- Wealth and Poverty (6)
- Welfare (4)
- Western Culture (1)
- Woodstock (1)
- World War II (2)
- Young People (18)
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006