Paving the way for gay marriage in Minnesota
October 20th, 2008 – 7:20 AMBelow the radar, the groundwork is being laid to change the meaning of marriage in Minnesota.
The new “Rights of Unmarried Couples Task Force” of the Minnesota State Bar Association is the latest step in this process.
Here’s how the Bar Association defined the task force’s mission: “In light of the disparity between legal rights and protections available to same-sex couples as compared to different-sex couples,” the task force will “review the current state of Minnesota law and … make recommendations as to desirable changes, if any, in the law to address this disparity.”
“The task force’s goal is to ensure that Minnesota law treats all people equally and with fairness,” said attorney David Ahlvers, a task force co-chairman. “It is not to make recommendations on equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.”
Many Americans want to protect one-man, one-woman marriage, but they also resonate to the fairness argument — and to moving stories of same-sex couples who lack the hospital visitation and insurance rights that married heterosexual couples enjoy. Some states have responded by enacting “domestic partnership” or “civil union” laws as a way to preserve traditional marriage while bestowing many of its government benefits on gays.
California’s domestic partnership law, enacted in 1999, is a prime example. The law permitted two same-sex individuals to register and qualify for a range of government benefits. Over the years, the legislature added more benefits, and eventually gay “domestic partners” had virtually all the rights of married couples under state law.
Connecticut’s civil union statute, enacted in 2005, was more sweeping and immediate in its impact. It conferred all the legal advantages of marriage on gay couples in one stroke.
Now, however, it’s clear that these legislative attempts at fairness have backfired. In the past few months, the Supreme Courts in both California and Connecticut have struck down their state’s domestic partnership or civil unions law as unconstitutional under their state constitutions, and have required that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples.
The two courts used similar reasoning. They acknowledged that, under the new arrangements, gay couples enjoyed the same rights as heterosexual couples.
In the California case, however, the court 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, it said, withholding the marriage label from gays is a “mark of second-class citizenship.”
Last week, the Connecticut court reached a similar conclusion. “Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law,” said the court, by creating civil unions, the legislature had relegated same-sex couples “to an inferior status.”
These two decisions reveal that domestic partnership and civil union laws — often touted as a compromise that protects marriage — are in fact likely to hasten the demise of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
States that want to protect their traditional marriage laws can draw two lessons:
First, if they have a domestic partnership or civil union law, they should repeal it. A court might find it unconstitutional.
Second, these states should not pass laws that give gay couples benefits similar to those of marriage. If they do, a court may find that they have created an unequal, two-tiered system of partnership, and may impose same-sex marriage as a result.
This is the context in which we must evaluate the work of the Minnesota State Bar Association’s Unmarried Couples task force.
In coming months, the task force will comb through our state’s law books, scrutinizing areas from family law and estate planning to real estate, tax, and consumer law in an effort to identify instances where married and unmarried couples are treated differently. It will issue a report with recommended changes by June 2009.
Will a well-intentioned Minnesota Legislature respond by making marriage-like government benefits available to same-sex couples, but without the marriage name?
Today, gay marriage supporters probably can’t muster the public support they would need to get a same-sex marriage bill through the Legislature. As a result, their most effective strategy is likely to chip away at the law, erasing differences in the treatment of married couples and gay couples in a piecemeal fashion until they are eliminated.
When that process is complete, Minnesota — like California and Connecticut before it — will be fertile ground for a same-sex marriage lawsuit.
The Unmarried Couples Task Force will likely move us closer to the end of traditional marriage in Minnesota, whether this is its stated intent or not.
192 Responses to "Paving the way for gay marriage in Minnesota"
There, there, Katherine. It’s OK. Really, it is. I promise!
Take a couple of deep breaths. Why not relax with a bubble bath, perhaps while listening to some relaxing music. Just this morning I heard Aaron Copland’s Down A Country Lane on MPR.
Or close your eyes and go to your happy place for a few minutes. I have two happy places. The first is Cuernavaca, Mexico, where we spent a couple of days at Max’s resort one January on a band tour. I can still feel the cool shade of the covered outdoor dining area, which looks out onto impeccably groomed flowerbeds. My other happy place is Acapulco, where we discovered a wonderful open-air second-floor restaurant that serves Midori coladas after every meal.
Cuernavaca, Katherine, Cuernavaca….
“Now, however, it’s clear that these legislative attempts at fairness have backfired. In the past few months, the Supreme Courts in both California and Connecticut have struck down their state’s domestic partnership or civil unions law as unconstitutional under their state constitutions, and have required that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples”
I’m one that believes Civil Unions should cover all the same things as marriage.
BUT I do with reservation such as the one above. “These people” like a lot of people “don’t know when to stop.
It’s the radicals in the “gay movement” that will destroy “these people’s” chances of getting Civil Unions changed to reflect all the benefits of heterosexual marriage.
It’s that “I’m special” so “I’m entitled” and I’m going to push push push push push. And then I’m going to push push push push some more.
It could be “evened up” these laws but I don’t trust the jonR’s of this world to stop there. They will next ask for “special accommodations”
BUT I do with reservation such as the one above. “These people” like a lot of people “don’t know when to stop.
Who should decide “when to stop,” tiny? Don’t gay citizens have the right to lobby for what they believe?
They will next ask for “special accommodations”
Seems to me we’ve had “special accommodations” for straight people for a long, long time….
Tiny-
I can’t believe it, but I agree with you. Civil Unions should cover exactly the same thing as Marriage. Except…Civil Unions should be for everyone, gay or straight couples. And Marriage should be left to the churches, where it belongs.
Katherine-
Gay Marriage twice within a week? Must be nearing Election Day. Time to rally the bigoted, uninformed troops.
“Who should decide “when to stop,” tiny?”
When do you stop Evil?
If you get Civil Unions laws the same as marrage will you stop?
Will you still want special accommodations in Hiring and firing? How about housing? Special accommodations in housing? Will the charges of discrimination still be raised as a excuse for bad performance ?
When will it stop Evil? You tell me?
It seems clear “you” didn’t stop in Connecticut.
So, the unspoken subtext here seems to be, if you give people a little fairness and justice, they’re going to want it all. The slippery slope to equality.
What’s wrong with that?
If you get Civil Unions laws the same as marrage will you stop?
I’d be happy with a civil union as long as it was identical to marriage. That would include the federal benefits marriage bestows.
Will you still want special accommodations in Hiring and firing? How about housing? Special accommodations in housing?
tiny, remember that there is a flip side to “accommodation.” If it’s legal to discriminate against gay people in employment and housing, it is also legal to discriminate against straight people in employment and housing. If I owned an apartment complex and refused to hire straight people to work there, would you support that? If I refused to rent to straight people, would you support that? What if I didn’t know potential employees or tenants were straight, but just assumed they were and I discriminated based on my assumption? Would you support that?
Will the charges of discrimination still be raised as a excuse for bad performance ?
I can only speak for myself, tiny, but I have never accused anyone of discriminating against me in response to a bad performance review.
It seems clear “you” didn’t stop in Connecticut.
“I” have never been to Connecticut.
Have you had a chance to relax now, Katherine? Feeling better? I do hope you’ll join our discussion today, because I have some questions about a couple of things that I hope you can explain to me.
Like your opening paragraph:
Below the radar, the groundwork is being laid to change the meaning of marriage in Minnesota.
What is the “meaning of marriage?” Who gets to decide what it means? To me it means two people who commit their love and their lives to each other. How would gay marriage change that?
Cuernavaca, Katherine, Cuernavaca….
OK, here are two more paragraphs I don’t understand:
These two decisions reveal that domestic partnership and civil union laws — often touted as a compromise that protects marriage — are in fact likely to hasten the demise of marriage as the union of one man and one woman….The Unmarried Couples Task Force will likely move us closer to the end of traditional marriage in Minnesota, whether this is its stated intent or not.
“The demise of marriage?” “The end of traditional marriage?” What would have to happen for us to know that marriage had met its ultimate demise? If there is even one opposite-sex married couple alive, can marriage be said to have met its demise? Of course you and I, being the intelligent people we are, both know that straight people will continue to enter traditional, opposite-sex marriages whether or not gay marriage is legalized. So please explain how gay marriage will cause the demise of opposite-sex marriage.
Acapulco, Katherine, Acapulco….
In coming months, the task force will comb through our state’s law books, scrutinizing areas from family law and estate planning to real estate, tax, and consumer law in an effort to identify instances where married and unmarried couples are treated differently.
Wouldn’t this be a good thing? I certainly want to be aware of these differences. It will help me and hubby plan our future – and plan for contingencies.
Cuernavaca, Katherine, Cuernavaca….
Will a well-intentioned Minnesota Legislature respond by making marriage-like government benefits available to same-sex couples, but without the marriage name?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Time will tell.
Of course we could solve this issue once and for all by doing two things. First, get the government out of the business of marriage. Leave that to religious institutions. Second, create a state-sanctioned institution of civil unions for all couples, both opposite- and same-sex. If the state were to offer the same institution to everyone, there could be no question about discrimination.
Acapulco, Katherine, Acapulco….
Two final questions for you, Katherine: Would you be willing to trade in your marriage for a civil union? If not, why should same-sex couples have to settle for civil unions?
Cuernavaca, Katherine, Cuernavaca….
I was supportive but not anymore. We were assured that it was “only” about equality but look what happened in MA, and CA shows us that it is more than that. It is about indoctrinating our children into thinking the way they what our children to think. The ‘gay movement’ has shown that they want to control what is taught to all children. Even look at what EBF wrote yesterday, he wants his way taught in school and if people don’t like it – they should home school or send their kid to a private school. (But I bet he is against vouchers.)
Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t teach my kids hate or bigotry BUT I will not stop other parents from doing so. This is a country were thoughts, feelings, and the expression (through speech) of those thoughts and feelings are not regulated, controlled, or abated. With that said, however, if those feeling and thoughts lead to actions that hurt others than those actions can be regulated, controlled or abated.
EBF
What is the “meaning of marriage?” Who gets to decide what it means?
Right. Who gets to decide. How about we let the majority decide. Considering that is the way our system is set up.
Oh wait…you don’t like our system of democracy. You want to decide for everyone.
“This I deserver this because I’m this” has got to stop in this country. One way or another we all have been discriminated against, we all get bullied and we all of felt left out. Pull you damn pants up toughing up a little and stop bitchin’
Life is not fair it never has been and it never will be.
You are not special and in the case of Homosexuality your numbers are so small as to be insignificant when compared against with other so called minorities.
No jriemerm it’s the slipper slope towards BS. that I’M SPECIAL BS. NO YOU’RE NOT…PERIOD
Listen:
“I smoke”
Discriminated against in.
Housing
Dining
Hiring
I’m also white single male age 48
Discriminated against in.
Hiring
Did I get a bad review because I’m bald?
Did I not get that job because of my race and age?
Christ we all can play that game and don’t kid yourself it’s a “game” Some people have become so proficient at it they have become millionaires.
Its nonsense. I’m tired of it. Het take your lumps just like everybody else and before you blame someone else LOOK IN THE MIRROR first
“Discriminated against in.
Housing
Dining
Hiring
I’m also white single male age 48
Discriminated against in.”
You have a Pug.
Discriminated agaist ever going into the mens shower at the gym.
Tiny
Smoking??!!! That is your example! Smoking is not a good metaphor. smoking produces something tangible - second hand smoke. Withot debating whether second hand smoke is toxic. I think people shouldn’t have to be forced to endure some tangible byproduct of another’s actions.
Now - your other examples are good. Just stick to affirmative action - that is dicriminatory against whites.
to change location says:
October 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
“The new “Rights of Unmarried Couples Task Force” of the Minnesota State Bar Association is the latest step in this process.”
No doubt working in lock step with the Minnesota State Pug Association.
to change location says:
October 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“It conferred all the legal advantages of marriage on gay couples in one stroke.”
heh heh heh, Katherine said stroke, heh heh heh
to change location says:
October 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Now everybody have you heard
If you’re in the game, then the stroke’s the word
Don’t take no rhythm, don’t take no style
Got a thirst for killin’, grab your vile…
You put your right hand out give a firm hand-shake
Talk to me about that one big break…
Spread your ear-pollution both far and wide…
Keep your contributions by your side and stroke me,
stroke me
Could be a winner boy, you move quite well…
You got your number down…
Say you’re a winner but man you’re just a sinner now
“smoking produces something tangible - second hand smoke”
EXCUSE ME?
Its called AIDS and its VERY SECOND HAND and I know for sure it KILLS people. The second hand smoke…I don’t think its killing millions.
So if second hand smoke is so bad why do we even allow gay people out in public? Second hand AIDS kills thousands threw blood transfusions and unprotect sex…MILLIONS.
Yet there they are walking the streets. Me I’m hiding in around the corner of the building.
So don’t give that “smoking isn’t a good @nalogy” BS. Its perfect!
Tiny
Ummm..I don’t know how to put this nicely so I am just going to come out and say it….ARE YOU AN IDOIT?!!
You are comparing AIDS to second hand smoke. You can’t be serious.
You don’t catch AIDS (or even know they have AIDS) from standing next to someone with AIDS. It is NOT an airborne virus.
You are affected by standing next to someone who is smoking. You smell it. You breath in the second hand smoke.
“You don’t catch AIDS (or even know they have AIDS) from standing next to someone with AIDS. It is NOT an airborne virus.”
“You are affected by getting a blood transfusion from someone who is BEING GAY. You CAN’T smell it.”
I’m sorry but I’m a still a little baffled at why the cause of the worlds AIDS epidemic hasn’t been laid at the doorstep of the Gay Community. How about a little humility for the incent lives that have been lost mainly due to the behavior of one group.
So I get a little “bent” when I hear them screaming about their rights and all that BS. How about a little shame and humility? And don’t kid yourself and try to play off your “innocence” and call me intolerant.
Get your civil union rights then shut the hell up.
Even look at what EBF wrote yesterday, he wants his way taught in school and if people don’t like it – they should home school or send their kid to a private school. (But I bet he is against vouchers.)
You’re right; I am opposed to vouchers. I see them as a way of funding private religious schools with taxpayer dollars, which I oppose.
As for wanting “my way” taught in schools, let’s remember what else I posted yesterday (additional emphasis added):
I don’t deny that this [gay marriage] is a very complicated issue, more so because it is an extremely emotional one for many people. I don’t know what the answer is. But I do feel very strongly that it is wrong to discriminate against same-sex couples, and an argument about “imposing views” seems an insufficient reason to me to deny same-sex couples rights that everyone else takes for granted. I honestly don’t understand why public schools are teaching anything at all about marriage – shouldn’t they be focusing on reading, writing, math, history, science, etc.? – but if that’s what is happening, and if some parents object to that, those parents do have other options (private school and home schooling).
As you can see, it is much more complicated than “do it my way or take your kids out of public school.” Remember that the public schools have to accommodate everyone, including GLBT kids, kids being raised by same-sex couples, and kids being raised by parents who want their kids to learn to respect and appreciate diversity.
Oh wait…you don’t like our system of democracy. You want to decide for everyone.
moi, please stop misrepresenting my position. Our system of democracy has many merits. However, it also has its flaws. I believe that there are a certain set of principles that should not be subject to a vote. Things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and other rights and freedoms listed in our Constitution. I would have serious problems with a vote that returned black people to slavery. Even if 99% of the people voted for such a thing, I would find that wrong. It wouldn’t matter to me that an overwhelming majority favored it. Sometimes the majority is wrong.
This does not mean that I “don’t like our system of democracy.” But I believe that I am allowed to point out its flaws and to fairly criticize its faults without being labeled as some kind of democracy-hater.
As for people deciding for everyone, it seems that “the people” have made decisions for me that would cause endless screams of righteous indignation were those same decisions made for them. My desire to decide for myself to marry the person of my choice does not at all mean that I want to make such a decision for others.
What you don’t seem to understand is that I advocate everyone being able to decide for themselves. I resent that “the people” have decided that I cannot marry the person I love. If “the people” had decided this for you, how would you feel?
Tiny said “bent” - heh heh heh
Tiny you need to look up what the alternative meaning of “bent”.
I think Second hand smoke has a ways to go to catch up in the “innocent lives lost due to others behavior” column. Some others ( and I can think of one ) have a much great count in the innocent lives taken column then does Second Hand smoke. Yet that’s been labeled a “Lifestyle”
EBF
I resent that “the people” have decided that I cannot marry the person I love. If “the people” had decided this for you, how would you feel?
NOBODY is stopping you from marrying anyone you want; you are not being arrested or prosecuted for marrying someone of the same sex.
Again, and I will say slowly for you…..
YOU CAN MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME SEX - THE PERSON YOU LOVE - NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU!!!
What your argument is really is — you want your marriage to the person of the same sex to be recognized by gov’t or by the “people”.
You want to force ‘the people’ into recognizing something they don’t want to recognize. You want to force people into doing something they don’t want to do. Thats tyranny.
My life’s in jeopardy
Murdered in cold blood is what I’m gonna be
I ain’t been home since Friday night
And now my wife is coming after me
Give me police protection
Gonna buy a gun so
I can look after number one
Give me a bodyguard
A black belt Judo expert with a machine gun
Gonna buy a tank and an aeroplane
When she catches up with me
Won’t be no time to explain
She thinks I’ve been with another woman
And that’s enough to send her half insane
Gonna buy a fast car
Put on my lead boots
And take a long, long drive
I may end up spending all my money
But I’ll still be alive
My Wife
The Who (Entwhistle)
Listen the Elasticity of this “my rights” Bull Sh^t ran it course with me a few years ago.
It means NOTHING, NOTHING and is just one big giant all encompassing never ending excuse for people.
MOI, while I don’t consider the smoking ban “discrimination,” I do think it is a bad law. I think it should be left up to the restaurants. There were many better solutions than an all out statewide ban. For example, what they did originally was fine. I believe it was Minneapolis was smoke free, St. Paul wasn’t. So if smoking meant that much to you, you could choose where you wanted to go and had the option of smoking or smoke free. They also had smoking sections, which were walled off from the rest of the bar/restaurant. For some reason, this wasn’t good enough for people. And now we have a statewide ban that is threatening to expand to include people’s apartments and even their homes. I think they’re going a bit overboard.
“Katherine-
Gay Marriage twice within a week? Must be nearing Election Day. Time to rally the bigoted, uninformed troops. ”
THAT’S exactly why people turn away. You start labeling them one way or another and they’re turned off.
People are sick of the ‘fringes’ on each side controlling what happens to our country - you’re response is part of the fringe trying to push something reasonable into something questioned.
I doubt there’s anyone on this blog that disagrees with the premise that those wishing to be in a same-sex relationship should be able to and have the same rights. There are many who have some doubt about what it should be called .. big deal.
There is a slippery slope, but it exists because of again, fringe elements. Somehow, the voices of reason are being quelled and that more than anything needs to end.
Time to rally the bigoted, uninformed troops
What? Is someone talking about me behind my back? Oh, wait… nevermind…
How about we let the majority decide. Considering that is the way our system is set up.
How about we let the courts decide. Considering that is the way our system is set up.
I think in addresssing these marriage equality issues we should consider Katherine’s own words, from her recent post about the place of religion in political dialog:
Secular reason alone could not win the battle for “equal rights.” Success there sprang from transcendent principle—a view of each individual’s relationship with God.
This view holds that we are equal because we are made “in the image and likeness of God.” Our Declaration of Independence states it clearly: “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It’s no accident that many of our important civil rights leaders were also religious leaders. The concept of “unalienable rights” has given birth – not only to the civil rights movement for racial minorities — but also to the women’s rights movement, the right-to-life movement, and others.
Ya’see, Jesus has put us on the dialetical path to equality for all. Sure, it wasn’t until 1,865 years after his death that slavery was ended in the United States. There were even people before the Civil War that thought Jesus approved of slavery as a righteous institution but now we know better. There were mistaken religious people who thought that Jesus didn’t want women to vote, but now think otherwise, at least most of us. It may take time to figure out this gay marriage thing, but the city on the hill is still very much under construction, and I suspect that marriage for gay people is in the blueprint. That tower will be built, despite the best efforts of people like Michelle Bachmann to jackhammer its foundations.
Speaking of Michelle Bachmann, if I were a political cartoonist I think I’d draw her into that scene at the end of Dr. Strangelove where the guy is riding the falling bomb. The little penguin in the corner would be saying, “the craziest thing is, she told the bombardier to aim it at her own campaign office.”
“How about we let the majority decide. Considering that is the way our system is set up.”
“How about we let the courts decide. Considering that is the way our system is set up.”
Wow Dan what High School text book where you reading? Honest to god!
You’re a little mixed up my friend
Slim Pickens ..
“Well boys .. it looks like we’re gonna go toe-to-toe with those Rooshkies”
Fluid.
Women can vote?
“Women can vote?”
I pity you if you’re wife/SO or mother see that.
Of course, all the while I’ll be laughing.
Wow! Katherine must be channeling Lee Atwater. We have a historic election with an opportunity to make history regardless of which ticket wins. There are major policy issues between the candidates which impact all Americans.
And, Lady Katherine chooses to run with a wedge issue.
I don’t blame you Katherine. With the Bush record ’round McCain’s neck, I would want to talk about just anything else too.
Why not another column setting for the genius of President George W. Bush and his Iraq policy. Or, how about how George W. Bush was really smart by letting the financial crisis build until it just about took down the banking system.
Come on Katherine, the gay marriage issue AGAIN? Hasn’t Kieth Ellison done something to annoy you so you can once again tell us how personally messed up he is. He IS a muslim you know…
Unfortunately Greg, I have none of those. So I am in the clear.
“Unfortunately Greg, I have none of those. So I am in the clear. ”
Sorry for the lose, and hope for the potential… sincerly.
“I’m sorry but I’m a still a little baffled at why the cause of the worlds AIDS epidemic hasn’t been laid at the doorstep of the Gay Community. How about a little humility for the incent lives that have been lost mainly due to the behavior of one group.”
By far, the gay community is the group that has suffered the most from the AIDS epidemic, at least in this nation.
The next few years consisted of the Reagan admin fighting efforts to provide funding for AID’s research.
Also, when it became known it was the gay community was the primary victim of the disease, we had many “religious” groups out there claiming it was God’s punishment for the sins of the gay community.
I’d call that “laying the cause at their doorstep”.
Hey, EBF,
How do you do the indent thing when quoting a passage of someone else’s text?
I’d prefer that to italics.
The is a test
Do not be alarmed.
It is only a test
DAR
use the word “blockquote” instead of the letter “i”
Something a bit less serious, but cool.
www.thebizzare.com/cool/hubble-telescopes-top-ten-greatest-space-photographs/
Thanks Greg. But I’m young and there is plenty of time, and I’m not in any huge hurry.
KK, thanks for telling us about the wonderful efforts of the MnSBA. I intend to contact them and offer my cooperation and experiences with anti-gay discrimination.
Over the years, the [California] legislature added more benefits, and eventually gay “domestic partners” had virtually all the rights of married couples under state law.
“Virtually all” is not “all” so there was no equality under CA law.
The two courts used similar reasoning. They acknowledged that, under the new arrangements, gay couples enjoyed the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Huh? In paragraph 6 you stated that CA couples had “virtually all” the same rights, now you declare they had the same rights. You contradict yourself.
These two decisions reveal that domestic partnership and civil union laws — often touted as a compromise that protects marriage — are in fact likely to hasten the demise of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Considering that in 2005 Minnesota granted more divorce decrees than marriage licenses, you don’t need the help of the GLBT community for that one.
First, if they have a domestic partnership or civil union law, they should repeal it. A court might find it unconstitutional.
And what would happen to the couples whose relationships are now recognized by states under law. Are you suggesting retroactively revoking their legal standing?
Second, these states should not pass laws that give gay couples benefits similar to those of marriage.
I agree…the laws should grant ALL the benefits.
In coming months, the task force will comb through our state’s law books, scrutinizing areas from family law and estate planning to real estate, tax, and consumer law in an effort to identify instances where married and unmarried couples are treated differently.
KK, don’t wait for the report. Just go to project515″dot”org and read about the 500+ ways gays and lesbians, individually, and couples face discrimination under MN law. Who knows…you might learn something.
As a result, their most effective strategy is likely to chip away at the law, erasing differences in the treatment of married couples and gay couples in a piecemeal fashion until they are eliminated.
The so-called “pro life” movement has been using the same tactic with regards to Roe v Wade…trying to pass state laws to “chip away” at the decision. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
MOI writes, “YOU CAN MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME SEX - THE PERSON YOU LOVE - NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU!!!”
If you define “marriage” as the civil contract recognized under MN law, this statement is not true in Minnesota. If you define “marriage” as a religious rite absent the government granted and recognized civil contract, the statement is true…within some churches.
MOI writes, “You want to force ‘the people’ into recognizing something they don’t want to recognize. You want to force people into doing something they don’t want to do. Thats tyranny.”
Was it “tyranny” when the USSC handed down Loving and forced inter-racial marriage “to be recognized by gov’t or by the “people””? Was it “tryanny” when the USSC handed down Brown and forced the people to accept the fact that separate-but-equal was/is unconstitutional? Was it “tyranny” when President Truman forced the racial integration of the Armed Forces?
JonR
Was it “tyranny” when the USSC handed down Loving and forced inter-racial marriage “to be recognized by gov’t or by the “people””?
Loving v Virginia overturned laws that CRIMINALIZED and PUNISHED inter-racial marriages. Nobody is criminalizing or punishing gay marriage.
Was it “tryanny” when the USSC handed down Brown and forced the people to accept the fact that separate-but-equal was/is unconstitutional?
Brown was based on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was voted by the majority.
You need to get your facts straight.
Hi, all,
I would rather stay out of this discussion, because my cold is still going, and I’ve got too much stuff to do.
But I will make one comment, and that is that “equal” and “equitable” are not the same thing.
Here’s an example: I made a contract with two brothers; with one to do miscellaneous small repairs, and with the other to do a whole new paint job, on my newly-refubbished garage.
The painting was the great bulk of the job and took the most time and labor. The miscellaneous repair was small work in comparison.
Each brother helped the other with his work, and together they did so good a job that I decided to give them a fat bonus. Now here comes the problem.
The price agreed on for the repairs was 1/4 the price agreed on for the painting.
If I gave them an “equal” bonus, each brother would get the same dollar amount, but a very different percentage of their original contract price.
If I gave them an “equitable” bonus, each brother would get the same percentage of his original contract price, but the amounts would be very different, a 4 to 1 ratio.
My point is that a good deal of the confusion on this issue might hinge on the difference between “equal” and “equitable.” I would welcome comment, especially from those who know law. And as I’ve said before, I think the churches should get out of the civil aspect of marriage.
Trueblue,
I bet you can’t go 24 hours without a McCain rant.
mthalo:
I respect John McCain. I honor his service that he has done for our country.
I just do not want him to be my next President. I guess it is just me and Colin Powell. We have come to the same conclusion. We like John McCain; but not for President.
It is his policies mthalo; not the man. You know, unlike the Clinton haters from the 90s. Now, there was some real personal animus. I am sure you shared the feeling.
“I’d call that “laying the cause at their doorstep”.”
mthalo If it’s a result of your OWN actions it can’t be “laid on your doorstep” That phrase is reserved for the innocent I’m afraid. I can’t beat my head against the wall all day then say the headach was “laid on my doorstep”
Please try again to excuse the sexual actions of a few that have impacted the lives of so many.
Woo hooo ..
Tim Mahoney .. the guy that took over Foley’s office in FL, is apparently a man-whore. There wasn’t just one affair, this dude had multiple transgressions.
“I just do not want him to be my next President.”
I never would have guessed.
The religious right can have the word “marriage”. I just want the exactly the same rights no matter what it’s called.
“Tim Mahoney .. the guy that took over Foley’s office in FL, is apparently a man-whore. There wasn’t just one affair, this dude had multiple transgressions.”
I thought that being married (ONE MAN - ONE WOMAN!!!!!) automatically makes you moral.
Wow…even Colin Powell called Michele Bachmann out. Is this her “Macaca Moment”?
FC, my advice is to give them each what you feel they deserve. If you think they each worked equally hard, give them the same tip. Otherwise, tip more to whoever did more work.
“mthalo If it’s a result of your OWN actions it can’t be “laid on your doorstep” That phrase is reserved for the innocent I’m afraid. I can’t beat my head against the wall all day then say the headach was “laid on my doorstep”
Please try again to excuse the sexual actions of a few that have impacted the lives of so many.”
You’re making it sound like every gay man out there in the 70’s knew that a virus spread by certain sex practices would take hold in the 80’s. Nobody foresaw that.
Did the community take responsibility for changing their behavior once it was know how the virus was spread? did the term “safe sex” become commonplace?
“Please try again to excuse the sexual actions of a few that have impacted the lives of so many.”
Just opinion, but to MT’s point, there are a good amount of gay people who understand that their community is responsible. Maybe I speak out-of-turn for him, but that’s just the opinion I got out of his post.
On the other hand, your (Tiny’s) point is definately more than a mere consideration - it has to do with responsibility. It’s probably not a far stretch to say that there are people out there practicing sex in less-than responsible ways which leads to further expansion of this disease. Nor are they honest enough to get tested if practicing unsafe sex.
I’m not sure which group is the largest contributor, but the initiation is apparently from the homosexual community.
Again, this is not ALL of the gay community, but it is an effect from some and that in itself sucks for the responsible people.
KK…you should be proud. This column gets the Michele Bachmann “American” stamp of approval!
“The religious right can have the word “marriage”. I just want the exactly the same rights no matter what it’s called.”
And the democrats from PA OHIO IA MO WV should I go on shrimp. You better worry about those people before you start worrying about the religious Right.
How many god damn times do you have to tell you. If a gay marriage amendment came up in congress those dems would pretend they don’t even know you.
Wow…even Colin Powell called Michele Bachmann out. Is this her “Macaca Moment”?
Shrimp You mean the WMD Colin Powell?
The one that lied to you. The guy that went before the UN and played the tapes.
That Colin Powell?
Christ Dick Cheney could come out for Obama and you Fruitcakes would be saying. “See even Dick Cheney”
YOU PEOPLE ARE UNBELIEVEABLE
“Shrimp You mean the WMD Colin Powell?
The one that lied to you. The guy that went before the UN and played the tapes.”
I think .. actually, I’m confident he regrets doing that.
I wish he would’ve run.
It’s relevant to bring up Michelle Bachmann today because as a state legislator she was a big antagonist of gay marriage. Proposed Constitutional Amendments, etc.
But we really probably should focus on THAT aspect of her career and not her recent embarrassing gaffe on Hardball.
Tiny sez:
Right. Who gets to decide. How about we let the majority decide. Considering that is the way our system is set up.
The Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution–are all about protecting individual rights regardless of what the majority might think. So, no, majority rule is not the ultimate law of the land. It’s an important element in a system of checks and balances.
Any good government concerns itself with protecting minorities from the whims of majorities.
not her recent embarrassing gaffe on Hardball.
Another asinine distraction from the real issues.
Hi, all,
As long as we’re talking about Obama, I want to mention that the second reason I won’t vote for him is that the Democratic party today is really socíalist, the heirs of Marx and Lenin. The neocons are no better, being the intellectual heirs of Trotsky.
I object to socíalism for three main reasons: 1, I’ve talked to too many people who have lived under it; 2, what the government gives the government can take away; 3, I distrust big government just as much as I distrust big business and big labor.
Going from point 2: The US government has decided (one way or another) to grant certain privileges at law to opposite-sex married couples.
Note I said privileges, not rights. Some of the rights of Man (collective plural) are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: — That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; . . . ” (emphases mine).
Government doesn’t bestow rights, it only secures them. Human rights are prior to government, and government is the servant of those rights.
Any power the government has, that doesn’t come from the consent of the governed, isn’t a just power, and the government has no business claiming it.
This is the main reason I think “legislating from the bench” is bad law, and a “living Constitution” is a very bad idea.
It’s not so much that I resent the courts usurping my prerogative as a citizen to help make law, it’s also that the idea of courts making law — which is what they’re doing, make no mistake — is flatly contrary to the basic premises of the Declaration.
And I’m solidly with Alan Keyes when he says that any interpretation of the Consitution has to be in line with the philosophy of the Framers as expressed in the Declaration.
Has anyone mentioned Obama yet?
Just giving you crap FC.
Hi, all,
Sorry!
Hi, all,
Crap!
Tiny Sez - “Christ Dick Cheney could come out for Obama and you Fruitcakes would be saying. “See even Dick Cheney”
YOU PEOPLE ARE UNBELIEVEABLE ”
Tiny get MAD. Tiny SMASH THINGS.
Hi, all,
Has anyone mentioned Obama yet?
I could have sworn I saw someone mention Osama . . . oops! I mean Obama.
Well, early voting begins today in Florida. I tried, but the line at my local library was about 2 hours long.
Win or lose, Obama has helped get people to exercise their right to vote the way it should be.
One of the votes is on a constitutional amemdment stating following
“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Sounds to me like it’s differentiating between, and at the least leaving the door open for restricting, the rights of those who choose to enter into domestic partnerships.
jriemerm posts
The Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution–are all about protecting individual rights regardless of what the majority might think. So, no, majority rule is not the ultimate law of the land. It’s an important element in a system of checks and balances.
What?!! Were you high duirng school?
Do you know how the Bill of rights became the bill of rights? By majority vote.
How did the Constituion become the Constitution? Again by majority vote.
Could the Bill of Rights be amendment? Sure by majority vote.
Could the Constitution be amemded? Sure by majority vote.
Majority vote is the last, final, and most important check and balance!!! Most importantly — majority vote is the ultimate law of the land. Don’t believe me then go read the Constitution. Specifically Article V.
Hi, all,
Thank you, moi! Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding of a constitutional amendment is that it has to be passed by a 2/3 majority of Congress, and by 2/3 majorities of the legislatures in 3/4 of the states.
FC writes “I could have sworn I saw someone mention Osama . . . oops! I mean Obama.”
That’s OK… TRUE Americans call him Osama and make sure to say his middle name as much as possible too! That’s what’s truly important…not that silly ol’ economy.
(now how do I donate to Elwyn’s campaign?)
Hi, all,
moi, never mind, my mistake. It is right there in Article V, I should have looked.
Majority vote is the last, final, and most important check and balance!!! Most importantly — majority vote is the ultimate law of the land
Except in California
Hi, all,
I don’t recall that Elwyn was all that great shakes at MnDOT commissioner. Not as bad as Molnau, but not in the same league with Braun.
MOI… A call for you. Supreme Court on line 3…
FC and others
Here is the pertinent info in Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Broken down this means that there are two steps for a proposed amendment to become an amendment and each of those steps can be accomplished in two ways.
Step 1 – Introduction
A. 2/3 majority of both the House and the Senate, or
B. 2/3 of the states’ legislatures. (by a simple majority vote)
Step 2 – Ratification
A. ¾ of the states’ legislatures. (by a simple majority vote) or
B. ¾ of the states’ by ‘convention’ which means a vote by the people of each state (by a simple majority)
Interesting notes;
“Step 1-B” has never been used
“Step 2-B” has only been used once – for the 21 amendment.
And only the one thing in the constitution the cannot be amended – the number of senators per state.
MOI,
Thanks for showing me the blockquote tag. Much easier to read than itals and more in line with the Chicago manual opf style.
When you say,
Majority vote is the last, final, and most important check and balance!!! Most importantly — majority vote is the ultimate law of the land. Don’t believe me then go read the Constitution. Specifically Article V.
Maybe you and jriemerm are both right. Suppose Michelle Bachmann loses her upcoming election and after a brief vacation from public life wins election to her local school board. A downgrade, perhaps, but she wouldn’t have wanted to kiss our next President after the State of the Union Address, anyway.
Suppose she persuades the majority of the school board to pass some really repugnant resolution, say kicking all the non-Christian kids out of her local public schools, or expelling those who refuse to pledge allegiance.
Any legal challenge of the school board action in federal court will almost certainly get it thrown out on Constitutional grounds, even if some majority voted for it.
But yes it was a decisive majority that put the highest law of the land in place too.
“say kicking all the non-Christian kids out of her local public schools”
Very VERY American! Michele Bachmann Approves!!!!!!!
DAR
You are kind of comparing applies to oranges. Your example is true that the a majority on the micro level (the school board) voted something but that micro majority was against the majority will on the macro level (federal).
Where as jriemerm specifically posted about the Bill of Rights, he was obviously refering that at a federal level the bill of rights could not be changed by majority vote. Which I posted was not true. The bill of rights could be repealed by a majority vote (albeit a super majority through a bunch of hoops - but a majority none the less).
MOI,
I don’t think the micro-macro discrepancy is where my argument falls down.
Let’s raise the stakes.
Say a majority in Congress passes a crazy-repugnant law and the President signs it. The law can still be overturned by the courts with the USSC having the final word.
However, re-reading jmiernan’s quote, where he/she says,
” So, no, majority rule is not the ultimate law of the land.”
Well, I have to agree with you, that isn’t right. Majority rule CREATED the ultimate law of the land, which in turn can override the rule of a simple majority. And the framers were wise to make the Constitution ammendable only by a much more decisive majority than it takes to pass just any old law.
I was going to say that I thought we should ammend the US Constitution to allow gay marriage, but then I thought there isn’t a right to straight marriage enumerated there either. Then you get into polygamy and all that stuff, seems like if you tried to define marriage itself in the Constitution you would make it a big cumbersome wad of statutes. That’s not what I’d want the Constitution to be. My new idea is that we simply amend the Constitution to be more explicit about what equal protection under the laws means, so that we’re not so dependent on judges to interpret it for us. Not sure what my exact verbiage would be but I’d want it to be plain as day that gay people were covered.
“is that the Democratic party today is really socíalist, the heirs of Marx and Lenin. The neocons are no better, being the intellectual heirs of Trotsky”
FC .. I am with you completely!
Now, ask me who is more likely to pull us out of the quasi soc!@l!st predicament we find ourselves in.
I’ll tell you Obama.
This is why.
Buffet.
He’s described very well his thoughts on the middle needing to boost a fledgling economy. Although the ’spread the wealth’ phrase is used as the dreaded initiation of the even more dreaded ’s’ word, we’re already there. Instead, I think there’s an attempt to address a disparity that exists in the current tax structe and and at the same time boost our economy to get out of the quasi state it’s in. Disclosure: I don’t LIKE what has happened but understand why it’s being done and crossing my fingers it works.
Additionally, the capital gains tax needs adjustment .. Mark/Ike did a great job of explaining last week that the reduction to 15% may have been of benefit to the current crisis - I’d agree. I do not however, agree that going to 25% is a good idea… it’s too shocking. I’d be more in favor of 18-20% max.
McCain on the other hand is pushing the same methodology which unfortunately (MY opinion only) has opportunity to maintain the current quasi path. It maintains a limited amount of resources to an even more limited population vs. pushing the resources to more. Kind of like 2 guys trying to lift a heavy piece of furniture vs. 10.
Again, my opinions which I get to have but more importantly .. Own.
Greg says:
“Now, ask me who is more likely to pull us out of the quasi soc!@l!st predicament we find ourselves in.
I’ll tell you Obama.”
I knew it Greg!
“Additionally, the capital gains tax needs adjustment .. Mark/Ike did a great job of explaining last week that the reduction to 15% may have been of benefit to the current crisis - I’d agree.”
We’ve had booms and busts before regardless of what the capital gains tax is. People who have the means are going to start businesses no matter what the capital gains tax is.
ttp://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf
Hi, all,
Greg, thanks for the support. Now some questions. Where can I find how many people in the US get how much money annually? (Not just earnings.) Who’s the middle class? I bring in about $25K a year, all of it subject to withholding; am I middle class? Will I ever realize capital gains even if I sell my house and buy another one? (I believe the first sale is exempt.)
I read somewhere a number of years ago that the way the French do it is they look at the externals of a person’t lifestyle and base the taxes on that, so even if you’re filthy rich but choose to live like a pauper you pay less tax.
Under King Henry VII of England (1485-1509; the ursurper by treachery) there was a taxing device called Morton’s Fork, named after one of Henry’s top advisors: if you live well, you must be rich, so give me something for the King. If you live frugally, you must have a pile stashed away, so give me something for the King. Heads the King wins, tails the people lose.
And Greg,
Do you really think that a social*st will pull us out of a quasi soc!@l!st predicament? He is calling for the largest expansion of government in our history.
Ike/Mark,
It has been shown that increasing the capital gains tax reduces tax revenue, but Obama wants to do it anyway in the interest of “fairness”. Is this crazy or what?
I think there’s an attempt to address a disparity that exists in the current tax structe and and at the same time boost our economy to get out of the quasi state it’s in
Greg,
What kind of disparity do you see in the tax structure?
“all of it subject to withholding”
Whats the personal exemption this year? $4500?
” Will I ever realize capital gains even if I sell my house and buy another one? ”
You dont have to pay taxes on the capital gain up to $250,000 on your primary residence when you sell it. Any gain on a sale of your primary residence for an individaul over $500,000 is suibject to capital gains tax.
“Ike/Mark,
It has been shown that increasing the capital gains tax reduces tax revenue, but Obama wants to do it anyway in the interest of “fairness”. Is this crazy or what?”
D2, I pay a higher % of my income to taxes than Buffet. If you want a flat tax, raise the capital gains tax.
Hi, all,
My father long ago suggested repealing income and capital gains taxes, and substituting a flat-rate (say 10%) sales tax on everything. The disadvantage is that poor people will pay higher taxes (I believe there are no sales taxes on staple foods now) but the advantage will be that a lot of people who don’t pay taxes now, like rich people and criminals, will have to pay the tax whenever they spend money. Pop had a lot of interesting ideas.
The financial crisis will be solved when president Romney takes office.
“Any gain on a sale of your primary residence for an individaul over $500,000 is suibject to capital gains tax.”
Sorry, I ment $500,000 for joint filers and $250,000 for individuals.
So, if you bought a house for $200,000 and then sold it for $500,000 youll pay capital gains as an individual on the $50,000 above your excemption for a primary residence and the cost basis.
“Pop had a lot of interesting ideas”
Sorry FC, while your dad sounds like an interesting man, that wasnt his idea. And the tax rate would have to be much higher than 10%.
These super-majorities make my point. They enumerated these individual rights in such a way as to intentionally make it extremely difficult to take them away: a majority isn’t good enough.
And these rights were enumerated over some protest: specifically, protests that naming the rights presumes that these named rights were the only ones we had. On the contrary, the philosophical presumption was that these rights any many others unnamed are fundamental, and can only be assumed by government by the consent of the governed. And “the governed” does not mean 50 percent plus a person; it means the people individually as a whole.
All this is to say, the fundamental philosophy was to protect people’s rights, and to prevent them from being taken away.
It was a terrible compromise, condemned by some, that these rights were denied to slaves, which took many generations to correct (though it is not completely corrected even now). Similarly with American Indians, and women. Complete rights and equality under the law for gay people is the next great civil rights issue. It is going to happen.
I worded that second paragraph badly, to the degree that it might not be understood. Let me try again:
“And these rights were enumerated over some protest by some of the founding fathers: specifically, protests that naming the rights presumes that these specifically named rights were the only ones we had. On the contrary, the philosophical presumption was that the only rights that can be denied by government, are those the governed voluntarily surrender. And “the governed” does not mean 50 percent plus a person; it means the people, both individually and as a whole.”
T and FC .. Mark summarized both of your questions regarding gains. He also showed that it happens boom or bust .. that’s why I’m inclined to think less shock, but minor adjustment. Again .. JUST me with the opinion I own.
D2 -
I could care less what you label me, but do you understand the why’s of the choice I made? You’re choices are made purely on rhetoric or stuff you ‘heard’. You also come across as that. You cling to an ideology without understanding what it is. Do you understand why FC referred to Trotsky and the neocon philosophy? Do you understand why they own that?
FC’s honest in his appraisals and his belief structures - very honest which is why I respect him. We may not necessarily put the priorities in the same order, but I think overall we want the same end results sans some social objectives which I am much closer to his line of thought than even he’d think ..we just don’t think the same?
Flat tax .. I wish it could be done. Our tax structure is too darn prone to be taken advantage of and to take advantage. Immensity does that.
“The financial crisis will be solved when president Romney takes office.”
What .. and Michelle is going to be her VP?
Hi, all,
For 2007 in the 1040, the standard deduction for a single person was $5350. I didn’t use that; I itemized. My total income was about $26,700, but only about $14,900 was taxable (the rest was my Soc Sec pension). And after schedule A deductions of $7153 (mostly medical, state taxes, and mortgage interest) and the $3400 exemption from line 6d) my taxable income was $4322.
House: taxable market value for taxes payable 2008 was $172,600. Taxable market value for taxes payable 2009 was $160,000. Taxes paid 2008 were $2041.30 (up from $1780 in 2007). If Hennepin County raises my 2009 taxes despite drop in assessed value, heaven help me. I will also give more belief to those here who call Hennepin County and Minneapolis welfare magnets on the backs of the homesteaders.
“D2, I pay a higher % of my income to taxes than Buffet. If you want a flat tax, raise the capital gains tax.”
Exactly.
For some reason, a super rich dumpster diver appeals to my line of thinking.
Don’t you guys in Minnesota pay a sales and state tax?
James,
Thank you clarifying your position with regard to amendability of the constitution and majority and super majority.
Your right about the protests but it should be noted that protests were not about a fight between having 10 and no amendments. (which some say) But it was really a fight between having 200+, then those pared down to 100+, which was eventually narrowed down to 17 than to 12. With only 10 passing.
The bill of rights has a very interesting history.
Don’t you guys in Minnesota pay a sales and state tax?
Go, Yes but there’s no sales tax on food or clothing.
“House: taxable market value for taxes payable 2008 was $172,600. Taxable market value for taxes payable 2009 was $160,000. Taxes paid 2008 were $2041.30 (up from $1780 in 2007). If Hennepin County raises my 2009 taxes despite drop in assessed value, heaven help me. I will also give more belief to those here who call Hennepin County and Minneapolis welfare magnets on the backs of the homesteaders.
Your tax assesed value went down from 2007 to 2008 but your property taxes went up from 2008 to 2009? What was the value in 2006. Thats the value that will dictate what you paid in 2007.
My propert tax value has gone down along with my property taxes paid.
FC, do you escrow or do you pay them yourself? My monthly escrow payment has gone down due to the falling tax value. I doubt you’ll pay more in property taxes with the falling tax value. Anyway many people got the benefit of not having to pay taxes on the real market value of their homes. 95% the county tax value will be less than market value.
Hi, all,
Don’t you guys in Minnesota pay a sales and state tax?
Yes, both. There’s a state sales tax, and I think maybe a county sales tax, and a city sales tax too. And part of one of those taxes goes for a new Twins stadium, which the folks in Hennepin County never got a chance to have a referendum on. That still burns me.
Greg63 sez:
Flat tax .. I wish it could be done. Our tax structure is too darn prone to be taken advantage of and to take advantage. Immensity does that.
I bet the H&R Blocks and PWCs of the world spend millions lobbying Congress to keep the tax rules complex.
Believe it or not I am willing to listen to pople like Michelle Bachmann when they propose a big whopping sales tax in lieu of income tax. Her social policies are a different story. I’m willing to listen to the sales tax idea, anyway. I bet the volume of cash transactions involving inventory not on anyone’s books would go through the roof if that were implemented though.
The tax structure I envision is income is income, and it’s all taxed at the same rate (25% sounds like a nice round number to start), and EVERYONE pays taxes. The poor would probably consume more in services than they paid in, but everyone could take pride they were pulling their weight.
Hi, all,
ILI, I escrow. My credit union handles the escrows along with all my other money (what there is of it) by automatic pay-in of income, and pay-out of my four major utilities. Nice. All I have to do is keep my check register.
Anyway, my taxable market value in 2006 for taxes in 2007 was $150,000. I suppose I should make a chart; maybe that will help me understand this stuff better. The way it is now, they say “Pay!” — I pay.
“Go, Yes but there’s no sales tax on food or clothing.”
still, state and sales tax. SUCKERS
Go, Yes but there’s no sales tax on food or clothing.
Or energy utilities in the winter months (residential only).
MOI writes, Loving v Virginia overturned laws that CRIMINALIZED and PUNISHED inter-racial marriages. Nobody is criminalizing or punishing gay marriage…Brown was based on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was voted by the majority…You need to get your facts straight.
I have my facts straight…no pun intended. You, however, need to stop dwelling in the land of legal theory and begin living in the land of legal reality.
You are so fond of relying upon the will of the people to correct legal wrongs and do the right thing, but as we know, that does not, far too often, happen.
As for the 14th Amendment, true, that was rightly enacted through the will of the people. However, after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the USSC handed down Plessey, which legalized racial discrimination. If the will of the people was and is so pure, why didn’t the people ignore Plessey? It took the Brown decision, which overturned Plessey, by the USSC to end, at least in theory, the discriminatory practice of “separate but equal”.
As for Loving, that wonderful will of the people with which you are so enamored enacted laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage, in spite of the 14th Amendment. Again, it took the intervention of the USSC with the Loving decision to overturn those racially discriminatory laws.
In each of these instances, it was the intervention of the court, not the will of the people, that corrected the legal wrong.
As for “criminalizing or punishing gay marriage”, I’ve no doubt that there are many in the country who would like to do just that, as well as criminalize and punish any behavior by gays and lesbians.
“Or energy utilities in the winter months (residential only).”
How bout those phone bills? Seems to be a new added tax for something to someone from one bill to the next. I like to call em up and question them at the phone service. Most can’t explain it.
“and punish any behavior by gays and lesbians”
I can think of a few lesbians who could use a good spanking.
JonR,
Your and other’s habit of using Italics is beyond annoying.
oh, jonR is a bad bad boy. Italicks much?
JonR
You do not have your facts straight.
First Plessy didn’t “legalize racial discrimination” with seperate but equal. They were trying to help being an end to it.
Second, because of Plessy - the notion of ’seperate by equal’ was constitutional. To say that it was unconstiutional before Brown is just plain crazy talk.
Third, in Brown, the USSC realized that seperate but equal was not working so they overturned their own decision of Plessy.
Those are the facts.
“I can think of a few lesbians who could use a good spanking. ”
I’d bet there’s at least 27 of them.
“I like to call em up and question them at the phone service. Most can’t explain it.”
And when I get a phone company rep that knows what their talkin about I play conservative talk radio host, interrupting and talking over them before I hang up.
THEN I LAUGH
GO’Reilly?
Now there’s a concept.
As for your argument for Loving. You are comparing apples to oranges.
First - Loving was a STATE law and the 14th amendment was a Federal constituional amendment..
You do understand the difference don’t you?
Second - the 14th amendment was the will of the majority of the people.
You do understand that don’t you?
Third, the 14th amendment was directly passed to stop racial discrimination.
You do understand that don’t you.
GOlberman ..
Theres 29 players on the Yankees roster Greg, not 27.
Those other two get enough already.
Think of the one that the material girl takes her frustrations out on?
Arod? I hate pretty boy ball players. Chase Utley, now there is a guy that will roll you at second and spit chew on you doing it.
You know Arod has been a carear looser his whole life. Look at the success hes had from team to team. Hes a LOOOOOOSER.
Greg says:
“You’re choices are made purely on rhetoric or stuff you ‘heard’.”
Yes, from Obama’s own mouth such as “I think it’s good for everyone if we spread the wealth around”. What a social*st!
“BLUE ASH, Ohio – Police in Ohio say an 89-year-old woman is facing a charge of petty theft because neighborhood children accuse her of refusing to give back their football.
Edna Jester was arrested last week in the Cincinnati suburb of Blue Ash.
Police say one child’s father complained that Jester kept the youngsters’ ball after it landed in her yard. Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids’ balls landing in the woman’s yard.
Jester said Monday she has received many calls and didn’t have time to discuss the matter any more.
Jester is to appear in court next month. The maximum penalty for a petty theft conviction in Ohio is six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.”
So at what point are you done making your point and give the ball back? And calling the cops on some old lady over a football, seriously.
I’m no fan of Arod .. who’s the other pretty boy?
D2,
You are going to go down in the conservative Hall Of Fame. A gold plated moron.
“Look at the success hes had from team to team. Hes a LOOOOOOSER.”
Not only that, Obama’s gonna make him pay more taxes, which means I’m gonna have to fight him for the good stuff in the clearence rack.
Actually, I don’t know if I can see anyone who makes that much money without having to exercise their brain as being a loser.
Jeter.
“Actually, I don’t know if I can see anyone who makes that much money without having to exercise their brain as being a loser.”
I get the point. But on the field that guy shrinks when the preasure is on.
“And calling the cops on some old lady over a football, seriously.”
My old-man would’ve said “why did you thow it over there?” .. which would’ve been met with “I dunno know”. Then he’d say .. “learn to throw better”.
End of story.
Then back to work to get a new football.
“You are going to go down in the conservative Hall Of Fame. A gold plated moron.”
Tin .. tin plated.
I Like Fidel says:
“You are going to go down in the conservative Hall Of Fame. A gold plated moron.”
If you’re trying to out liberal me, you’re doing a hell of a job!
“If you’re trying to out liberal me, you’re doing a hell of a job! ”
That makes absolutely no sense.
Another reason that you remind me of Cartman in South Park.
In fact, it’s conceivable that someone pulled a cruel joke with a ouija board and you really are Cartman.
Stuck between reality and cartoon land.
D2,
Michelle Bachman, Jerry Falwell and Joseph McCarthy are all more liberal than you.
“I Like Fidel says:”
Yuck, Yuck Yuck!!!
“The jerk store called and they’re running out of you”
- Costanza
I’m confident that D2 and J. Edgar Hoover would get along very, very well ..
on many levels.
Thanks for the laughs guys!
I’ve got to take my son to his Cub Scout pack meeting. Later.
The could sing a duet.
“In the town…. Where I was Born…. Lived a Man…. Who sailed the seas….”
Come on D2 you know this one!!
“Later”
Take all the time you need.
Stop it Mark ..
That visual is just awful. I’m gonna go dump visine down my ears and hope it washes it away.
The only real way to inflict long lasting blog devistation is to give visuals and inplant songs. WE ALL LIVE IN A YELLOW SUBMARINE!!!
Its called gettin’ Hoovered.
“Its called gettin’ Hoovered. ”
I’d recommend that gets nominated as new blog phrase for the week.
“You are going to go down in the conservative Hall Of Fame. A gold plated moron.”
Tin .. tin plated.
I’m thinking it wouldn’t be plated.
Smeared
With the droppings of a camel.
BWAAAAHHHAAAAAAA ..
Man .. the camel droppings. That is just so bad and appropriate all at once.
I for one really want to hear D2 tell everyone why Colin Powell endorsed Obama.
Anyone else?
“There’s no way to know whether Ditka would have won but, remember, Obama was still a virtual unknown in Illinois in June of ‘04. Had Ditka run and won, Obama most-assuredly wouldn’t be running for president today. Either way, the Hall of Famer almost certainly would have received more than the 27% of votes that eventual nominee Alan Keyes garnered in November. And you know he’d have locked up the endorsements of these three potential voters”
Wow…. In Illionois they would’ve done it to. No doubt about it. DAAAA Bears.
Anyone else?
I’ve already heard what Rush had to say.
Could you imagine Ditka in congress?
With Pelosi?
Oh man .. THAT would guarantee CSPAN the most viewers ever.
Oops .. I mean Reid .. of course, he could reach across ..
Bob Swerski: Now what if Da Bears were to enter the Indianapolis 500? Uhhh, what would you predict would be the outcome, huh?
Todd O’Conner: How would they compete?
Bob Swerski: Well, let’s say they rode together in a big bus.
Carl Wollarski: Is Ditka driving?
Bob Swerski: Of course.
Carl Wollarski: Then I like Da Bears!
Bob Swerski: Sure.
Todd O’Conner: Yeah, I gotta go with Da Bear Bus!
Superfans: Da Bear Bus!
Carl Wollarski: Bus full of Bears!
Pat Arnold: See, I don’t know, you know, I may still have to go with Mears, you know? But you guys figure it out.
Bob Swerski: That’s all right Pat. There are no easy questions in this life my friend. Except for one, that of couse being the triumphant party at next year’s Super Bowl.
Pat Arnold: I know of whom you speak.
Bob Swerski: Let’s just say that the winner shall be a certain team, from a certain Mid-western town, that starts with a “C”, ends with an “O”, and in the middle is “HICAG”. (The Superfans raise their beer mugs in agreement)
Todd O’Conner: (Reading a newspaper) Ya know, believe it or not Bob, according to the odds-makers, San Fransisco is favored to win the Super Bowl.
Bob Swerski: San Fransisco huh? Well, you know whO’s gonna be happy about that then. Da queers!
Superfans: Da queers!
Bob Swerski: Well, we’ll see ya’ next week. Now what if Da Bears had entered The Preakness?
Superfans: Da Bears!
“I think .. actually, I’m confident he regrets doing that. ”
Greg listen are you ready for the truth.
Powell didn’t want to be on the wrong side of history just like all the politicians Dems and Republicans who walk around second guessing their votes. Thats way he did what he did.
Saddam did a damn good job of making sure everybody in the frickin’ world thinking he had WMD’s. He did it for a REASON.
Give credit where credit is due. This whole nonsense of “going in to fast” and Bushed lied about WMD’s. Christ everybody and their brother had the intel. Christ I’m not going to list all that BS again.
So yes Powell Regrets it now. They should all stand up and be big boys and say “Saddamn out smarted us”
DONE
And if I could misspell any more words I would. Or use way inst of why. You get the point.
Tinybonics
“Christ everybody and their brother had the intel.”
Yet france and Germany said screw it. We aint goin’ in.
Tiny .. you can read it however you want, an@lyze it whichever way you choose to. It’s yours. I might even go along with alot of what you say.
But for Powell, I’m not going to. He’s not ‘the rest of them’.
He maintained his loyalty to the CIC and did what was expected.
Even if he regrets it now, he maintained his loyalty and commitment.
They should all stand up and be big boys and say “Saddamn out smarted us”
Getting outsmarted by Saddam isnt an excuse. No one should ever be in the position of being out smarted by Saddam.
“MillerCoors ends production of Zima
Associated Press
Last update: October 20, 2008 - 12:58 PM”
This is going to come as bad news for the D2 Hoover sing alongs.
On 911 I was a democrat. I looked around and saw Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell and Rice and thought “we couldn’t have a better presence and experience then we have with these guys”
I was wrong.
“But for Powell, I’m not going to. He’s not ‘the rest of them’. ”
He handles his own PR and does a wonderful job of it.
In the end he didn’t resign. I guess that’s the standard he should be held up to. Going to War is a big deal. I just wonder sometimes why he didn’t do that.
He seems to be the only one that has escaped the labels. No one calling him a lair. Yet he clearly did lie or maybe he to believed what he was saying?
Its interesting.
Obviously he had to have looked around and said to himself “All these guys can’t be wrong?”
He wrote a book I suppose I should read it but did he just spend 9 months saying this is a bad idea over and over and over and over. If you want to blame him like the others but in a lesser degree I’d like to know the reasoning behind it. Maybe I’ll learn something?
I see clips of the Dickster when he was on Meet The Press before the war over and over.
I think Mr Powell was on those shows to if I remember right?
“I was wrong.”
You officially have more balls than GHS, True Blue, EBF, D2 and a host of others I cant think of right now. It takes blog guts to admit you were wrong.
Good column, Katherine. You laid out the choice clearly - give up the traditional definition of marriage or give up discriminating against gay unions.
Too bad you weren’t around to forewarn previous generations about where separate-but-equal legislation could lead. Maybe we could’ve avoided racial integration.
Oops. That should’ve read- preserve the traditional definition of marriage or give up discriminating against gay unions.
“And I’m solidly with Alan Keyes when he says that any interpretation of the Consitution has to be in line with the philosophy of the Framers as expressed in the Declaration.”
And when the two conflict, as in equal rights for women? What then?
Ever read Abigail Adams famous letter to her husband asking him to “remember the women” when writing the Constitution, and his reply?
“Maybe I’ll learn something?”
However corny you want to call it, I don’t care, but he’s an honorable person and a soldier. He trusted the president because that’s what he was trained to do. He believed what the president told him, took his orders and pressed on. He isn’t like Wesley Clark and host of others who like to make the claim but in the end, they’re not their for the honor .. just the glory. His integrity is his existance Tiny .. and that’s a rarity. If I could find some eloquent, understandable way to make it clear I would, but I don’t have a way to describe what it is other than honorable.
There’s no way I’d ever try to change anyone else’s mind about that, but at the same time, I’m not going to give up that he did what was right for his position… heck, I wasn’t very much in favor of the whole gig at the time either, but after his presentation I felt that it was the truth or he was doing it because he had to.
If you hadn’t guessed, that honor thing is a big deal to me. It’s why I’ll go off on tirades about certain things because it invokes disrespect towards honorable things others have done.
If all of that helps you understand my own personal decision then I’m glad, if it doesn’t then there’s not much more I can say.
Hey Katherine.
Perhaps in your next column you could point out the dangers inherent in redefining traditional American institutions. A look back at the traditional definition of “family” could be illustrative.
Traditionally, the husband ruled the roost and it was legal for him to give his wife rule-of-thumb beatings. Now some “families” don’t even have husbands and without beatings to keep them in line, some women are trying to overthrow paternalism, another traditional institution.
Don’t go gently into that bad future, Katherine. After you’ve shored up support for traditional marriage, use your bully pulpit to restore traditional families and legal wife-beating. Traditional paternalism will take it from there.
He isn’t like Wesley Clark and host of others who like to make the claim but in the end, they’re not their for the honor .. just the glory.
That’s a hell of a charge to make against Clark. What do you base it on?
Powell rose through the ranks in part because he was willing to be a “good German,” helping to cover up the My Lai massacre and condoning other war crimes. How do you define ‘honor” and “integrity”?
“That’s a hell of a charge to make against Clark. What do you base it on?
Powell rose through the ranks in part because he was willing to be a “good German,” helping to cover up the My Lai massacre and condoning other war crimes. How do you define ‘honor” and “integrity”?”
If I have to explain, then ..
If I have to explain, then ..
…you’re an idiot?
(not referring to you Greg)
Jon R,
How was the fishing? Last time I was up north (northern Ontario) in October, I got snowed on almost every day, but the fishing was great.
I remember wading, barefoot and wearing shorts, into the English River to launch my boat one morning when some guy in a snowmobile suit cruised up to the landing in his boat and looked at me like I was crazy. Now that I think back on it, I’m a little surprised I survived. My outboard in those days was an antique that made every outing an adventure.
“If I have to explain, then ..”
You say Powell has integrity and honor, while his fellow veteran Clark isn’t honorable. I’m curious as to why you think so. If you can’t define the terms or aren’t willing to do so, why use them?
IIRC, McCain was asked to define a similar term and he wasn’t interested in doing so either. At the time, I figured it was because he didn’t have a definition that would withstand scrutiny. Now I’m wondering about yours.
Do you think impugning a veteran’s honor without a basis in fact is an honorable act?
Apparently it wasn’t a similar term, it was “honor” McCain refused to define in an interview with Time magazine.
Tm: “There’s a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?”
JM: “Read it in my books.”
Tm: “I’ve read your books.”
JM: “No, I’m not going to define it.”
Hokay. How about explaining how running one of the sleaziest campaigns in modern American history is honorable?
Move over, Sustainability. There’s a new buzzword in town.
Ike says:
“It takes blog guts to admit you were wrong.”
I guess you would know more than anyone about what it’s like being wrong Ike.
I usually like to read all the comments, first, before I kick in my soap-boxing.
But, I’ll just comment that there’s an infinite number of bigger issues out there that demand our attention, so, if gay people want to get married, what’s the big deal? Sure, to a straight person, it might look a little weird, but so what?
Are they really, truly hurting anyone?
Odin ..
Again, if you don’t understand why you never will. Some things are not spoken but simply understood .. unfortunately, you’re not going to understand because you’re part of the same symptom.
Hang on to your fringe. Keep it close to your heart. Stand by it .. but leave room for truth because in truth there is honor.
“He believed what the president told him, took his orders and pressed on.”
But still he was part of “The Group” that everybody said lied to us. Listen like I said before Powell along with every congressman ( minus a few ) didn’t what to be on the wrong side of history PERIOD.
I think this “we where lied to” has become this big over blown leftwing bash. Seems all the intel pointed that way. rightly or wrongly Bush took action on the intel.
Plus its important to “put yourself there” back in 2001 & 2002. It might have helped if the CIA hadn’t had its head up its @ss for 10 years and had people they could “trust” on the inside. But Hell even Saddams upper level dudes thought he had WMD’s.
The victory goes to Saddam.
Hey Greg I understand. During that time I looked at Powell and said “There’s a guy I can trust”
Well it turned out maybe I shouldn’t have trusted him so much and I’m not buying this “he was fighting from the inside to stop it”. In the world of “Big Boys” if you lose that battle you resign just before the start of the war. Look back in history cabinet members are not shy about doing that. He didn’t.
So should I keep trusting Colin Powell?
“I think this “we where lied to” has become this big over blown leftwing bash. ”
I agree it was over blown. There might be some substance to it, but it got way out-of-hand.
“Well it turned out maybe I shouldn’t have trusted him so much and I’m not buying this “he was fighting from the inside to stop it”. In the world of “Big Boys” if you lose that battle you resign just before the start of the war. Look back in history cabinet members are not shy about doing that. He didn’t.
So should I keep trusting Colin Powell?”
Tiny .. All I can say is that he’s different than the rest of them. He didn’t resign because he made the commitment and had to stand by it.
ALL of us are too darn willing to step away from things we don’t like even when we signed up for that ‘thing’. He didn’t step away because he swore allegiance and made the commitment.
That’s why I trust him. He stands by his word instead of bailing on it .. even if means he takes a hit on it.
Again, we don’t see enough of that. Doing the things we don’t really want to do but have to because we made a commitment. Responsibility?
And .. I didn’t say this before in whole, but I completely agree with you that Saddam played a good shell game.
Now ask me what I think Clark would’ve done .. hell, you probably know already. He’d run for the hills and stand on a peak screaming he saved the world and wait for someone to pin a medal on him for it.
“Tiny .. All I can say is that he’s different than the rest of them.”
Greg he was “playing in the same sand box” as everybody else yet he walks away with no sand on him while the others are covered with it.
No doubt he was above the pail before Iraq and has received a lot of “cover” since but he was part of that group and should be treated as such.
If Cheney lied and Bush lied and Rumsfeld lied then so did Powell.
Rabbit
Are they really, truly hurting anyone?
I use to have the same belief, even voted against protection of marriage laws (voted against prop 22 in CA in 2000 and against amendment 2 in CO in 1992) but have since come to see that it will really hurt people because it isn’t about equality. It is about forcing others and the indoctrination of children. It is not about equality, it is about taking away others’ rights to freedom of thought, speech and religion.
I have already posted what has happened in NJ, MA, CT and CA so I am sure that nobody wants me to keep reposting the same thing over and over like an MB or a Dare or a Tiny. So, please scroll back on this day’s blog or the previous day’s blog or research on google.
Being pro-freedom does not mean your anti-gay.
“Greg he was “playing in the same sand box” as everybody else yet he walks away with no sand on him while the others are covered with it.”
That’s what you have to consider. Why didn’t he? What ‘cloaked’ him from being thrown in the same kettle?
Tell me how he received ‘cover’? Was it because others had stated something of his character?
You can put him in that group, but I won’t .. not can’t, won’t.
“over like an MB or a Dare or a Tiny.”
Today is a day that will live in “infinity”. We shall kick the soapbox from under the “Pontificater”. It may not be today it may not be tomorrow but it will “Be”…it will “Be”
Tiny
We shall kick the soapbox from under the “Pontificater”.
You want us to kick the soapbox out from underneath you?
You said ‘we’ - how are you going to kick the soapbox that you are standing on?
Again, if you don’t understand why you never will. Some things are not spoken but simply understood .. unfortunately, you’re not going to understand because you’re part of the same symptom.
People who make a big deal about how honest they
are usually aren’t. The same could be true of honor.
You seem to be saying you know who is and isn’t honest because you “feel” it and it’s “simply understood” what that feeling is. Kinda hard to argue that your “feelings” are wrong, given that a lot of feelings have little or no basis in fact.
but leave room for truth because in truth there is honor.
That’s the first thing you’ve said about honor I agree with. Being truthful is honorable. As I’ve already said, Powell helped cover up the My Lai massacre. Cover-ups are conducted to keep people from learning the truth, not in service of it.
And Tiny’s right when he says Powell’s performance at the UN wasn’t truthful. If Powell believed the misinformation he testified was true, it’s because he had the same blinders on that served to advance his Army career. There was information in State Department reports that cast doubt on some of the allegations Powell made. He chose to ignore it.
Powell says resigning wouldn’t have kept us from invading Iraq. We’ll never know.
As for his honoring his “commitment,” the Saturday Night Massacre during the Nixon administration occurred because some of those officials refused to go along with Nixon’s cover-up. Their commitment to truth and morality superceded their commitment to the administration. That wasn’t the case with Powell.
You seem to feel Clark’s being a glory hound precludes him from having honor, as though the two were mutually exclusive. Again, it’s hard to argue with your feeeeeeelings.
You seem to believe that because I’ve asked for your definition of honor, I don’t have a definition of my own. That’s an unwarranted assumption.
“You seem to feel Clark’s being a glory hound precludes him from having honor, as though the two were mutually exclusive. Again, it’s hard to argue with your feeeeeeelings.
You seem to believe that because I’ve asked for your definition of honor, I don’t have a definition of my own. That’s an unwarranted assumption.”
The only assumptions of you that I make I keep to myself.
“feeeeeeelings. ”
Now there’s an assumption.
“People who make a big deal about how honest they
are usually aren’t. The same could be true of honor.”
And here’s some opinion. Much of which is baseless … eerily similar to the blathering found on that one site .. ‘K’ something or other.
Again, you’re the same symptom as found on the other side - thus you’ll never understand.
Finally, and to be absolutely clear, Powell is honorable, Clark was nothing but a swinging richard.
“You said ‘we’ -”
We as in my Id, ego, and super-ego.
Don’t you mean like
“We” as in what Gilligan said - “Me, Myself, and I.”
“Finally, and to be absolutely clear, Powell is honorable, Clark was nothing but a swinging richard.
Because you feel that’s so, not because objective facts make the case. You’d have made a good O.J. juror (1st trial).
Again, you’re the same symptom as found on the other side - thus you’ll never understand.
I’m the symptom, you’re the cure? I think I saw that in a (bad) movie once.
I usually have this kind of conversation with women. You’re the first guy I’ve talked to who believes feelings trump facts. Have you always believed that?
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