Kizzak Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Which is fine by me. I think "marriage" should be left as the church law that it was, and the government should grant civil unions to homo and hetero couples alike. Whose church law though? There are some that are perfectly happy to marry same-sex couples and obviously other that believe it will lead to the downfall of society It's just funny to me that people consider marriage this sacred thing when divorce rates are at astronomical levels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 so 1) he purposely mangles the history of marriage to suit his needs. you know, for the bible! 2) he equates incest and pedophilia to homosexuality. you know, for the bible! 3) he equates gays directly with aids. you know, for the bible! he's the rick santorum of the pulpit. hiding behind a twisted view of religion to reinforce and spread old prejudices. i'm not at all convinced that it's a twisted view of religion... as opposed to religion being twisted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Whose church law though?There are some that are perfectly happy to marry same-sex couples and obviously other that believe it will lead to the downfall of society It's just funny to me that people consider marriage this sacred thing when divorce rates are at astronomical levels i think the point was that *any* church can recognize marriage as it sees fit, but the government will *only* recognize civil unions, or categorize legal marriage as a civil union and let churches sort out all the rest of the semantics. i think it's a good idea but it'll never happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Whose church law though?There are some that are perfectly happy to marry same-sex couples and obviously other that believe it will lead to the downfall of society The Catholics consider marriage to be a sacrament. It's just funny to me that people consider marriage this sacred thing when divorce rates are at astronomical levels Indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericcantona7 Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 the Catholics consider many things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 i think the point was that *any* church can recognize marriage as it sees fit, but the government will *only* recognize civil unions, or categorize legal marriage as a civil union and let churches sort out all the rest of the semantics. i think it's a good idea but it'll never happen. I suspect people would flip their wig if you said their marriage is now considered a civil union. So have the civil unions apply to the couples applying for government recognition now, and grandfather the existing unions as "marriages." Purely semantics, but sometimes politics is like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, declaring that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification." Brown's argument on Proposition 8, contained in an 111-page brief filed at the last possible moment before the court's deadline, surprised many legal experts. The attorney general has a legal duty to uphold the state's laws as long as there are reasonable grounds to do so. Last month, Brown said he planned to "defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California." But in his filing, Brown, who personally supports same-sex marriage, offered a novel legal theory to back his argument that the measure should be invalidated. The California Constitution protects certain rights as "inalienable," Brown wrote. Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person's right to marry. The issue before the court "presents a conflict between the constitutional power of the voters to amend the Constitution, on the one hand, and the Constitution's Declaration of Rights, on the other," Brown wrote. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage20-2008dec20,0,3628665.story Not sure I see the logic in Brown's argument, as a constitutional amendment is done to change the constitution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 I suspect people would flip their wig if you said their marriage is now considered a civil union. So have the civil unions apply to the couples applying for government recognition now, and grandfather the existing unions as "marriages."Purely semantics, but sometimes politics is like that. yeah deffo grandfather existing marriages as-is. true. the thing to do would be make marriage a subset of the class Civil Unions, and grant the same rights, privileges and responsibilties to ALL civil unions... but yeah, people would still flip their wigs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Our old buddy Ken "Sweaty Palms" Starr is fronting an effort to get the 18,000 gay marriages performed in CA invalidated, as a way to strengthen the legal standing of Prop 8. linkage Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizzak Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Yglesias got a public slap from CAP over calling Third Way 'hyper-timid incrementalist ********' and a 'a messaging and political tactics outfit' That's going to only further infuriate the non-party liners of which there are plenty on the progressive internets, already there's a pushback on dkos' front page update: # of comments on the original HTIB post: 18 # of comments on the CAP posting an 'apology' on his blog post just over 12 hours since it was posted: 485 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizzak Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 to add insult to injury, I happened to read in one of the comments that lieberman's campaign manager against lamont has been named the dhs spokesman I'm beginning to sense that the only aims of the administration will be for all the **** democrats support that I don't give a damn about or that I actively oppose Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaave Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 As Barack Obama is gradually learning, his job is to be the president of all Americans at all times. If he likes, he can oppose the idea of marriage for Americans who are homosexual. That's a policy question on which people may and will disagree. However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans—non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers—are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors. This quite simply cannot stand.... A president may by all means use his office to gain re-election, to shore up his existing base, or to attract a new one. But the day of his inauguration is not one of the days on which he should be doing that. It is an event that belongs principally to the voters and to their descendants, who are called to see that a long tradition of peaceful transition is cheerfully upheld, even in those years when the outcome is disputed. I would myself say that it doesn't need a clerical invocation at all, since, to borrow Lincoln's observation about Gettysburg, it has already been consecrated. But if we must have an officiating priest, let it be some dignified old hypocrite with no factional allegiance and not a tree-shaking huckster and publicity seeker who believes that millions of his fellow citizens are hellbound because they do not meet his own low and vulgar standards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 The libertarians at Reason point out that there was no such thing as an inaugural invocation until the 1930s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizzak Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 yglesias tried to ignore the third way issue all day but finally had to approach it in the afternoon after commenters kept hijacking each post on the issue He and other TP bloggers try to toe the party line about how the interference from CAP was a great thing but very few commenters are buying it Ironically, the biggest part is that she (acting CEO of CAP) was rumored to be getting a post as one of the top dod public affairs person but this announcement underlines how little she actually understand about pr. It won't stop her from getting the patronage, but it should given the clear evidence that she knows basically nothing about her area of alleged expertise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizzak Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 frank continues the pushback Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) thinks that President-elect Obama picked same-sex marriage opponent Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation because Obama "overestimates" his ability to unify people."Oh, I believe that he overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences," said Frank, the first House member to come out of the closet voluntarily. Frank, on MSNBC on Monday, said that he's delighted Obama was elected and that the country is headed into the "best time" for public policy since the New Deal. "But my one question is, I think he overestimates his ability to take people, particularly our colleagues on the right, and, sort of, charm them into being nice," Frank said. "I know he talks about being post-partisan. But I've worked, frankly, with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, the current Republican leadership. The current Republican leadership in the House repudiated George Bush. I don't know why Mr. Obama thinks he's going to have them better than George Bush. "And so, to be honest, when he talks about being post-partisan, having seen these people and knowing what they would do in that situation, I suffer from post-partisan depression," Frank said jokingly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaave Posted December 23, 2008 Author Share Posted December 23, 2008 Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate. - richard cohen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 The libertarians at Reason point out that there was no such thing as an inaugural invocation until the 1930s. that was a dark, dark day in American history then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 I have no idea why this party got so thoroughly repudiated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Comstock Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Bill Richardson has pulled out of the administration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recife Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Commerce seemed like a strange choice for him, anyway. Such a low-profile, and ultimately unimportant, position was not what I expected him to accept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Minnesota's secretary of state says the state will confirm Franken as the winner on Monday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Cornyn has said twice that GOP Senators will filibuster any attempt to provisionally seat Franken while Coleman's lawsuits work their way through the court system. Because they have nothing else to do with their time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recife Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 I hope Reid grows a pair and makes them actually carry out the filibuster. I also hope I get a pony next Christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 To be honest, I expect that the Congress will be busy enough enacting a flurry of proposals from Obama that Reid may let the Franken thing slide. Otoh, there really is no better way to portray Congressional Republicans as more interested in gumming up the works than in getting real things done. People want real things done and here they are reading the phone book over Al ****ing Franken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Still trying to figure it out.... RNC chair race: 'Everyone is ... ****ed' By ALEXANDER BURNS | 1/4/09 As Republicans struggle to determine the future of their party after a tough election, intraparty tensions have flared over three forums next week that may prove crucial to determining the winner of the six-way race for the chair of the Republican National Committee — a post that will hold considerable sway over the direction of the GOP. “Some people are ****ed off at [Americans for Tax Reform President] Grover [Norquist]. Some people are ****ed off at the Conservative Steering Committee. Some people are ****ed off at [current RNC chair] Mike Duncan. Some people are ****ed off at social conservatives. The social conservatives are ****ed at leaders in Congress,” said a Republican consultant who has worked with the RNC. “Everyone is basically ****ed.” link Eh? ****ed is good enough for Politico but not for SI. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Cornyn has said twice that GOP Senators will filibuster any attempt to provisionally seat Franken while Coleman's lawsuits work their way through the court system. Because they have nothing else to do with their time. they seem to be doing everything they can to marginalize themselves, don't they. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandaLUFC Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Watching Hemmer squirm for some ****-stirring was satisfying today. He talked to Ragev about Obama's supposed willingness to possibly negotiate with Hamas - asked him whether this was acceptable. Ragev said he wouldn't say unless Obama had explicitly said that.Hemmer pushed again and Ragev kinda flipped (in his Heeby-twinged Aussi accent) "Is it true? Can you definitely confirm it". Hemmer: "Well....we're erm....we're reporting it. We're reporting that Obama might negotiate with Hamas." So, for once, Hemmer's fishing rod got snapped by the fish, but it still reminds me of the South Park Katrina episode. Tom: “Any word on how the survivors in the town are doing, Mitch?”Mitch: “We’re not sure what’s exactly is going on inside the town of Beaverton, Tom, but we’re reporting that there’s looting, raping and, yes, even acts of cannibalism.” Tom: “My God, you’ve actually seen people looting, raping and eating each other?!” Mitch: “No, no we’ve haven’t actually seen it, Tom. We’re just reporting it.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizzak Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I'm seeing a couple articles suggesting that obama's team is dissing dean pretty fierce quoting people close to dean, pretty sad if it's as intentional as it seems given how Dean basically rebuilt a party that looked so rudderless in 2004 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizzak Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 key quotes btw "The snub today was no accident," said one Dean ally. “I guarantee you he would have rescheduled his trip if asked to attend. It’s easy to [screw] over people when you are riding high in the polls, let's see how many people are singing his praises in six months." “It’s the most puzzling thing I’ve ever seen in my life,” added a longtime Democrat and friend of Dean, echoing the exasperation and befuddlement many close to him feel about his treatment since the election. “I have tried my best through [Obama advisers] Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and David Plouffe to ask if he ever committed some crime. I don’t get it. He’s been a good soldier.” “If we can forgive Joe Lieberman for actively campaigning against Obama, this seems crazy to me. And Hillary Clinton did OK, and lots of her people are getting plum assignments,” noted the ally. “I really think [Dean] has rehabilitated himself. He showed he can be team player. It just seems so odd, and I don’t know what the reasons are.” A fourth Dean admirer found some gallows humor in the doctor’s disappearing act: “He said he wanted to be in the Cabinet,” joked the source. “So they stuffed him in the Cabinet and locked the door.” “I get grumpy about it,” [Jim] Dean said. “In fact, I was grumpy about it over Thanksgiving, and Howard pushed back and said, ‘Look, they’re not going do everything for everybody.’” “He understands this is a grown-up business.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaave Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 your run of the mill list of whiners and concern trolls behind this latest "snub" story. ben smith and jmart? check. aravosis? check. bowers? check. jerome? check. I wish they'd all **** off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizzak Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 considering those are quotes from people close to Dean including his brother who still runs Dean's PAC - I'd say the story has legs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaave Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 dean's brother and a bunch of ne'er do wells who are outraged enough to leak quotes but not quite outraged enough to do it on the record. this story has the legs of a worm. 2 weeks from inauguration. no one cares about dean's brother's sense of aggrievement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Yeah, sorry. These gossipy 'OMG, did you hear? Rahm totally *hates* Dean' stories are silly. Who knows what the real story is on any of these things anyway. Maybe Dean and Obama are best buddies, laughing at how far off the stories are. Dean will land on his feet and get his pick of jobs. He won't be on the street, talking about what coulda been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Comstock Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 xoxo, Gossip Girl! does anyone else watch btw? it's awesome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Just checked and Patrick Leahy's seat is up in 2010. Has he said if he's running for re-election? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doog Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Howard pushed back and said, ‘Look, they’re not going do everything for everybody.’”“He understands this is a grown-up business.” tbf that quote on its own suggests the man himself isn't too cut up about it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I got downsized today. I am available to staff Obama's press office. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Comstock Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I got downsized today.I am available to staff Obama's press office. stay strong amigo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Ohhhh, that sucks. Good thing you have that special forces thing on the side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMaster#28 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Jason . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 :D Has anyone else seen the new Fox News show "Huckabee"? It's like a Palin turkey killing video crossed with "Lawrence Welk": "Say, Ann Coulter, there's been a lot of controversy about your new book. And I want to talk about that." The ratings for this show are going to make Joey the Bum's cable access show in Flint look like the last episode of "M*A*S*H". Huckabee's political career is officially dead unless he pulls out very, very soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I am trying to turn this page into an Irish wake? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Needs more alcohol for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The awesomeness of HUCKABEE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Obama inauguration festivities are kicking off in a little bit. Looks like a steady series of concerts leading up to Tuesday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflaff Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Underway now. Stars coming out of the woodwork to get in on this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Rock Stars Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 i see franken overtook coleman after the recount - roughly what chance does franken have of not ultimately ending up the winner? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Comstock Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 i see franken overtook coleman after the recount - roughly what chance does franken have of not ultimately ending up the winner?0.0000001% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Rock Stars Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 jolly good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.