Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > June > 29 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWater police, Buzzard Baptists, definition of marriage, Democrats
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thinking Right’s free-for-all Friday. Pick a topic:
• As usual, Justice Clarence Thomas is right. The liberal wing, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, found that trials by a military commission at Guantanamo are illegal under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention. That ruling does indeed “hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy,” as Thomas argued. No matter how long it takes, getting that fifth justice ought to be conservatives’ top domestic priority.
• I hate drought. It turns us all into a community of Barney Fife water police.
• Well, sure, a million dollars ain’t what it used to be. But walk around the graveyards and tell this and you’ll having ‘em rising up and shaking their heads in disbelief: Metro Atlanta, alone, has 60,799 millionaires, according to research by Claritas, a San Diego demographics firm. When I was a boy, we could talk for hours about the prospect that there were two in the county.
• Before it’s over, we’ll have as many branches of Presbyterians and Episcopals as we do Baptists: Southern Presbyterians, Freewill Presbyterians, Primitive, Independent, Buzzard. Buzzard Baptists? Yes. They’re the ones who show up just for funerals.
• We’re renting lifeguards from Poland, Russia and the Czech Republic. That was the status job of my youth. I’d say, however, that when the lifeguarding jobs go abroad, we’re toast. Or plain couch potatoes.
• It does pinch a bit that for $32 million, the public gets the MLK papers — but not publication rights. And the kids come with the deal. Buy the car, but the prior owner says where it can go and who can ride in it. Still, the papers belonged here.
• We’re killing the old folks. Yep. A lack of public transportation is said to … hold on now, this ride could be a little bumpy … cause old people to die unnecessarily. In wrecks. Ah, you had to be there …
• Warren Buffett is truly an amazing man. All that money and so little ego that he’ll funnel his cash through another guy’s foundation.
• Has anybody seen a death certificate that lists “secondhand smoke” as the cause? Me neither. And yet it’s blamed for such things as the deaths of 430 sudden infant death syndrome newborns. We’re blase about terrorists, but crusading fanatics when it comes to smokers and water-ban violators.
• Cobb commissioners are being asked to call a referendum on whether to borrow $40 million to buy and hold future parkland. They should. Every county between Atlanta and Chattanooga should buy every park, road, firehouse, schoolhouse and public building site they can afford now. Development’s coming. And at some point, the real estate gets too costly.
• Georgia is not a family. So to say, as an advocacy group does with its annual release of a media-bait Kids Count Data Book, that the state performs poorly in caring for children is hogwash. If we identify a problem that leads to the indicators they cite — children in single-parent families, for example — we may find the solution is not the state’s. Gimmicks like the Kids Count Data Book are efforts to raise social spending.
• It’ll be a shocker, to me at least, if the Georgia Supreme Court does not overturn Fulton Superior Court Judge Constance Russell and uphold the overwhelming vote defining marriage. On this issue, voters have no sense of humor. Put 10 amendments on the ballot and all would be approved.
• The headquarters of the national Democratic Party can now safely find compatibility in Berkeley, Calif., where City Council voted this week to ask voters in November whether to impeach President Bush. It’s a 5 percent Republican city. If the Dems retake the U.S. House in November, this is the stuff you’ll get.
• Historically, if judges granted to the legislative branch the deference the U.S. Supreme Court properly grants to state legislatures on redistricting matters, we wouldn’t be having this “activist judge” fight. In a Texas redistricting case, the Supremes affirmed the mid-decade redrawing of congressional lines, done to gain partisan advantage. Redistricting must adhere to standards — equal protection and uniformity, for example — but beyond that politicians are free to joust for political advantage. The U.S. Supreme Court has been incredibly disciplined in avoiding the temptation to bring order to the process — order as they see it.
• From one public housing unit to the next — life in prison — goes the 79-year-old woman who murdered an 85-year-old identified as her “boyfriend.” At 85 and murdered, he was obviously neither boy nor friend.
Permalink | Comments (161) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this
I must have no life… I’m #1 AGAIN (as of when I start this anyway!)
War on Terror/ Border Control: Dale Brown got it right in Act of War and Edge of Battle. HIGHLY recommnded reading, even though fiction.
The City of Atlanta bought the papers, right? As in paid money? The King family should have ABSOLTUELY NO MORE SAY in what happens to them.
Smoking and parkland: Couldn’t agree more. While on the subjects, why is smoking abnned in OUTDOOR public places? I’m not one that says I should be able to smoke EVERYWHERE. I’m very respectful about not doing it around kids or indoors anywhere other than clubs, bars, and the Tabernacle. But why ban it OUTDOORS???????
Count Data Book: Absolutely useless. Only promotes socialism and nany-state concerns.
Marraige Ammendment, Berkeley, and Reddistricting: Amen.
Side note not mentioned in the column: Voter ID was APPROVED by the Feds! Once again showing that the libs are making Mt. Everest out of Death Valley….
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
Good morning, all.
Two quick comments:
I don’t trust the King family to be good stewarts of anything. The buyers of the papers got taken when they agreed to the deal. But, having said that, the King kids know which side their bread is buttered on and will milk the legacy of their father for all it’s worth.
Secondly — on the redistricting plan. Since you mention the old home state (Texas) they have an interesting idea percolating in the legislature back home… an 8 member citizen committee to handle re-districting. A link to the first article I’ve seen on the plan (apparently, they are actually being quiet about an idea — for a change): http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/4014116.html
By Play that funky music white boy
June 30, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
Two quick ones from me today also. Nice shot at Constance Russell, Jim. I guess since an overwhelming majority in GA, AL, and MS would have voted to uphold Jim Crow in perpetuity during the 50’s and 60’s we never should have had Brown v. Board of Education. Why can’t thoughtful people see parallels here? Second, if the poster Ugotta be Kidding gets on here again today - please, don’t call me Bubba, Hoss.
By Van
June 30, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this
We’re renting lifeguards from Poland, Russia and the Czech Republic?? I thought this was the type of job the illegals did for us?
This use to be a prime summer job. You got easy money, a great tan, got to eyeball the opposite sex and you were in charge.
I guess being indoors at a summer video game camp is cooler - what a waste.
By Rival
June 30, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Uh-oh. Jim’s got the vapors over a possible Democratic majority in the House. Jim, fan yourself quick so you won’t pass out in your hoop skirt: “I do declayuh! If those Democrats take the House, they could ask impolite questions of all our fine, upstanding gentlemen leadahs!”
I guess you would call the Republican impeachment of Clinton’s sexual indescretions important public policy.
By deegee
June 30, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
Van, what tells me that if the topic was “polar exploration” you could still find a way to inject illegal immigrants into your post? See requirements below, this may explain why the pool, (no pun intended) of professional, home grown lifeguards is getting shallow.
USLA’s guidelines require every guard to pass a test annually showing they are able to swim 500 meters in 10 minutes or less, take a federally approved CPR course for professional rescuers and have a minimum of 21 hours in first aid, and 40 hours in a surf rescue class.
By Burdell
June 30, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
The parallel between the Jim Crow laws and the Gay Marriage amendment doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Jim Crow laws were designed to deny equal rights to a group determined by skin color, which involves no conscious action on the part of the person.
The Gay Marriage amendment does not do this. First, while there may or may not be a “gay gene,” homosexuality itself requires a conscious action, making it just as dissimilar to heterosexuality as celibacy, in the sense of an overal “lifestyle.”
Since marriage by definition requires two people of the opposite sex, it is just as impossible for two homsexuals to marry as it is for one celibate person to marry himself. It simply doesn’t make sense, given the definition. Thus, there is no inherent civil rights issue in prohibiting gay marriage. As to civil unions, again the problem is that by granting special privileges based upon political expediency, you are denying equal protection to everyone else. While I think the use of civil unions to grant marriage benefits in the workplace points out the problem with making any marriage a government issue at all, providing privileges to some non-married people (homosexuals and other civil-unions) while not others (singles, polygamists, etc), is a clear denial of equal protection.
By jbmlaw
June 30, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Hamdan was interesting enough, maybe more so for what it did not say - it is essentially a ratification of the general actions of Bush, merely a critique of how he did it. Unlimited detention is ok, courts martial are ok, just “military tribunals” are not ok unless Congress adds that as a law. Frist says he will move. A non-issue.
Swift - the international banking monitoring program controversy - is the most interesting topic out there. WSJ had an editorial today persuasively distinguishing itself factually from NYT on the disclosure. They stopped just short of a treason accusation against the NYTimes, “In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements.” Breathtaking.
By
June 30, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Liberals are not going to be happy until they avenge their standard bearer. It’s all about evening the score. They could care less about the war, illegals, oil prices, Roe v. Wade, or much else…just do whatever is necessary to get the House back so they can impeach the President. It’s so transparent and it will never happen.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Burdell — I must disagree with you. The act of marrying someone grants more than 1000 separate protections under the law. Protections for both the married couple and their families. Perhaps we should do away with all the legal protections afforded by marriage. Then we can say we are treating everyone equally under the law, singles, polygamists, same-sex couples … everyone. If we are willing to do that, then your arguement holds. If we continue to grant protection to any single group, including married hetrosexuals, it will continue to be an issue of denying rights to AMERICAN citizens based on their status.
By Jim's a Dummy
June 30, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Smoking related illnesses kill around 400,000 people EACH year in this country. Terrorists have killed about 5,000 people in this country, ever.
What’s the bigger problem?
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
STTS:
Cops and Military get to legally kill people based solely on their status… are you saying that either EVERYONE should be allowed to kill or that cops and Military can’t?
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Dummy:
Name ONE case where second hand smoke killed someone… ONE.
By Jim's a Dummy
June 30, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
“hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy,”
That’s some nice wording by Justice Thomas. It essentially means that President Bush can’t play by his own rules, and so they should be changed.
We’re a nation of laws, allright.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
Jeff — It is not a legal right of the police or the military to walk the streets shooting people. They do, sometimes in the course of their positions, kill other human beings, but it is not a protection under the law. when the police or military kill someone, there is an investigation into those actions. Sometimes those actions are deemed justifiable and sometimes they are not.
Yours is a different discussion — I don’t want the police and military to have a legal right to kill. I want them to be held to a standard, just as any citizen is held to a standard.
BTW, when you are in certain situations, you also may kill someone and have a court find your actions legal, even though you are not a police officer or a member of the military.
By mark
June 30, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
What bothers me is that the King papers were expected to draw between $15-30 million at auction. Why didn’t the city just arrange for all the financing and go to the auction and get the best deal they could?? And the family would probably not still be attached like the leaches they are.
Bet they won’t take some of that $30+ million and use it to fix up the King Center!! But, we’ll probably find a bunch of white-owned businesses to buy that for a pretty tune, too.
By
June 30, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Quote from Burdell: “homosexuality itself requires a conscious action, making it just as dissimilar to heterosexuality as celibacy, in the sense of an overal “lifestyle.”
That is not true. Homosexuality requires NO Action. If a gay man dies a 90 year old virgin, he was still gay. No action required.
By BobD
June 30, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
I’m amazed how quickly the right gives up our rights simply because this President says he wants to take them. We didn’t give up this much in WWII, and that was a war.
By Play that funky music white boy
June 30, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Wow, you get on a conference call - come back and Seeing through the smoke is defending you… Thanks for the backup! But onto your points Burdell, I am more interested, like I hope other people are, in expanding freedoms and protections for Americans to live their lives as they see fit. I like the way you phrase While I think the use of civil unions to grant marriage benefits in the workplace points out the problem with making any marriage a government issue at all, - this is my true point. How in the world is two gay people getting married going to affect my life? Where are my friends the divorce attorneys who stand to make millions if gay people are allowed to enter into binding contracts with one another (and that’s what we are talking about here. That and tax benefits.)
Burdell, please clarify your distinction between something that, in your words, may be a genetic predisposition, but also requires a conscious act. Are you saying - “They may be ‘wired’ to think and feel a certain way, but they still have to act that way, so it’s a choice.”?
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Military kills not protected under the law? Since when? The most basic tenet of UCMJ - which is part of the official United States Code - is that soldiers will follow all orders of their superior officers. INCLUDING pointing that M-16 at that 13 yo pregnant Iraqi girl’s head and pulling the trigger because that isn’t a baby on her belly. (Had a friend of my little bro was in Iraq and developed Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from just such an event.)
Other legal protections provided under UCMJ: Geneva Protocol. Free housing. Free (I think, they MAY have to pay SOMETHING depending on the coverage) medical and life insurance.
All these and more are provided to members of the US Military simply because of their status in it, and MOST of those are “protected under the law”. Please note, however: I am bringing out the military for this discussion just to point out how there are ALREADY groups that have protections under the law that not every American has. I’m STRONGLY in favor of them having all this and more.
Another person that gets things protected under the law that not every American does: POTUS. Yes, that’s right, the President of The United States, whoever he may be at any given time. Do I REALLY need to go into everything HE gets?
Again, just pointing out the logical fallacies in your arguments STTS….
By Play that funky music white boy
June 30, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Jeff,
See the Nuremburg trials. “I was just following orders” is not a viable defense for inhumane acts in our military justice system. And as a prior servicemember, I would not single out the UCMJ as protection, rather its another set of laws set on top of the laws of the US and whatever state in this country you happen to be stationed in, that take precedence.
By RetiredLTC
June 30, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Jeff, under the UCMJ there are definately orders that do not have to be follwed. They are called illegal orders. Actually a soldier is duty bound to disobey an illegal order. Come back when you know a little more about the UCMJ. Also, if the individual you spoke of committed that act, they probably committed murder as defined by the UCMJ.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
Jeff the situation you are describing has already been found to be justified. Again, if that same soldier went down the street shooting people, he would be stopped. He does not have a right to walk down the street killing people outside of situations found to be justified. As to other rights granted to the military, they are not protections under the law. They are, essentially, costs of providing an adequate military. Just as you might also have a position where your housing, medical and other benefits paid in full by your employer, so the people of the US have granted that benefit to soldiers. it is not a protection, but a benefit. The president also has many benefits that you and I dont have, most likely don’t have, anyway. However, those are not rights but benefits (most of which have developed over time).
The military, the police, the President, none of them are above the law.
Back to the original arguement, if you offer legal protections (such as rights of survivorship, etc) to one group of citizens and deny it to another group of citizens based, I think that creates an underclass or unequal class of citizens.
And, Jeff, thank you for this civil disagreement. it’s sometimes difficult on these blogs to maintain a level of decorum. I take no offense that you disagree, I hope you also take no offense.
By Huh?
June 30, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Jeff seems to be suffering blog overload. Each passing blog makes him a little more non-sensical.
By Lee
June 30, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Let’s see, Mayor Franklin and others blackmailed (an appropriate term) local businesses to pony up $32 million to buy the plagarized works of MLK from America’s premier welfare family, which is a premium on what the auctioneers said they were worth, and they come complete with the King children suckling teat. What a deal.
Taxpayers have paid millions to prop up the ubiquious King center, which the kids have squandered, and now, it looks like we’ll do it again to create a civil rights museum to house the papers.
My prediction is that they will blow through these millions in a few years and will be back wanting another handout…
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
PTFMWB:
True. But that “extra set of laws” DOES give you more priveleges than a “normal” American Citizen has.
And another point: NOWHERE in the 14th Ammendment does it say that every American has to be treated absoltuely equally. Matter of fact, looking through the ENTIRE Consitution of the United States of America, NO WHERE does it say that all American Citizens have to be treated absoiltuely equally…
By Toad
June 30, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Seeing through the Smoke, you are absolutely right. There is a class of people in this country who are afforded Special Rights — married couples. Everyone, single or coupled, should have access to health care, retirement benefits, access to their loved ones in the hospital, inheritance, etc. There should be no tax penalty or benefit to married people.
By Play that funky music white boy
June 30, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Jeff, law = priveleges? I’m not following you - not being a jerk, just want to know how you are defining privelege. Laws by their very definition are limitations.
Thanks in advance for you response.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
perhaps you are correct Jeff — however, the declaration of idependence does clearly state:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”3
If we do still hold that to be self-evident, then we must treat all Americans equal under the law.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
The clause in question in the 14th states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
My question:
How is giving extra benefits to any given group “abridging the privileges” of any other given group?
Answer:
It isn’t. Every group still has the same basic privileges. If you choose to opt in to a group that has extra, that’s fine too.
BTW: NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT MARRY. What has been said is that they can’t marry each other. If a gay couple wants to marry, find a lesbian couple and have a double ceremony. Problem solved….
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
STTS:
All men ARE created equal…. It doesn’t say anything about what happens after birth. When anyone comes out the mother, we all come out naked and screaming… perfectly equal. After that is up to a variety of factors.
PTFMWB:
Those laws give you added privileges. Yes, they constrain you a bit more as well, but they do give you added perks.
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
I hate the drought too. But I am concerned about our water supply for my grandchildren (not born yet). I am also puzzled by all the money around here. I’m smart and I work hard, and I just don’t see where all these people get all their money. I live paycheck to paycheck.
Buzzard Baptists? That’s funny. Anyway, we should all go to church, but if someone doesn’t, that’s between them and God.
MLK papers. Shame, shame, shame, shame on those greedy King kids. If they really cared about their father’s legacy they would have donated the papers. They are a form of low that would have their mother and father turning over in their graves.
The old folks and public transportation? I haven’t heard that one but the way you describe it, it sounds like one more way to scream “victim”. Haven’t we all be victims of something at one point in our lives? Some of us get over it and get on with our lives. Others sue….
Warren Buffet - I didn’t know that much about him, but what a guy! Inspirational.
By Jim Hazeltine
June 30, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
My personal political views lie somewhere between yours and Cynthia’s, but your support today for the Scalia/Thomas dissent re military tribunals is bizarre. Since when does conservatism advocate suspension of due process and the creation of executive empowerment by fiat?
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Oops. Forgot the one that is most important to me.
Marriage = 1 woman + 1 man. Period. Sanctioned by God.
I don’t have a problem changing the laws to provide some protection for homosexual unions or live-ins in a committed relationship. I am not 100% sure that we married folks should be treated to a more favorable tax law, insurance options, etc. I could probably go either way depending on how I’m feeling on married rights vs. commited partners. I do, however, feel the term “MARRIAGE” is holy, and should be 1 man and 1 woman.
By Toad
June 30, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
MLK papers were copyrighted by Dr. King, himself. Whoever bought the papers - Harvard University, Library of Congress or a private collector — would still have to confer with the heirs if they want to publish any of the papers. This is not a limitation just for Atlanta.
By TF160
June 30, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Seeing through the smoke, it is not just Americans that are considered equal under the law by our constitution. That seems to be a fact lost on numerous people on this blog.
By Play that funky music white boy
June 30, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
Jeff,
Are you going to argue that homosexuals should not marry to maintain the sanctity of marriage as between one man and one woman, then come on here advocating that homosexual couples (gay and lesbian) somehow work out an arrangement where they legally “marry” the others partner?
And I’ve got to ask - you reference the UCMJ and “military priveleges” so much. Are you prior service?
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Jeff — if you deny a group of people protection under the law that you have afford to another group of people, that limits the protection granted to the first group. To be clear: Granting automatic rights of survivorship, inheritance to a group of people that only exist because of your definition (married hetrosexual couples) limits the rights of all other people who are not married hetrosexual couples. Such rights under the laws, granted automatically to married hetrosexual couples can be (sort of)proximated through legal action on the part of people who do not belong to that group. It boils down to SPECIAL RIGHTS for married hetrosexual couples. Which cannot be equal protections under the laws.
BTW, your suggestion that a gay couple and a lesbian couple could proximate those right through a double ceremony does not create the protection under the law. The gay couple would not have rights of survivorship or inheritance with their gay partner, they would have created those rights with one member of the lesbian couple they “married”.
By a want-to-be water supplier
June 30, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
OK folks, repeat after me, “There is plenty of water. The monopoly(ies) just won’t spend the money to provide it when we demand it.” We wouldn’t need the “Barney Fife water police” if the ‘sole-source suppliers’ controlling the water supply would spend the monies needed to provide it to their customers! They have a monopoly and could make oodles of profit if they did. No one would have to conserve water. If I had the monopoly, I’d expand my infrastructure and treatment capabilities to sell as much water as possible … at a price for a NICE profit! I would not want you to fix the leaks, or install low-use faucets/toilets/etc. I would want you to plant the most water-demanding lawn and trees possible. Give me the job, PLEASE, and you’ll have all the water you want … but at 2 to 5 times the current cost.
By Play that funky music white boy
June 30, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
Barbara,
I respect your belief, but let me ask a question on your last post. Does Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman forever? I can see where the word “marriage” can mean something to you that would make you uncomfortable seeing same sex couples using. Does it also make you uncomfortable for Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to use it? How about Liza Minelli and David Gest (wow, talk about a freak wedding)? The woman in my office who’s been married three times and has four kids and is divorced again?
By RetiredLTC
June 30, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
It is obvious that Jeff has never served one day in the military.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Barbara — your comment on marriage (which I completely agree with) is why the judge overturned the amendment. You could not chose to protect marriage and also grant the same protections offered by marriage to all Georgians. It is two separate issues.
TF 160 — I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing out my error.
By Toad
June 30, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Barbara — Bingo! You just disproved Jim Wooten’s point about Put 10 amendments on the ballot and all would be approved. Your feel that marriage is only for 1 man and 1 woman, so you would vote for paragraph 1 of the ballot question. However, since you feel that homosexual unions may be entitled to some protection and you are not sure that married couples should have favorable tax laws or insurance protection, you may have voted against paragraph 2, that prohibits same-sex couples from receiving benefits that married couples have. (I hope I haven’t misrepresented what you said.) Therefore, voters may feel differently about the two paragraphs, and the superior court judge was correct in saying the ballot question violated the one subject rule.
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
Okay, Funky, you make a good point. I believe marriage is forever (or until death). I myself am in my first marriage, going on 19 years now. The divorce rate is alarming, and is causing moral decay and crime in our country. We as a society should put more pressure on our friends to try to work it out. Go to counseling, try harder, etc. I know someone is going to say “what about abuse”. My answer to that is get the hell out of there! Quick. But Catholics will tell you that you should even try to work that out. I won’t condemn that opinion because marriage is sacred. You swear an oath before God to love, cherish, honor and obey until death do you part.
By Mid-South Philosopher
June 30, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
While I often disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions and as much as it galls me, they may have gotten this one right regarding the Guanatanamo detainees. The Congress, which has NOT declared war since December of 1941, has abdicated too much of its war-making powers to the Executive Branch. Maybe this will be the beginning of Congress returning to its true Constitutional duties and responsibities with respect to armed action.
Also, just a thought. The last war that the United States can cite as an overwhelming success was “declared” by the Congress, not “authorized” by some “resolution!”
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Toad, first, I don’t care if I disproved Jim or not. This is a discussion and that’s my opinion. I’m sure I don’t agree with him on every point. I’ll respond to you though on the voting. I am not the most educated voter. I don’t spend lots of time researching every angle of every law. I have an idea of the way I think things should be, and I try to vote that way, but sometimes the complicated bills confuse me. When I’m faced with a bill that has 2 different items in it (like you describe), I vote for it if it contains something I feel strongly about (as an example, I would vote to keep marriage as a union of 1 man and 1 woman, even if I had to vote against giving homosexuals the same rights.) However, if a bill had multiple issues and I didn’t feel strongly about any of them, I don’t vote for it, because I am afraid I’d be voting for something that I don’t agree with. Hope that answers your questions.
By Bill Gates
June 30, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Warren Buffett is a great role model for the rich.
It is a shame our government has no role models and set criminal standards for our children.
We need more Warren Buffetts in this crazy world.
By Dittoheadwound
June 30, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Loved Jim’s column today. So many Germane Peepholes into the Furor.
What….?
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Any legal wrangling at this point on the Marraige Ammendment is just that - legal wrangling. The people that lost are upset that they lost and they are doing everything they can to tell the 76% of Georgians that voted for the Ammendment that Georgians are wrong stupid idiots. (Might even throw in some other words.) They are trying to say “My vote counts more than yours and I am more equal than you.” It amounts to nothing more than a heckler’s veto.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Jeff — I have to disagree with you on the “legal wrangling”. It is a very important point that amendments to the constitution follow the laws governing their creation. It is extraordinarily important that people, like Barbara, have the option to say “I want to protect marriage” but I don’t want to create SPECIAL RIGHTS or deny rights to others. Perhaps you don’t mind that, in the rush to “protect marriage”, our government officials created a document that does not follow the law. I care very deeply that we create just laws and that we follow the guidelines for creating those laws.
I also believe that creating an underclass of people to protect the special rights of others is wrong. I don’t believe in affirmative action because I believe it created a privleged class of individuals under the law.
By cookindiggin
June 30, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Glad to see the link to this wacko blog is broken. Hate speech and closed mindedness such as this belongs behind a closed door.
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
So, Dittoheadwound, what would you blog about?
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
STTS:
What about Georgians’ right to equality of the vote? One man, One vote. Right? So how does 24% of the populace get off on overriding 76% of the populace’s vote?
You talk about special rights? Heck, I’m only demanding EQUAL rights!
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Hey cookindiggin, no one is forcing you to find your way to this blog. If you don’t have something to contribute, just don’t read it……. Sheesshhh…..
By Dittoheadwound
June 30, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
With you, Barbara, I’d like to blog about how it’s important to click on the ads on Jim’s page so that his blog will live. I dont mind wading through comments that contain 5000 italicized words as long as this blog provides access for us all to vent, but that could easily end if we all dont click on an ad once in a while. Now, I’m going to scroll down, and click on an ad right now…..scrolling here…..clicking….ah! I could save money on my car insurance….this is great! yes, I do want a free cellphone….oh boy!! Discounts on CDs!! DVDs!! Oh people,you gotta see the deals.
Click on Jim’s ads people. please?? Pretty please???
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
Jeff — it’s not about the vote — the amendment was not written correctly under existing GA law. Your vote counted, your legislators erred in the wording of the amendment and that’s the problem. Put it up again (although I think marriage is pretty well protected and it’s a waste of my tax $$) as two separate issues. The problem is not whether or not the issue passed, it’s about whether or not the legislature followed the rules in drafting the law. The courts are supposed to send it back to the legislature if there was an error in the drafting, regardless of the outcome of the vote.
No one is saying that the vote is wrong — the amendment was poorly drafted, that’s the issue the judge ruled on, not if 24% of the voters who voted against are more important than the 76% who voted for it.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
STTS:
It is ALL about the vote. Had it been defeated, you would not hear the left whining right now…
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Jeff — quick example to help clarify the real issue.
If the amendment had said marriage is one man and one woman and that said marriage will no longer have automatic rights of survivorship. That would be two separate issues. you might want to vote yes on the first part and no on the second part.
as it stands the amendment says (paraphrasing) marriage is one man and one woman and no other unions can be afforded protection under the law. I might want to vote yes on the first part and no on the second.
GA law says that it has to be two separate amendments so that voters in GA have their votes count on each issue.
By rarringt
June 30, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
I’m just curious about what so many people on this website consider to be issues: flag burning, gay marriage, “intelligent design,” and of course, whether lying about sex is an impeachable offense.
None of that has anything to do with limited goverment, fiscal responsibility, and a strong military, which up until 2000, was what “serious” conservatives claimed to be about. Unfortunately, it appears the elements of the GOP that used to make sense has been jacked by the Religious Right, as evidenced by the posts on this blog.
For example, why is there pushback on the Guantanamo Bay torture issue? What part of “rule of law” don’t people understand? What part of “due process” do you not get?
The 14th amendment guarantees that no person (not citizen, but person) will be denied life, liberty or property without due process, and that all persons are subject to equal protection under the law.
And for those of you non-lawyers who get your constitutional “expertise” from watching too much Fox News, due process does apply to parties we subject to our jurisdiction (check the Hamdi decision from the SC).
Iraq, energy issues, education, the economy, social security, health care, to name a few, are issues which should be discussed here. But instead, you people want to talk about how a marriage is between a man and a woman, or that we should have an amendment to protect the flag.
No wonder things are so much more of a mess than usual. Sheesh.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
76% of Georgians saw it as one issue: banning gay marraige. To say otherwise to try to invalidate said vote and say that the principle of “One man, One vote” does not apply
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Jeff — that’s the sort of thinking that prevents us from solving our problems like adults. You assume that there is just empty “whining” by people who disagree with you rather than a leglimate arguement. It is a legimate point of law and I believe it is an important rule to follow. See my example above for illustration.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Jeff — I don’t agree that 76% of Georgians saw it as one issue, they saw the issue that overwhelming outraged them and got them fired up and out to vote — stopping gay marriage. It is clearly two separate issues. there is a clear difference between defining marriage and defining civil unions. They are clearly two separate issues and the legislature tried to paint them with the same stroke.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
STTS:
I GARAUNTEE YOU that had it not been worded s it was and civil unions were allowed in this state, you would have had a couple MILLION people saying “We banned that in this state, why did some judge say it was allowed?”
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
STTS:
Georgians said “We don’t want homosexuals using the word “marraige” to describe their relationships with their partners. Ban it, and ban anything that looks like it.”
By Toad
June 30, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Jeff, 76% saw it as one issue which is how it was presented. But since people were mislead, that is why the wording of the ballot initiative is being contested in the courts. Prior to the 2004 vote I canvassed against the marriage amendment. Many voters I talked to said they believed marriage is between one man and one woman. Then when I said, “Did you know that the amendment also prohibits gay couples from having civil union benefits?” people were not aware that was part of the amendment and often said they thought it was okay for a long-term couple to have some benefits. Bottom line: the language on the ballot did not truthfully represent what people were voting on.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
one additional comment: I humbly submit that by combining the issues, the legislature did try to invalidate the votes of some Georgians. They tried to take away our legal right to vote on each issue, on it’s own merits, thereby forcing us to vote with one vote on two separate issues.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
I’m getting tired of repeating myself:
Georgians voted on ONE issue. Georgians voted to BAN gay marraige in any form that it could possibly take. We knew EXACTLY what we were doing.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
jeff — that’s a guarantee you cannot back up. If that’s what Georgians wanted, that’s what they should have gotten to vote for. There is no way to know if that is really how people would have voted. We were not given our legal right to vote on each issue, on it’s own merits. Georgians didn’t to vote on we want to ban gay marriage AND on anything that looks like it. they had to vote on both, without being able to distinguish one from the other.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Perhaps, Jeff, you knew exactly what you were voting for… it still violates Georgia law in the way it was written.
By Toad
June 30, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Jeff, you must be a really good psychic to know exactly what all those voters were thinking.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
STTS:
No, it does not. Georgia law requires any constitutional ammendment to deal with one subject. This one ONLY dealt with ONE subject. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable.
By Jim Wooten
June 30, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Jeff’s right. It’s one subject. Marriage. Had it dealt with flag burning and a definition of marriage, it would have been two. A blog-only prediction: Judge Russell will be overturned 6-1, with Chief Justice Sears dissenting. There’ll be no special session.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Defining marriage and defining civil unions are two separate issues, Jeff, not one issue. Sorry, just because you say it’s the same doesn’t make it so. I believe marriage has a spiritual and religious context that carries separate and special ethical context and repsonsiblities. Civil Unions are simply legal contracts creating partnership between two adults who can legally enter into a contract.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
I’m respecfully going to bow out now. I’m tired of repeating myself, and I’ve got better ways to waste my day. (Including going to Chatt to buy things that go boom)
Y’all have fun, and if the discussion picks up on something OTHER than the Marraige Ammendment I’ll prolly join back in.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Jim — you may be correct in how the court will rule, there is a lot of pressure for them to do just that. However, that doesn’t make it truly one issue. Again, there is no way to really know if the voters would have said the same resounding no to both aspects of this issue. Many people, including myself, believe that while marriage must be protected, we cannot in good conscience, deny consenting adults the same right to protect their assets and relationship.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten (or maybe someone else can help)
Couple of questions:
Can someone please put up the exact phrasing of the ammendment. I don’t think it mentions “civil unions” at all, but I could be wrong. It says something like “no construct shall be created that carries the privilges of marraige in this state”. I could be wrong there though.
Can this go any further court-wise? I think that since it is a State Constitution issue it can’t, but I could be wrong. Can someone please clarify for me?
By Joeventures
June 30, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Here’s a link to a summary of the study Jim referred to.
The study results are really kind of obvious if you think about it. Older people are generally more frail than younger people, and therefore more likely to be seriously injured or die in a car wreck. Older people are generally more succeptable to getting into car wrecks than younger people. The U.S. population is aging, so we’re going to be more likely to see more fatal or serious car wrecks over the next couple of decades.
It’s really not that difficult.
Jim merely did what he usually does. He assumed we readers are stupid and would take him at his word. He then twisted the study around to make it look like a lack of public transportation is causing older people to die in car wrecks.
In other words, he twisted the reality to fit his own conclusions. That’s pretty normal for Jim Wooten.
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Yeah Jim. Put up the wording. I’m curious too now…..
By
June 30, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Common Sense and Conservative, in the same phrase? Doesn’t seem possible. The first part of conservative is conserve. So why do so many folks with W stickers and Jesus fish have to drive SUV’s? I guess bigger cars protect you from all the terrorists standing on street corners.
By time for the truth
June 30, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Regardless of how much fun it is seeing seeing shrill homosexuals and liberals yet again getting extremely uppity it isn’t fair to deny them reasonable rights afforded to adults by civil unions. Homosexuals should have similar legal rights/protection afforded to folks who have common law marriages.
By MB
June 30, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Cops and Military get to legally kill people based solely on their status… are you saying that either EVERYONE should be allowed to kill or that cops and Military can’t?
I can’t speak to the military, but as for cops, under similar circumstances, they have no more or less right to kill someone that you or I.
By Toad
June 30, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Here it is from the Secretary of State’s website:
Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.”
SECTION 2.
The above proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be published and submitted as provided in Article X, Section I, Paragraph II of the Constitution. The ballot submitting the above proposed amendment shall have written or printed thereon the following:
“YES ( ) NO ( )
Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?”
All persons desiring to vote in favor of ratifying the proposed amendment shall vote “Yes.” All persons desiring to vote against ratifying the proposed amendment shall vote “No.” If such amendment shall be ratified as provided in said Paragraph of the Constitution, it shall become a part of the Constitution of this state.
By Moderate Republican
June 30, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
“Has anybody seen a death certificate that lists “secondhand smoke” as the cause? Me neither. And yet it’s blamed for such things as the deaths of 430 sudden infant death syndrome newborns. We’re blase about terrorists, but crusading fanatics when it comes to smokers and water-ban violators.”
Mr. Wooten, please do us a favor and educate yourself about topics before you continue to throw out uninformed and ignorant views. There are adverse health AND economic impacts that result from smoking; these greatly surpass any loss of life or economic costs associated with terrorism to date (unless one counts the so-called “war on terror” as a cost)….
In 2005 the CDC reported that smoking cost the nation about $92 billion in the form of lost productivity in 1997-2001, up about $10 billion from the annual mortality related productivity losses for the years 1995-1999. The new lost productivity estimate when combined with smoking-related health-care costs, which was reported at $75.5 billion in 1998, exceeds $167 billion per year in the United States.
The report also finds that during 1997-2001 an estimated 438,000 premature deaths occur each year as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. In comparison, approximately 440,000 smoking-related deaths were estimated to have occurred annually from 1995-1999.
Why shouldn’t our society be crusading against tobacco use? It is costing taxpayers, and our economy, billions!
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Time for the truth — We agree on the civil unions issue however I disagree with your description of the conversation as “shrill” and “uppity” I think we have been quite civil (Although I do apologize to Jeff, as I did not intend to frustrate him or disparage his arguments and I am sincerely sorry for anything that did so. I hope that we can continue to disagree in a civil and curteous fashion.) I personally find Jeff refreshingly honest in his opinions and (correct me if I am wrong) genuine in seeking what is right, ethical and moral. I disagree with him on some issues regarding what is right, ethical and moral, but I respect his opinions and his genuine concern for the issues.
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Thank you Toad. I will admit that paragraph 1 section (b) is not 100% clear to me, but it uses the word “marriage” to the point that I interpret it to mean the holy, sacred, sanctified by God union of a man and woman. Therefore, while I don’t specifically remember if I voted for this or not, in reading it, I would have voted yes, and I don’t see it denying homosexuals or civil unions any legal rights. I see it denying them “married” rights, and perhaps married rights have legal implications, so I see the granting of legal rights to civil unions as a separate matter that is not addressed in the language you attached.
That’s my take on it.
By Tigerlily
June 30, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Death certificates never call smoking the cause of death either. It’s lung cancer, or emphysema, or heart disease. Many people with lung cancer are non-smokers so they got the disease from second-hand smoke or pollution or whatever.
By seeing through the smoke
June 30, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
per the secretary of state website:
PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEMBER 2, 2004
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 1 and 2
Senate Resolution No. 595 Resolution Act No. 841 Ga. L. 2004, p. 1111
A RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman; to provide for submission of this amendment for ratification or rejection; and for other purposes.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1.
Article I of the Constitution is amended by adding a new Section IV to read as follows:
“SECTION IV. MARRIAGE
Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.”
By Toad
June 30, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
Barbara, this is my interpretation of (b): First sentence says no same sex union is entitled to the benefits of marriage. This is what people refer to as “civil unions” although that term isn’t used. So this could prohibit, for example, an employer giving domestic partners similar benefits as it gives to married couples, such as insuring their partners. (although it would be open to interpretation.)
The second sentence says Georgia doesn’t have to recognize gay marriages performed in another state and the third sentence says gays cannot use divorce laws.
This is my interpretation of the amendment and I have experience in translating legalese into ordinary language.
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Tigerliliy:
Smoking isn’t the ONLY thing that causes lung cancer, or heart cancer, or emphysema….
Toad and STTS:
Thanks. As I suspected, there are a few points I’d like to make:
“Civil union” is NOT addressed in the wording of the Ammendment. As such, the ONLY topic addressed is how the State handles marraige, specifically same sex marraige.
IF you’re going to go for a two-subject ruling based on the wording of that Ammendment, the FAR better (and possibly winnable) fight is to say that it addresses two different types of marraige. First, it defines marraige as opposite sex. Then, it describes how the state will not recognize same sex marraige. THAT could be your two subjects… MAYBE.
If Gay couple REALLY want to marry… go to Massachusetts. Then come back here. Per the wording of that Amendment, we can’t marry ya, and we won’t recognize it… but neither can we divorce ya!
By Toad
June 30, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Sentence one doesn’t say “civil union” it says “no union… is entitled to the benefits of marriage.” That could include civil unions.
By Tigerlily
June 30, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
Jeff, I agree. I think I said in my post that many non-smokers have lung cancer and it can be caused by pollution, second hand smoke, etc.
By Barbara
June 30, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Toad, I think we may both be right. I agree with you that the interpretation is that civil unions will not be recognized as marriage and therefore an employer could deny benefits to a civil union. However, I don’t think it’s this amendment that could change how employers treat civil unions. I think that would have to be addressed in the laws, or rules, or whatever, that address the legal entitlements of marriage. I don’t think this amendment was meant to deny rights to civil unions. I think it’s purpose was to define marriage. I think, if people wanted to address rights of civil unions, it would have to be a separate issue.
By moderate republican
June 30, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Jeff: according to the CDC, smoking is directly responsible for approximately 90 percent of lung cancer deaths and approximately 80-90 percent of COPD (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) deaths.
I have never heard of any cases of “heart cancer.”
By Jeff
June 30, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
ModRep:
And what about second hand smoking? How do your proove it? I can accept that smoking is bad FOR ME. What I challenge you to proove is how me smoking in an outsoor space in any way harms YOU.
By Toad
June 30, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Barbara, I hope you are right that the language wouldn’t take away employers rights to grant whatever benefits they want, but that’s the proble