Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > July > 11 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USActivism can’t take credit in gay marriage ruling
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Is Fulton Superior Court Judge Constance Russell, whose decision to trash a constitutional amendment approved by 76 percent of Georgia voters was itself unanimously ash-canned by the state Supreme Court last week, an “activist judge”?
Maybe. Maybe not. Partisans and commentators on the right go so far as to declare her a “rogue activist” link on the marriage issue. While there can be no doubt that judicial activism in Massachusetts fired the cauldron nationally, conservatives do ourselves no favors by falling into the trap set by ideological adversaries. That trap is to declare unpopular decisions evidence of activism.
Judicial activism is real. It’s a serious problem. Decisions on voter ID dance there. The clue on that issue is when judges start to substitute their legislative agenda for those of elected representatives by declaring, for example, as U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy of Rome did, that the greater problem for legislators was absentee voting fraud. That’s an arguable point. But legislators are free to choose which of the state’s multitude of problems to address when and how. Object to their priorities, as judges and editorialists often do, and the simple remedy is either to pay the qualifying fee and run, or to put alternatives out there and let public opinion choose.
Judicial activism grew out of the impatience with legislative process — whether the definition of marriage should be expanded, for example. It grew, too, from the arrogance that afflicts the unchallenged. It is awfully tempting to fashion whole remedies, to imagine those who serve the other two branches of government to be prisoners of timidity or politics. Believing that, it’s not a far leap to push them all out of the way and to start divining solutions that spend public money.
Judges are not entirely at fault here. In some instances legislatures or mayors or governors intentionally avoid dealing with the dirty issues, such as prison overcrowding, because it’s far easier to fill ‘em than it is to raise the taxes to build ‘em. Much easier to explain to voters, too, that the devil made us do it.
In general, though, groups that are incapable of selling their agendas to elected officials have found ways to go around them, and the courts are key. But another special interest ploy, too, is to marshal resources at the federal level — the traditional route for organized labor and other activists. By law or regulation, a win there imposes agendas on the 50 states.
Organized labor, in its current jihad against Wal-Mart, had to go to the 50 states individually because it currently lacks the clout in Congress to impose a mandate that large employers spend a minimum of 8 percent of payroll on employee medical benefits. It succeeded in one. Maryland. In Georgia, the bill never got out of committee.
The marriage amendment decision by Fulton’s Judge Russell was not activist in the least. One could argue that whether a judge perceived the ballot phrasing to be one issue or two does offer some clue as to her leanings. The traditionalist’s certainty that marriage is one man/one woman and who believe that the definition should not be fudged, expanded or altered in any way saw the ballot question as indisputably one issue. If, however, marriage is a lifestyle choice enjoying entitlements denied other equally valid lifestyle choices, the ballot measure was two subjects, as Russell ruled.
If I were judge-shopping a challenge based on other grounds, I’d look her up.
In this instance, though, it’s wrong to call her an activist, and there was certainly nothing rogue about her decision. That two levels of judges could look at the same law and the same set of facts, and come to decidedly different conclusions is one reason to know more about who we’re putting on the bench — more certainly than résumés.
The case to watch out for in Fulton, though, for evidence of judicial activism is the one filed against the state by the administrators of some local school systems who are failing to educate children. They blame their failure on money and want more. Money’s one possible explanation. Dozens of others exist, too.
There’s no “solution” — or at least not one this nation has discovered, nor any appropriate sum to spend. It’s a give-and-take that should occur in a political environment where education spending is competing with other priorities. This suit and others like it around the nation are end runs around legislators.
Judicial activism is real. It’s not, however, issuing opinions conservatives don’t like.
Jim Wooten is associate editorial page editor. His column runs Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays.
Permalink | Comments (185) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Politcal Foreskin
July 11, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Gay Marriage is the topic or headline in three of the articles on pages 8 and 9 in the @ISSUE section of today’s AJC. A little obsessed with writing about this topic are we? What kind of journalism is this, “Brokeback Fountain(pen)?”
I’d suggest a line-item-veto at editorial brainstorming sessions if I didn’t think you’d make a line(dance)-item-veto out of it. Now I’m afraid to say anything.
The gay lilt, (that distinctive timbre of a gay man’s voice), is ubiquitous on Public Radio broadcasts. Isn’t there a newsprint text type equivalent that could serve as a warning: “Dont read this if you are sick to death of gay marriage, gay unions, or gay anything”
The Right won a pyrrhic victory over the phallic dictionary definition of marriage with the Ga. Supreme Court’s ruling. Now gay marriage wont be on the ballot to rally the lunatic fringe to get out and smart mob the election. Dittoheadwounds wont vote if there’s no (gay bashing) hate crime in it for them.
The other bad news for the right is in the big picture of the Ga. Supreme Court’s decision that the gay marriage measure was only one issue: it put civil unions on equal footing with marriage - that is, by declaring civil unions and marriage as equal legal identities on a ballot measure, then a really clever lawyer can construct an argument that does an end run around both the legislature and the court ruling.
Fine with me as long as I dont have to read anymore about gays. (not that there’s anything schlong with that) D’oh!
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
It looks like your liberal political foreskin is actually as obsessed with defending homosexuality as this shrinking circulation liberal fish wrapper is.
I am as sick of reading about homosexuals and their shrill activism as anyone.
Although its increasingly the case that most liberals consider homosexuality as a way of widening the circle of their friends.
You gleefully and profusely sneer at normal (conservative) folks who democratically binned homo marriage - but yet you stridently decry a seeming pinko obsession with the pooftah topic. So no hint of hypocrisy there - eh!!
Your liberal intellectual dishonesty is hugely amusing though - its not “a hate crime” to legally vote against marriage for homos.
Given the overwhelming majority that voted in GA against marriage for homos a good number of dems and independents must have supported the measure. So your poxy poof protecting prattle about “lunatic fringes smart mobbing elections” is as empty as your petulant pyrrhic little liberal head.
Perhaps you should emulate Chuck Berry for a while and “go play with your own ding a ling”!!
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Say it, dont spray it.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
Now that response is much closer to the real YOU - cheers for the rather belated intellectual HONESTY!!
By Sara
July 11, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Time for the Truth, a true biological heterosexual male would not be as consumed with the subject of gay marriage as you obviously are. As a true 100% biological female, straight at that, if I had some type of built in gaydar…it would be alarming right now. You can say pinko leftist and homo marriage until pigs fly, but I can still detect the lisp in how you type. Your need for attention is underwhelming, your need for a hiry chest to be pressed up to yours, monolithic.
By Sara
July 11, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
oops hairy chest…is what I meant to say.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
Jim, thanks for “thinking right” about this issue. You and I are on opposite sides of the court ruling because I agree with Judge Russell that it is two subjects, but I appreciate you making the distinction about activist judges and not just calling a judge activist when you don’t agree with her ruling. Often conservatives use that label only for judges who rule against conservative values.
As for the first two posters — you are showing your homophobia. Jim is writing about activist judges — not bashing gays.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
To be honest, I don’t know which side of the argument either of the two previous posters are on, because they are obviously in love with their dictionary/thesaurus. But I agree with Wooten (rare occurance). There is some level of activism on the bench, but it isn’t as rampant as most would say. I would go even further to say that the judicial branch is appointed by elected officials, many of which are now GOP. So those that chirp the loudest about judicial activism should realize this and ask themselves, are their beliefs the victim of some liberal judicial agenda, or fairly decided rulings based on facts and the law decided by judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats. I think the person to ask about that would be George W. Bush. He has been able to name 2 supreme court justices, including one who replaced the swing vote of Sandra Day O’Connor, but yet has had rulings that went against his policies regarding prisoners at Guantanamo. Judges, while imperfect like the rest of us, usually have gotten where they are by being fair and followers of the law.
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Yes it is time for the truth, time for the truth. And the truth is that the whole issue is bulls%*#! There are so many more IMPORTANT issues that get totally lost when these ideological distractions hit the front burner. It never ceases to amaze me how many issues can be manufactured by pols on both sides that allow them to dodge real issues and tough questions. But they realize that xenophobia,homophobia,racism,bigotry,and nativism is what incites the masses. What is so tragic is that these non-issues bring out the above inclined rabble and tells all how sad our society still is.
By deegee
July 11, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Here we see that judicical activism grows out of impatience with the legislative process because the judicial branch imagines that the legislative and executive branches are prisoners of timidity and politics. Then we see that the legislative and executive branches really are prisoners of timidity and politics. In the case of the timid, political hacks that are elected to the Georgia legislature, even when they do actually adopt some legislation it is so poorly written that it takes a judge to sort it out. Stop trying to legislate moral ideology and your interpretation of Jesus Christ’s vision for the U.S. in the year 2006. Maybe then we could get back to the basics like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
I should have said “first two posters”.
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
AMEN deegee!
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
@ Sara
This is too funny - yet another liberal haggette attempts to lecture its conservative betters with vacuous bollocks from the Howard Dean skool of hateful liberal pop psychology.
The imbecilic stock pinko response is - anyone who objectively critiques shrill homosexual activism must really be a closet poof!!
WOW!! That’s completely stumped me love, I have NO response to that, I’m utterly speechless!! In such ignominious circumstances how can I can I best beseech you to show some of that munificent Clintonesque/Carville/Begala like liberal compassion??
Christ - I bet if Pavlov were alive today he’d love to have a litter of liberal dogs and b*** to condition!!
Talking of pigs flying, will you be voting for Shrillary in any of the southern primaries if he/she/it makes it down south?
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
I wish we could put the extreme wings of both sides in a sound proof booth, while the grown ups talk about real issues and actually get something done.
Can you imagine Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Pat Robertson in the same room with Michael Moore, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson and Cindy Sheehan? Yikes.
By Jacob
July 11, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
By Jim’s definition, the two most glaring cases of an activist judge’s political ideology becoming evident in their ruling, in the past century, have been Brown V. Board of Education, and Bush v. Gore. Both are clearcut cases of judges “substitut[ing] their legislative agenda for those of elected representatives.”
By MClark
July 11, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Sorry to get off topic but I need to know something.
In my life I have had my military service questioned 4 times. The first was in 1967, when I decided to enlist. My father, who had fought for freedom himself, was not happy. He knew the horrors that I possibly faced and had hoped I would never have to go. The second time was after I returned home and started college. My father had every right to question my decision. He loved me and was simply trying to protect me. He was proud of me, but feared what may happen. The students spoke out of fear and were caught up in a fervor that can scarcely be understood today.
The third and fourth times have remarkably happened just in the last month. First I was told that my service didn’t matter and that I should “get over it”. Second, yesterday, a person named Pompano took it upon himself (or herself) to proclaim that I never served, that I made it all up. That I was confusing my time in Southeast Asia with service in the Girl Scouts.
What possibly did I do to bring this on myself? I disagreed with their right leaning opinions. I had the audacity to say things that didn’t fit their orthodoxy and therefore I was fair game to ridicule and in the latest case doubt I even served. I didn’t sleep much last night I was so upset and angry. My son said to ignore it. My wife said let it pass. I said hell no.
Enough is enough.
Those that know me from previous posts know I try not to call names or take sides, but I’ve got to know something. Is this the way the right does things. Since 1969 no one on the left has questioned my service. But two on the extreme right have done so in one month. To my right leaning friends I want to know, is this how things are done? Are you OK with your side being represented by shameful people like Pompano. Like it or not many Americans see you guys as bullies, a claim that I know is by and large not true. But it is folks like this who make you seem like you are.
I came to this blog a skeptic. I became convinced over time that it was a great place to discuss ideas and learn from people who have opinions different from me. I have no problem with debate and no problem with someone who disagrees with me. I am beginning, however to believe that the bullies rule the day. I am too old, too tired, and too damn proud to have my service to this country ridiculed and doubted based on my view of the issues. This is too much. It’s just too unsettling.
Call me a whiner, call me a cry-baby, call me whatever names you want. You’ll just prove that I am right. My posts are usually well thought out and carefully written. This is a vent. I know it and I’m sorry. I’m sorry for its tone and I’m sorry if it is a bit incoherent. But I’m angry and I want to know if the Right thinks this is OK. If so, then this moderate is gone.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Why is it anyone who has sympathy or compassion for a group that is discriminated against is a pinko or communist? If I remember correctly Stalin was a communist and he was a murdering psychopath. So is Kim Jong Il. I think there are plenty of kindergarterners who could make better analogies than that. But I guess accuracy is a concept not yet grasped by the right wing, a la evidence for the Iraq war and Mr. time for truth’s predictable party line drivel.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Homophobia is more micky mouse liberal drivel … its a micky mouse word contrived by pinkos to hatefully finger point at anyone who doesn’t accept their shrill homo agenda.
Homophobic literally means you hate your own kind, its meaningless!! But the party of hate and the liberal media use it to constantly try and invoke hatred against their opponents.
@ Amelia … your little rant was very funny!!
I especially liked the “… ism’s” list. That was classic humour!! Thankyou.
I agree its a very minor unimportant subject - but I couldn’t resist laughing at the idiocy and intellectual dishonesty of liberal foreskin … knowing I would also effortlessly wind up the usual liberal morons on here was merely an added bonus!!
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
clearly you’re a complete idiot or extremely obtuse and take eveything literally!!
If you read liberal foreskin’s post you would have seen a number of abusive remarks about conservatives - my astute/fair comment about pinkos etc was merely designed to wind up any liberal obtuse enough to bite on it - whilst making a perfectly valid point about blatant leftist/pinko pandering to homosexuals etc.
Its political banter you dummy!!!
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
WELL!
By RetiredLTC
July 11, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
I hate to be the one to break the news to alot of you so called “patriots” that are anything but patriots with your derision of those that practice the most American of all traditions, dissent. But there are a multitude of those who served, are presently serving, to include many high ranking active duty officers and retired officers that very much question the present administrations use of our military and their motives for that use. Neither party has a lock on patriotism. But the more I read some of these blogs the more I am led to believe that there is definately one that has the lock on unthinking ignorance. And it is your freedom as an American to decide for yourself which one that is.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
now you’ve proved you’re a complete idiot!!
Hannity and Limbaugh are NOT on the far right - they are both mainstream conservatives. I agree that Coulter and the execrable Robertson are further to the right. Although Coulter is usually highly amusing and always factually correct, even if you dont like her conclusions!!
Moderates might sound reasonable in but they sure are mindnumbingly boring to listen to or read!!
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
By the strictest definition of the word, you are definately homophobic, time for the truth. Whether it is your unadulterated hate of homosexuals or as you say, your own fear of your sexuality, you are most definately a homophobe. And no time for the truth, the word is not a mickey mouse word contrived by pinkos. It is an apt description that can be found in Websters. So time for the truth, if the shoe fits, wear it. And I bet it fits.
By Sara
July 11, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Ann Coulter is the conservatives Michael Moore. She has crossed the line now and can no longer be taken serious. Her bookings have taken a tumble, research it. I must say I have known other transexuals such as Ann that can’t pass as well as she does. She owes a heap of gratitude to her team of doctors.
By deegee
July 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
MClark, You are a gentleman and a scholar. Please don’t go, but if you do, go in peace.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
RetiredLTC claims that there is one blogger who has a lock on unthinking ignorance!
Lets see, who could it be…I dont know…nobody comes to mind….drawing a blank here…..one person who has a lock…..cant think of anyone off hand……I’m not sure…….could it be……..ALL THE UNDERSALVED DITTOHEADWOUNDS???????
By JK today
July 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
MClark,
People walk among us who are so miserable with their own bad choices, bad luck, and pathetic, loser lives, that the only way they can pretend to be happy is by taking small joy in knocking other people down to their level of miserable self-loathing. These people find their way to the blogs and insult you. That you took it to heart only fed the desire to stick another knife in your psyche. Your wife is right, Hon. PompussButt is not worth your aggravation. By the way, thank you for your service to our nation and your well-stated points. I love you, man.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
I guess I am a dummy. Because Political Foreskin uses such derrogatory terms in his posts above as “The Right” and “lunatic fringe” to describe Republicans. Yep those are terrible terms. So terrible and specific that “lunatic fringe” couldn’t possibly be used to describe both sides of the political spectrum. And “The Right” is so horrible that people in it, never use that to describe themselves, even in the blog originator’s own column. (that was sarcasm in case you are as dense as you seem)
The TRUTH is you wouldn’t use those terms to describe Democrats if you didn’t know that they irritated Democrats, not because they were accurate, but because they imply some allegiance to communism, which you know is a buzz word in America. So accusing me of taking them too literally is ridiculous. I know why you use them and that’s why I’m calling you out about it.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Time for the truth — if you are going to break words down for the literal meaning, be aware that phobia means fear, not hatred. Also, look up homophobia in the dictionary — it’s in there as “irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals.”
By Van
July 11, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Whether Fulton Superior Court Judge Constance Russell was an activist judge or not can not be accuratly determined from one decision. If anything I would submit that the Judge was a product of a Georgia elementry school. Having trouble detemining what the subject of a proposed constitutional amendment was.
The Georgia Supreme court did correctly determine that the subject was to define constitutionally what marriage was.
Now, if the Gerogia Supremes went to foreign court decisions to make this determination, then they would be activists.
For Jacob, the 7-2 decision of the US Supreme Court on the Florida elections was not activism, it upheald Florida law regarding when results HAD to be certified.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Amelia, that shoe that fits that blogger you addressed is a Jimmy Choo. (now you went and got his “shop” on!!!)
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
MClark,
Don’t forget the Republicans sporting purple heart band-aids at their national convention. They give lip service but no real respect to veterans.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Hannity and Limbaugh and the term mainstream do not belong in the same sentence together. Anyone who believes that America would be better off if all political offices were filled with one party (their own) is not mainstream. Listening for 5 mintues to either on their radio programs show that they don’t think that the other 49.999% of America deserves representation.
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
What is a Jimmy Choo?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Watching shrill hags like you ramming your judgmental hate speech drivel down my throat is fabulous entertainment. Please keep it coming!!
The word is a micky mouse made up word used to bolster a political/activist agenda.
How long ago did Websters insert this pinko speech word?
It is relatively recent, literally contrived by homos and their supporters.
Its politically correct bollocks - nothing else.
A great deal of whatever you liberals despise/oppose you demonise and then designate any opposing views as hate speech.
Has it ever occured to you love that liberals are so unbelievably easy to wind up on so many subjects!! Why do you think I cited Pavlov’s dogs??
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
High end stilleto heels all the rave and cost about 1500 per pair as seen on “Sex in the City” and “the Devil wears Prada”. (Ironically the latest rage in shoes are flats) Unless you’re turned off by anything that happened so five minutes ago…for sure.
By B.S.
July 11, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
McClark,
Everytime someone on the right questions your patriotism, ask them what branch of the military they served in. You’ll be amazed how quickly this shuts them up!
Please don’t lose sleep over the losers on this blog. Most are societal outcasts who just enjoy riling people up, and are so close-minded, one wonders why they are in a forum that’s supposed to provide for debate.
Personally, I respect the opinion of anyone who has served their country (right or left -war or peace time)over those who haven’t.) You lose all credibility to me when you scream about being a patriot but conveniently never served yourself, especially those who are still eligible. In fact, I think the army upped the enlistment age to 42.
Both my grandfather’s emlisted to fight in world war 2. One, left a wife and 2 children in his late 30’s because his call to duty was so great. That would never happen today - so many just like to sport flags and ribbons, but not do anything that involves actual danger.
My father and myself were both in the Marines, neither saw combat. But we all are democrats from New York (though I’m actually independent now), so I laugh at the hypocrisy when non-serving republicans spew their patriotic talk from the safety of their houses.
Remember military service means nothing in politics, the attacks on Kerry (who saw actual combat), versus W’s questionable record. W’s 2000 primary campaign attacking former POW and combat vet John McCain. Chambliss attacking Cleland (yea, he might have lost his limbs in an accident - but he had the BALLS to serve unlike Saxby). So don’t worry, the extremists will taunt and question your patriotism, regardless of your military record so long as you don’t agree with them.
Hope this helps.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
@ time for truth,
What I want to know is why you hate so many people that you don’t even know? Was it part of your KKK…er uh I mean GOP initiation ritual?
By Jim Wooten
July 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
MClark, I may have spoken too early yesterday on the caliber of the discussion. It did take a personal turn after that. And I can see why you might have had a restless night.
First of all, I agree with your assessment about the substance and style of your contribution to this blog. You are one of those contributors who provoke thought and while we may disagree, I love having you here. After a month, I’m beginning to form some sense of who the regulars are and, as I’ve said a number of times before, I’m bowled over by the creativity of some of the posters — today’s first two, as an example — and by the intelligence and insight expressed by contributors. it really does make me more hopeful that public policy issues can be debated fully and productively in the blogosphere.
You and I have Vietnam in common. It’s not the subject of a blog, but I know why you would have found the challenge to your service, or the suggestion that it was a Scouts equivalent, cause for a restless night. I must admit, too, that while I resist the temptation to join in a discussion between or among contributors who are perfectly capable of explaining and defending their positions, I was sorely tempted on the matter of your service. Whatever your ideology, and however much you might disagree with mine, thanks for serving.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
Hannity and RUsh are mainstream conseratives, that’s not simply an assertion, but based on their consistent political ideology and commentary. Neither of them adopt far right agendas. You might not approve of their politics but that’s irrelevant.
If you’re going to pontificate on political ideology at least have the BRAINS to back it up with facts, not effete pinko asserions that merely reflect your own political ideology.
Liberal foreskin was simply being a typical liberal - so I wittily mirrored his rhetoric back at him.
WHy be so judgmental about folks you dont agree with - are you the resident anal cyber policeman?
I am a conservative and I wasn’t offended at all!!
Christ you’re thinskinned mate!!
I really hate moderates!! big grin
By MikeT
July 11, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
I think time for the truth is my gay lover from the Luckovich blog. His name is Andy and he is gay. He is also one real sick pervert. The best thing to do is ignore him. Otherwise he will pollute and ruin this forum as he has the Luckovich blog.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
How long ago did Websters insert this pinko speech word? 1969
Racism is from 1936.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Why did that bad boy cite Pavlov’s dogs? nothing rings a bell…I cant think of any possible reason….his syntactical choices WOULD make him over-salivate when he talks, so I suppose the pool of drool from which he constructs his arguments could in some way conjure up Pavlovian Dogs…I can only deduce that this guy has time to burn because he made his first million pinching loaves for bakeries….that’s doggish, isn’t it?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
NOW WE SEE YOUR TRUE PINKO HATE MODE!!
I just enjoy effortlessly winding up pinkos whilst making numerous logical/factual points.
Its damn good fun!!
By jbmlaw
July 11, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Concerned Citizen, who is a mainstream conservative?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
The word was NOT part of everyday liberal speech though until the homosexual activists and media began using it as an everyday part of their propaganda to push their agenda. Very few folks back in the late 60’s or 70’s used the term.
It is clearly a made up word though, merging two words to make a political point.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
And while I have the dictionary open— the words homosexual and homosexuality were added to the dictionary in 1892. Before then people were not defined that way. Same-gender sex was considered something people did and did not define a person they way it does now.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
@ time for truth,
you have convinced me, I digress. I actually think you’ve won me over. Where can I sign up for “The Right”? How long will it take for me to get my cross burning kit, my “truth/fish” car magnet, W window sticker and my “I am a Christian, but I teach hate even though Jesus said to love thy neighbor, please ignore the hypocrisy of that” t-shirt?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
@ liberal foreskin
Pavlov’s dogs is a perfectly apposite image to use against liberals because they are so easily conditioned!! with the same complete lack of a critical factor as the average dog!!
You prove that everytime you post!!
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
To answer your question, who is a mainstream conservative….one who comes to mind is Chuck Hagel. Or historically speaking Ronald Reagan.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
And “Pinko” is not a made up word?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
I note you now UTTERLY IGNORE the awkward points about your utter political IGNORANCE!!
Get an adult to teach you some political ideology before you humiliate yourself with such brainless posts again.
AS for your far left pinko rhetoric about conservatives - its merely par for the course. I agree with you about the idiocy of the christian right, I despise their world view but I defend their right to believe what ever they want.
Where do I get my official liberal
islamic fascist terrorists are freedom fighters
t-shirts or an
I sell presidential pardons to wanted felons
bumper sticker.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Oh yeah?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Hannity fully supports and defends just about everything REagan did - as does Rush!!
Hagel is a GOP “moderate” but is still mainstream, just more on the left of the party.
this concerned pinko just made my point for me!!
Pinko is a sardonic, literally colourful twist on commies/reds - essentially denoting a commie lite or socialist lite liberal.
It is NOT a melding of two words twisted into making a political point!!
By Toad
July 11, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Pinko entered the dictionary during the cold war, just as homophobia entered the dictionary during the gay liberation movement.
By J Tom
July 11, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
As entertaining as I find some of the drivel, er, comments posted, I would like to make a comment germane to the original subject.
At least two-thirds of both the State House and Senate believed the amendment complied with the state constitutional requirements. Seventy-six percent of the voters of the state voted to add this amendment to the Constitution. A unanimous 7-0 State Supreme Court ruled that it was a valid amendment.
Judge Russell may or may not be an activist judge. I’m sure such a judge could cloak her decision in a way as to seem reasonable. Regardless, what do the above numbers, particularly the unanimous overruling of her decision, say about her judicial temperament? Her ability to correctly interpret the state laws and constitution? Her competency and judgment? An honest but differing opinion is one thing, but she is clearly out of step with the rest of the judicial branch of the state government. I think she needs to step down before she causes more confusion, angst and bitterness in our state, but she won’t, and that illustrates one of the most irritating aspects of our system: there is no way to get rid of judges who exercise bad judgment.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
so what!!!
it merely makes my point again - that BOTH terms were used to make political points!!
By harold
July 11, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
If the Ga(y) Supreme Court’s meddling in our state’s legislative affairs is not judicial activism, Harold does not know what is.
Oh, wait, Harold does know. Judicial activism is when the activist judges vote against the conservatives legislative wishes.
All good conservatives need to have a go on Disney’s Mission:Space ride. It will help you understand the Creation.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Will you two tag team tincture swabs give the lexiconic timeline a rest?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
I assume Harold is not demanding that conservatives subject themselves to this Disney attraction on one of the infamous, perverted Disney homosexual days?
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
The only points you make, truth, is the ones on your head.
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
Harold recommends the day before Disney Gay Day: Disney In the Closet Day.
Mission:Space will blow your mind better than a walk thru Wildwood Park.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Vote for Ralph Reed.
He had me at “halo”.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Some more liberal foreskin petulance … cheers for that!!
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
How exactly can voter ID be judicial activism if Voter ID is not a political ploy?
So… you have a twin sister? Your feelings have now betrayed her, too. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me; now his failure is complete.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
JTom, A judge is a legal expert. The populace and most legislators are not. The judge is not bound by a majority of voters or legislators in making a LEGAL decision. It is not unusual for the Supreme Court (state or US) to rule differently than a lower court. That does not mean that the lower court judge is incompetent or used bad judgment.
By what time is it?
July 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
apparently “the truth” is nothing but a bunch of buzzwords:
I have never seen the words “shrill, pinko, and drivel” used so many times by one person in my life.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
I tried coming out of the closet once, Harold, but an old leisure suit pulled me back in. Ironic since I only went in the closet in the first place for the matching clothes. However, the guys in the closet with me kicked me out. I had to settle for a poorly lit foyer.
By JK today
July 11, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
JTom makes a great point. Our state legislators, and 76% of the people who voted that day decided that is WAS INDEED okay with them to carve up Georgia citizens into categories based solely on their own bigotry, and decide that some can have rights and others cannot. Clearly, the will of the majority of Georgia voters is that bigotry and discrimination are LAW here. Who does that silly judge think she is to try to ensure that the enactment of such laws are applied legally?
Hey, did you vote to deny your neighbor the rights you have? Yes, YOU. Look in the mirror. YOU are a bigot. Yes YOU. Bigot. Very UN-American for YOU to decide that some Americans get rights and some don’t. BIGOT. Yes, YOU. BIGOT. That’s what YOU are.
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Harold believes Christians forgot when they were the repressed minority.
As a remind, they should be interred at Guantanamo until such time that enough lions can be arranged to eat enough of them for them to be a repressed minority again.
In 2000 years the Gay Bible will have the US Christians playing the romans and it will be an accurate portrayal of these dark times for all of us.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Okay, someone grab a hose.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
@ its time for your meds
given the number of shrill pinkos/commies/leftists/liberals posting drivel on here its only fitting that this be pointed out. Given that your average pinko liberal only learns by rote, and then usually very slowly at at least two grade levels below GOP types I made it easy for you commie creeps to assimilate todays self esteem lesson!!
Besides, shrill chumps like you would haven’t anything to whine about!!
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Harold predicts the Truthful utterance of “simpering” any minute now.
By Joe
July 11, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
First thing to get off my conservative middle aged male white chest is the fact that I can’t see why seemigly straight men care so much about this subject. It’s kind of like that nut of a preacher in Kansas that pickets the funerals of dead Amercian soldiers saying they do it because or our attitude toward homosexuals. What is your excuse for the fascination with this subject you seem to have Time for the Truth? If anyone gets married, man and woman, woman and woman or man and man, what impact will that have on your daily functions? You’ll still wake up at the same time I assume and go to the same job, right? Ah…here’s my rub. TAXES. Why on Gods green earth was my tax dollars used for such a vote getting political ploy such as this stupid election when we have a law on the books already? Is there a surplus of tax dollars sitting around? With all the problems facing me today the possibility of allowing a marriage, civil union, whatever you want to call it between two adults ranks about 1,768,476 on my list of Hot Topics. Time for Truth, the truth is you just may have a little pink poo sticking to the bottom of the shoes you’re wearing and you are afraid it may not come off.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
If those early Christians had just stayed in the closet they wouldn’t have been fed to the lions. Why couldn’t they keep their personal life to themselves?
By J Tom
July 11, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Toad, Check out the primary occupation of our state legislatures. Do you not think that the legislature has a slew of attorneys advising them on the legality of their efforts? More to the point I was making, see how many lower court decisions have been overruled by a UNANIMOUS court. That is a VERY rare occurrence. It’s damned hard to get all seven judges to agree on the same thing! My opinion is that the only people who had a problem with the legal aspect of this amendment were those who were radically against it to begin with. A fair and impartial person -or jurist - would not come to the same conclusion as Judge Harold, no matter how ‘reasonable’ her argument was.
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
With regard to gay marraige - marraige is a sacrament, a rite that belongs to religion. Religions have the right to regulate who amongst their parishioners/faithful have the right to participate in that rite.
With regard to civil unions, however - the very name implies that it is a status granted by the government. Inasmuch as this is the United States of America, not the Klandom of Rednekkkia, the Constitution protects individual rights, and the right to full and equal protection under the law for all citizens. Since a person, not a bunch of Georgia redneck legislators or a bnch of bible-thumping bigots, has the right to live his/her own life and to enter into contracts and agreements with other adults, civil unions for gays is something beyond the pale of red state legislation or popular democracy.
Now, I am willing to outlaw gay marraige and civil unions, if we sterilize all rednecks so that their spawn won’t bedevil society with their stupidity and criminality. If we can break the cycle of redneck hate and stupidity, the world will be a far better place.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
@ Joe
If that’s the case, which I obviously doubt, then I’ll wipe it off on liberal foreskin’s intellectual dishonesty :)
I agree its not much of a topic, but it sure is fun watching all the pinkos having hissy fits and hurling their obtuse abuse!!
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Toad, I think you have identified the single biggest problem facing America today - too many KKKhristians, not near enough lions.
By what time is it?
July 11, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Joe-
Most people who post on message boards do not want to hear about “real” issues. Truth is, most here couldn’t tell you their stance on a real issue because their favorite radio personality hasn’t told them yet what their stance should be. The reason people care about the sanctity of marriage is if we allow 2 men to marry, we may as well allow men to marry squirrels, it’s a very slippery slope. Most here are barely comfortable with a southerner marrying a yankee.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
@ closet redneck
How come the lions missed you??
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
Harold is going to start selling car magnets of a lion eating a Christian fish.
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Let’s face it - who or whatever Time for A Crap is married to should be shot and put out of it’s misery…
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Toad brings up a good question. Why didn’t early christians stay in the closet?
I dont know…cant think of a reason….nothing comes to mind……could it be……oh……maybeee……..their circumcised weenies gave them away?????
By Champagne Tastes
July 11, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
The reason people care about the sanctity of marriage is if we allow 2 men to marry, we may as well allow men to marry squirrels AW NUTS!
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
The hilarious thing is that the gays are still cohabiting and getting each other in the butt like you did not want them to. All this ban did is require that the bottom acquire his own health insurance. B-F-D.
Anybody smart wants the gays to get married and move into the neighborhood. Property values skyrocket like nobody’s business when the gays start moving in. Nothing better can happen to a neighborhood.
Harold is going to fly a gay flag outside his home right now!
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
You know the answer to that one Joe. It is the same reason that immigration hit the front burner right before the elections. It serves to incite the homophobes, xenophobes, and nativists. Gets the “base” to the polls. These issues never come up in non election years. Imagine that?
By Toad
July 11, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
Why were their weenies waving around for all to see? Was there a Christian Pride parade?
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
These issues are the Xian right wing robbing the state treasury for their campaigns as surely as Cathy Cox did with her tv spots about the hope scholarship or whatever it was last year that put her face all over TV.
They should all be forced to reimburse us taxpayers from their campaign funds.
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
C’mon, Truthiness. Hurry up! Harold is too busy to wait for it. Say it! SIMPERING!!! SIMPERING!!! You know you want to! SIMPERING!!! SIMPERING!!! SIMPERING!!! SIMPERING!!!
By Jim Wooten
July 11, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
It’s noted that Rednecks-America’s Al Qaeda, rejoins the discussion from an extended vacation that took him and his ‘63 Rambler from the outskirts of Ty Ty to a trailer park in Murray County — or as he attempted to pass it off, a vacation to various spots in Europe. Observers in Valdosta and other sites where the white ‘63 Rambler was spotted know othewise. Welcome. Behave.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
@ closet Redneck
Congratulations … I see you finally got bailed out then mate.
Funny how the liberals dont abuse you for your visceral hate speech - I suppose its because they agree with most of your unhinged yankee poison!!
By John Smith
July 11, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
I think we should amend the constitution to make polygamy legal. Makes as much sense as flag burning and gay marriage.
By Flibberdgibbit
July 11, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Wee! the people, in order to form a more perfect (heterosexual) union….
By Harold
July 11, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Polygamy cannot be legal because there would have to be same sexed participants in one marriage.
Otherwise, great idea! As the wife gets old and ugly and fat, just stick her in the guest room and get a young skinny good looking one!
There would be no need for messy divorces anymore.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Maybe we should burn Harold’s poofy flag - only question is should closet Redneck be wrapped in it first?
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Ladies, there is hate speech, and then there is truth. I am a modern day Elijah, truth all the time, how ever harsh it may seem - it is good and God’s work to put the light on the homophobic and hatefilled ignoramuses that populate and predominate in the state of Georgia.
I am thankfully unfamiliar with this TyTy and Murray County that seem to be redneck Valhallas given your reverence for them.
Greetings today from Charing Cross Road, London, United Kingdom… More on my travels later, but supper calls…
By Harold
July 11, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Elijah? Like Frodo?
By Toad
July 11, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Elijah,
There’s always a place for you at my table.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
@ closet redneck
YOU BERKISH PILLOCK!!!!
Charing Cross Road is in White County, near Harold’s fave day trip destination Helen, Georgia. The visionary county where the high schools have sensibly resolved the limp wristed school clubs issue.
By jbmlaw
July 11, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
I’ve tried to define “judicial activism” myself, with no satisfying answer.
I sense that Griswald v Connecticut is the epitome of a court out front and in opposition to the elected representatives. Seemingly, a by-product of true “judicial activism” is that social disagreements are exacerbated rather than settled.
By that definition, of course, Brown v Board of Education was not activism, since the court took three years and two hearings to frame a narrow but unanimous opinion, which was accepted widely and quickly and finally.
Roe v Wade looks like activism, as seemingly settled laws were abolished by court fiat without reference to any constitutional language. That one is not over yet.
The extension of the first eight amendments (explicit restrictions on the Federal government) to apply against state activity looks like activism to me, as there is no language or cogent logical argument requiring such an extreme rewriting (of those first amendments) within the 14th Amendment. Every Supreme Court term seemingly has to redefine state limits over the 1st or 2nd or 4th or 5th or 6th or 8th Amendments. Far from settling anything.
To the extent that Judge Russell’s ruling: (1) was out front of, and in opposition to the work of elected representatives, and (2) exacerbated, rather than settled the social issue, her ruling would have to be called activism at work. Non-activism would have affirmed the work of the elected representatives, to allow only the high court to overrule the legislature. Didn’t seem to be widely accepted, did not seem to settle anything on either side. Same thing with the Rome Federal judge who just doesn’t want Georgians to produce an id to vote; guess he (like all Fed Dist Judges) is smarter than our legislature.
I do not believe activism is inherently bad, although I cannot think of a case where it was not. Dred Scott has the earmarks of activism, in that it seemingly limited the legislative remedy in place and caused the underlying tensions to fester. Perhaps Marbury v Madison, but I think that one is a close call.
By Jim Wooten
July 11, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw: thanks for decisively and coherently salvaging the thread and getting us back on topic. I agree on Griswold, Brown (well stated in your post) and Roe. I of course thought Russell was one challenge shy of activism in her ruling on whether the language was one issue or two.
By R@
July 11, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Jim Wooten - although most of the comments so far have nothing to do with your written opinion piece, it is one of your best - IMHO. Worth a few re-reads if people would take the time. It is an important issue.
To MClark: I salute you for your service - I don’t care where you stand: Right - Left - Middle. We’re about the same age and although I missed going to Nam, many friends and relatives came home in body bags. Glad you made it home safe. It was a ugly time.
I don’t post here often but read all the comments. I refuse to join in on the name-calling, peeing on the bushes. Many on here need to start their own blog - obviously they have a lot to say - to somebody. The extreme right and left that is displayed in many comments here - I do not believe it represents most of America. Thanks Wooten for bringing important issues to blogsphere for discussion and thanks to the many here who do try to carry on intelligent discussion. It will make a difference one day.
By deegee
July 11, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, i am not so sure how you come to the conclusion that Brown vs. Board of Education was not activism because it settled some social disagreement. When the Supreme Court overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson it had to make the leap that segregated schools deprived black children of equal protection under the law as Plessy had determined that seperate was equal. By your definition I would suspect that Brown exacerbated the social issue at that time. Although Brown only applied to school desegregation, it became the foundation for breaking down the legality for racial segregation in schools and public places. In other words, it served a catalyst for societal change.
By MClark
July 11, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Anyone wishing to see why Conservatives are painted as boorish bullies, take a look at yesterday’s blog, which has unfortunately continued today.
We are judged by our extremes in todays world and I can think of no better example of what is turning the tide of debate away from the right than the nastiness exhibted by one Pompano. (He now not only claims I’m a fake, but that he’s my Daddy.) Add this to the whining of todays liberal and you see why I believe a march to the middle is on the horizon.
I’m just too p** to talk about gay marriage today. (Look at the last three posts from yesterday, actually posted today, to see why.)
I’ve got to reassess.
By Southern Democrat
July 11, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
MClark, your continually thoughtful posts and Mr. Wooten’s respectful replies were forwarded to me by a friend and encouraged me to read this blog once again. Please accept my gratitude for your service (the same, of course, goes to Mr. Wooten for his honorable service).
jbmlaw, I would respectfully disagree with your take on judicial activism. Brown v. Board was, in my mind, the prime example of justified judicial activism in that it started the wheels of desegregation churning. It certainly did not settle the issue (see 1964 Civil Rights Act and, well, racial tensions that persist today). I agree that the “penumbra” analysis in Roe v. Wade is an example of bad activism in that the justices sua sponte created a fundamental constitutional right, never (again, in my mind) a good thing when there is very little legislative support.
I would humbly offer a simpler definition of judicial activism: decisions that represent a sea-change from well-established precedent. In that vein, I would offer Lochner, Nixon, Clinton v. Jones, and Lopez as “good” examples and Scott, Bush v. Gore, and Roe/Casey as “bad” examples. These labels are, most probably, colored by my personal political leanings.
Last, I agree with Mr. Wooten that Judge Russell’s action was not activism. I think it was useful in ensuring that the amendment was passed in the correct fashion. While I do not agree with the amendment (even as a straight, married male), I do feel that it is in accord with Georgia legal process and feel better that the Supreme Court reviewed its articulation. Using the above definition, Judge Russell’s analysis did not seem “activist” to me, but merely an interpretation of existing and well-established law on a new one (the role of a jurist).
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it usually a law that changes society? If legislation or litigation didn’t change society, what would. Judges exist to interpret the law as it applies to the constitution. It would seem to me that the judicial activism that is taking place today is not so much from the judge sitting on the bench, but from the process that puts them there. A judge will normally rule based upon his interpretations of the law. Therefore I say that judicial activism takes place prior to confirmation.
By Southern Democrat
July 11, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
One final point, jbmlaw, if I may. You are clearly an apt con law scholar, but your opinions regarding the XIV Amendment trouble me. Even Scalia’s bizarre interpretation of the Reconstruction amendments acknowledges the application of I-XIII to the states. For purposes of clarification (not antagonization), are you implying that their application to the states is a bad thing?
By APF
July 11, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Personally, I can see how someone would want to define marriage as between man and woman but still allow for my partner to be with me as I lay dying in the hospital.
Guess I’ll be dying alone.
Thanks, Georgia.
By Harold
July 11, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
How can idiots scream activism that the judge ruled the vote illegal? Alls that woulda happened is there’d a been another vote which woulda been on more solid ground. Imbeciles!
The right is too buried in their own hate to understand that what woulda happened is not gay marriage, cats and dogs living together etc, but quite feebly A SECOND GO ROUND FOR THE VOTE where the proud georgian could’ve smiled real big getting the opportuantiy to vote down them f* again.
If antyhing, the Ga Sepreme Court did the activism by letting the antigay thing stand as is thus robbing the republicans of their main manipulator for this falls’ vote!
Time for the Truthiness and all other good law of jesus abiding republican types are CRUSHED that they dont get to vote against gays again. They were looking for ward to it!
The supreme court is the Lions! Because the antigays have no motivation to go to the polls in november (gub’ner? who cares) we may end up with the Big Guy or Cathy Cox as governor if the flag wavers get their way.
By Pompano
July 11, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
MClark - kinda cowardly to take shots at someone in a different blog. Not the actions of someone who claims to be a Veteran.
Hope you sleep well.
By jbmlaw
July 11, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Southern Democrat @ 2:13, please feel free to antagonize at any time, but your analysis of my mind is exactly right. To take your questions in reverse order:
The misapplication of the 14th Amendment was inherently wrong in that it covered far more legal territory than any Congress or any state ever intended. It has also proven to be disastrous jurisprudence merely measured by a results-oriented or cost/benefit analysis, in that every jack-leg attorney can manufacture a Federal constitutional challenge (and thus case) to every interpretation of every state law.
At one time our states were the petri dish in which legislation was tested, until the supreme law of the land became the whim of the resident on the bench. It wasn’t so bad when the states were allowed to disagree on matters such as, “who should be allowed to own a gun.” Now our state supreme court is merely a middle level legislation board, subject to overrule by any Federal district judge.
As to Brown (in your earlier post) I appreciate that the conventional wisdom is that a brave court dared to stand up to the lynch-mob mentality of the great bulk of the American people, and thus changed the hearts and minds of all. That is propoganda supplied by the Warren Court apologists. The fact is that Truman’s courageous full integration of the armed services, and the legacy of the valiant Tuskegee airmen (and their WW2 brothers) did more to change hearts and minds than any mere court. Joe Louis and Jesse Owen and Jackie Robinson and Sidney Potier and Charley Pride and especially Bill Cosby did more to mainstream black America than all of the rulings of all of the courts in all of the states in the US. The SCOTUS merely ratified the change that was already going on, by reversing its own cowardly precedent. Civil Rights Act was also meaningful and admittedly useful, but less meaningful or useful than Eisenhower and Kennedy standing up to the Democrat governors in Arkansas and Alabama.
By jackc
July 11, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Ah yes, now I remember why I stopped perusing the Luckovich blog—too many folks from both ends of the spectrum resorting to name calling and posting links to other sites as the proof of their arguments.
Prior to the genesis of this blog I have had occasion to email Mr. Wooten when I didn’t particularly agree with his column. Without exception he responded in a gracious and respectful manner. Thus I still believe that civil discussion and debate can exist even on the most polarizing of topics.
Jim, I do for a change agree with you on this one. Not that you need my validation, hah.
Too many people seem to think that if a judge rules against the people, legislature, or whatever else is “popular” that they are activists with an agenda. In my opinion, and Yes—it is my Opinion, if the judge, or judicial panel, can make a constitutional argument to support their decision, no matter how unpopular, then it isn’t activism. In that case it is incumbent upon the legislature to apeal to a higher court, go back to the drawing board amd make the law pass constitutional muster or concede that what they are trying to do is simply not possible to be made so.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
@ Harold
Now the real bitterness emerges -eh? Homosexual marriage is admittedly not that big a deal, but should be opposed as the voters in GA said overwhelmingly. You make the same intellectually dishonest mistake as liberal foreskin about the vote. The 76% of the electorate who expressed a preference are NOT ALL bible bashing Bush lovers. It was simply an issue that resonated with ordinary voters that you and other shrill homo activists, having lost, seek to exploit/demonise as being the “fault” of the nutty christian right. Clearly there was a notable religious element in the opposition, ignoring your personalised sneers at your truly, I have NEVER been in a church in the USA in well over 10 years, except briefly once in Buffalo to get out of a severe thunderstorm. But you homos lost the vote in Oregon too, which is a much more pinko state than GA ever will be.
Its obviously a tough issue, given that its well under 6% of the population demanding something that goes against the natural order of things. Not all homos are demanding marriage, so its not even the full 6%.
It is amusing to see how this grinds away at you and your ilk. Your anti-religious bigotry is seemingly no different than the bible bashing nutters who quote the bollocks in Leviticus. Two very dogmatic polarised sides who wont take less than a complete vindication of their respective positions.
I loathe evangelical types, their smug unthinking dogmatic world view is not for me, I resent ANY folks ramming their religious views down my throat, not just christians either. ALL of them.
Homo marriage opens all kinds of doors, including equal protection etc plus it would instantly destroy a three thousand year tradition of virtually every society, long before Jesus and the holy rollers were ever imposed on us all by what is essntially the reworked pagan dogma/practice of the papist/Catholic church.
I agree (in advance) that not all ‘traditions’ are worthy of being kept, but this is one of the few that should never be undermined for what is essentially not much gesture poliitcs and shrill activism demanding complete acceptance!!
Civil unions are fair enough and a reasonable comprise … I believe even pinko lefty homo activists should have the legal rights etc associated with civil unions. I would actually vote for that, given the chance.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
I agree (in advance) that not all ‘traditions’ are worthy of being kept, but this is one of the few that should never be undermined for what is essentially not much more than gesture poliitcs and shrill activism demanding complete acceptance!!
By Th
July 11, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
The Supreme Court decision had more to do with our Justices being elected than with the law or the wording of the gay marriage admendment. The justices can count. I aplaud their ruling saving us all a special session of the state legislature followed by another ballot measure. A massive waste of our tax dollars for purely political reasons.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
.
VOTE FOR RALPH REED
HE HAD ME AT ‘HALO’
By MClark
July 11, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Pompano,
I succeeded in my intended objective. Namely exposing what an incredible a* you are. I just wanted everyone to see how the extreme right truly feels about vets. You have made my case for me.
No matter what you say now, I win. True patriots always do.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Ooo, sorry there McClark, but I’m going to have to award the point to Pompano on that last exchange. While your comment was brief and to the point, Pompano’s was bromide free and flowed much more evenly….point, set, and match: POMPANO!!!
By MClark
July 11, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
The bromide came when the a* doubted my military service with nothing more than his slanted opinion to back it up.
No one has the right to doubt my service. I left my youth in Vietnam to secure freedoms for that a*. No one has the right to do this.
No one.
If that’s point set and match then so be it.
By Pompano
July 11, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Well MClark… like most dense liberals you apparently can’t read as I have never indicated anything but respect for those that truly do serve and protect in the military. In fact, my initial entry in yesterday’s blog recommended increasing perks for veterans. However, like most people that can’t support their own arguments, you resort to lying about the alleged comments of others as well as your own background.
My issue is with the veteran wannabees like yourself. Sorry, but I don’t think that anyone who ACTUALLY served in Viet Nam as you claim would whine about being “bullied” in a blog - much less lose sleep over the matter.
Grow some stones dude - and learn to read.
By MClark
July 11, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
And if you care to look at how this started you’ll see that this a***** accusation came from nothing more than my disagreeing with him.
I did use the word ignorant, true, but I did take the time to explain that I used the word in the true sense, meaning someone who speaks regarding something they know nothing about. I’m used to talking with people here with the intelligence to understand the subtleties of our language. I should have known better.
I hate this but I am done with this blog. If a vet can be maligned in this manner then there is no place here for me or my opinions. I enjoyed this while it lasted but the jerks and a***** are more than I can take.
There is no higher insult to vet than what this a* has done to me.
By MClark
July 11, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
One last thing.
So your conclusion that I am a fraud is based on your opinion that I am too soft to be a vet. That I don’t talk like you think a vet should. That I don’t hav the stones of a vet.
Yep. Just about right for the Right. All smear no fact.
And if you ask around you’ll find that I am far froma liberal. But since that is just another smear I’ll let it lie. O
Or should I say, let you lie.
P** off.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
I’m not trying to be crude BUT since the “gay” lifestyle is so wonderful, who would like to be the first to step forward and give us a very descriptive lesson in “gay love”? After all it’s looooove so it should be okay, shouldn’t it? Okay now everyone picture it not…2 men playing husband and wife. Makes you feel all warm & tingly inside doesn’t it? Don’t you just FEEL THE LOOOOOOOVE???? And to the folks that try to make hyprocrites out of believers, according to the Bible you can Love the sinner but hate the sin!!!
By J Tom
July 11, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Wow. Thanks to a few comments by jbmlaw and others, this has turned into a decent blog. If it gets any more cerebral we can start discussing whether John Deere and Cyrus McCormick would have peacefully ended slavery if the Civil War had been delayed.
Like a lot of other issues, this issue is where - and how - does society draw the line. You can’t marry a same sex partner, a parent, sibling, child, interspecies or have more than one spouse. Science, fairness and logic have nothing to do with these prohibitions. Some people want to exclude all of the above mentioned groups. Many of you would allow same-sex marriages but exclude some or all of the others. I don’t think excluding the others would make you any more ‘evil’ than those who do not support same-sex marriage. This is more than a religious issue; it’s cultural. Many non-religious people fear even small changes in our society, just as many fear small changes in our environment. Unlike racial discrimation, there is no abstract legal argument that would allow the legal acceptance of same-sex relationships without it also applying to all the other types (e.g., ‘I was born that way’ could apply to just about everything). It can only be accomplished by including it in a specific definition of marriage. Of course, if you do that, you will be as ‘intolerant’ of all those in other relationships as those who are against yours. Your best bet now is to stop antagonizing people with name calling and obnoxious behavior, even though you will have to endure both from anti-gay bigots, and show your true value to the community. A long, subtle campaign is the only way to gain acceptance. Please note that I did NOT equate same-sex relationships with the other groups. I am saying that you are on the same side of an arbitrary line as they are, and it is up to you to convince society that you shouldn’t be, and your present methods are driving people away from your cause.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Oops, that should be “picture it now”.
By rarringt
July 11, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
JBMLAW and Jim, Judicial activism itself is not difficult to define - effectively, it occurs when judges tend to legislate from the bench and make decisions that appear contrary to the will of legislative and executive bodies. This first happened with Marbury v. Madison, but then, it was called judicial review. The problem is, conservatives tend to equate decisions they don’t like with “activism.” They’ve been doing that since they decided it was fair to lynch people for having the audacity to vote. Now that lynching is out of style, they try to disenfranchise people by turning away legitimate and registered voters at the polling place (such as Florida), and through the requirement of voter ID cards. After all, the easiest way to control the legislative process is not with superior ideas or performance, it’s by making sure the people who disagree with you can’t vote in the first place. Historically, Georgia’s been pretty good at that sort of thing. That’s why we are, and still should be, specifically listed on the Voting Rights Act. But I digress. As of late, conservatives have been critical of the courts determining what is fair and based in constitutional intent of nondiscrimination. This is especially critical when the masses get caught up in their own notions of racism (Brown), sexism (Roe), or homophobia (Griswold). As far as the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is concerned, it was written that way to force the states to follow the same rules as the federal government. Prior to that, for example each state could (and in the southern states, usually did) impose laws contrary to the Constitution. The SC isn’t constantly redefining the 1st-8th amendments; it’s requiring uniform enforcement of the rules in place.
One quick correction. Conservatives only recently embraced Brown. Not for altruistic reasons, but because to do otherwise invariably condemned them as racists. Now they focus on property taxes and exclusive neighborhoods as economic segregators. But, getting back to your statement of “wide, quick and final” acceptance, that was simply not the case. Brown was handed down in 1954, and not enacted until 1961, largely because of southern obstructionism. For those bloggers who have problems believing that (and I’m sure there are many), review the entire history of the civil rights movement (especially the pictures of burnt bodies, firehoses and attack dogs in front of schools) for a history refresher.
By deegee
July 11, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, Bill Cosby would still be coming in the back door and eating in the kitchen if not for the likes of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. “Good negroes” always held a special place in the hearts and minds of white folk. It took civil disobedience and years of legislation in order to “mainstream” black America.
By Pompano
July 11, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
Sorry MClark - I should have been more sensitive considering your side lost the Gay marriage fight. I assume that lies at the heart of the venom you’ve been spewing this afternoon. But hey - there’s always MA.
By Southern Democrat
July 11, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
I certainly agree with your sentiments, J Tom. As someone who has a homosexual in his extended family and has observed the unbelievably positive transformation when that individual came out of the closet and my extended family embraced that individual’s partner, I can attest to the overwhelming power of acceptance.
I am a Church-going Catholic and I certainly understand the religious implications of the debate; it is something my wife and I discuss at length. It is a flashpoint religious issue because it involves the only religious act that the government recognizes (the sacrament of holy matrimony for us Catholics). But I also think that many individuals’ views on homosexuals might change if they saw gay men and lesbians in sustained, long-term relationships whose commitment is recognized by the government (and, more practically, all employers and insurers). For this reason, I support civil unions and think they are a palatable first step (or maybe final step, I don’t know).
Many of my most conservative friends, even if they are homophobic, are also respectful of everyone’s right to live a quiet life and to a degree of privacy (just like they desire), and are therefore okay with civil unions.
Are there any conservaties on this blog who would be okay with civil unions or do most people think that their feelings on homosexuality itself trump their “live and let live” tendencies?
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
deegee: Yes and Bill Cosby “always held a special place in the hearts and minds of BLACK FOLKS” til he started saying things that many didn’t want to hear. Isn’t Mr. Cosby REALLY AND TRULY trying to “mainstream” black America?
By JK
July 11, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
The 76% of the electorate who expressed a preference are NOT ALL bible bashing Bush lovers.
Perhaps not, but they ARE ALL bigots who disregard the American principle of individual choice and opt instead to impose their prejudices on others by deciding whom among us shall enjoy legal rights, and whom shall not, based solely their propensity to say, “Ewwww!”
By rarringt
July 11, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
JBM,
Read your last posting. It wasn’t Sidney or Jackie or “Charley Pride” (I liked that one).
It was blacks and people of conscience shutting down economies, marching against near-impossible conditions, braving everything from the CCC to the KKK, turning fairness into discussions at dinner tables across the country, and the willingness of JFK and LBJ to have the national guard back up the people.
It was not a case of southern gradualism. Power concedes nothing without struggle, after all.
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Face it, the rednekkkus hillbillikkkus is a belligerent nasty moron species. Many of Wooten’s fine friends would be happy turning back the clock to, say, 1861; and think every decision by the courts since then is “judicial activism”.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
JK: I qualify as one of those that IS NOT “a Bible bashing Bush lover”. But despite liberal opionions, those of us that are opposed to “gay” marriage ARE NOT bigots. But I really could care less what little school girl names you call me, homophobe, bully, etc., the usual liberal names for Christian conservatives like ME. But since you really don’t have a better argument, all you can do is do the usual name calling. So I’m ready…let me have it with your best shot.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Hello Redneck, how’s it going in Teeterville? As one of your “rednekkkus hillbillikkkus buddies”, I’d just like to say it’s a pleasure knowing such an intellectualus assholus. Me and “the boys” just like a little common sense in our government, not liberal activism.
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
Thanks Toad, for the invite. Tonight my girlfriend fancied some pub food, thankfully I availed myself of the chicken tikka rather than the shoe leather that passes for British beef. As for Ugotta Be Full of It’s idea that I am in White County, I avoid redneck hillbilly havens like the plague, I rarely venture off the island in the sea of redneck that is Atlanta.
Charing Cross Road in London has more bookstores than the state of Georgia, no wonder Ugotta who claims to be a Brit knows nothing of it.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
@ closet redneck
so the meeting with your new probation officer didn’t go well - eh?? I suppose your new Vote Purdue tatoo didn’t go down too well at the remedial centre either - did it?
As ever your ungracious bile is graciously recieved by your southern betters. PLease can we have another superb hissy fit, like the one you pitched last weekend - that was bloody hilarious!!
@ JK
so the political will of the people is “bigotry” … why? because your homo petulance says so. It is NOT prejudice you dishonest dolt - it is simply a collective opinion. A state is entitled to frame its laws/constitution, subject to judicial review etc. GET OVER IT!!
Somethings should be above politics, and keeping marriage (imperfect as it may be) EXACTLY as it is is one of theose things.
Kidding …
you wont get through to racebaiters like deegee … but its fun trying.
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Silly rednecks - Bush lovers are bible thumpers, not bible bashers. They are the most un-Christlike people in the world, but they act like they wrote the words of Jesus. Bush voters are filthy stupid bible thumping hypocrites.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
No Redneck, I’m not a Brit. I’m a bigot, remember? Ask my friend JK.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Time for the Truth: You’re the MAN, I’m just a mere lad. But I enjoy trying.
By Redneck - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Ugotta, you and “the boys” are playing your banjos and squealing like piggies right now, I reckon, checking out each others orthodontia.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
@ Redneck
On Charing Cross Rd many of the bookshops are small specialist, second hand or remaindered book shops. Only Waterstones and Foyles are sunstantial , - Foyles actually sold their property across the street to Waterstones 25 years or so ago. You’ll find a Borders on Oxford ST, which is bigger. Try Cecil Court for Antiquarian and a big new age place called Watkins.
That’s assuming your bigoted dumb yankee arse is actually temporarily infesting my country :)
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Redneck: I was wrong. I admit it. That’s JUST Assholus!!! I dropped the “intellectualus” after reviewing your posts a little closer. But it was funny as hell!!!
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
@ Redneck
so what are Kerry voters??
By JK
July 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Ugotta B. Kidding, okay then. Thanks. You identify yourself as a Christian Conservative, is that correct? Working on that supposition, let’s say you are a nice Christian family man, and your neighbors are just like you and your family, live the same way, go to the same church, raise their kids in essentially the same way, and you’ve been friends for 20 years. (Although Christ points out that “neighbor” does not mean only those who are just like you.)
Now let’s say your neighbor has two children, whom you’ve known since they were tots. Now they’re grown. One is straight, and the other is gay. They both become self-sufficient tax-paying citizens. They both fall in love with a special person they want to be with forever. One announces intent to marry. Do you congratulate? Rejoice? Attend? Purchase a gift? Pray for a long happy life for the couple? Now the other one announces intent to marry. Do you do the same? If not, why not? What’s the difference, what is it to you, and how do you justify treating them so differently?
If there’s a legitimate reason for private citizens (voters) to decide in America that some citizens can have legal partnership rights and others cannot, based solely on something that is none of your business and does not affect you, I’d really like to understand and NOT be hostile!
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Time for the truth: That would be Dumbassholus.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
@ JK …
Its simply about preserving the tradition of marriage which has been the cornerstone of virtually every society on the planet until liberals/homos started demanding to trash that as well.
Legal partnerships are fine - civil unions etc as I said earlier. Just not marriage. See my posts above for why not.
Kerry voters are way beyond dumbassholus … they are at the very least snivelling treasonous imbeciles.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
JK: I know you won’t believe this BUT, I have nothing against the neighbor son or daughter that is gay. You’re surely not going to believe this BUT, that person can freely do whatever they choose to do in the privacy of their OWN HOME. I don’t agree with it BUT I don’t condemn it. It’s the “marriage” thing where I have a real problem. You know, there’s a lot of things that people “like to do” and “want to do” but it doesn’t make it right and all the activist judges and court decisions will NEVER make it right. But to answer your question, I can love the neighbor’s gay son or daughter, but hate the sin. So if that makes me a bigot, then I’m just a bigot. But I’m not going to treat them ANY differently. I promise you I’m going to be just as nice to the gay neighbor as I am the straight neighbor. That’s the way I was raised.
By JK
July 11, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
time for truth,
You’re not an American, are you? Am I correct that you are in fact a loyal subject of Elizabeth II? If so, what business do you have discussing our laws with regard to YOUR point of view? The tradition of persecuting people for having different personal or religious beliefs — resulting in centuries of UN-Christlike behaviour — comes from your imperialistic ancestors, who were told in no uncertain terms, as it is not unknown, by MY independence-loving ancestors, to STUFF your opinions in your bottoms, and keep your dreadful tea (yes, I said it!) because we don’t CARE what you think. Indeed. Quite.
By Pompano
July 11, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
By Ugotta B. Kidding - Great post! I think that sums up the opinion for a lot of us who voted in favor of the amendment
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
JK: Oh yeah, you might even get me to agree to civil unions, only for legal reasons. But nothing even hinting at marriage. See I’m a nice bigot.
By JK
July 11, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this
Ugotta, okay… so you don’t hate your neighbor’s kids. Fast forward again. Neighbor’s gay son’s partner of 30 years, with whom he’s shared his entire adult life, fortunes, losses, homes, joys, fears, and holidays, is dying. The man you don’t hate is now kept from the bedside and from the legal decisions of his one true life love because the law does not allow them the same rights as the law allows you, your wife, and your children. His pain and grief is multiplied not only by what they’ve endured in an intolerant society for decades, but by the fact that in the end, the simplest of things like estate planning, living wills, and even final arrangements are yanked from their control because they’re different. He sees you, greets you, and shares his story. What do you say to him now? “Too bad?” “Shoulda been more like your brother?” “I had to vote agin’ ya, son. You’re just not good enough to have the same rights as the rest of us?”
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this
@ JK
another smug bigoted yankee who sneers before it thinks .
I am a US citizen.
Therefore my views and vote and everything else are EQUAL to any other citizen’s.
AS for religiuous persecution … never any in the USA - eh?? Salem witch trials, mormons, the serious puritan nutters over here in the early days, tensions with the red indians, irish, italians, polish … not to mention the slavery issue etc.
You sure did stuff that tea matey … into every bloody southern restaurant I’ve ever been in - iced sweet tea anyone?
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this
JK: Did I say that? I didn’t think I did so I re-read my post and guess what??? I didn’t!!! In fact in my very last posts I said that I could agree to some form of “civil unions” or changing some laws so that your friend, lover, dog, cat, ex-wife, all other ex-wives, etc. can have legal rights to the things you mentioned. I DON’T see a problem with that. But when ole STEVE AND EARL won’t to get “married”…When Hell freezes over, and I don’t feel the ground gettin’ cold…
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this
JK’s a control freak …he’s setting up ludicrous scenarios to pontificate on.
MOst conservatives dont hate poofs mate, they just dont want to see them trash the institution of marriage. Legal rights would be OK - just no walk down the aisle both dressed as bridesmaids!!
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this
.
NEW RULE: If you cant make your point in five lines of cyber blog text, then I’m not going to read it. Ugotta: I think you missed a couple of cliches, you might want to recomment. (whew)
Also, why does every post from the Right start and end with the word, “Duh”? Is that a typo, or are you all retards?
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this
Oh Political Foreskin: You must have a touch of amnesia. Are you really sure you want to go here again, my little homosexual liberal buddy?
By Pompano
July 11, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this
JK - Gays do have the same rights as straight citizens. They just don’t have the additional rights they are demanding.
All of the items you mention do not require marriage - those items can easily be resolved thru contracts, wills and joint tenant agreements.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this
VOTE FOR RALPH REED
HE HAD ME AT ‘HALO’
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this
I do declare I must’ve touched a nerve AGAIN. When’s the “wedding” sugar?
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this
It takes one to blow one, Grip-n-Lip.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this
DUH!! liberal foreskin is dyslexic DUH!!!
By JK
July 11, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this
Ugotta, I apologize, as I didn’t see your other post until after I posted again. I appreciate your willingness to allow civil rights. As to the religious thing in the churches that you want to hold sacred, go ahead. I’ve attended many big church weddings that ended in bitter divorce. The “I do’s” and “Honor this-es” that happen in church mean nothing. Marriage really is, and always has been, about determining property rights, which should be the same for everyone. BTW, ain’t NO HELL like a bad marriage!
Time for Truth: Please let me apologize for the atrocious behavior of my white ancestors who brought their atrocious European traditions of conquest, hate, and intolerance over here from over there. There just is no excusing the behavior of some people. BTW, you’re still calling us “yanks” which means you’re not fully assimilated, Limey.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 05:31 PM | Link to this
I dont think dyslexia means what you think it means, kind sir.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this
Patriotic Foreskin: I can understand why you have a PHD with such brilliant wording as those. B.S….Piled Higher and Deeper. Impressive!!!
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this
Apology accepted - although its long overdue!!
You are bloody yanks - except for the SUPERIOR white southerners who are mostly descended from Brits :)
The correct way for a liberal yank to address ANY conservative Englishman is Thank you for the spare change My Noble Liege, or Good Sire may I lick thine boots clean of the red Georgia clay?
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this
JK: You’re right that male-female marriages often end in divorce. But that’s a pitiful argument if you’re trying to justify homosexual marriage.
By Brandon
July 11, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this
Listen to the pinko liberals squeal like stuck pigs about the rejection of gay marriage. Every SINGLE STATE that has put gay marriage on the ballot has overwhelmingly rejected it. Except Assachussetts of course, but that’s liberal Chappaquiddick la-la land.. they’re all either drunk or on drugs.
It’s a funny upside down world in liberal la-la land when they want tell the MAJORITY of people who do NOT agree with their stance (gay marriage in this case) that THEY are wrong and should change. Only a liberal would attempt to punish the majority for the benefit of the minority (like they want to do by socializing healthcare “free for all”.. for all whopping 18% of Americans with no health care coverage).
Hey liberals: you don’t attempt to shove YOUR ideology down MY throat and I promise I’ll keep my Bible out of your mouth. K?
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 11, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this
Damn, Brandon…That sounded like I wrote it. Spoken like a true great right-wing Christian conservative American Patriot (and everything else liberals despise). You have the floor my man!!!
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this
Hey Brandon, that’s not my ideology you’ve got stuck in your throat! (too easy, I take it back)
By JK
July 11, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this
Ugotta, okay that’s the point! I don’t WANT to “justify” homosexual marriage. Why should I? You don’t have to “justify” heterosexual marriage, do you? Why should ANYONE have to justify that decision to you? Either we all have the right to marry the adult of our mutual choosing, or we don’t. Period. The law now is arbitrary and discriminatory and baseless. If my neighbor cannot marry, then why do I get to? I’m no better than he is just because I’m straight. Why do I get more rights? Heck, my cooking is lousy (English bloodline) and my decorating skills are mediocre at best. He’d make a much better wife than I ever did! Hahaha!
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this
The only thing Brandon has on the floor is Ugotta’s pants. (another too easy one, this is just no fun against such easily manipulated stump wits.)
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
@ liberal foreskin
now we see the socially inadequate pinko’s really getting into the gutter!!
By Brandon
July 11, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this
Preeshiate it UBK. No, but seriously, have you ever noticed that liberals are never happy?
They are always griping: America is greedy (all the rich “tax cuts” and whatnot, as if that’s THEIR money or something);
America is cheap in philanthropy by international giving standards (yeah RIGHT.. I’ll debate ANY liberal right now on American PRIVATE philanthropy for overseas assistance against the French for starters);
Americs is just a “war machine” for profits (kinda hard to run a company successfully without making those evil profits socialist libs hate so much, but of course America’s companies aren’t own by the state like, say, a communist nation);
America breeds hate mongers like Ann Coulter (as if Howard “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for” Dean is a model US citizen of tolerance of diversity of opinion).
In any event, liberals today are just a quasi-extension of where they left off in the 1960s: nothing but a bunch of protesting, do-nothing-for-yourself, hate-the-successful boffoons who will never be happy until we have complete cradle to grave socialismm in this nation. Look around, it’s already started.
By Pompano
July 11, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this
Sorry JK, but based on your premise that love trumps all, are you also advocating that we should allow child molesters to marry minor children? Because based on your logic the child molesters are being discriminated against.
And how about a little Bestiality? Should we allow these poor souls to wed whatever species they desire just so that they are not discriminated against?
By rarringt
July 11, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this
Lots of namecalling, but no intelligent discussion. I see liberals calling conservatives fascists, and conservatives calling liberals intellectual socialist apologists.
Neither moniker really applies to the moderate and reasonable thinkers on either side, but both names (and more specifically the namecalling) is typical of what has happened in our society.
We never were a society of enlightened intellectuals with steely resolve, but the idea, back in the day, was to form a more perfect union, where ideas, and especially dissent, was tolerated and respected.
I clearly am not a fan of neoconservatism, but neither am I a fan of neoliberalism (which seems to represent a good number of the posters in here). If you’re giving up on making an argument and making personal attacks, chances are you fit one of the above categories. Both are outdated and increasingly inconsequential dinosaurs of political thought.
I mean, Bush wants to take credit for a 296 billion dollar DEFICIT, instead of the 400+ billion his office had intentionally misreported earlier in the year, which will affect the QOL of our grandchildren, and we’re in here talking about gay marriage.
Really, there are more important subjects to focus on.
By RS
July 11, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this
I have two questions for all on this blog:
1) For those who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible regarding homosexuality, what is your literal take on the bible and slavery (I ask as an african american gay man)? 2) What are the marriage statistics for the state of Georgia vs Massachusetts? For added note: the debate regarding gays having marriage equality is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Technically, according to one protestant religious group, gays can marry in their church. So the religious marriage equality fight for gays is already achieved.
By Paul
July 12, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this
I would like to respond to Sara’s blog regarding Ann Coulter. After seeing and reading all the comments on Ann, I really became intrigued after being shocked at Jay Leno’s patronizing, when she appeared on his show. So much so that I bought 5 of her books and I am in the middle of reading the third. The people, who criticize Ann, seem to fall into 2 groups: 1. Those who have not even read her work, or 2. Those who fail to or are unable to cite specifics. Both of these have been address by Ann.
The only “specific,” that I have seen is the cry about plagiarism. This boils down to whether or not stating a fact is plagiarism, if [fact] has already been stated. If true, then the media commits [plagiarism] all the time.
Ann goes into great detail in documenting her assertions. It would be easy for anyone to disprove, if she is wrong, yet nobody does. All you get are accusations without proof or documentation, such as those by Sara. [Sara] does not identify a male that Ann has had sex with. [Sara] does not produce evidence of cosmetic surgery. Sara does not even say where she heard the information. Sara’s comment about [Ann] books taking a tumble only invites us to “research it.” I did (research it) and at least 3 of her books have been #1 on the best seller list. Ann also is appearing/has appeared on more talk shows, morning shows, etc. than any writer I have known of. I think Ann’s only concerns are: 1. Whether her name is being spelled right, 2. Figuring out how to spend all of her new found riches., and 3. Working in all the interviews she is being asked to do.
Ann takes [specific] shots at the media leaving herself wide open for liable or slander. The media has failed to defend themselves. There is of course no slander or liable, if the facts are true. The concern is that, if the media is slanting the news to support their owner’s position in lieu of fairly “reporting it,” we have been getting a false accounting of events for over 50 years. I have even done my own “baiting” without response.
I have no way to evaluate Ann’s accusations. I would, however, recommend her work to anyone interested in the truth. If what she says is not true, why is she not getting sued or indicted?
By time for the truth
July 12, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Ann Coulter is on the far religious right, she has pretty extreme fideistic views on religion which are as dogmatic as anyone’s, but that’s her right, covered by the freedom of expression that ACLU nazis constantly screech about.
Her political analysis is invariably spot on, and so far, factually flawless. Her rhetoric you either accept or reject. She simply hands back to many liberals what they hand out. The notion that conservatives should be polite mealy mouthed wimps in the face of shrill pinko feminazis like Boxer and Clinton or far left socialist demagogues like Kennedy or Schmuer is absurd.
Coulter’s fact checking of her books is unassailable, she simply uses primary pinko sources - i.e. actual/literal liberal quotes to embarass them or expose their party of hate.
Note that Coulter is invariably personally demonized or ridiculed, and often shouted down on campus, but tellingly the left dont EVER challenge her facts.
By ART
July 12, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
It takes specific type of person to even want to read Ann Coulter’s work. You know, the type that populate the local carnival’s 3 headed, 8 toed midget show.
By time for the truth
July 12, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
It takes specific type of person to even want to read Ann Coulter’s work
IT SURE DOES BUBBA …
Some one with an inquiring mind, a sense of humour and a desire to unravel the literal truth about the Democrat party of hate, conveyed by ACCURATE literal quotes from liberals.
By Paul
July 12, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Art,
Is is the cretinous druids like yourself who make vituperative and unsupported accusations against others that Ann addresses.
Please be specific: Please identify the local carnival’s 3 headed, 8 toed midget show that I (Paul) have populated. if you can???
By time for the truth
July 12, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
ART is too busy fawning outside the flimsy tent of the corrupt, perjuring, pardon selling adulterous travelling snake oil salesman from Arkansas and the vainglorious fork tongued slum lord eco wacko from Tennessee.
By Paul
July 12, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
time for the truth,
Unfortunately, after he reads your comment, [Art] also probably thinks you suport him.