If a mosque opens at Ground Zero on 9/11 next year,Obama can kiss the White House goodbye

[RangerM]

Sometimes the decision to divorce is made by one spouse, and not both.

[grbeck]

During the debate leading up to the vote on Prop 8 I saw many interviews with "Joes and Janes" who opposed gay marriage. Most of them offered religious reasons for supporting Prop 8. Others offered vague buzzwords about protecting marriage without any explanation as to how their right to marry would be inhibited by giving the same rights to gays.

 

Were the featured in People magazine? Can they raise millions of dollars based on their name alone? I doubt it.

 

Celebrities also give lots of money to favored candidates, and can hold fundraisers for them, using their fame to gain a platform and direct access to candidates that most of us will never have.

 

There are Conservative Celebrities as well. Perhaps you've heard of Chuck Norris who went on a nationwide tour with Mike Huckabee? Bruce Willis, Ted Nugent.

 

http://usconservativ...llywoodCons.htm

 

There have been several conservative celebrities who have been candidates ...Ronald Reagan, Arnold, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy etc.

 

Arnold has been anything but a conservative in the way he has governed. He only looked conservative next to incumbent Governor Gray Davis, much as Richard Nixon only looked conservative next to George McGovern, who, in 1972, ran on a platform so far to the left that even HE later repudiated a fair amount of it.

 

Clint Eastwood is more of a libertarian. In the interviews I've read he has not towed the line of either major party.

 

And I doubt that anyone is going to say that Fred Grandy of The Love Boat has the same level of celebrity firepower as Barbra Streisand or, for that matter, even Roseanne Barr.

 

The entertainment industry is decidedly liberal in its political orientation. If anything, the exceptions cited prove the rule.

 

In addition there are many business people who endorse and hold fundraisers for politicians of both parties gaining the same level of access far above regular Joes..

 

Business leaders are not necessarily conservative...Wall Street, for example, gave lots of money to Obama, as did BP.

 

They are free to have their beliefs. When they act in the public sphere they must conform their actions to the law. Are you argueing that discrimination on the basis of religion or race should be legal? Being forced to refrain from such discrimination contradicts the strongly held beliefs of some people.

 

No, what I am arguing is that you are forcing them to change their behavior.

 

Remember - you made the intial claim that legalizing gay marriage would not have an impact on anyone else, or require them to change their behavior. i referenced a particular case the refutes this contention. Now, because this behavior is in the "public sphere," it supposedly doesn't count.

 

Sorry, but no dice. You are forcing them to change their behavior. Whether you think it is appropriate is not the relevant question.

 

Loving was not decided on the basis of procreation;

 

http://caselaw.lp.fi...vol=388&invol=1

 

II.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

 

 

It is so ordered.

 

The citation to Skinner v. Oklahoma was not the rationale for the holding in Loving. See the highlighted portion.

 

[ Footnote 1 ] Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

I never said it was the deciding factor; it was one reason cited. Plus, the section you highlighted references race, which is not analogous to sexual orientation.

 

Baker was decided in 1972. A lot has changed in our society in almost 40 years. The Supreme Court has a long history of reversing old decisions to expand individual rights against government intrusion. Brown v. Board of Ed, Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v. Wade. Interestingly, Roe was decided in 1973. I doubt many of the same social conservatives who oppose gay marriage would argue that Roe was the final word on abortion. Maybe it's only the precedent one agrees with that is final.

 

No, they realize that bad decisions relying on faulty reasoning are the ones that should be reversed. There is no right to gay marriage in the United States Constitution, and there is no right to abortion, no matter how much the "penumbra" nonsense is thrown about and abused. (Just as there is no ban on gay marriage in the United States Constitution, there is also no right to life.)

 

Both issues are left to the voters in each state to decide. These particular rights are not granted by the United States Constitution.

 

There is no hypocrisy on the part of conservatives regarding those two decisions, just an understanding in these two cases of the proper sphere of the courts versus the legislatures.

 

I guess we will find out in the next couple of years. It will be interesting to see how the small government individual freedom conservatives on the Court will square marriage equality with their world view on the rights of the individual. If corporations have inalienable rights why not gays?

 

They would come down on the side of the wedding photographers I referenced, and their right not to act against their beliefs. Mark, the simple fact is that you want to restrict one party (or punish them for acting in a certain way that goes against your beliefs). I see plenty of individuals on the left who claim that THEY are for individuals against government power...yet, the photographers will face sanction if you get your way. How do YOU square your side's beliefs with this position?

 

The simple fact is that you favor one side over another, which is your right. But please don't say that you support individuals over the government, and please drop the fiction that legalizing gay marriage will not affect anyone else.

 

Gay Marriage is becoming a Conservative Value. Ted Olson former Bush Solicitor General was one of the lawyers who tried the Prop 8 case Perry v. Schwarzenegger on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman former Bush campaign manager and RNC chairman and Dick Cheney all support marriage equality.

 

"Conservative" and "Republican" are not necessarily synonomous. Some Democrats supported the Second Amendment as conferring its rights on the individual; did this make it a liberal position?

Edited September 3, 2010 by grbeck

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Just keep on believing that to justify your distasteful line of work. I went though a divorce, and I went through my parents' divorce when I was a child. My parents didn't get along too well sometimes, but I was a lot happier when we were a family than after we split. I was 9 years old and I was never more devastated before or since. Courts and lawyers make it too easy for families to split, and there is no consideration for the feelings of the children, whose main goal is to please and be considered good people by their parents. To them, their parents can do no wrong, so they try to hide their pain so their parents will not feel the guilt that they so richly deserve to feel. People who divorce are self centred. They only care about themselves. Let them battle it out themselves.

 

You have had a bit of a tough life Trim, l hope things turn out all right for you in the future.

 

When either you Mum or Dad disappears out of your life it must be similar to having your Mum or Dad die in some cases. I agree with you governments have made it far to easy to divorce most of them are ex lawyers feathering their own nests, bLair made set it up here so its as easy as popping down to your local chippie for some fish & chips, folk give up far to easy these days. Vultures circle around like bLairs wife, and make easy big money rich pickings out of other peoples misery & suffering.

 

Lawyers will say everybody is knocking ten balls of shit out of their wifes but thats not always the case in the vast majority of cases. You can still come to amicable agreement without getting the expensive vultures involved, though some like to taking the other half to the cleaners & clean the others bank account out just out of spite because of their other half's Adultery & the vultures usually make between $20,000 to $80,000 from folk in my area in costs. So why would the British Government want to end the gravy train as most UK MP's are lawyers, its self serving for them the easier it is to get a quickie the more money they make from your misery & suffering. Lawyers must hate folk like me Trim that have been married for 33 years they will get fookall out of me.

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Trimdingman]

So your saying, you are self centered and only care about yourself.

 

 

I would never put my kids through what I went through. Obviously the divorce was not my doing.

[Trimdingman]

You have had a bit of a tough life Trim, l hope things turn out all right for you in the future.

 

Life is good. You have to heal the wounds and get rid of the fallout, also. Usually, this takes decades. I was probably in my 40s before I realized the full extent of the damage to my psyche caused by the childhood trauma of my parents divorcing. How much of this bad blood was passed on to my children, and by them to my grand-children, I can only guess. Lawyers and courts are at the root of this evil. When children are involved, marriages should be very hard to get out of. Children don't have rights because they can't vote. Women are encouraged by our society to end any marriage if the going gets the least bit tough. They can gain financially if they get custody and support payments, and then go on to another relationship bringing this big dowery with them. The father becomes a slave and will never find a woman in his class carrying that kind of baggage. Many commit suicide. Future generations carry this bad blood. It will take over a century before the family will be whole again. All this is caused by one person's selfishness, aided and abetted by a corrupt system.

[Edstock]

How much of this bad blood was passed on to my children, and by them to my grand-children, I can only guess. Lawyers and courts are at the root of this evil. No, the "bad blood" is the root of this evil: revenge-minded people. Often a "see what you made me do" mind-set is involved.

 

When children are involved, marriages should be very hard to get out of. Why? A hundred years ago, divorce was very hard to come by in North America, except for the wealthy. So, you would have a woman and children stuck with a violent, abusive husband/father, with NO way out. This led to poisonings of the abuser. In small farming communities, this would be an open secret, that mean old farmer Brown finally got his, and nudge, nudge, everybody blamed it on bad food or bad water.

 

Children don't have rights because they can't vote. Wrong. Children have rights. For example, they have the right not to be abused by either parent. That's why we have Children's Aid Societies and other organizations to come to their rescue from bad parental relationships. Children also have a right to education and healthcare.

 

Women are encouraged by our society to end any marriage if the going gets the least bit tough.

That's your opinion. "least bit tough" is an undefined term; some women will put up with more than others, but certainly society has encouraged women not to accept abuse.

 

They can gain financially if they get custody and support payments, and then go on to another relationship bringing this big dowery with them. And a lot of women and their children lose, and live in poverty. The term "dead-beat Dads" comes to mind: the shirking of responsibility by fathers has become a big enough problem that in the province of Ontario, dead-beats get refused driver's licence renewals, in an effort to get them to live up to their responsibilities.

 

The father becomes a slave and will never find a woman in his class carrying that kind of baggage. The father lives up to his obligations. If he labels them "slavery", that's his attitude problem. Whether he will find another woman "in his class", with or without "that kind of baggage" is irrelevant to living up to his obligations. Maybe he might "go on to another relationship" with a woman "bringing this big dowery with them".

 

Many commit suicide. Please provide a number.

 

Future generations carry this bad blood. Only if the person generating this "bad blood" refuses to stop the hatred and hostility. You want to live a life of hatred and resentment, that's your choice: "see what you made me think".

 

It will take over a century before the family will be whole again. Really. Over 100 years, because some woman refuses to stay with some jerk? Yeah, right. In 30 years, the jerk won't even be a bad memory.

 

All this is caused by one person's selfishness Takes two to tango. What one calls "selfishness" may be seen by another as a necessary action because of a stubborn, mulish, inflexible, hostile attitude of an equally "selfish" marriage partner.

 

aided and abetted by a corrupt system. Opinion. The system could always be better, but at least women and children have a way out of abusive relationships.

[Trimdingman]

The "bad blood" I was referring to is the irreparable damage done to the children in a divorce. They carry this for life, and pass it on to their children, as they are warped, or wounded, without even realizing it. To me, this takes precedence over petty rivalries between immature adult children. Before having children, they should grow up themselves. It is not easy, living in a nanny state that allows people to be children all their lives.

 

Three men in my family and several other male close acquaintances committed suicide over marital problems. Suicides are not reported because it would reveal the great flaws in the way divorce is handled by the government. They would rather cover it up than face the wrath of the feminists by trying to fix it.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Trimdingman

[Edstock]

The "bad blood" I was referring to is the irreparable damage done to the children in a divorce. They carry this for life, and pass it on to their children, as they are warped, or wounded, without even realizing it. That's your opinion. Children tend to be more resilient than you believe in coping with divorce. It's not a perfect world, but they cope far better than suffering the abuse of years or decades a hostile marriage, especially where there is adult violence, most often from the husband/father. That "bad blood" violent behavior repeats, which is why divorce and getting the children away from that kind of behavior is beneficial.

 

To me, this takes precedence over petty rivalries between immature adult children. When couples fight, nothing's petty.

 

Before having children, they should grow up themselves. It is not easy, living in a nanny state that allows people to be children all their lives. People should be reasonably grown-up before incurring the responsibilities of parenthood, but it's not a perfect world: a stiff cock has no brains. The "nanny state" has very little to do with the emotional maturity of married couples, or un-married couples who live together. Marriage hell existed way before the "nanny state".

 

Three men in my family and several other male close acquaintances committed suicide over marital problems. That's unfortunate; it's also unfortunate that they did not receive effective psychological counselling.

 

Suicides are not reported because it would reveal the great flaws in the way divorce is handled by the government. That's your opinion. The Ontario Coroner would disagree.

 

They would rather cover it up than face the wrath of the feminists by trying to fix it. Again, that's your opinion. There is no "cover up" and no wrath of "the feminists" to face, because the consensus of our society likes things the way they are, because it provides the greatest good for the greatest number. Most people pick themselves up and resume a positive approach to life and relationships after a divorce. But there is a minority who cannot get over it for various reasons and spend their lives in umbrage and hostility. People only continue behavior if there is a reward for them at some level, even if it is self-destructive. The human psyche is hard-wired towards role-playing; this is never more apparent in the behavior of people during and after divorce. Like the Hall and Oats song, "Smoke from a Distant Fire" says. "The reality gave me a role".

[Deanh]

burn the Koran day?.....WTF is happening to common sense? build a mosque next to the 9/11 site???? ...hey, next up the IRA is going to revisit its sites of deadly bombing in Northern ireland and construct Catholic Churches on them....would they...ABSOLUTELY not, why....pure common sense....something blatantly missing from the two afforementioned actions...

[Trimdingman]

burn the Koran day?.....WTF is happening to common sense? build a mosque next to the 9/11 site???? ...hey, next up the IRA is going to revisit its sites of deadly bombing in Northern ireland and construct Catholic Churches on them....would they...ABSOLUTELY not, why....pure common sense....something blatantly missing from the two afforementioned actions...

 

 

Too many Americans don't know or care what it means to be an American. First, second or third generation Americans who are ok with the mosque should shut up because they don't have America in their hearts yet. They probably still refer to themselves as something other than American, or hyphenated Americans. To a true American, America comes before some religion originating on the other side of the world. Some people who call themselves American have made excuses for the terrorists who caused 9/11, saying it is the fault of American foreign policy, or saying that the whole thing was staged by George Bush. If you want to know who true Americans are, join the Tea Party movement. As for the rest, all I can say is watch your back.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Trimdingman

[mettech]

The common thread that links all of these issues together is:

 

 

 

Religion.

[Deanh]

The common thread that links all of these issues together is:

 

 

 

Religion.

sigh...seems a few of the Commandments/ beleifs fell off the rails a LONG time ago......

[Trimdingman]

Edstock, I know what I am talking about because I have seen it, endured it, and survived it. Nobody who has not been there can have a valid opinion about it. It is insulting to have them pontificating about something about which they have not a clue to someone who knows about it intuitively. Marital related suicides are not reported unless it is a murder-suicide. Men's groups are fighting to have this policy changed. Children, who have not experienced a lot of life are more deeply affected by a tragic occurance, such as their family breaking up, than adults, who have more of a lifetime to "average it into". Your parents are who you are. You came from them. I wouldn't leave a three room shack with my fighting parents to live with millionaires in a mansion. That is blood. it can't be bought or sold.

[Deanh]

Too many Americans don't know or care what it means to be an American. First, second or third generation Americans who are ok with the mosque should shut up because they don't have America in their hearts yet. They probably still refer to themselves as something other than American, or hyphenated Americans. To a true American, America comes before some religion originating on the other side of the world. Some people who call themselves American have made excuses for the terrorists who caused 9/11, saying it is the fault of American foreign policy, or saying that the whole thing was stage by George Bush. If you want to know who true Americans are, join the Tea Party movement. As for the rest, all I can say is watch your back.

TEAPARTY????? save that for comedy central...and i'm quite sure some "Americans " would be insulted by such a statement....

[Trimdingman]

TEAPARTY????? save that for comedy central...and i'm quite sure some "Americans " would be insulted by such a statement....

 

 

Non Americans, not real Americans.... Like Michael Moore who came to Canada to campaign for the same Liberals whose leader, Jean Chretien, stood up and instead of offering condolences to the American people after 9/11, blamed it on American foreign policy. This was a real low point for real Canadians. Non-Canadians applauded along with the likes of Michael Moore, and his disgusting ilk.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Non Americans, not real Americans.... Like Michael Moore who came to Canada to campaign for the same Liberals whose leader, Jean Chretien, stood up and instead of offering condolences to the American people after 9/11, blamed it on American foreign policy. This was a real low point for real Canadians. Non-Canadians applauded along with the likes of Michael Moore, and his disgusting ilk.

 

As a native born American who has not missed voting in any election since November 1978, I resent a Canadian who is delusional at best and mentally unstable at worst, questioning my commitment to my country. Perhaps you should just keep quiet about things you have no knowledge of.

 

The most American of traits is that all Americans have the right to their opinions without having their patriotism called in to question. The Tea Partiers are not the heirs to the founders who understood this principle. They are the heirs of Joseph McCarthy who lied and demagogued irrational fears for his own craven political benefit. The Tea Partiers will be remembered in the future in the same manner as McCarthy is now.

[suv_guy_19]

Jean Chretien, stood up and instead of offering condolences to the American people after 9/11, blamed it on American foreign policy.

 

Show me where that happened. I seem to remember him leading this a few days after the event:

 

 

He delivered this speech:

 

Mr. Ambassador [u.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci] you have assembled before you, here on Parliament Hill and right across Canada, a people united in outrage, in grief, in compassion, and in resolve; a people of every faith and nationality to be found on earth; a people who, as a result of the atrocity committed against the United States on September 11, 2001, feel not only like neighbours but like family.

 

At a time like this words fail us. We reel before the blunt and terrible reality of the evil we have just witnessed. We cannot stop the tears of grief. We cannot bring back lost wives and husbands. Sons and daughters. American citizens, Canadian citizens, citizens from all over the world. We cannot restore futures that have been cut terribly short. At a time like this, the only saving grace is our common humanity and decency. At a time like this, it is our feelings, our prayers and our actions that count. By their outpouring of concern, sympathy and help, the feelings and actions of Canadians have been clear. And, even as we grieve our own losses, the message they send to the American people is equally clear: Do not despair; you are not alone; we are with you -- the whole world is with you.

 

The great Martin Luther King, in describing times of trial and tribulation, once said that: "In the end, it is not the words of your enemies that you remember, it is the silence of your friends."

 

Mr. Ambassador, as your fellow Americans grieve and rebuild, there will be no silence from Canada. Our friendship has no limit. Generation after generation, we have traveled many difficult miles together. Side by side, we have lived through many dark times; always firm in our shared resolve to vanquish any threat to freedom and justice. And together, with our allies, we will defy and defeat the threat that terrorism poses to all civilized nations.

 

Mr. Ambassador, we will be with the United States every step of the way -- as friends, as neighbors, as family.

 

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/chretian9-14-01.htm

 

Americans enjoy the same protections on freedom of speech, though, and expression that we do (a bit more, in fact). You, of all people; you who has no idea what you're talking about, have no right to call Americans un-American.

Edited September 8, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[RangerM]

The most American of traits is that all Americans have the right to their opinions without having their patriotism called in to question. The Tea Partiers are not the heirs to the founders who understood this principle. They are the heirs of Joseph McCarthy who lied and demagogued irrational fears for his own craven political benefit. The Tea Partiers will be remembered in the future in the same manner as McCarthy is now.

Maybe it's just a new era in race relations?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt7JyCV9SHc

[Trimdingman]

Show me where that happened. I seem to remember him leading this a few days after the event:

 

 

He delivered this speech:

 

 

 

Americans enjoy the same protections on freedom of speech, though, and expression that we do (a bit more, in fact). You, of all people; you who has no idea what you're talking about, have no right to call Americans un-American.

 

Chretien said right after 9/11;

" You cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation to others. That is what the Western World...not only Americans... the Western World, has to realize. Because they are human beings too. There are long term consequenses."

 

"And I do think that the Western World is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize this even more."

[Cocheese]

They are the heirs of Joseph McCarthy who lied and demagogued irrational fears for his own craven political benefit. The Tea Partiers will be remembered in the future in the same manner as McCarthy is now.

 

Hmm, who's the "delusional at best and mentally unstable at worst" now?

 

When speaking about the Tea Party, "perhaps you should just keep quiet about things you have no knowledge of."

[suv_guy_19]

Chretien said right after 9/11;

" You cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation to others. That is what the Western World...not only Americans... the Western World, has to realize. Because they are human beings too. There are long term consequenses."

 

"And I do think that the Western World is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize this even more."

 

 

That isn't about American....but did you stop to think that it might be right?

[Edstock]

Edstock, I know what I am talking about because I have seen it, endured it, and survived it. Suicide? Nobody who has not been there can have a valid opinion about it. Suicide? Is that like coming back from the dead? It is insulting to have them pontificating about something about which they have not a clue to someone who knows about it intuitively. I don't use intuition; I also don't pontificate. Whether you're insulted or not, well, like I care? But in Ontario, any suspicious death is reported to the provincial Coroner. What they do where you live, I have no idea, don't particularly care. Marital related suicides are not reported unless it is a murder-suicide. One more time: in Ontario, all suspicious deaths are reported to the coroner. Men's groups are fighting to have this policy changed. Children, who have not experienced a lot of life are more deeply affected by a tragic occurance, such as their family breaking up, than adults, who have more of a lifetime to "average it into". Children are also much more able to get on with the future, grow and accept change, unlike adults who are still fighting over a failed marriage. Your parents are who you are. Your parents are a major part of who you are, but you are your own person, which means you can choose which part of their influence you wish to be part of your life. You came from them. I wouldn't leave a three room shack with my fighting parents to live with millionaires in a mansion. That is blood. it can't be bought or sold. That's nice.

[Edstock]

Hmm, who's the "delusional at best and mentally unstable at worst" now?

 

When speaking about the Tea Party, "perhaps you should just keep quiet about things you have no knowledge of."

You sure have a lot of history to read about. Tail-Gunner Joe wasn't the first to spew that kind of paranoid hatred (Father Coughlin, before him, was a real piece of work), but he benefited from the advent of national radio and the nascent TV networks, plus the news shorts in movie theaters.

 

Think of him as the original Rush (Limbaugh, not Lee, Lifeson and Peart). Anyway, check with your local library, or google Tail-Gunner on the web. Nasty sumbitch.

[xr7g428]

This is just priceless.

 

First you say this:

 

The most American of traits is that all Americans have the right to their opinions without having their patriotism called in to question.

 

And then you follow up by doing EXACTLY what you condemn.

 

The Tea Partiers are not the heirs to the founders who understood this principle. They are the heirs of Joseph McCarthy who lied and demagogued irrational fears for his own craven political benefit. The Tea Partiers will be remembered in the future in the same manner as McCarthy is now.

[Mark B. Morrow]

This is just priceless.

 

First you say this:

 

 

 

And then you follow up by doing EXACTLY what you condemn.

 

I didn't say they didn't love their country. I didn't accuse them of treason, just of being wrong.