| February 2004 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | ||||||
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
Larry Elder, with whom I agree on almost everything, was on the air the other day saying, why not permit gay marriages? What can it hurt? Shouldn’t people be permitted to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else? And these are the arguments made by most proponents of this change to our nation.
I have several responses to this.
Notice that the argument isn’t, “we know it won’t be bad for our society to encourage gay behavior.” Instead the argument is, “what can it hurt?” It’s an argument that says, “we don’t know if it can hurt, but let’s try it anyway.” It’s an argument from lack of information rather than presence of information.
Of course, there is some data available on the subject. In fact, through literal millennia of human history, societies have found that the good of society as a whole, requires them not to encourage gay behavior.
We’ve all heard the phrase, measure twice, cut once. The proponents of gay marriage are saying, “Don’t measure at all—and cut forever.”
Then there’s the other argument Larry made: why shouldn’t people be permitted to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else? You know what? Gay behavior is already permitted in our society. It’s not illegal.
This is about whether gay behavior should be encouraged so much by our society, as to be encouraged as much as heterosexual behavior. That, as countless human societies have already learned throughout history, would be detrimental to our nation.
However, I will say that the SEX IN THE CITY finale may be the best TV script of the year.
The last couple of days I’ve been trying to figure out why the Right isn’t more concerned about this gay marriage movement. Everyone on the Right is speaking out loud and clear against it—but they don’t seem to be concerned about the May 17th date, the date on which the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has determined that that state will commence state-sanctioned marriage of gays.
The state-sanctioned part is key. What’s going on in San Francisco is just a stunt. They can forge all the marriage certificates they want—the marriages are still illegal. That’s because there’s a state law in California that says, marriage is between a man and a woman. The mayor of San Francisco has no legal authority to marry any gay couple.
But Massachusetts is different. In that state the Supreme Court has ruled that recognition of gay marriage is required by the Massachusetts state Constitution. Of course, that’s silly, and everybody knows it, since the state Constitution was written in 1780, and everybody knows that the framers of that Constitution did not support gay marriage. It’s just a power-grab by the extreme Left, using four activist judicial allies.
Nevertheless, there’s a full faith-and-credit clause of the U.S. Constitution that says states must accept things done in other state that are legal in those states. So gay “marriages” performed legally in Massachusetts would be considered legal in other states—even though the vast majority of Americans are against gay marriage.
And that’s what’s been the big question to me the past few days. Why isn’t the Right more concerned about the May 17th date? I was looking all over for this. Finally I found it yesterday.
Rush had the answer. The faith-and-credit clause cuts both ways. If Massachusetts does carry out gay “marriages,” those marriages will be challenged by other states who don’t wish to be tyrannized and ruled by activist courts kow-towing to the Left in defiance of the will of the people.
...at some point it will be adjudicated by the Supreme Court, because of the full faith-and-credit clause. There’s a big problem, having to do with states being forced to accept what happens in other states. So a couple “married” in San Francisco has to be recognized as such if they move to Missouri. That’s where this is going to get tested.
Rush is referring to San Francisco, but any such “marriages” performed in Massachusetts are going to be tested the same way.
Rush goes on to point out how the Left is decimating itself over this issue. This is just the issue to underline still further to the majority of Americans how out-of-control the Left is. Prominent Democrats are scrambling to shut down the gay marriage movement.
The bottom line is, my friends, let them do that. Let Chicago do it, let all these liberal Democrat cities do this, and let’s watch the Democrats run away from this as fast as they can. Barbara Boxer is running away from this in San Francisco. Barbara Boxer, second day in a row, issued a statement saying she doesn’t like this, she doesn’t think it has any place, she doesn’t want any part of it. Barney Frank doesn’t want this going anywhere. Barney Frank is lecturing these people – stop, this is an election year, do this next year, we told you about this yesterday. Barney Frank who is for gay marriage – just not now because it’s an election year – wants these people to stop, and guess what these people are not even listening to their Democrat leaders. They’re so far off the reservation they’re walking down the aisle practically without a preacher. And, by the way, they don’t need one anyway for what they’re doing.
The continual rage and anger of the Left… is going to destroy nothing but the Left. The appearance to me at this time is that the Democrats are going to lose massively in the November Presidential election. They will then have an opportunity to disassociate themselves from the extremists in their party, and to reinvent themselves as a party that loves and supports America.
ARNIE URGES END TO GAY-WED BLITZ
February 18, 2004— California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last night called for San Francisco to terminate its ongoing gay-marriage marathon. “Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California’s law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I support that law, and I encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law,” the former actor said....Conservatives have gone to court to argue that San Francisco is violating the state’s constitution. A judge yesterday delayed ruling on the case until at least Friday.
In the comments section at Donald Sensing’s One Hand Clapping, visitor Beau Monday concisely states the position of the Left.
Donald had posted this comment:
...it is not bigotry to: A. maintain that marriage is inherently possible only between a man and a woman, B. insist that democratic processes not be usurped by five unaccountable judges.
To which Beau replied:
Sorry, Mr. Sensing, I disagree with you on Point A. The only goal of making that distinction is to legalize discriminating against gays. That is bigotry, and that is wrong. I don’t care how you package it, the end result is discrimination. I agree with you on Point B, but I’m not sure I agree that the democratic process has been usurped in this instance. Even if 95% the people don’t think gays should marry it does not mean it’s legal to discriminate against them. Who will stand up for these people if the courts do not?
There it is, in a nutshell—a precise statement of the position of the Left.
How easily the Left would discard over 200 years of rule of the people, by the people, and for the people!
And what about Beau’s argument in favor of his position? He uses the words “discrimination” and “bigotry,” to show he feels that gays are comparable to ethnic minorities.
The error in the position of the Left on this subject is as follows.
“Gay” is not an ethnic group. The arguments of the Left assume that gay behavior is genetic. This is not established by science at this time.
It would be a mistake to transform our society based on an assumption which is not yet known to be factually correct.
Rule of the people, by the people, and for the people, should not be sacrificed for the sake of an assumption.
Donald Sensing has an excellent and insightful review of the legal issues:
...this ruling is as clear a case of judicial overreach and activism as can be found. The idea that the constitution’s framers had homosexual “marriage” in mind when they wrote the constitution, so long ago, is simply ludicrous.
And the court’s justices know this; they just don’t care. The Left’s idea about our states’ and nation’s constitutions is that they are “living documents.”
...And that is exactly the real issue facing the legislature and people of Massachusetts today, whether five practically unaccountable judges of the Supreme Judicial Court may treat the constitution – that is the very foundation of law itself – as their own personal playground.
The Left is trying to overthrow the power of the people, and the power of Congress to make laws, by having activist judicial allies arbitrarily decide that the Constitution requires people to do whatever the Left wants.
The majority of people in the U.S. are not in favor of gay marriage. The Congress of the U.S. has passed no law in favor of gay marriage. Yet in a blatant power-grab, the Left is seeking to decide these matters as it sees fit.
Let’s not kid ourselves. This is is an attempt by the Left to seize power and overthrow the will of the people.
Al Rantel, a brilliant radio pundit, one of the best in the nation, talks about the gay marriage issue on the web, and on his talk show.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok. First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.
To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?
We need to get this issue in front of the U.S. Supreme Court a.s.a.p. and prior to the date (May 17th) on which Massachusetts proposes to start marrying gays.
Four judges in Massachusetts have set this May 17th date in what appears to be an effort to force this change in our society through before it can be fully discussed by the people and by the lawmakers.
Gays married in Massachusetts will no doubt move to other states and sue for their marriages to be recognized there, per existing laws that require states to recognize laws of other states.
In other words, four judges in Massachusetts, will have seized the power to change the laws for the whole nation, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, which holds that laws are to be made by Congress.
The Massachusetts legislature has been unable to stop this power-grab by the Left.
We must find a way to get this issue in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, prior to May 17th, and get a ruling on the legality of four state judges seizing for themselves and for the Left the right to change the laws for the entire nation.
Morvillo petitioned the judge Wednesday to let him argue that Stewart’s sale was not an act of insider trading. He wants to show Stewart never believed she made an insider sale and therefore had no motive to lie. But the judge, worried that jurors will become confused about the actual charges against Stewart, was cool to the request.
The charge itself is unreasonable and preposterous, and the defense can’t explain that to a jury? The justice system in this country is, in some cases, getting out of control. There is a far greater danger to our freedom from this than there is from things such as the Patriot Act.
I continue to feel outraged about this trial. This is a case in which prosecutors have invented a brand-new crime, with which no one has ever before been charged: the crime of knowing that a company insider was selling stock and therefore selling it yourself, which they declare makes you an insider too.
...before suing Stewart the SEC had never gone after the customer of a broker who offered his knowledge of what another customer had done as a reason to make a trade.
Of course, since no one’s ever been charged with this before, their victim, a.k.a. the defendent, had no way of knowing it could be considered a crime.
As Martha Stewart’s trial moves into a third week, an important question remains unasked: Why are the feds prosecuting someone [i.e. a member of the public – ed.] for receiving inside information, anyway? Isn’t the criminal the corporate official who acts on knowledge that the public doesn’t have?
...The law, however, is murky, and it’s doubtful that an investor who picks up information about a CEO’s stock sale (even a CEO the investor knows) has violated the law.
“Doubtful!” It’s “doubtful” that the thing could even be considered a crime. How are we supposed to defend ourselves from a justice system that decides that things that have been done for years, are now illegal? How would you like to have your business destroyed by a whim of the goverment’s like this one?
This is a travesty.
I was proud once again yesterday to be a member of the blogosphere. Gore had made the reckless and silly statement that Bush had “betrayed” America. The blogosphere (particularly Instapundit, LGF and Powerline) swiftly responded, showing Gore’s errors precisely and without hyperbole.
The question many had was, why is Gore doing this? Listening to the gutteral, angry manner of his speech, one is reminded of Dean. Rush said, “Now We Know Who Gave Dean Speech Lessons.”
I would suggest a different explanation. Gore sees the Dean candidacy as finished, and is now trying to appropriate Dean’s followers.
Gore is well-known as a chameleon who tries to change his personality on the spur of the moment. He may even see bombastic anger and illogical arguments as things he can easily imitate.
Update 2-13-04. The Chicago Sun-Times makes a similar point (but you heard it here first):
“In addition to Gore backing Howard Dean for president, because he wanted access to the cadre of Dean youth called the “Deanie babies” when he runs for president again and goes up against Hillary Clinton, Gore chose Dean because he feared the Kerry female mess would rear its ugly head,” the source added.
...despite the claim that Douglas Faneuil gave her a furtive tip to sell her ImClone stock, Stewart is not charged with insider trading.
So what is she accused of?
Despite the fact that 7.7 million shares of ImClone stock were abruptly sold on the same day that Stewart sold her 3,928 shares, it was she who was invited to the U.S. attorney’s office to explain conduct that would never have been the subject of a criminal prosecution.
Now Stewart may know a whole lot about the craft of homemaking, but she did not know what every low-level hoodlum in Bensonhurst knows: You don’t talk to the cops.
She and her then-lawyers marched into a room filled with prosecutors and FBI agents to offer an explanation that did not need to be given, and now she’s charged with lying.
Would Stewart have fallen into this prosecutorial trap if she were not a celebrity? Anyone familiar with the system knows that she would not have, because if she were not a celebrity, the trap would never have been set.
Let’s just recap this.
Kafkaesque
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of or relating to Franz Kafka or his writings. 2. Marked by surreal distortion and often a sense of impending danger: Kafkaesque fantasies of the impassive interrogation, the false trial, the confiscated passport . . . haunt his innocence (New Yorker).
It may be appropriate to juxtapose this with recent events in Massachusetts, where four judges have decided that the Massachusetts State Constitution includes the right to gay marriage, in violation of something everybody knows, namely that the authors of that Constitution, written in 1780, intended nothing of the kind.
If we continue to let judges arrogate to themselves the power of legislation; if we continue to let prosecutors misuse the awesome power of the state to destroy lives for the benefit of their own careers—we will find that the danger to freedom in this country doesn’t come from the efforts of our government to protect us from terrorist attacks—but from a justice system that is getting out of control.
Along these lines, see yesterday’s post on the same subject.
We know Hussein had WMD prior to the war.
...Saddam Hussein was given four months to prove he had destroyed the weapons that U.N. inspectors had already established that he possessed. These included thousands of tons of nerve gas, anthrax and other chemical and biological goodies. What became of these? No one knows.
They definitely existed. They’re missing now. No evidence of their destruction has ever been found.
The left claims that proves Hussein had no access to WMD at the time of the war. It does nothing of the kind. It is evidence that they have probably been hidden.
Let’s go over the facts and the conclusion drawn from those facts by the left:
What nonsense! The missing evidence argument cuts both ways. Where’s the evidence that the WMD were destroyed? Where’s the testimony from those who supposedly destroyed them? Where’s the landfill into which they were dumped?
Who is the left kidding? It’s far more likely that the WMD have been hidden in Iraq or Syria.
Let’s hear the left tell us about how this doesn’t mean the economy is rebounding. Jobless Rate Drops; 112,000 Jobs Added.
Justin T. is now making with all the apologies:
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Justin Timberlake said Wednesday his own family was offended by his racy Super Bowl halftime duet with Janet Jackson, but he insisted he thought only her bustier would be revealed, not her breast, when he yanked at her costume.... He added that he was frustrated that his character was being questioned.
... “Now I was under the impression that what was going to be revealed in the costume reveal was a red brassiere, bustier,” he said.
The singer said he didn’t have time to rehearse it before taking the stage and was stunned by the outcome. “I mean I was completely shocked and appalled, and all I could say was “Oh my God, Oh my God,” he said. The one-second flashing, which revealed Jackson’s right breast clad only in a sun-shaped “nipple shield” to some 89 million viewers, has caused an uproar. Jackson’s spokeswoman said a red lace garment was supposed to remain, and the singer issued another apology in a videotape released to the media Tuesday night. She previously apologized Monday in a written statement. “I am really sorry if I offended anyone. That was truly not my intention,” she said. “MTV, CBS, the NFL had no knowledge of this whatsoever, and unfortunately, the whole thing went wrong in the end.”
YEAH, RIGHT. Sure. He’s supposed to reach up, carefully get his hand somehow between the leather costume and the lacy bustier, and just rip off the leather—in one second with millions of people watching—without rehearsal! Sure he was. Nobody could possibly have expected Justin to manage that without rehearsal.
So here we go now, probably, with Janet going on all the talk shows and claiming it was all a big accident. Well you know what? I like Janet. Her music hasn’t been about drugs and killing and so on. She’s had a lot of good songs. But I hope she doesn’t go out there asking for forgiveness with a bogus story.
