Sad Spectacles of the Sunday Talking Heads on Marriage Equality

Gary Bauer was on a panel today on Fox News Sunday and between him, Newt Gingrich, and the host, Chrissy Poo, the most nauseating spectacle evolved. First, Newt said that allowing gay marriage would demean the institution -- not his exact word, but that was the gist of it. What is this man thinking? Gingrich has no business saying such a thing; after all, he divorced two women and married a trophy platinum blonde who wears enough makeup to put Max Factor, Revlon, and several other make pretty manufacturers all on back order status. (Clarissa smiles a lot, suggesting that when she goes, "I don't know!" she has to have shoulder pads sewn into her blouses to keep from banging her ears on her collar bones.)

Then there was Bauer, who said pretty much the same thing. If you look at the man, you realize that his Family Values PAC is really a cover for his private activities, mainly dressing up like a woman and borrowing Clarissa's makeup so he can get girly. Finally, Chrissy Poo uttered a Freudian slip that left the viewer with little doubt and considerable insight into his feelings about queer people. He was trying to compare heterosexuals' rights to pension benefits and such and referred to such unions as "normal marriage" flying in the face of long-standing American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association positions that there is nothing ABnormal about being gay or lesbian. And who is Wallace to say what is "normal"? I should imagine that he screws his wife in the missionary position and ejaculates prematurely, which in my book is not only abnormal, it is an abomination.

But perhaps the most ludicrous ten cents was supplied on Meet the Press when that arch asshole Ralph Reed blabbed and blabbed about how allowing gays and lesbians to marry is a violation of all that is sacred. The Buy Bull is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Reed kept interrupting, and almost got into a shouting match with Hilary Rosen, who took the pro-Equality position. Disgraced by his connections with that prick Tom DeLay and involved up to his ears in the Jack Abramoff native American casino scandal, Reed now runs something called the Freedom Coalition. Isn't it the ultimate hypocrisy to label yourself a freedom fighter when what they really want to do is deprive a significant number of Americans of the same rights they enjoy, indeed take for granted? As for family values, all of these creepy crawlers represent neither family nor values. Their insult to the U. S. Constitution is only exceeded by their inability to empathize with anyone except the wealthy contributors to their asinine causes.

Views: 842

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I always liked Charles Kuralt as well.  He had a soothing, rich and comforting voice and uplifting stories. 

I also enjoyed Charles Kuralt better.

Aransas Pass.  I live about 25 miles away. 

There ought to be no doubt whatever that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

Here is what the Constitution says:

Article. IV. Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

And here is what DOMA says:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
    No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

DOMA is tantamount to amending the Constitution by legislation.

Completely agree. And, Article IV, Section 1, is the splinter in the eye of those opposed to marriage equality.  All it takes is for one state of the 50 to say it's legal, and under the Constitution, the others have to acknowledge it should that couple move to another state. Two examples I always use are common law marriage and first cousin marriage. These marriages are prohibited in the State of Illinois.  However, if a couple from South Carolina is has a legally recognized common law marriage and later moves to Illinois, Illinois has no choice but to recognize it.  Same with first cousin marriages.  If first cousins are legally married in Kentucky (Yeah, it's legal there) and then move to Illinois, like or not, Illinois has to recognize it. The only exceptions to this are if a couple, who are residents of one state, cross a state line to get married to avoid their home state law, and then move back to home state.  Then, the home state can declare it invalid. Other than that, Article IV, Section 1, is the trump card. 

However, this part of DOMA is not included in the case before the court, which is focused only on whether the federal government can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legalized by a state and deny federal benefits to gay couples. It seems that the question of one state refusing to recognize same-sex marriages performed by another could still remain an undecided question until a case arises on that point. The court may hand down a narrow opinion on this question and leave the other for another time. I think people on both sides expect an overarching ruling on the very legitimacy of gay marriage itself and that does not seem likely.

You are probably right about a narrow ruling. The final verdict for this session may be simply that the Federal government cannot deny federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married. The California Prop. 8 ruling may likely be no ruling, send it back to the state courts. The conservatives on the court really seem to want to dodge the essential issues and will invoke states' rights to do so. They will likely treat this as a matter of limiting federal jurisdiction.

That seems likely, but may be hard to explain to people.

As I understand it—and in legal questions I am always prepared to be corrected— the California Proposition 8 case is likely to end with Prop 8 overturned.

The original court ruling that inspired the proposition was that since California gives all the state benefits of marriage to domestic partners, the only possible reason for not allowing marriage was discrimination, prohibited under the state's constitution. That result angered people and the result was a constitutional amendment, Proposition 8. Although it passed by 600,000 votes out of 13.4 million, a subsequent California Supreme Court ruling said that you could not amend the state constitution to make it self-contradictory.

The state refused to appeal that ruling to the United States Supreme Court and five individuals who had supported the proposition came forward as plaintiffs. The question whether they have standing is important for the court since ruling that they do would mean lots of people could present themselves as representatives of the state for all kinds of reasons not presently recognized. The question is how are these five citizens injured if Proposition 8 is overturned?

The result, as far as I can figure, is that if the court does not hear the case, the decision of the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8 will stand and gay marriage will once again become legal in California.

The sad thing is, the last action taken by the court in California was an injunction against performing any marriages of two men or two women.  That means that it will still be illegal in California for same sex couples to marry.  I am weary of the whole mess, and if I were younger and had the money I would emigrate to one of those socialist countries in Europe that the conservatives are always putting down.  Those countries also have unlimited free medical care and a lot of other nice things.  Before it cracked down on trip-out tourism, the Netherlands also had legal marijuana, but if one were to become a Dutch citizen, one can still smoke weed in designated nightclubs.

I would expect that injunction to be lifted if the decision goes against Proposition 8 since its purpose was to avoid allowing marriages that might have to be invalidated later on. Do you think it is permanent?

No. Now that I have read more about the status quo in Cal I must agree with you, as the "experts" claim that same sex marriages will go forward.  Thanks for your input BTW.

James, you live in a beautiful part of the Earth. Take good care of your patch!




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service