Thursday, February 25, 2010

Reaction to Gansler's Decision

Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler yesterday finally ruled that Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages from other states. That doesn't mean you can get married in Maryland, but if you get married somewhere else it's legal here.

Of course the reaction goes both ways. The Washington Post blog summarizes the situation. They quote the Baltimore Sun:
Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler on Wednesday morning released a long-awaited opinion saying same-sex marriages performed in other states could be recognized by Maryland's legal system.

Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr., a Democrat, asked in May asked if such marriages could be recognized. "The answer to that question is clearly 'yes,'" Gansler wrote in a 40-page document.

The opinion does not enable same-sex couples to wed here. It also does not carry the weight of law, but is meant to guide judges and state agencies.

"What we say in this opinion is a prediction, not a prescription" as to how a court would interpret the law, Gansler wrote. Same-sex marriage opinion quickly draws fire, praise

So now it's just a matter of waiting to see how long it takes for a case to come to court. There are lots of same-sex couples in Maryland who have married in other states and consider themselves to be married, but their relationship has not been recognized legally.

There is a bill in the legislature that would negate this ruling. A Baltimore Democrat, Norman Stone, introduced it.
Stone said he's concerned that with Washington, D.C., set to begin permitting the unions next month, Maryland couples will simply marry there and then continue living here. Stone believes that if people "strongly believe in same-sex marriages, they should go live in those states" that allow it. A hearing on his bill is set for next week.

Wow, wouldn't that be terrible if people who love one another were allowed to marry? They'd better patch up this loophole real fast!

The Post blog also notes that Don Dwyer is against it. We know Dwyer from his rabid speech to the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum's 2005 "hate fest" at Johns Hopkins' Rockville campus. He came to our county to crusade against a fair and objective sex-ed curriculum here.
We understand that Del. Don H. Dwyer Jr., an Anne Arundel County Republican, is so dismayed that he's seeking Gansler's impeachment. Other lawmakers say it's now more important than ever for the legislature to decisively weigh in on the matter.

That would be the way they think, impeach the Attorney General for making a difficult decision that they don't agree with.
Meanwhile, supporters of same-sex marriages are again pursuing legislation that would allow those unions to be performed in this state. The bill has broad support, particularly among members of the House Judiciary Committee, which will consider it March 12. But legislative leaders doubt the effort will make it through both chambers.

Many, including Equality Maryland, praised Gansler's opinion. Freedom to Marry also has kind words for Gansler.

House Speaker Michael E. Busch, a Democrat, said he had not reviewed Gansler's opinion but reiterated his stance that same-sex couples should be permitted civil unions. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, a Democrat, said he personally believes that marriages should be between a man and a woman but said that as a lawyer, he understands the basis of Gansler's opinion.

"I believe the state must give full faith and credit to the laws of our sister states," Miller said.

[Del. Emmett] Burns [who opposes same-sex marriage] said he expetcs Maryland voters to one day decide for themselves whether the state should allow same-sex marriages.

"It is going to end up on referendum, and I am going to win," he said.

Weird that they want a referendum to decide this civil rights matter. The nutty right wants to impose the norms of the majority on everybody. Except in Congress.

Well, clearly this is not finished. It is an important ruling, and it will certainly be tested in court, where an important factor will be the luck of the draw -- what judge you get. It does seem though that a state is obligated to respect the laws of another state, and it is patently absurd to tell a couple that they are married in this place but not in that one.

47 Comments:

Anonymous the loyally sane opposition said...

"The nutty right wants to impose the norms of the majority on everybody."

It's telling how the ideas of the Founding Fathers are considered to be "nutty right" to the lunatic fringe.

We live in a democracy. Beyond certain agreed upon irreducible rights, laws are arrived at this way. Governmental recognition of the validity of certain hedonistic relationships is not among those rights.

"Except in Congress."

If you're talking about health care reform, the Republicans have only been able to block the Dem bill because the people are clearly opposed to it.

Intersting how we only hear that government doesn't work when the liberal agenda is thwarted. When Congress turned down W's idea for privatizing Social Security, you didn't hear any whining about gridlock in Washington.

There is a health care crisis in America. The problem is the acceleration of cost. The Dem bills, whether the House, Senate or Obomba plans, don't address this.

Health care costs could be reduced 100 billion a year and the uninsured reduced 13% by taking four steps:

1. make all health care costs tax deductible instead of just the employer paid portion

2. allow consumers to purchase health care in other states

3. place reasonable caps on awards for "pain and suffering"

4. double the capacity of medical schools to train new doctors

That's it, Barry. Scrap your current plan and replace it with this and we'll give you a ticker tape parade.

as for Gansler's decision, Ehrlich is planning to run and was behind in the polls so I'm sure the Repubs appreciate the boost he's giving them in this election year

Democratic lunacy

the gift that keeps on giving!

February 25, 2010 11:48 AM  
Anonymous there's something insane about Harry said...

"President Obama began the bipartisan health care summit Thursday morning by framing health care costs as a catastrophic drag on the American economy, and by imploring Republicans to engage in a discussion about how to improve health care delivery for all Americans.

But when the president turned the floor over to the Republicans, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee put a challenge on the table for Obama and the Democratic leadership in the room.

"The American people have tried to say in every way they know how . . . they oppose the health care bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve," he said. "We believe we have a better idea. Take the ideas you mentioned and start over."

Get the new
PD toolbar!

Alexander then asked Democrats to commit that they will not use reconciliation -- a process that requires 51 votes rather than 60 -- to pass health care in the Senate.

"Renounce this idea to use reconciliation to pass your version of the bill," Alexander said. "You can say this process has been used before, and it has, but not for something this big. It's not appropriate to use [for] 17 percent of the economy."

With reconciliation as a possibility, he concluded, "the rest of what we do today will not be relevant. The only thing bipartisan will be the opposition to the bill."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the floor shortly after Alexander and slammed the Republican's contention that Americans do not want the Senate's bill.

"I would say to my friend Lamar, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." Reid cited a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll that showed 58 percent of the American people would be "disappointed" if Congress did not pass health care reform this year.

As Reid concluded his remarks, he did not say reconciliation wasn't an option.

Nor did the president."

Harry..Harry..Harry..

Yes, they want health care reform.

They just don't want yours.

Find ways to bring down the costs.

Don't commit Harry-Kari

February 25, 2010 1:49 PM  
Anonymous more global warming, folks said...

(Feb. 25) -- A blizzard -- perhaps one destined to be talked about for generations -- began raking the Northeast and northern Mid-Atlantic region today, affecting millions of residents with a dangerous combination of snow and wind.

Snowfall will end up being measured by the foot, and residents are bracing for airports and road closings, and power outages. The storm is expected to linger over the region through the weekend.

The powerful storm is forecast to move north along the Atlantic coast before turning west once it reaches southern New England, heading inland rather than quickly moving north into the Canadian Maritimes or east into the Atlantic Ocean as most Northeast storms do.

As it moves inland, intense wind and bands of heavy snow will lash interior New England, New York state, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Friday. While forecast details for specific locations could change based on the precise track of the storm, it will be an all-out blizzard for many areas. Much of the region will likely receive at least a foot of snow, with some areas receiving 2 feet.

February 25, 2010 2:09 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

On the eve of the health summit, Republicans are trying to get away with saying that Democrats passing health reform through budget reconciliation rules, where you only need 51 votes to pass something in the Senate instead of 60, Republicans are trying to get away with saying that would be the nuclear option.

It sounds awful, right? It‘s nuclear. Except that it isn‘t the nuclear option and Republicans know that. The nuclear option and reconciliation are two totally different things, which Republicans are intimately aware of. And we know that because the nuclear option was the Republican‘s own threat five years ago - not to pass something through reconciliation, but to do away with the filibuster altogether, to prevent Democrats from filibustering President Bush‘s judicial nominees.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist says he will soon trigger what‘s known as the nuclear option, a vote to change Senate rules to ban filibusters on judicial nominees.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Oh, yes, that‘s what the nuclear option is. The nuclear option is changing the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster, to get rid of the ability to require a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. What Democrats are talking about is something totally different, passing health reform through reconciliation, passing health reform with 51 votes instead 60 -- not the nuclear option, and Republicans know it. They know it because, “A,” they created the nuclear option back in 2005, and “B,” they‘ve used reconciliation over and over and over again.

And there‘s been no nuclear explosion. They‘ve defended its use.They‘ve never described it as nuclear before, before Democrats decided that they were going to do it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JUDD GREGG ®, NEW HAMPSHIRE: We are using the rules of the Senate here. That‘s what they are, Senator. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate. All this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation, support that position. Now, is there something wrong with majority rules? I don‘t think so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don‘t think so—unless Democrats ever want to use them. And then we won‘t call it reconciliation anymore. We don‘t call it—we‘ll call it using the rules of the Senate. Then we‘ll call it nuclear.

February 25, 2010 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch is calling it, quote, “The highly partisan ‘nuclear option‘ of reconciliation.” Republican Senator John Cornyn tweeting today about, quote, “reconciliation, the 51-vote nuclear option.”

What‘s going on here is a deliberate attempt on the part of Republicans to define nuclear down, to conflate these two totally separate things, to demonize the way the Democrats have to pass health reform right now by calling it the nuclear option, even though the nuclear option is a real thing in the Senate and this isn‘t that. It has nothing to do with that. Perhaps the reason that Republicans are so unwilling to call this what it is, reconciliation, is because they have a really long record of using reconciliation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: My Republican friends are lamenting reconciliation. But I would recommend for them to go back and look at history. Realistically, they should stop crying about reconciliation as if it‘s never been done before. It‘s done almost every Congress. And they‘re the ones that used it more than anyone else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Republicans have, indeed, used reconciliation repeatedly to pass their own agenda items. They used reconciliation to pass not one, but two giant tax cuts during the Bush administration. You want to say reconciliation was never used to change the health care system, Senator Kyl?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KYL: It was never designed for a large, comprehensive piece of legislation, such as health care, as you all know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Actually, that‘s completely, utterly 100 percent, knowingly wrong. That is not true at all, Senator Kyl. And you know it‘s not true. Reconciliation is how the health care system has been essentially formed in this country, over and over and over again.

You ever heard of COBRA? COBRA is the law that lets people keep their employee health insurance for a while after they‘ve been laid off. You want to know what the “R” in COBRA stands for? “Reconciliation.” Oh, yes, look at that. In 1986, Congress passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, COBRA, which forever affected health care coverage in this country. Do you ever heard of SCHIP, the State Children‘s Health Insurance Program? CHIP was created in a budget reconciliation bill in 1997.

Reconciliation is how we make changes to our health care system. As NPR pointed out today, quote, “Over the past three decades, the number of major health financing measures that were not passed via budget reconciliation can be counted on one hand.”

This is how health reform is done in this country. And this effort to say that using reconciliation would be the nuclear option, that it would somehow be unprecedented is a lie. It is a lie and it is—it is disingenuous. It is disingenuous in the sense that it‘s not just a misunderstanding, they know they‘re lying about it. And people in the media who repeat what Republicans are saying about this instead of challenging them on it are helping Republicans spread a lie.

Read the full transcript here

February 25, 2010 2:15 PM  
Anonymous just say no to Harry said...

guess that explains why health care is such a mess

""Renounce this idea to use reconciliation to pass your version of the bill," Alexander said. "You can say this process has been used before, and it has, but not for something this big. It's not appropriate to use [for] 17 percent of the economy.""

filibuster, shmilibuster

reconciliation, shmeconciliation

the Dems need to scrap the bill and start again because the American people have been informed completely and have made their decision

if Dems ignore their coinstituents, they will suffer historic losses in November

February 25, 2010 3:14 PM  
Anonymous isn't life strange? said...

"A memorable moment at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference could mark a turning point in the long-fraught relationship between gays and the Republican Party.

CPAC is perhaps the nation's premiere conservative gathering, a convivial opportunity for impassioned right-wing activists to network, plan for elections and listen to the biggest names in the conservative movement. It's the sort of atmosphere in which the casual observer might expect someone like Ryan Sorba to receive a warm welcome.

Sorba, who wrote a book entitled "The Gay Gene Hoax," took the podium at this year's CPAC and immediately expressed his unhappiness that the conference had allowed a gay Republican group called GOProud to be a sponsor.

He didn't get very far. After delivering a rambling condemnation of homosexuality, Sorba was booed offstage.

Gay Republicans say it was a telling moment: Evidence that the GOP is "moving away from a negative hate-based connotation with homosexuals in the Republican party," according to Charles Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans.

"The conservative movement is so focused on the issues that bring us together -- limited government, personal responsibility and freedom."

But Jimmy LaSalvia, the executive director of GOProud, said his group was largely welcomed at CPAC.

"The most notable thing about CPAC is that the American Conservative Union makes a concerted effort to make sure young people are there," he said.

While polls suggest young Americans have not moved leftward on abortion, there has been a clear shift, even among conservatives, toward greater tolerance of homosexuality. (Last year Meghan McCain, a gay marriage supporter, told the Log Cabin Republicans that "old school Republicans" are "scared s**tless" of the changing landscape.) Discussing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy with ABC News earlier this month, former Vice President Dick Cheney said he expected repeal.

"The society has moved on," he said. "It's partly a generational question."

GOProud's LaSalvia is a strong backer of Cheney, and along with others in his organization is backing a "Draft Cheney 2012" Web site. He says he agrees with the former vice president on his support for state-by-state same-sex marriage as well as Cheney's positions on national security and other issues.

"The greatest threat to gay and lesbian people across the globe is the spread of radicalized Islam, and the Obama administration playing footsie with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or any other brutal dictator is not good for gay people," he said.

Moran of the Log Cabin Republicans said that people had begun to stop seeing a contradiction between being conservative and openly gay.

"Do not assume that just because we support equality issues we support a big government agenda of government takeover of health care, labor unions, climate change mumbo jumbo," he said, adding that his group is working to "break those assumptions."

Mathew Staver, dean of the evangelical Liberty University School of Law and founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel, says that he and his allies "certainly don't support the idea that anybody would be eliminated from the political process because of their sexual orientation.""

February 25, 2010 7:42 PM  
Anonymous Canadian health care is so bad said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 25, 2010 7:59 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Please stay somewhat on-topic, and if you're going to copy and paste give a source.

JimK

February 25, 2010 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Hooray for Gansler and the people of Maryland.

I know a number of lgbt couples who have moved to Maryland from Virginia because of the laws. I suspect now there will be more.

rrjr

February 26, 2010 4:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I know a number of lgbt couples who have moved to Maryland from Virginia because of the laws. I suspect now there will be more."

thanks for the quote, Robo

this should be useful to the Republicans this fall

February 26, 2010 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous, are you suggesting that the Republicans in Maryland would want to garner votes by saying their legislative positions would keep lgbt people away, or encourage them to move?

Is this or is it not hate? Certainly it is dislike, and discriminatory in its intent.

February 26, 2010 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

GOProud gets a lot of grief on the lgbt blogs, largely because they are so radically conservative, but so did the Log Cabin Republicans.

I say, good for gay Republicans.

February 26, 2010 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Dems in the dustbin of history said...

ganzler's move will add to mounting dissatisfaction with Dems:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are skeptical that lawmakers will agree on a new healthcare bill at Thursday's bipartisan healthcare summit in Washington, D.C. If an agreement is not reached, Americans by a 49% to 42% margin oppose rather than favor Congress passing a healthcare bill similar to the one proposed by President Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate. By a larger 52% to 39% margin, Americans also oppose the Democrats in the Senate using a reconciliation procedure to avoid a possible Republican filibuster and pass a bill by a simple majority vote."

that would be the esteemed Gallup poll

February 26, 2010 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, are you suggesting that the Republicans in Maryland would want to garner votes by saying their legislative positions would keep lgbt people away, or encourage them to move?

Is this or is it not hate? Certainly it is dislike, and discriminatory in its intent."

I think most people don't want to be overrun with gays

in some sense, this has happened to public schools and the catholic church because they have been so accomodating to gays

both those institutions have paid a price

discrimination against gays at some level is justified although it should never be discompassionate

there's a thin line between care and capitulation

"GOProud gets a lot of grief on the lgbt blogs, largely because they are so radically conservative, but so did the Log Cabin Republicans."

what I thought was most interesting, Robo, is how they recognize the threat radical Islam is to gay interests and that they are trying to recruit Cheney for President because of his tough stance

but, also, why would gays support all the socialist tendencies of the Dems?

it's all very interesting and reminds me somewhat of another paradox: why do blacks support Dems when Dem policies such as anti-choice and gay marriage hurts the interest of black families

expect big shifts in the years to come

February 26, 2010 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Thank you for the answer, Anonymous. It clarifies your position.

BTW, when you call me Robo, it reminds me of the office building where the offices for the Department of Outdoor Affairs and the Cabin and Trail Division of the Dartmouth Outing Club are located (officially Robinson Hall, but we called it the Robo). Was this the association you were trying to make? Was it something even more obscure? Or are you simply envious that I have a name that I use in public?

February 26, 2010 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to answer you about the "Robo" thing but the truth is I never know why I do what I do

to quote Joni Mitchell: "I'm just living on nerves and feelings with a weak and a lazy mind"

did you go to Dartmouth?

February 26, 2010 10:41 AM  
Anonymous gay fascists, here we go said...

"Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, says he was uninvited from participation in the National Prayer Luncheon scheduled for Thursday at Andrews Air Force Base.

The reason? Perkins says the diss was due to his opposition to Obama's support for ending the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy on gays serving in the military.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

Invoking the witch hunts of the McCarthy era in the 1950s, Perkins said that like Communists of that era, he has been "blacklisted" for his views and renewed his argument that Obama would "force the military to embrace homosexuality":

"I am very concerned," Perkins said in a statement, "that this merely foreshadows the serious threat to religious liberty that would result from repeal of the current military eligibility law. Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct."

"Military chaplains would bear the heaviest burden. Would their sermons be censored to prevent them from preaching on biblical passages which describe homosexual conduct as a sin? Would they remain free to counsel soldiers troubled by same-sex attractions about the spiritual and psychological resources available to overcome those attractions? Any chaplain who holds to the millennia-old tradition of Judeo-Christian sexual morality could be denied promotion, or even be forced out of the military altogether."

His Catholic counterpart, Bill Donohue at the Catholic League, called for an official investigation of the episode because of the "damage" done to Perkins and the threat to religious freedom. "There are legitimate reasons to accept and reject the current policy regarding gays in the military. No one, therefore, should be censored from speaking at any private or public forum -- much less a military installation -- because of his or her views on this subject."

It is still unclear what Perkins, a former Marine, was going to talk about at the luncheon. He said his message was going to be "non-political."

The Jan. 29 letter from the chaplain's office at Andrews Air Force Base to Perkins indicated a concern over exactly what "non-political" might mean. According to Perkins, the letter said he was uninvited due to FRC statements "which are incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our Commander in Chief."

The letter was sent to Perkins two days after Obama delivered the State of the Union address in which he pushed Congress to repeal " Don't ask, Don't tell." The president's address prompted Perkins to open an ongoing campaign to retain the law despite the desire of military leaders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to end it.

Repealing the law, Perkins said in announcing a petition drive the day after Obama's address, would "force soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects [and] would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault.""

February 26, 2010 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

We often do things for reasons we don't really understand. Sometimes we do things even when we don't want to. Wasn't it Paul the Apostle who said "I do that which I do not wish to do?"

I did go to Dartmouth: Class of '84

When we study college mottoes, I give double credit for "Vox Clamantis in Deserto," and extra points to the kids who actually figure out why that one gets double points.

February 26, 2010 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Impressive, Robo. I actually applied to Dartmouth after high school and didn't get in.

I have a friend who is an alumni and he was recently making a big deal out of that motto and the Christian origins of most of our higher education institutions. I think he had a picture of some memorial with the motto on it.

I hope you have the kids get out the Bible and look at the reference.

btw, my lazy mind recalled why I started calling you "Robo"

it just morphed from when I was calling you Robbie the Robot (a very personable machine character in the old movie "Forbidden Planet")

I was just accusing you of "robotically" repeating all the standard TTF lines

hey, there are worst things someone might say, right?

February 26, 2010 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Oh, the Robbie the Robot is a movie reference. I know Robbie the Robot from Isaac Asimov's book of short stories, 'I, Robot'. I wonder if there is a connection. Wikipedia says that the first use was in a Doc Savage adventure in pulp fiction, but that the movie uses the First Law of Robotics, which is definitely an Asimov invention. I would think the movie takes the name from Asimov.

If I recall, Robbie the Robot was a loveable robotic nanny who forms a deep connection with a young child. I think he was Asimov's first robot.

When we discuss the Dartmouth mottoe, I do in fact tell the story of John the Baptist, and give them the Greek reference, which is ego phone boontos in te eremo; I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness. I sometimes go on to the rest of the passage: euthunate ten hodon kurious; make straight the way of the lord, and bring in Handel's use of it in the Messiah. At this point half the class has fallen asleep, and the rest are doodling or surreptitiously texting their friends.

I have a copy of the bible in my classroom, but it's in Greek.

February 26, 2010 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RZobbie, I seem to remember you telling us you teach special needs kids

if so, this sounds some high level stuff you're exposing them to

February 26, 2010 2:36 PM  
Anonymous tiny bubbles said...

you know, the parallels between Barry Obomba and Jimmy Carter are eerie

any of you as old as I probably remember when Reagan made a major campaign issue out of Jimmy Carter giving away the Panama Canal

looks like Obomba is planning to give back Hawaii

Sarah will have a field day with this:

"WASHINGTON (Feb. 25) -- Call it Queen Liliuokalani's revenge. Long-stalled legislation to give Native Hawaiians the right to form a sovereign government passed the House this week and has the support of Hawaii native President Obama.

The bill would give Native Hawaiians the right to control their own lands, run their own health and education programs, and have a sovereign government.

Hawaii already had its own government when the queen, with an American warship sitting in Honolulu Harbor, stepped down in 1883. President Grover Cleveland admitted later that year that it was a mistake. But it took Congress until 1993 to agree -- and apologize.

For more than a decade, Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, has pushed for legislation to give Native Hawaiians the right to form a sovereign government.
And it has taken legislation by Sen. Daniel Akaka 11 years and counting to give back to the islands a native government. The bill still must pass the Senate to become law, and it faces opposition there.

Akaka called the vote Tuesday an important milestone. "We have a moral obligation, unfulfilled since the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, that we are closer to meeting today," he said."

February 26, 2010 4:48 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

"Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, says he was uninvited from participation in the National Prayer Luncheon scheduled for Thursday at Andrews Air Force Base."

Perhaps the only scandal here is that someone as divisive as Perkins would be invited in the first place.

February 26, 2010 6:34 PM  
Anonymous gay fascists, here we go said...

"Repealing the law, Perkins said in announcing a petition drive the day after Obama's address, would "force soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects [and] would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault.""

A good chunk of America, and apparently, based on recent testimony, the military, would agree with this, David.

Are they all to be ostracized?

Family advocates have always said that, eventually, homosexual "anti-discrimination" laws would be used to curtail religious freedom.

This shows clearly we're heading there.

Obama has tried to secure our votes and support.

That's over now.

February 26, 2010 9:13 PM  
Anonymous i feel we can count on the Dems said...

Remember in the messy, fingerpointing aftermath of the Democratic debacle in the Massachusetts Senate election, President Obama said that after nearly a year of healthcare speeches, healthcare town halls and secret healthcare legislative meetings, he'd gotten the message and for 2010 his Job One was what Joe Biden calls that three-letter word: J-O-B-S?

Well, that voter-driven focus lasted about a week.

Now here we are today with another carefully stage-managed healthcare summit across the street from the White House because there hasn't been enough healthcare talk.

And the overwhelming congressional Democratic majorities that Americans believed they elected in 2008 to break partisan gridlock and finally get something done in Washington can't agree enough among themselves to pass the legislation they wrote themselves. So why not drag in the Republicans as nationally-televised patsies?

And, lo and behold, what happens? Wouldn't you know. Someone at the Labor Dept. didn't....


...get the healthcare summit memo.

At the very same hour as Obama is talking about his beloved healthcare plan , out come surprising new federal numbers showing that last week new J-O-B-L-E-S-S claims unexpectedly went up -- as in more of them -- to nearly a half-million, 22,000 more than the previous week. And nearly 8% higher than the expected 460,000 new claims.

February 26, 2010 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thursday’s healthcare summit was President Obama’s last big chance to persuade Americans – and Republicans – of the soundness of the Democratic plans.

He’s been talking healthcare for a year now. But despite his oratorical skills, despite his logic and remarkable command of the facts, public support has waned for Democratic legislation that would cover an additional 30 million-plus Americans.

Poll after poll shows that more Americans now disapprove of the Democratic plan than favor it (though “the plan” exists only as separate House and Senate versions, with a White House blend offered earlier this week).

Not that people don’t see the need for reform or want to put it off for very long. But many Americans worry about the scope and the $1 trillion cost. And they worry even more about jobs.

The all-day summit was billed as a chance for Republicans and Democrats to come together “and focus on where we agree,” the president said at the summit. Indeed, everyone could agree on the problem: that spiraling healthcare costs endanger the fiscal health of the nation and the physical health of its citizens. And they could agree on several paths to reform.

But the two sides largely stood their ground, with Democrats defending their plan as urgent and necessarily comprehensive, and the Republicans calling it a government takeover and urging the president to start over and work piecemeal on ideas they put forward.

As the host and moderator, the president was solicitous and engaging with the other side, but also feisty. He carried on in a businesslike manner – but also a political one. He sparred with his former campaign rival John McCain, but later agreed with one of Senator McCain’s criticisms about a special deal for Florida seniors.

He tried to deflect Republican characterizations of the plan. What the GOP might call a government takeover, he countered, is simply ensuring minimum standards. Mandated coverage is the only way to share the costs and responsibility of broader coverage. And while Republicans point to a $1 trillion price tag, the Congressional Budget Office says the Senate plan will reduce the deficit by that much over 20 years.

But the president has made these points before. Many times. Perhaps some Americans besides journalists and policy wonks watched the televised summit in its entirety, and were convinced. Certainly the Republicans in the room did not appear to have been persuaded.

For Obama to have any success, he would now need to cease his effort at public persuasion, and work toward a deal. That means taming the liberal wing of the Democratic party and crossing swords with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It also means reaching out to Senate Republicans after the C-SPAN cameras have stopped filming and bringing on board a handful (he’s unlikely to get more).

This is Mr. Obama’s Bill Clinton moment. It’s his opportunity to get healthcare reform the way Mr. Clinton helped pass welfare reform – through compromise with both parties. There is no other way if he wants the majority of Americans to back such a momentous change.

February 27, 2010 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When asked about key elements of the proposals, large majorities favor requiring insurers to cover all applicants regardless of their health histories, mandating employers to cover all full-time employees and insisting that all individuals have health insurance.

When asked whether they want Washington to keep trying to pass comprehensive health care reform, large majorities of both Democratic and independent voters, and more than two out of five Republicans, said yes -- an overall majority of almost 2-1 supporting Obama's plea that Congress not walk away from the issue.

February 27, 2010 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When asked about key elements of the proposals, large majorities favor requiring insurers to cover all applicants regardless of their health histories, mandating employers to cover all full-time employees and insisting that all individuals have health insurance."

Really?

How about when you tell them that their premiums will go up dramatically?

February 27, 2010 4:05 PM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 27, 2010 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Good memory. Most of my career I was a special ed teacher. Three years ago I became a Latin teacher. Go figure.

February 27, 2010 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, the CBO analysis does say, flatly, that “the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.” This affects the roughly 17 percent of Americans below age 65 who do not get their insurance from their employers. "

"The bill also includes generous subsidies for families with incomes under $88,000. Those who get taxpayer subsidies would see their out-of-pocket premium cost reduced by “roughly 56 to 59 percent.” And 57 percent of those in the individual market would be eligible for subsidies."

"For the much larger group of Americans who get their insurance from their employers, CBO says premiums would be "zero to three percent” lower than under current law."

February 28, 2010 1:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""For the much larger group of Americans who get their insurance from their employers, CBO says premiums would be "zero to three percent” lower than under current law.""

That's it?

After all this, the premiums might be zero percent lower than under current law for most Americans?

I thought the problem was that no one is happy with the current situation.

So, in some places, the premiums are going up 36% this year and if the Dem bill was law, it would be somewhere between 33 and 36%?

And to achieve this miracle we are raising Medicare taxes by a trillion but instead of using that money to save Medicare from bankruptcy, we're doing this.

Call your Congressman and tell them to reject this and adopt the simple proposals put forth by the Hoover Institute at Stanford which will save 100 billion a year in healthcare costs and increase the percentage of Americans covered by 17 full points.

February 28, 2010 4:22 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Tony Perkins: "Any chaplain who holds to the millennia-old tradition of Judeo-Christian [anti-homo] sexual morality could be denied promotion, or even be forced out of the military altogether."

As well they should be if their preaching amounts to the encouragement and justification of murder:

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

March 01, 2010 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

is capital punishment "murder" in the world of improv?

an interesting little insanity...

March 01, 2010 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Is supporting the death penalty a pro-life position in the world of anonymity?

If you like Leviticus 20:13, you must love Leviticus 20:9: “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.”

March 01, 2010 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, I'm not in favor of the death penalty but it's not because I consider it murder

apparently, the two are equivalent in the world of improv

an interesting little insanity...

of course, in the world of inane-beaism, defending innocent children against those who would kill them is the same as defending the guilty against punishment

an interesting little insanity...

btw, I oppose the death penalty not because I'm pro-life but because, like scripture, I'm pro-mercy

March 01, 2010 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

You consider stoning gay people the death penalty? It's simply barbaric.

March 02, 2010 4:51 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

in the world of inane-beaism, defending innocent children against those who would kill them is the same as defending the guilty against punishment

According to pro-lifers, the sanctity of life begins at conception. According to Anone who claims not to be pro-life but pro-mercy, the merciless Ugandan death penalty for being gay or knowing gay people should be allowed.

Anone sounds like those pro-life women who justify having their own abortions but vote to keep other women from having access to them.

March 02, 2010 11:07 AM  
Anonymous really? said...

"According to Anone who claims not to be pro-life but pro-mercy, the merciless Ugandan death penalty for being gay or knowing gay people should be allowed."

Be allowed? Don't know what you mean by that. Allowed by whom?

If I was a Ugandan citizen, I wouldn't favor this law and I'm sure most Christians there oppose it.

The proposed law would carry penalties for anyone who helps gays or who doesn't turn in known gays and would obviously be detrimental to the work of Christians.

"those pro-life women who justify having their own abortions but vote to keep other women from having access to them"

really?

really, anon-B?

someone has killed a child and said other people shouldn't so we should say "oh, alright", anyone who wants can kill a child?

really?

surely, somewhere out there someone exists who meets this description so we should design our laws to accomodate the highest level of hypocrisy we can find?

really, anon-B?

people as stupid as you really exist?

March 02, 2010 11:40 AM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

March 02, 2010 11:43 AM  
Anonymous the dark ha-ha night said...

Jim, laughter is the best medicine.

Just ask the Joker.

March 02, 2010 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abortions do destroy women, and they often turn to God for help. They come to understand the horror of killing their own child. I cry for those women.

March 02, 2010 8:37 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

This is what Anone's AOL News article said about learning:

The idea hits on some touchy subjects, like the vulnerable demographics of black and Hispanic women, who are more likely to have multiple partners within one community because of the rates of incarceration among men in their social circles.

Those at high risk are also less likely to have access to health care, which means fewer opportunities to learn about or benefit from preventive interventions like HIV tests, anti-retroviral therapy or even condoms.


The GOP spent the Bush years funding abstinence-only education that made sure no students learned that the CDC recommends correct and consistent condom usage to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, other STDs, and unplanned pregnancy.

Here's how the CDC puts it:

HIV infection is, by far, the most deadly STD, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.

Theoretical basis for protection. Latex condoms cover the penis and provide an effective barrier to exposure to secretions such as urethral and vaginal secretions, blocking the pathway of sexual transmission of HIV infection.

Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.


Bush's HHS required programs seeking funding to specifically omit that important CDC advice and actually required those programs to "not promote ... condom use", counter to CDC's recommendation.

After years of intentionally ignoring the CDC's advice and instituting Bush's potentially harmful abstinence-only education program requirements, Anone now finds an AOL News report about a new study that points out that the rising HIV infection rate in some urban pockets in the US is due to those communities getting fewer chances to "learn about and benefit from preventive interventions like HIV tests, anti-retroviral therapy or even condoms."

Duh. If you don't widely teach correct and consistent condom usage in some communities, but instead teach them contrived "failure rates" intended to discourage the use of condoms, of course the rates of HIV/AIDS transmission will go up in those communities.

We can and will do better than that. As marriage continues to be allowed for same sex parteners, we will be able to teach all our children that abstinence, marriage, and monogamy are best. I look forward to the day all people will be allowed to marry the one person they love and settle down to create their family.

And very good Anone, I see you finally worked your way around until you reached the point I made: people who justify their own abortion while voting to deny them for others are similar to "pro-lifers" who support the death penalty. They're both as you said "hypocrites."

March 03, 2010 9:25 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“is capital punishment "murder" in the world of improv?”

Yes. Legalized murder.

March 03, 2010 11:32 AM  
Anonymous really, inane-B? said...

"After years of intentionally ignoring the CDC's advice and instituting Bush's potentially harmful abstinence-only education program requirements, Anone now finds an AOL News report about a new study that points out that the rising HIV infection rate in some urban pockets in the US"

AIDS has always been disproportionately represented in the homosexual community by a long mile

Bush was only President for eight years

it's kind of pathetic how lunatic fringe deviance advocates are always hoping for rising AIDS infection rates among lower income minorities in order to blur the fact that AIDS established itself in our country due to the inherent promiscuity of homosexuals

"We can and will do better than that. As marriage continues to be allowed for same sex parteners, we will be able to teach all our children that abstinence, marriage, and monogamy are best. I look forward to the day all people will be allowed to marry the one person they love and settle down to create their family."

only one problem, inane-B

homosexuals will continue to be promiscuous even if "married"

we won't see the D.C. AIDS rate among homosexuals fall any in the next year

"And very good Anone, I see you finally worked your way around until you reached the point I made: people who justify their own abortion while voting to deny them for others are similar to "pro-lifers" who support the death penalty. They're both as you said "hypocrites.""

I don't know what you mean by "worked around"

I would have always said that

March 03, 2010 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

it's kind of pathetic how lunatic fringe deviance advocates are always hoping for rising AIDS infection rates among lower income minorities in order to blur the fact that AIDS established itself in our country due to the inherent promiscuity of homosexuals

Where did you come up with that one, Anone? Who has expressed any "hope" that minorities suffer from high infection rates? You won't find that "hope" expressed anywhere on Vigilance.

But I'll tell you who does work toward that outcome. People like Anone who support funding sex education classes that intentionally contradict the Centers for Disease Control's recommendations that condoms be used correctly and consistently for every act of sexual contact.

Everyone should know that "Hope is Not a Method" to prevent the spread of STDs and unplanned pregnancy, but correct and consistent condom usage is.

March 04, 2010 8:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home