Wednesday, July 13, 2011

O'Malley to Get More Involved Next Time

Our courageous leaders in Annapolis failed to pass a law allowing same-sex couples to marry this year. Then, New York passed a similar bill in both houses of its legislature -- even when the state Senate was dominated by Republicans -- and the governor signed it. Maryland is definitely a more liberal state than New York, you have to wonder how that happened.

After the dust cleared, a lot of fingers have pointed to the involvement of the governor. Our governor O'Malley made it clear he would sign the bill but he did not campaign actively in its support. Vulnerable politicians feared negative feedback from church groups and others if they came out in favor of the bill, they needed to know the governor would back them up and there was no clear guarantee of that. In New York, on the other hand, governor Cuomo took a solid stand in favor of the bill, he got on the phone, made public statements, and got the job done.

O'Malley is saying he will do more next time. The Post:
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is weighing whether to sponsor a same-sex marriage bill during next year’s legislative session and is likely to make a decision soon, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.

Supporters of the measure, which fell short in this year’s session, have been pushing O’Malley (D) to play a more visible role next year in the wake of the passage of a gay-nuptials bill in New York, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) played an instrumental role.

O’Malley has had recent discussions with lawmakers who would like him to make a bill part of his formal legislative package next year, spokeswoman Raquel Guillory said.

“It’s definitely an option that’s on the table,” Guillory said. “We are in discussions as to what steps we might take next .... We’re looking at all options to ensure success.”

During this year’s session, O’Malley expressed support for the bill, but his lobbying efforts were largely limited to private conversations with lawmakers. He made no mention of the legislation in his agenda-setting State of the State speech. O’Malley considers role in gay-marriage legislation

It is risky to take a clear stand on an issue like this. A politician might say he favors marriage equality, but then give it tepid support or even undermine the bill as it flows through the process, in an attempt to please everyone, and in fact that might be safer politically than sticking your neck out.

It's good to see O'Malley stepping up to the plate this time around, but his failure to do so in the most recent legislative session will always count against him, especially in comparison to the process -- and outcome -- we saw in New York.

Now let's see if he can get behind a good gender identity nondiscrimination bill that includes public accommodations.

40 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Our governor O'Malley made it clear he would sign the bill but he did not campaign actively in its support."

the governor has a lot of important issues that require his attention

if he wastes a bunch of time empowering and encouraging deviant relationships, the voters will hold him accountable

July 13, 2011 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anony-stoopid-mous is such a fitting name for you.

Governor O'Malley is serving his second consecutive term as Governor of Maryland. He may not serve a third consecutive term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Maryland

July 13, 2011 8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

he won't disappear

he will be held accountable

July 13, 2011 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And how do you imagine "the voters will hold" O'Malley "accountable" if he can't run in 2014?

July 13, 2011 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you watch

July 13, 2011 9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watch what?

July 13, 2011 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the end of O'Malley's career

July 13, 2011 11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

O'Malley is a major clown

July 14, 2011 7:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a case of interest to TTFers and other fringers, who fight against hateful bigotry:

"Police in Michigan have arrested a 62-year-old man who was caught on surveillance video having sexual intercourse with a horse. It is the second time the man has been accused of bestiality in the past 10 years, police said.

"I have been in law enforcement for 30 years and this is definitely a bizarre case," said Sgt. Fritz Sandberg of the Clinton County Sheriff's Office.

According to Sandberg, John Robert Mester of Clinton County has been charged with one count of committing sodomy and one count of aggravated indecent exposure.

Police began to focus on Mester in June after they were contacted by Cindy Heistand, a woman who runs a boarding stable in Riley Township.

Heistand told police she became suspicious when some of her customers spotted a suspicious man feeding the horses in her pasture. Concerned for the safety of the animals, Heistand purchased a video surveillance camera and mounted it in a tree overlooking her 15-acre pasture. She was shocked by what the camera caught on tape, police reported.

"Heistand contacted us after she had some footage of the suspect engaging in sexual acts with some of her horses she was boarding," Sandberg said.

The videos allegedly show a man feed a thoroughbred mare from a bucket. According to police, afterwards, he flipped the bucked over and stood on it, lifted the stable sheet and had sexual intercourse with the animal.

"The first time we saw the video, we were flabbergasted," Heistand told The Lansing State Journal.

Upon reviewing the footage, the sheriff's office identified Mester as a suspect and turned the case over to the prosecutor's office.

"The sodomy charge is a 15 year felony, if convicted and the indecent exposure charge carries a maximum two year penalty or $2,000 dollar fine," Sandberg said.

According to the sheriff's office, Mester was arrested on similar charges in 2001.

"He was charged with having sexual acts with a pony but ultimately convicted of [attempted] animal torture. He spent 30 days in our county jail," Sandberg said."

July 14, 2011 7:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And here are a few of yeterday's news items concerrning your fine upstanding heterosexual friends:

1. "Prosecutors laid out the case Friday against a Durham man charged with killing a 4-year-old boy and 28-year-old-woman, saying he led a “religious” group of women and children who called him “Lord” and feared him.

Peter Lucas Moses, 27, faces first-degree murder charges in the deaths of Jadon Higganbothan, 4, and Antoinetta Yvonne McKoy, 28. Prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty against him. Defense attorneys didn't speak in his behalf at a court hearing Friday.

Prosecutors said Moses killed Jadon because he thought the child was gay and McKoy after he learned she couldn't have children and wanted to leave the group."
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9836148/

2. "An Anne Arundel man has been arrested in the slaying of his wife early Wednesday morning, police said.

Around 5 a.m., police responding to a report of domestic violence found a 38-year-old female with stab wounds to the upper body, according to Anne Arundel County Police.

The victim was taken to the Baltimore Washington Medical Center where she was pronounced dead, police said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/anne-arundel-man-arrested-for-wifes-murder/2011/07/13/gIQA8JIXCI_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz

3. "A 72-year-old man has been charged with forcing two women to watch pornography and sexually assaulting them as they sought help from the employment agency where he worked, police said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/two-women-assaulted-at-annandale-employment-agency/2011/07/13/gIQAHH4SCI_blog.html

Oh, and incidentally, your horse lover is heterosexual too:
"In 2001, Mester was accused of having sexual intercourse with a pony. He pleaded no contest to attempted animal torture, records show, and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a year of probation.

Mester, who is married, was arraigned June 30 in Clinton County District Court on the new charges. He was released on a $5,000 bond, records show."
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110709/NEWS01/107090311/Man-taped-having-sex-horse-police-say?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

July 14, 2011 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTF's horse hero didn't murder or rape anyone

the point is, the same arguments used to advance the gay agenda would also apply to other deviants, such as those who engage in sexual activity with other species

arresting them, and harassing them, and not recognizing them as legitimate is hateful bigotry, per TTF mentality

why aren't you pushing to have school children taught to be non-judgmental about such activity?

why aren't you arguing that they have no choice, being born that way?

July 14, 2011 8:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sure, here's the TTF argument:

everyone has a sexual "orientation"

you didn't decide which one to have

this guy didn't just decide he was attracted to horses

just like you didn't just decide you were attracted to humans

he's on the right track, baby

he was born that way

hee haw!!

July 14, 2011 9:27 AM  
Anonymous let's get this party started said...

remember how lunatic fringe gay advocates prevented a referendum on the gender discrimination bill by challenging petition signatures with a bunch of dubious technicalities?

while the voters later were able to rid county government of the perpetrators of the bill, Duchy and Dana, unfortunately, they weren't allowed to vote on the bill because of legal games by the lunatics

now, this worthless bill is law in our county

a solution has been found to safeguard the rights of Maryland citizens from attacks by the fringe and, as a result, marriage will never be redefined as including deviant couples in Maryland:

"For two decades in Maryland, opponents of statewide measures as diverse as speed cameras and early voting have been mounting petition drives to repeal the laws. Those efforts have all failed.

Until now.

Last week, Del. Neil C. Parrott and others won a key victory in their campaign to repeal a new law allowing undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges. Elections officials announced that the opponents had enough signatures to suspend the law and put it to a statewide vote next year.

Parrott’s effort relied, in part, on something his predecessors didn’t use: Internet software that ensured precision and allowed him to avoid the chance of signatures being rejected on legal technicalities.

About a third of the total number came from people who logged on to his Web site and clicked on a widget that made it easy for them to fill in their information correctly.

The system is simple. Thousands of voters, egged on by a media blitz on talk radio and Web sites and through targeted e-mail, found their way to mdpetitions.com. They typed their names, birth dates, Zip codes and e-mail addresses into a basic form, just as if they were buying a sweater online. The software then tapped into voter-registration data to fill out the petition sheet in the precise format the law requires. The voters then printed out the form, signed it and mailed it to Parrott.

The e-mail list generated by that process is now itself an organizing tool for other causes. Parrott won’t say how many people signed up, but many voters agreed to be notified when future petition drives are launched.

“This petition drive really sets new ground rules,” he said of the use of the Web and software.

The petition’s success will change how voters in the liberal-leaning state weigh in on the laws passed by their elected representatives.

Daniel Zubairi, a Republican from Montgomery County who led a failed effort to force a statewide referendum on speed cameras in 2009, said what Parrott accomplished is a model for what’s to come.

“The technology is pretty awesome,” said Zubairi, who signed the petition against the tuition break on Parrott’s Web page. “I looked at it and said, ‘This is really cool how they got this to work.’ ”

The number of voters needed to force a referndum in Maryland is 3 percent of the number of voters who took part in the previous election for governor."

July 14, 2011 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He was charged with having sexual acts with a pony but ultimately convicted of [attempted] animal torture."

Everybody knows Phillip Garrido and his wife Nancy kept Jaycee Lee Dugard prisoner as a sexual slave for Phillip. But guess what else that heterosexual man did? He tortured Jaycee's pets.

And look at you now, confusing sexual orientation (a person's sexual attraction toward members of the same, opposite, or both genders) with beastiality (sexual intercourse between a person and an animal).

You don't have any pets at home do you?

July 14, 2011 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not confused at all.

"Orientation" is a propaganda term invented by gay advocates.

"Preference" is more accurate and sexual preferences can be other than gender-based.

Any other preference other than humans of the opposite gender is deviant.

No pets at home but I wouldn't let you near them even if I did, you creep.

July 14, 2011 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YAWN...you are such a BORE, "Anonymous" troll.
Poor Johnny One-note"!

July 14, 2011 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You come here day after day to denigrate your fellow human beings and then you decide post an article about a man in a one-woman-one-man marriage getting caught having sex with livestock for the second time to try to denigrate your fellow human beings yet again and you think I'm a creep?

You truly are clueless, Anony-stoopid-mous

July 14, 2011 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you always know you have a valid point, beyond rebuttal, when the TTFers start getting nasty and vague

when you figure out an argument advancing the gay agenda that doesn't apply equally to this case, do let us know

July 14, 2011 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lighten up
Was the horse male or female?
I wonder if there is such as thing as Horse AIDS?

July 14, 2011 4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cashing out and leaving if the repubs don't hold strong.

I WILL NOT pay any more taxes.
simply not worth working anymore....

Not killing myself anymore to support these NITWITS who want to live off the fruits of my labor.
I am DONE.

Atlas Shrugged. and gave up on the US. the repubs BEST hold their ground. They are fighting for our country as we know it.

July 14, 2011 4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lighten up
Was the horse male or female?"

a horse is a horse

of course, of course

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Thursday making California the first state in the nation to add lessons about gays and lesbians to social studies classes in public schools.

Brown, a Democrat, signed the landmark bill requiring public schools to include the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies curriculum. The Democratic-majority Legislature had passed the bill last week on a largely party-line vote.

"History should be honest," the governor said in a statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

The bill has drawn criticism from some churches and conservative groups that argue such instruction would expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.

Republican lawmakers who opposed the bill had called it a well-intentioned but ill-conceived bill. Some raised concerns that it would indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality.

California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics.

The new law, SB48, requires the California Board of Education and local school districts to adopt textbooks and other teaching materials that cover the contributions and roles of sexual minorities, as soon as the 2013-2014 school year."

July 14, 2011 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A new book about the life of Barack Obama's mother is casting doubt on an anecdote shared by the president during his 2008 election campaign and subsequent push for health care reform, The New York Times reports.

According to A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother, a biography written by Times reporter Janny Scott, Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, had health insurance during her battle with cancer in 1995, a claim that seems to run counter to the narrative repeatedly described by the president.

July 14, 2011 7:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mitch McConnell is conjuring memories of November 1995 and he's on the right track.

The Senate minority leader is offering a compromise plan on the debt ceiling, warning reluctant Republicans that they are likely to receive disproportionate blame from the public if Aug. 2 comes and goes without a deal -- just as Newt Gingrich and his fellow Republicans were blamed for a government shutdown 16 years ago:

"[Obama] will say Republicans are making the economy worse," Mr. McConnell said in an interview with the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. "It is an argument that he could have a good chance of winning, and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of the economy. That is a very bad position going into the election."

So far, there is no sign that McConnell's solution -- which would allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling himself and render the GOP's objections symbolic -- has any chance of clearing the House, where the GOP's ranks are dominated by true believers.

But there's some new evidence that his warning to Republicans is on the mark. A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday finds that voters, by a 48 to 34 percent margin, say they would blame Republicans over Barack Obama for a default. A similar spread existed in the run-up to the November '95 shutdown, with voters indicating that they'd blame Gingrich and the GOP instead of President Clinton. And that's just what they did.

July 14, 2011 8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, Obama's been telling alot of lies

it will come out in the wash

for example, his talking about Republicans wanting to cut Social Security to make loopholes for the wealthy to buy jets

the loophole?

Obama wants to depreciate jets over seven years rather than five, as is currently done

how much would that raise?

not much, certainly not enough to cover Social Security

but at least we make sure the wealthy have to pay more for their jets

btw, the overall effect would be to reduce jet sales and depress the economy

and America becomes the resentful, loser society that Continental Europe has become

July 14, 2011 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are the facts that debunk Anony-liar-mous' lie about the President's tale of his mother's health insurance woes:

"Ann Dunham, had health insurance during her battle with cancer in 1995, a claim that seems to run counter to the narrative repeatedly described by the president."

Here's what the President said:

""I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn't thinking about how to get well, she wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence," Obama said in September 2007.

"She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills," Obama added in January 2008.

"The insurance companies were saying, 'Maybe there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to pay your medical bills,' " Obama said in a debate with Republican opponent Sen. John McCain in October 2008."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/fresh-doubt-cast-obamas-health-care-story#ixzz1SB2y6Q00

And here's what the new book says:

""Ann's compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment. Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month."

Dunham filed a claim for those additional expenses with a different insurance company, CIGNA, under her employer's disability insurance policy. It was this claim which was rejected, after insurance investigators determined she had a pre-existing condition, Scott wrote."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/ann-dunham-book-health-insurance_n_898192.html

And here's the Presdient's reply to Scott's book:

"The White House did not dispute the account in Scott's book, the Times reports, and stands by Obama's account of his mother's struggles with health insurance providers.

"We have not reviewed the letters or other material on which the author bases her account," White House spokesman Nicholas Papas, told the Times. "The president has told this story based on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago."

"As Ms. Scott's account makes clear, the president's mother incurred several hundred dollars in monthly uncovered medical expenses that she was relying on insurance to pay," Papas told theTimes."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/ann-dunham-book-health-insurance_n_898192.html

Your side looks so pathetic trying to spin all this into lies, Anony-liar-mous.

July 15, 2011 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anony-liar-mous lies again:

"his talking about Republicans wanting to cut Social Security to make loopholes for the wealthy to buy jets"

What's the matter, doesn't FOX news cover President Obama's press conferences or are you too Anony-stoopid-mous to find the transcript of Presidential press conferences, which are always posted at WhiteHouse.gov.

Here's what the President said about the hard choices we need to make to dig ourselves out of the deep financial hole dug by the Bush administration choices to increase spending while cutting taxes:

"There’s been a lot of discussion about revenues and raising taxes in recent weeks, so I want to be clear about what we’re proposing here. I spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary Americans, and I want to extend those middle-class tax cuts. The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.

It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we’ve got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we’ve got to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make.

So the bottom line is this: Any agreement to reduce our deficit is going to require tough decisions and balanced solutions. And before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children’s education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys. I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/29/press-conference-president

And of course, he's right. Every poll taken these days shows large majorities of Americans would rather close tax loopholes to raise taxes on the rich rather than pay more for Medicare.

Seventy two percent say "Raising taxes on Americans with incomes over 250-thousand dollars a year" is their preference "...to reduce the national debt."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_04172011.html

"A full 67% of Americans favor a deal to raise the debt ceiling that includes taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, according to a poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University.

And according to Gallup, only 20% of Americans want a deal that consists only of spending cuts. That's the position of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and many of his colleagues.

Instead, most Americans want the deal to include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, something that is much closer to the bargaining position staked out by Democrats."
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/14/republican-tax-stand-a-bust-with-public/

In fact, a balanced approach consisting of a "mix of both spending cuts and tax increases" is exactly what the President has called for while the GOP says No to taking a balanced approach and No to tax increases.

July 15, 2011 9:42 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon blathered:

“the point is, the same arguments used to advance the gay agenda would also apply to other deviants, such as those who engage in sexual activity with other species”

Actually they can’t because of a couple of concepts I’ll elucidate below.

Deviants who engage in sexual activity with other species are already allowed to marry, as long as they form part of a heterosexual marriage. No one is even trying to stop them, much less the pedophiles, rapists, and murderers who want to be part of a heterosexual marriage. Sexual deviancy has never been a legal stumbling block for any heterosexual marriage that I am aware of. Even Horsey Guy above was married.

Arguably, the institution of marriage would be far better off if those prone to bestiality, rape, murder, and pedophilia were not allowed to marry and inject their DNA into the human gene pool; but for the past 6000 years that apparently has not been a priority… just keeping out the gays has.

Anon then went on…

arresting them, and harassing them, and not recognizing them as legitimate is hateful bigotry, per TTF mentality
why aren't you pushing to have school children taught to be non-judgmental about such activity?
why aren't you arguing that they have no choice, being born that way?”
“everyone has a sexual "orientation"
you didn't decide which one to have
this guy didn't just decide he was attracted to horses
just like you didn't just decide you were attracted to humans
he's on the right track, baby
he was born that way”

July 15, 2011 10:46 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“you always know you have a valid point, beyond rebuttal, when the TTFers start getting nasty and vague”

Funny how that works in both directions.

“when you figure out an argument advancing the gay agenda that doesn't apply equally to this case, do let us know”

Actually the rebuttal has been explained here a number of times, but it either seems to be ignored or forgotten. For most people it’s so obvious it’s simply assumed by everyone that everyone else is aware of it, and it isn’t worth a long pedantic explanation to clarify it.

So I’ll try to keep this short and simple to make it easy to remember:

Marriage is between two consenting, non-related adults.

Thes simple, but EXTREMELY important concepts are embodied in modern laws which identify an “age of consent” and a list of relations (mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, etc.) that a person can not marry. States also REQUIRE the two parties to sign a marriage license with witnesses.

July 15, 2011 10:47 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Since there is no known legitimate way a beast can provide consent, much less a legal signature, there is no mechanism for one to enter into marriage with a human. Allowing gays to marry doesn’t change that one iota.

The fact that this simple concept is so frequently forgotten or ignored, or just not understood leads one to suspect there may be other issues involved, such as:

1: ADD / ADHD (Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder): Fortunately this can be helped with modern medication regimes. Maybe after proper medication, one will be able to pay attention to the all important “consent” concept.

2: Alzheimer’s Disease: Although they don’t have a cure for this, I believe I ran across an article stating that they may be able to slow its progression. Unfortunately for this, I’ll just have to keep repeating the explanation.

3: An IQ slightly above room temperature: Tragically, there seems to be no cure for this on the horizon, but it does explain why the “bestiality” argument is only compelling to Christian conservatives with a similar quotient. Sadly, there is nothing I can do here to help. We are stuck with Forrest Gump Syndrome: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

July 15, 2011 10:52 AM  
Blogger Zoe Brain said...

Cynthia - Room Temperature Fahrenheit or Centigrade?

Personally, I don't believe in feeding Trolls who talk about what Obama's grandmother's hairdesser said, or deliberately de-rail threads.

I'm not a fan of either Obama or the DNC BTW. That's irrelevant though, this is an issue of human rights, and simple justice.

I admit I don't "get" the various lies and distortions, the hatred and naked malice shown by some. I'd like to think they're just misinformed, as I'm sure some are. But others just close their ears and say "La La La I can't hear you" when presented with facts contrary to their beliefs.

Remember this?

"Adol T. Owen-Williams II, a Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member, ... shouted "Heil Hitler!" immediately after the vote ... "Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature."

Maybe he believed it then. But there's no excuse for believing it now. We've waited long enough already.

July 17, 2011 4:26 AM  
Anonymous hee-haw on the see-saw said...

"Actually the rebuttal has been explained here a number of times, but it either seems to be ignored or forgotten."

not really

otherwise you could have pasted it

"For most people it’s so obvious it’s simply assumed by everyone that everyone else is aware of it, and it isn’t worth a long pedantic explanation to clarify it."

good attempt at avoidance

"So I’ll try to keep this short and simple to make it easy to remember:

Marriage is between two consenting, non-related adults."

no, according to the law of the land (DOMA), marriage is between two consenting, non-related adults of opposite gender

the point is that your desire to drop the gender aspect is not only capricious but fundamental redefinition

"Thes simple, but EXTREMELY important concepts are embodied in modern laws which identify an “age of consent” and a list of relations (mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, etc.) that a person can not marry. States also REQUIRE the two parties to sign a marriage license with witnesses."

all states, until recently, also had the concept that both genders be represented in order to constitute marriage

no electorate has decided otherwise, only politicians playing politics in a handful of states

every state electorate that has voted has opted to retain the requirement that both genders be part of any valid marriage

"Since there is no known legitimate way a beast can provide consent, much less a legal signature, there is no mechanism for one to enter into marriage with a human."

I think it is clear when a horse doesn't consent to something. They can crack a skull with one kick of the hind legs.

Besides, no one minds using animals for slave labor and food. Why require consent in this situation?

Just plain ol' bigotry, by TTF mentality.

"Allowing gays to marry doesn’t change that one iota."

if you can change the requirement to not require both genders, why not change it to require only one representative from each species?

it all follows from a TTF mentality

"The fact that this simple concept is so frequently forgotten or ignored, or just not understood"

you didn't state any facts

July 17, 2011 6:22 PM  
Anonymous hee-haw on the see-saw said...

"Personally, I don't believe in feeding Trolls who talk about what Obama's grandmother's hairdesser said, or deliberately de-rail threads."

since you brought it up, Obama has been proven a liar about the circumstances of his mother's death

he repeatedly claimed in the past that she was denied health insurance payment for treatment when she got terminal cancer because it was a pre-existing condition

a new book disloses that she received health insurance coverage and was actually only denied disability payments by an entirely different company

the White House has confirmed the book's account

what kind of a sick mind would lie about his own mother's death to advance his political agenda?

answer: who is Sir Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel Peace Prize laureate?

"I'm not a fan of either Obama or the DNC BTW."

hey, you almost qualify to be an American

"That's irrelevant though, this is an issue of human rights, and simple justice."

sadly true

sickos like cynco want to deny those who love horses the right to marry the one they love

"I admit I don't "get" the various lies and distortions, the hatred and naked malice shown by some."

word

why can't we just let horse-lovers be free to be...you and me?

"I'd like to think they're just misinformed, as I'm sure some are. But others just close their ears and say "La La La I can't hear you" when presented with facts contrary to their beliefs."

what a priceless picture of cynco's denial of the right of everyone to marry WHATEVER they love!!

thanks, Zoo

"Maybe he believed it then. But there's no excuse for believing it now. We've waited long enough already."

that's right

Obama, you can't scare us into raising taxes by playing the Social Security card

we now know that you will have plenty of money to pay both interest and Social Security without borrowing

you just have to cut the EPA, the Dept of Education and your fancy jet-setting around the globe

cut government spending now

don't raise taxes in a recession

July 17, 2011 6:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We were all shock and appalled that President Obama dangled out in front of the cameras that senior citizens may not get their checks. That's a very dangerous statement to make. We need to get our act together here in Washington, D.C., so that we're serving the American people not scaring them."

Michele Bachmann is accusing the president of scaring the American people? The Michele Bachmann who said these things to the American people?

"They used the U.S. Census information to round up the Japanese and put them in the internment camps."

"There are provisions for what i would call 'reeducation camps' for young people."

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous."

"This has the potential of changing the dynamics of freedom forever, so bureaucrats will decide if you get in to see a doctor."

"Now we've moved into the realm of gnagster government."

"Ganster government."

"That takes us to gangster government."

"The government has a pistol, and they put a bullet in every chamber and they want you to play Russian Roulette."

"Turning our counttry into being a nation of slaves."

Michele Bachmann has made a career out of making dangerous statements intended to scare the American people.

Hear her say them here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30012522#43749379

July 18, 2011 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

interesting thought

Obama's comments also have the unfortunate quality of deceit

there is plenty of money for Social Security checks even if the government never borrows another dime

he lied just like he did when he pushed Obamacare by claiming his dying mother was denied benefits by mean health insurance companies

he's a liar

July 18, 2011 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there is plenty of money for Social Security checks"

On August 2, maybe, but what about September 2 and the rest?

July 18, 2011 6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, sooner or later, we'll have to have a budget for the next year

the money exists if priorities are set

and, hopefully, it won't take forever

taxes aren't going up

July 18, 2011 7:27 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Oooh Zoe! That was harsh! (and funny!)

To be fair though, Anon’s peculiar writing style carries the typical hallmarks (single case, lack of complete punctuation, bullet-item listing as opposed to paragraphs, dearth of compound objects, predicates, or subjects, restriction to just a few verb tenses – namely present or future declarative and imperative, usually in the active voice, and sparing use of prepositional phrases) of someone who has struggled with a degree dyslexia, not someone with an IQ in the 30 range.

The signs are relatively easy to spot if you’ve dealt with a few dyslexics on an on-going basis. If you’ve ever found yourself in the ironic position of frequently being able to find the words to finish someone else’s sentences before he can, and yet still not be able to truly communicate with him, you may be dealing with a dyslexic. I highly recommend the book “The Gift of Dyslexia” by Ronald Davis and Eldon Braun. It provides many useful insights into their thinking processes, their difficulty in learning new things through text / speech, and has been helpful in explaining some of their odd behaviors. But I digress… that’s not the topic we were on.

Zoe continued:
“Personally, I don't believe in feeding Trolls who talk about what Obama's grandmother's hairdesser said, or deliberately de-rail threads.”

Neither do I. However, returning the harassment of certain trolls can be a civic duty.

And later:

“Maybe he believed it then. But there's no excuse for believing it now. We've waited long enough already.”

Indeed; hence the civic duty.

July 19, 2011 10:42 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon contended:

“not really

otherwise you could have pasted it”

Indeed I could have Anon. But if you didn’t grasp the concept the first time, reposting it is unlikely to help your situation. However, since you seem to enjoy me either proving you wrong, or reading my posts, I’ll copy and past it here after this one.

“good attempt at avoidance”

It would have been if I didn’t post the explanation just after that. Short-term memory not working too well today?

I wrote:
“Marriage is between two consenting, non-related adults.”

To which Anon responded:

“no, according to the law of the land (DOMA), marriage is between two consenting, non-related adults of opposite gender”

Actually DOMA provides that states do not have to recognize gay marriage if they don’t want to, and federal agencies do not have to provide any of the normal benefits provided to spouses for married gay people.

This has not stopped certain states and D.C. from allowing gay marriages and even spousal benefits in some cases.

There are plenty of legal marriages all over the planet that involve gay couples, or one or more trans or inter-sex persons. DOMA doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just that state agencies don’t have to recognize them if they choose not to, and federal laws / departments won’t.

Given the our countries notoriously long and slow struggles for more inclusive civil rights however, it is probably only a matter of time before legally, DOMA has to be repealed on an equal rights argument.

“the point is that your desire to drop the gender aspect is not only capricious but fundamental redefinition”

No Anon, that is your attempt at a point.

July 19, 2011 10:43 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

There are already thousands of legally binding marriages between gay, trans, and inter-sex people is simply a fact, regardless of how much you object to it. If this were not the case, the Prop 8 folks wouldn’t have gone back after they won to try and annul the gay marriages that had occurred, and they wouldn’t bother fighting at the state level because the “DOMA definition” would apply. Obviously that is not the case.

“Marriage is between two consenting, non-related adults” is simply a concise statement of that fact.


“all states, until recently, also had the concept that both genders be represented in order to constitute marriage

no electorate has decided otherwise, only politicians playing politics in a handful of states”

Indeed, but those electorates were also subjected to numerous scandalous lies about gay people and what the law would do (i.e. require schools to teach about gay marriage). If you lie and scare people enough, you can get them to do just about anything, including go into a war with no evidence of WMD, but I digress.

Running late…

I’ll have to finish this later.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

July 19, 2011 10:44 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

And as per Anon's request, here is part of a post that I put up on 22 Mar 09:

(It doesn't specifically mention beasts, but obviously, the argument is precisely the same.)

Later, Aunt Bea wrote: “Having the right to select your partner is not the same thing as having a right to commit incest or polygamy. “

And one of the Anons asked: “really? how's it different.”

That is quite simple. In fact, I would have thought it was obvious and didn’t need explanation. Apparently I was wrong though. So I’ll type real slow and hope folks get it:

The people fighting for gay marriage are fighting for the rights to two conscientious CONSENTING UNRELATED ADULTS to have the right to legally commit themselves to each other for better or worse, for as long as they both shall live. Our society has structured a number of legal and tax benefits around the institution of marriage that these people should be afforded as well.

Incest is “Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.” (From Dictionary.com, American Heritage dictionary) For many people, the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the term “incest” is the abuse of a heterosexual father to his non-consenting, underage daughter, who is inevitably told to keep things secret under the threats of severe penalty. Conflating gays with these folks may further your cause, but has nothing to do with the rights gays are fighting for.

Polygamy, as we’ve come to know it here recently, also involves heterosexual males and teenage girls whose “consent” is of dubious validity. The males of the Fundamentalist Mormon sect have used their religion to create a society in which impregnating teenage girls with or without their consent is socially acceptable as long as it is within a “marriage” was ordained by the “prophet.” Most of our society considers what these men have to do to these girls to maintain this society “brain washing.”

The situations noted above involve underage CHILDREN, not adults. As children, they are not considered capable of making a decision of there own totally free will as to whether or not it is appropriate for them to have sexual relations with an adult – which it is not. As such, adults who have sex with children are normally prosecuted for engaging in such behavior, as they should be. No one should be forced to have sex against their will, or even if it is their “will,” if they are not fully aware of all of the ramifications, and of a mind to make that choice ENTIRELY of their OWN free will.

Gay adults, being adults, ARE capable of making informed decisions about who they want to have sex with and whom they would like to marry. Each party involved can make that decision of their own free will. Just like adult heterosexual couples. No child is being forced to marry or have sex against their will in allowing gay adults to get married.

It’s late, and I’m starting to ramble, so I’ll just reiterate:

Gay marriage is about TWO CONSENTING UNRELATED ADULTS. Incest and polygamy (as we know it to be practiced currently) are not. Trying to equate gay marriage to incest and polygamy may help sway uncritical thinkers to your camp, but they are not the same things.

July 19, 2011 10:47 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home