It appears that same-sex marriage is being groomed for a major issue in this election. With Jay Carney insisting that President Obama remains clear that his views are unclear, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann stepped forward this weekend to put the issue front and center in their campaigns. Gingrich this weekend announced that he will lead the fight against same-sex marriage to stop the nation from “drifting toward a terrible muddle.” He said that he would be looking for ways to “defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible.”
Critics are likely to charge that Gingrich certainly has more experience in the area with three prior marriages — making the campaign sound more like a pitch that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman and a woman and a woman.
The decision of New York to become the sixth state to recognize same-sex marriage guarantees that it will be a hot issue in the campaign. Bachmann is calling for a constitutional amendment.
For the purposes of full disclosure, I have long argued that the states should uniformly adopt a civil union standard and leave “marriages
Source: Reuters
@Gyges, now onto your points.
1. The link was provided when the quote was first used. Ctrl+F plus “intimacy” will locate it for you. In any event, regardless of evidence, you asked for a rational basis and I gave you a rational basis. If you want to argue that that basis isn’t rational, make that argument.
2. I alreasy anticipated that argument and rebutted it in the last sentence of my point 2. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise. Also, you failed to cite any actual outside evidence for your premise and I know you’re a stickler for evidence. You provided an anecdote, not data.
3. Right, which is why some states are providing for civil unions. Again as I stated in the last sentence, “by all means let’s give those parents those prerogatives, but nothing in the Constitution requires that we call it ‘marriage.'” Also, I don’t see any outside evidence that supports your claim. (See how tedious this evidence mongering becomes?)
Gyges, thanks. I much prefer a rational, reasoned discussion than having to deal with hecklers. Maybe the noise machine will get tired of repeating the same trivial material, eventually.
OS,
I meant to address you as well, my wife returned to work this week; I’m adjusting.
Anyway, it’s been my experience, and aside from Mespo and the Mikes I think I might be the regular that’s been around the longest at this point, we have this troll discussion about twice a year. What usually ends up happening civility is restored for about 3 or 4 months and then something causes pressure to rise up again until we have the discussion.
This is no where near as bad as it’s gotten.
K, thank you for your input. Now back to our regular business.
@Gyges — who said we were talking about anything other than opinion. That’s all you’re offering as well.
As far as providing evidence goes, I am providing at least as much evidence as anyone else in this discussion. My obligation is to provide as much evidence as needed to rebut any serious counter argument. That I have done.
You should go back to the Paul Revere thread and see where the “aggressive[ness], arrogan[ce], and insult[s]” originated. Mind you, Elaine’s original post was a snarkfest and wasn’t entitled to much in the way of deference in any event.
KDE,
1. That’s a quote. What’s the source? A quote from an unknown person without context has exactly as much weight as your say-so. Which is none.
2. Which is why we only allow fertile people who want children to get married. I know several people who are either incapable or unwilling to have children, that are married. Just as the ability of a gay man to marry a woman leads to the conclusion that marriage isn’t about sexuality, that leads me to the conclusion that marriage isn’t about reproduction.
Which brings me to:
3. There are numerous examples of Federal and State policies and laws that grant married couples protection and advantages. For instance, the ability to file taxes jointly, the ability to visit love ones in hospitals, the ability to make critical decisions about health care when the other is incapacitated, SS benefits from a deceased spouse, etc. etc. etc.
Also, if you want me to treat something as other than just your opinion, you need to provide me with something other than your opinion. Right now, you’re failing to meet that standard. To be honest with you, if you’re not a troll, you’re sure acting like one. You’re aggressive, arrogant, and insulting. To be fair, so’s Buddha, but he (unlike you): starts out polite; provides sources; and generally avoids the sort of rhetorical cheap tricks that you keep trying to pull. It’s not about winning the argument here, it’s about having a discussion and proving your claims. There is a difference.
My advice, if you’re sincere about having an actual conversation, read Orwell’s Politics and the English Language http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part42 (Rule vi is especially important), and start providing outside evidence to back up your claims. If you’re a troll, time to pack up this nom d’internet.
Lotta,
You are of course correct. Thanks for the reminder. For what it’s worth, I figured it was easier to use the term already established in the conversation than getting into semantics. Since KDE seems more than a little inclined to change the subject at every chance, I thought I’d help them avoid the temptation.
Roco,
To answer your question: NO. I just posted it to show Bachmann’s hypocrisy. BTW, I didn’t imply she did anything illegal.
I assume Planned Parenthood employs people, etc.–and it also provides needed services to its clients–many of whom are poor women.
*****
“At a Faith and Freedom Conference in Washington on Friday, GOP presidential hopeful Rep.Michele Bachmann (R-MN) sought to appeal to religious conservatives by blasting Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health services to poor women.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/03/bachmann-calls-planned-parenthood-a-criminal-enterprise/
Seems like Bachmann doesn’t care much about the poor women who receive health services from Planned Parenthood.
**********
Bachmann’s husband got $137,000 in Medicaid funds
By Michael Isikoff
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/28/6968201-bachmanns-husband-got-137000-in-medicaid-funds
Excerpts:
While Rep. Michele Bachmann has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the “welfare rolls,” the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News.
*****
The issue of her receipt of government aid has gotten attention because Bachmann, a Tea Party favorite, has been a fierce critic of federal spending programs and has called for drastic cutbacks. This has especially been the case on health care, including the expansions of Medicaid called for under the new health care law.
When Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton signed an executive order earlier this year expanding the state’s Medicaid program for more than 95,000 state residents, Bachmann was joined state Republican lawmakers in denouncing the move.
“Right now, Governor Dayton is wanting to commit Minnesota taxpayers to add even more welfare recipients on the welfare rolls at a very great cost,” Bachmann said at a news conference in St. Paul in January.
“She’s giving hypocrisy a bad name,” said Ron Pollock, executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group, when asked about the Medicaid payments to Bachmann & Associates. “It’s clear when it feathers her nest she’s happy for Medicaid expenditures. But people that really need it — folks with disabilities and seniors — she’s turning their backs on them.”
AY,
It’s the sincerest form of flattery.
Ok Mike S.,
That’s Buddhas’ tag line and mine is I wake up just to annoy…..I think we can all take a guess as to whom the troll is….
“Thanks for not letting me down Mike Spindell. That was exactly the kind of “civil” response I was expecting from you.”
One lives to be of service.
Bob, Esq.:
I understand. I was using the word “enumerated” in the sense of “listed” or “identified.” I think of privacy as a right that encompasses all of the elements of self-ownership. In my mind privacy describes the state of the self in unbound isolation. It is what I bring to the table to negotiate the social contract. Powers are conferred on society through my surrender of bits and pieces of that autonomy. All arguments regarding the constitutionality of an act of government are ultimately reducible to an inquiry as to whether the power sought to be exercised falls within the scope of what I have agreed to surrender. I completely agree with your take on the Ninth Amendment.
OS, FFLEO, et. al.
I strongly share most of the sentiments OS expressed about Prof. Turley taking a hand in moderation. The troll in question, as have others in the past, is taking part in a concerted attack of disruption of this blog, because its mere existence is threatening to those of a particular totalitarian mindset.
However, FFLEO’s caution in the end persuades me. Once we start banning anyone, except for the most intemperate of behavior, then we lose out identity as a place where freedom of speech is paramount.
Our distaste for this loathsome type of troll is not one of a political nature, which makes this site unique among many. Though most of us regulars share beliefs in a variety of issues, those issues all revolve around the application of our Constitution to the workings of our country. Beyond that, we are a group of people holding a wide variety of strong political points of view and hardly can be accused of “group think.” FFLEO is a strong conservative and I’m a strongly radical, aged Hippie (to the snickering of my wife and children). Yet we have had strong disagreements in the past and will in the future no doubt, that took place with civility and ongoing mutual respect. OS and I had widely different points of view on the thread with the young man with pajamas, also carried on civilly.
However, the conundrum here is what to do with an obvious propagandist, who though inept in argumentation, has the mendacity and staying power to disrupt many threads with his tripe. My own solution with these types has been less to argue and more to ridicule with both satire and strong invective. Buddha’s has been to engage every sally with logical rebuttal, laced with his own brand of wicked invective. Others like Mark, Elaine, Bob, Mike A., LK, Raff, Gyges and AY (with his own quirky humor) have adopted a more civil approach, nevertheless debunking logically and with damning evidence.
I can’t say that I know the solution, those perhaps totally ignoring it would have some efficacy, but we all know there are pitfalls to that. My sense is that until JT indicates a different preference for handling this, we each go on in our own individual manner and hope that this disruption doesn’t lead to boredom and disinterest.
Roco, by Elaine’s implied rationale, the Obama’s should still be paying Clinton era tax rates since they advocate going back to those higher rates. No hypocrisy there apparently.
Thanks for not letting me down Mike Spindell. That was exactly the kind of “civil” response I was expecting from you.
Elaine:
so you would deny mental health help to the elderly or poor? Which is why the program is in place if I understand it properly.
That Bachmann’s family benefited in a small way, is rather a bit of nit picking. I assume the facility pays rent, employees, has office equipment, hires an accountant(s), pays for trash pick up and utilities, requires office stationary and phone service, pays taxes, pays unemployment insurance, workers compensation, pays for employee health insurance, has to pay for sick days and vacation days, And many other things which come up in the day to day operations of a small organization.
I see Krugman’s influence is profound.
“States are traditionally understood to have the authority to make laws to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their communities”
Except when their definition of that authority allows them to discriminate unlawfully against a class of people. Jim Crow? Segregation?
“To encourage the indispensable act of procreation as a couple to occur within a lasting union. It is the unique procreative capacity of male-female couples that justifies the unique status of marriage itself.”
I understand it’s hard for someone with your dysfunctional typology to comprehend this, but heterosexual humans very rarely need encouragement to procreate. Whether they do or not is therefore none of the States business. The exception to this would be hysterically insane dictatorships (NAZI Germany for one) who actually made laws demanding
their citizens procreate. This would probably work for you as I could envision you proudly goosestepping in your “Lederhosen .”
“they only imply a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples and their children receive the same legal prerogatives and benefits as opposite-sex couples.”
This ignores the age old concept of marriage which is to define the legality of children who are heirs. In days gone by Rulers and heads of noble houses (Oh troll how you must wish they come again so you could perform ablutions on their behinds) utilized marriage to define inheritance. That is the historical basis of marriage. Since there seems to be concern for children’s welfare inherent in your point, then marriage is the appropriate term to be used by parents of children of same sex couples. Now a fool such as yourself may argue that males cannot procreate, however, lesbians can and do. As for males since we now have birth surrogates, procreation is also viable. Given that you wrongly believe the State has an interest in procreation, then from that perspective same sex couples should be encouraged in enter into a legal state known traditionally as marriage.
Game, set, match, troll. Now as to your new civility, you conveniently forget your own initial incivilities as easily as you ignore your own proven lies. As Buddha has aptly shown time and again you are a propagandist, not an advocate. You cherry pick what points to respond to and ignore those that demolish your propositions. In short you do not honestly represent your point of view and so as I have concluded long ago with you, you are either a paid troll, or one of those demented Teabaggers (in your case used with all connotations intact) who find pleasure in trying to upset those “libtards.”
In either case you lack the skill to debate issues honestly and so you fall back on classic propaganda techniques. You have proclaimed rhetorical victory despite constant rhetorical defeat and behaved in the manner of the many “party line” communists I have known. While incomprehensible to your ilk, Fascists and Communists, though miles apart politically, essentially behave similarly in pushing their causes.. They are totalitarians at heart, as you are and as are your Teabagger compatriots. You are all congenitally incapable of understanding or practicing freedom and/or democracy. In truth both notions frighten you greatly, since you most prefer to be led by what you perceive to be “strong” leaders. You’re just a follower and not even especially good or unique in your subservience.
Lest you think i’m addressing this personally to you, don’t flatter yourself.
I’m merely pointing out what has been obvious to us here in your methods, since you are so unskilled an inept in your application of same. The truth is that most here, were they amused by it, could argue your side much better than you and do so in a manner far less obvious. If you are paid, then your employer isn’t getting their money’s worth. However, they probably wouldn’t know it because their own rhetorical skills are likely just as sophomoric.
The Michele Bachman History Channel Presents: The Founding Fathers
Michele Bachman recently made a few interesting historical claims and now she’s got her own network.
http://teamcoco.com/video/michele-bachman-history-channel
Apparently Michele Bachmann isn’t the only one who makes gaffes. She just doesn’t get cover from the mainstream press.
Mainstream media covers up horrifying Obama mistake
Washington Examiner, June 28, 2011
By Michael Barone
No one in mainstream media seems inclined to mention Barack Obama’s horrifying mistake last Thursday when, speaking at Fort Drum, he said that SFC Jared Monti was “the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.” Alas, he was mistaken. He awarded the Medal of Honor to Jared Monti posthumously in 2009 and awarded the Medal of Honor in person to SSG Sal Giunta in person in 2011. Obama later apologized for this mistake, but it’s really dismaying that a president who spoke movingly and even eloquently in awarding the Medal of Honor made a mistake of this magnitude.
“It shouldn’t take a teleprompter for the C-in-C to get it right,” writes military blogger Black Five. It’s interesting that mainstream media journalists who are so eager to zing Michele Bachmann for getting John Wayne’s birthplace wrong, have not been interested in asking whether this was a mistake Obama made in ad libbing or whether the White House speechwriters and fact-checkers fell down on the job. You might think that their chief motive is to make Obama look good and to suppress facts that make him look bad.
Mike Appleton: “It is for that reason that my exercise of the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not subject to the will of the voters.”
Mike,
Rights confer power; not vice versa. The constitution confers no rights whatsoever.
The right to ‘privacy’ is more like a stick in the bundle of rights known as self-ownership. As a rule of construction, the ninth amendment reminds us that it holds paramount.
That didn’t take long.
We’ve already lost civility and I haven’t finished my first cup of coffee yet.