Last month, in a plea against the confirmation of Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese claimed that a glance at then-Judge’s “resume reads like an anti-gay textbook.” Actually, a glance at his resume reveals anything but. Solmonese had acknowledged as much in a November 2, 2005 press release (currently not accessible on HRC’s web-site) when he called it a “hopeful sign” that, according to the Boston Globe, the man who now sits on the Supreme Court, in 1971, “chaired a task force that recommended decriminalizing sodomy and saying discrimination against gays in hiring ‘should be forbidden.'” In November, Solmonese wisely noted that there “were very few people standing up for gay Americans 34 years ago.”
Yet, despite Alito’s early advocacy for gay rights, Solmonese twisted what The Malcontent‘s Robbie described as Alito’s “mixed record on gay rights” into a textbook portrait of an anti-gay bigot. And he wasn’t the only gay leader to do so. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) Executive Director Matt Foreman called Alito’s appointment “dangerous” as his confirmation represented “a devastating blow to individual rights, civil liberties and equal justice under law in America.” Like HRC, NGLTF seems concerned that Alito’s appointment threatens the future of Roe v. Wade, the “landmark” 1973 U.S. Supreme Court preventing states from outlawing abortion which seems to be a sacred text to those on the left, including gay organizations. Indeed, the first issue the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) mentioned in its last-minute plea to block Alito’s confirmation was their claim that this good man “opposes reproductive freedom and will use his position on the court to undermine this fundamental right.”
While based on his confirmation hearings, it’s fair to draw the conclusion that now as a Supreme Court Justice, Alito would vote to overturn that sacred liberal decision, the gay groups twisted his decisions on issues affecting gays out of context so they could claim he’s anti-gay. As The Malcontent‘s Robbie put it:
There is no substantial, objective basis for gay rights groups and others to charge Justice Alito with homophobia or any other anti-gay attitudes. Instead, they must resort to cherry-picking cases in order to provide cover for their blatant Democratic partisanship.
Exactly. Gay groups opposing Alito have shown themselves more interested in carrying water for the Democrats than in serving the gay community. Since gay groups first announced their opposition to Alito’s confirmation, they have behaved as “the gay and lesbian adjuncts of a much broader left-wing movement”
Standing united with other left-wing groups in opposing this good man, they presented a dishonest portrait of the newest Justice, particularly related to his positions on gay issues. And in failing to tell the truth about this good man, they have failed the gay community. Many gay men and lesbians look up to these groups for information and advocacy on issues of concern to gay people. Instead of defining Alito as a man with, at worst, a mixed record on gay issues — and no identifiable anti-gay animus — they call him a textbook case of bigotry.
So focused were they on abortion rights, that they failed to consider the significance of the example he gave in his confirmation hearings of when he ruled for the little guy. He told of a high school kid who had been bullied because his peers believed him to be gay. This good man voted to overrule the school board’s decision preventing him from transferring to another school. It’s telling that the one example he would offer of his standing up for the little guy is a case where his ruling showed compassion for the kind of harassment many of us experienced in middle and high school.
Michael Adams, director of education and public policy for Lambda Legal, however, said he found “nothing in the hearings that allayed the serious concerns we had. . . . They confirmed our suspicions and concerns. . . . [particularly his] continued refusal to recognize Roe vs. Wade as settled law.” In his confirmation hearings, Alito speaks of the compassion he showed for a boy harassed because he might be gay and a spokesman for a gay legal group finds nothing is more concerned that once on the Supreme Court, the man would overturn Roe.
Given that I was working on papers the week of the confirmation hearings, I did not follow them as closely as I would have liked. When I finished my papers, I did read a number of articles, press releases and blogs on the hearings (and the judge’s record). I read conservative sources as well as MSM ones. And a good number of articles on non-conservative gay web-sites. From everything I read, I could find no evidence to back up the charge that Judge Alito is anti-gay. Yes, some bring up the Saxe decision, but he made clear in the hearings that he struck down the anti-bullying law (at issue in that case) not because of its gay component but because it was too broad to pass constitutional muster.
As I read about these hearings and his record, I discovered a man who was neither pro-gay nor anti-gay. In the few minutes of the hearings I saw him while harangued by Senator Kennedy and lectured by Senator Schumer, maintaining his composure, manifesting a truly judicial demeanor. It seems that such a man will adjudicate cases fairly, not biased towards a litigant because he happens to be gay or opposed to her because of her sexuality. He would, as he did in the case of that bullied young man, look at the facts of the case and apply the law appropriately.
I disagree with Log Cabin’s decision not to endorse Alito’s confirmation. I do think, however, that, after the hearings were concluded, the group’s president, Patrick Guerriero, did make an interesting observation, saying that his group lacked “clarity” on how Alito would “rule on matters impacting gay and lesbian Americans.” Far from Justice Alito’s resume being an “anti-gay textbook” as HRC’s Solmonese would have it, it is instead an open book on gay issues.
By putting forward an image of an anti-gay jurist, gay groups ignored the pro-gay statements that Justice Alito made before his confirmation and failed to address his opinions on issues concerning gay and lesbian officials in context. As leaders of our community, they owe it to us to paint an accurate picture of all nominees to such important offices. But, despite finding no evidence of anti-gay animus in any of Alito’s statements or decisions, they created a false impression of this good man. More concerned to side with other left-wing groups on the issue of the president’s Supreme Court nominees, these groups failed the gay and lesbian community they ostensibly serve.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
So, we’ve dropped “liberal” in favor of “left-wing.” Did either of you guys ever take a critical thinking course in college? Do you know what an “ad hominem” fallacy is? I ask, because you repeatedly do it.
I thought the “gay” opposition to Alito silly. There was no evidence, for or con, what Alito thought of GLBT issues.
I opposed the nomination on simpler grounds; he doesn’t subscribe to democratic self-government with republican virtue. Case after case shows Alito to be a BIG supporter of BIG government and BIG business but NEVER for the little guy (the one queer excepted). For some of us GLBTs, it’s not just one’s position on GLBT issues that are troubling, it’s whether one is in sync with the Founders’ Vision or subscribe to some nuance. Alito is in the “BIG BOY” tent. Surprise?
I just don’t happen to like a judge who almost always sides with BIG government and BIG business to the EXCLUSION of the little guy. Call me “left-wing” if you like, but I really do support the Founders’ ideal of SMALL government and SMALL businesses that INCLUDE the little guy. If that’s “leftist,” color me so.
At one time, my ideals were Republican ideals. Remember Goldwater? But our current government is the antithesis of anything Goldwater stood for, and he said as much. Goldwater held H.W. in contempt; I think Goldwater would bolt the Republican party under GWB. NOTHING about GWB is “small,” save his one “member,” which is why he’s so often “cocky.” But GWB isn’t just arrogant, he’s either stupid, or he’s in it for the “attention,” (see, pa, I made it after all).
There WAS a time when capitalism REALLY meant marketplace dynamics. BIG corporations did NOT have to have full time lobbyists pleading for corporate welfare and tax breaks. It was the LIBERALS back then that made “work fare,” a program of putting people back to work so that they could earn a living.
TODAY, screw WORK. Let’s give them execs tax breaks! Let’s give ’em control. If one can’t make it TODAY’S world, we’ll give it to the Indians and Koreans. They’ll work for $20/day, easily. The communist Chinese at 1/3 that. All we Republicans have to do is reduce trade barriers, so that the unskilled, and in many cases slave labor, can “out produce” Americans. And after paying off the lobbyists, we can pocket the difference.
THAT’S today’s Republican party. Oh, and they’re homophobes and anti-consensualists. After all, what DO the Democrats have to offer? They’d probably bail out New Orleans, but we Republicans will bail out the insurance-pharmaceutical, oil, polluters, and anti-OSHA cartels. Today’s Republicans are BIG on everything EXCEPT the “little” things that count.
NOT that the Democrats have a better vision. They’re the three blind mice. Or the monkeys who “hear, see, and do no evil?” Who knows with them? I’m amazed that the wickedest president in decades does NOT have an opposition. We can all hide our faces and say “NO,” but what would YOU do differently? The opposition is silent. Yes, Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore are a farce; but what do you call the “Republican team?”
Frankly, though, I never thought the Democrats had a “better idea” (to steal a bankrupt Ford expression). But then, I NEVER thought the Republicans would be so corrupt, anti-capitalist, and grandiose spenders. Corporate welfare, unintellegent science, and anti-gay sloganeering? What, the Republicans?
At ONE time, the Republicans were the minority party of principle. Under GWB’s lack of Republican leadership, they’re all lemmings. With GWB, they’re just plain STUPID. No wonder Amerika has become “get what you can while you can get away with it.” For the first time in my life, the opposition, whatever IT IS, is greatly appealing. As long as it’s NOT GWB.
Even though I can’t understand the Left’s agenda, at least it’s more “user-friendly” than the Republicans. No wonder democracy has reached its highest level of discontent.
You know, when same-sex marriage and full equality for LGBT people in this country is finally won, it’s almost certainly going to be because of groups like the ones you mention here. They are not trying to win equality just for gays who happen to be Democrats. You are going to owe your liberty to them. Without them, there would not currently be any such thing as a civil union or domestic partnership or insurance benefits for domestic partners or adoption rights for unmarried couples or inclusion of people living with HIV in the ADA, etc. Justice Scalia thought it was fine and dandy for you to be arrested in the privacy of your own home while you were having consensual sex, and he is the standard by which the GOP measures its judicial nominees. And you know who is fighting tooth and nail in opposition to prevent you from having full equality? George W. Bush and his supporters.
#1 Stephen — February 3, 2006 @ 11:01 pm – February 3, 2006
I’m only going to respond to a couple of points that you made, and I’m not going to copy the text of the points.
One, you seem to complain that Alito almost always sides with big government and business to the exclusion of the little guy. I haven’t followed many of his cases, but it seems to me that what he is doing is applying policy decisions expresssed in legislation and regulations enacted by the political branches. I downloaded and read his opinion in the Shore School District case, after it was cited on the IndeGayForum blog. I found the opinion in the case to be a rather straightforward application of statutory provisions and regulations. Not exciting. But he found in favor of the gay kid who wanted to be transferred to another school district because he was being tormented at the school in the Shore School District that he would have been assigned to. The opinion can be found by clicking around through http://www.findlaw.com
It was not Alito’s job to substitute the political branches’ policy determinations for his own. Unless, of course he finds that the political branches have overstepped their bounds–that is, are unconstitutional.
I was a bit disturbed by his constitutional determination in the Saxe case. I’ve discussed the reasons for that elsewhere and unless someone wants to pick up on that, I’ll let it lie.
The second point is in defense of lobbying. Not what lobbyists appear to have become–little more than retirees from congress and former congressional staffers. Lobbyists could inform congress of problems besetting the particular industries that they represent. Congresspersons and their staffs aren’t necessarily specialists in every field, and need information that they don’t necessarily have, in order to legislate. Given the obvious graft and corruption in modern-day lobbying, it’s doubtful that much of that is taking place, however.
Stephen. This is the fourth time I’ve come across your insistence the GP’s need to take a critical thinking coarse in college. I get the feeling you are in one now, not from your demonstration of said logic, of which there is none, but by the fact you keep bringing it up. It reminds me of students when they take psych in college, and when ever they learn of a new psychological malady, they ask themselves; “Do I have That???”. Maybe you should take a legal theory class next semester to gain at last a minimal understanding of law and law theory. Jurisprudence is not the simple minded pursuit of agendas you appear to think it is.
#1
Thanks. You can come up from Kennedy’s lap for air now.
Stephen, unless you start referencing arguments I make in my posts, I will see your comments, borrowing your reasoning in a comment to one of my prior posts, as affirming the truth of my ideas since you don’t take the time to rebut them – or even acknowledge them for that matter.
Andy, in #2, I owe nothing to these gay groups because their own rhetoric has don’t little to promote a better image of gays in America. And no, I won’t owe my liberty to them. Come to think of, they don’t talk much of liberty, so focused are they on the elusive goal of equality.
And sonicfrog, don’t you find it ironic that Stephen keeps insisting I take a critical thinking course while he just rambles on and on and on without addressing any of the points I’ve raised. Seems like he’s the one unable to think critically.
#2
If we owe our liberty to these ass clowns, it won’t be for anything they’ve done lately and that’s for damn sure. I don’t think groups pushing abortion and liberal propaganda are gonna get us anywhere.
Further, I have more faith in Bush than Foreman or Solmonese in achieving gay rights.
their own rhetoric has don’t little to promote a better image of gays in America Okay, I repeat: “Without them, there would not currently be any such thing as a civil union or domestic partnership or insurance benefits for domestic partners or adoption rights for unmarried couples or inclusion of people living with HIV in the ADA, etc. ” The Republican party did not do this for you. The “image” of gays in America? Do you need civil rights or a PR agency? And forgive me, since apparently I’m just an ignorant slut, but honestly, what is the difference in your mind between liberty and equality? How do you have one without the other?
Do gay groups ever do anything you guys agree with? A lot of time is spent on this site attacking just about anything any of the major gay organizations do. You guys seem to expect that these folks are going to apologize to conservative gays/lesbians; ain’t gonna happen. One of the strengths about the various minority causes in this country is the fact they have joined together to point out that any kind of discrimination is bad. While nothing is perfect and I don’t always agree (ie I could just gag any time I see Al Sharpton), overall it works pretty well.
The only time you see Republicans working with minorities these days is when it serves them to pander to get votes. Take a look at hispanics….now that they are a growing minority, the Republicans do whatever they can to get votes. Love it when GWB trots out his cute little nephew who talks about his hispanic heritage. The funny thing is, when you talk to people who know him (or any hispanic in the Bush family) they’ll readily tell you that these women married rich white guys to get away from their hispanic roots. Also, look at the political damage that’s being waged against everyone in this country because of the alignment with ultra-conservative “chirstians”.
As for Alito: It’s true, there not much there as far as gay issues. The main problem people have with him is that his history and writings didn’t seem to synch up with the answers he gave the Senate committee. His history shows that he has a mostly conservative agenda, which could be trouble when it comes to making rulings based on law.
LOL….oh Andy, you make this easy, much too easy.
Do you know what these gay groups support? State constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, civil unions, and any form of partnership, just like Missouri’s.
Do you know what they do for that? Feed it millions of dollars and call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
And as for you liberal gays supposedly opposing the FMA? Not if the person supporting it is pro-abortion.
So much rhetoric you fling, Andy, and then you run like a coward when your ass is beaten. I notice you haven’t deigned to respond yesterday when I pointed out that your hatemongering screeds about how Republicans would never support or allow hate-crimes protections, backed by your reeling off a list of states, was neatly deflated when I reeled off my own list of states, Texas and Kansas included, in which Republicans emphatically dominate and which weren’t on your list.
You expect us to believe that these groups are “fighting for our rights”?
These whores support taking rights away and call it pro-gay and gay-supportive. They send their own employees to work with people like Mike Rogers who harass gays who disagree with them and try to get these gays fired. They align gays with terrorist supporters and social moonbats.
And you WONDER why you keep losing. Unfortunately, those of us who haven’t been brainwashed to the extent that you have to clap and cheer when Democrats strip gays of rights or when gay rights are used as an excuse to commit infanticide have to ride this down with you. As a result, we’re bent on showing the world what hypocrites you are.
GPW noted:
“don’t you find it ironic that Stephen keeps insisting I take a critical thinking course while he just rambles on and on and on without addressing any of the points I’ve raised.”
Hell, he doesn’t address the points HE raises. He seems to have better command of the CAPLOCKS than he does of logic 🙂
(That may be the snarkiest thing I’ve ever written)
GPW: Do you READ my posts. What about my comments concerning Alito didn’t respond to your comments? I agreed with you, in case you hadn’t noticed, that Alito’s disqualification had NOTHING to do with his solitary ruling in one GLBT-related case. Using the mantra that one isn’t replying to another’s comments is another fallacy, that of question-begging.
Sonicfrog: When the same individual or people use the same ad hominem fallacy over and over again, it’s tiresome, juvenile, and needs to be addressed. Ad hominems are proof that there’s no “argument,” just name-calling. Anyone can call somebody a “liberal” or “fag,” but what does that mean, let alone accomplish? Instead of having the SAME fallacy repeated over and over again, let’s have CLAIMS sans ad hominems with substantive support, pro or con, but substantive; not perjorative remarks.
Paul Varnell’s article “Neither Conservative or Liberal” on IGF helps explain why such labels are largely misleading, if not irrelevant. For example, what about GWB is conservative? Nothing. For another example: A classical liberal (often libertarian) often has nothing in common with a welfarist liberal. What does the “Left” refer to? Calarato, I believe, gives a great example of conflating fascism with communism as both examples of the “Left.” Where’s he been? Anyone knows fascism is a facet of the Right, while neo-Marxism is different from “liberalism,” such that, the former is definitely “Left” but not always the latter. Generally, liberalism maintains that its NOT the duty of the State to enforce one kind of “good life” over another. Rather, the State must remain neutral to competing concepts of what is good. But even with “pristine” definitions, many people are not so easily pigeoned-holed. Another good example is what does the “conservatism” of GWB have to do with the “conservatism” of Barry Goldwater? Nada. That Andrew Sullivan, Paul Varnell, Dale Carpenter, Jonathan Rauch, and others repeatedly illustrate this “disconnect” is evidence that thinking people use the appellations “conservative” and “liberal” in strikingly different ways. This much is clear: GP does NOT use “conservatism” in the traditional sense as articulated by Burke, Oakshott, Hayek, and others, but in the perverted sense as inarticulated by GWB and the current crop of Republicans.
I realize that this blog largely sings to the choir. It’s a chance for a few people to find solidarity and association through their mutual admiration of GWB. Useful blogs also have the opportunity to “discuss” issues, rather than resort to fallacy after fallacy. Nobody is “forcing” anyone to evaluate the premises and conclusions that SHOULD BE made, but doing so would elevate the blog from a bunch of discontent reactionaries to a higher probability of discussing issues from a REAL conservative point of view. In this critical sense, GP is an apologist for GWB and the Republicans, which should by now be apparent, is NOT a conservative politician(s).
Finally, several people on this blog endorse the socially conservative agenda of the Right. But impossibly, they claim they want gay equality too. So they’ve taken the untenable position of accepting two polarities as mutually consistent, when they are diametrically opposed. Nice work, if you can get it, but one can’t. If the socially-conservative agenda had for its reference point, say Aristotleanism, and its virtue ethics, then rapproachment might indeed be possible. I’m convinced that virtue ethics is compatible with being homosexual and vice versa.
But that’s definitely NOT the case today. Rather the socially-conservative agenda has the Bible for its reference point, and the evangelical, fundamentalist, and literalist biblicalists as its raving fanatics for its advocates. Besides being a perversion of Christianity, its simplistic biblioidolatry causes THAT kind of social conservatism and gay equality to be a religious impasse. Now that THIS puts the State in the position of enforcing religious morality rather than a merely an exponent of a formal secular ethic makes social conservatism and homosexuality perpetually at odds. That many on this blog don’t acknowledge this impasse is itself incredulous. Religion and democratic self-government are contrarieties, which bloggers can’t or don’t see, and is often the source of so much derogatory comment. Again, it’s a basic logical relation: A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time. Furthermore, it’s one of the primary reasons many of us don’t mind religion in the public square, we just don’t want it in the political sphere. But today’s social conservatives breach the separation the Founders initiated, and many social conservatives want 318 biblical laws incorporated into American jurisprudence. That your bloggers don’t see an inherent problem, let alone danger, in such an approach is mindblowing.
So, for the sake of coherency and consistency and as a principle of charity, it would be helpful to refrain from assigning perjorative ad hominems for people whose views you reject. For the same reason, reciting mantras may give one a religious experience, but it doesn’t allow others to learn from others’ experience. If you insist on being an apologist for GWB, fine, but just don’t cause the rest of us to laugh at the notion he is a “conservative.” He’s nothing of the sort. Finally, I can and do subscribe to a “social ethic” based on Aristotlean principles that is both “conservative” and secular, realizing that the socially-conservative agenda of the religious right has little in common with the secular conception.
The reason is, Stephen, is because we live in the reality-based world, not in yours, where everything is predicated upon the rationalization of your irrational hatreds.
You see, Sonicfrog reads posts, like mine, in which someone actually puts the effort into refuting you, with links, and notes that rarely does anything happen.
On occasion, you do write decent posts, Stephen. But more often than not, they degenerate into ad hominem attacks against Bush and everyone else based on falsehoods.
Stephen, it seems you are just looking for a forum where you can express your anti-Bush views. I’m not going to take the time to address your screed when you don’t take the time to consider the posts to which you attach them. I put time, effort — and a good deal of thought — into posts such as this one. And while I welcome discussion — and debate — of the points I raised, I wonder at those who feel compelled to use the space we provide for those endeavors to rant on and on (and on) about how much they hate the president and those who, like us, from time to time, defend him.
#0 – The basic problem I see here is cheapening of the language.
It’s a gigantic problem of many Left-liberals. By the time they are done calling Alito “anti-gay”, what will they do when a true anti-gay comes along? By the time they are done calling a freedom-loving, sincere and law-abiding American President “a Nazi”, what words will remain, with which to describe and denounce real fascism?
And there we have, in one statement, the inability of liberals to comprehend the Constitution and the roles of the three branches of government.
It is not the duty of a judge to push an agenda or find for the “little guy” and against business. It is not the duty of a judge to expand or constrict rights. The only duty of a judge is to interpret the law — not make it, or pervert it in order to find for the “little guy.”
I haven’t run like a coward. The truth is — though I don’t know why I bother writing it since I’m certain you won’t belive me — is that I’m busy enough doing other things that I don’t have time to keep trolling back through old posts and endless commentary. I prefer to move on to the new posts.
You, frankly, are the one who doesn’t respond to my statements. You won’t answer the question: where would you be without these groups? Seriously, Scalia thinks private consensual sex between adults is something that can be illegal, and George Bush supports that. George Bush opposes your right to serve openly in the military. Yes, fine, there are some “red” states that include sexual orientation within their hate crime statutes; but there are no “blue” states that don’t.
Yes, the Democratic leadership is useless when it comes to gay rights. But at least they are not doing harm. I would rather support a party that is impotent as opposed to one that is openly hostile to me. Can you show me a liberal organization that is anti-gay? On the contrary, the conservative activist organizations all accuse the DNC of being pro gay-marriage, yet you consistently (and accurately) point out that Kerry, Dean et al don’t support marriage equality. (And if you read any gay liberal blogs, you’d see we all despised Kerry for that stance.) Why don’t you call your own party leaders on that lie? Huh? Can you show me a recent piece of anti-gay legislation that was written by a Democrat? No. It’s exclusively the Republicans who campaign on anti-gay, fear-mongering rhetoric.
Honestly, I can understand being gay and being conservative. Really, I do. What I don’t understand is how you can possibly claim that the present Republican leadership is more tolerant on gay issues than the Democrats. Show me a prominent Republican who is pro-gay. Christie Whitman? Rudy Giuliani? Are these the people calling the shots in the party? Nope.
Seriously, Scalia thinks private consensual sex between adults is something that can be illegal, and George Bush supports that.
Let’s see, “private consensual sex between adults” — that includes incest AND polygamy.
Do you support legalizing both of those too, Andy, or are you now going to hypocritically spin that states should be allowed to regulate THAT kind of sex, but not others?
Yes, the Democratic leadership is useless when it comes to gay rights. But at least they are not doing harm.
Read that again, folks. Andy clearly says that this is not doing harm to gays. That’s right, supporting, promoting, and saying you would vote for constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights is not doing harm to gays. Opposing gay equality, as Howard Dean does, is not doing harm to gays. And doing so on the campaign trail, as both of them were and are doing, is not campaigning on “antigay, fear-mongering rhetoric”, because exclusively Republicans, as Andy says, do that — not Democrats.
Then let’s jump to your last attempt here:
What I don’t understand is how you can possibly claim that the present Republican leadership is more tolerant on gay issues than the Democrats. Show me a prominent Republican who is pro-gay.
Given that your definition of “pro-gay” includes people who oppose gay rights and equality and support laws and amendments to ban them, Andy, who isn’t?
Meanwhile:
On the contrary, the conservative activist organizations all accuse the DNC of being pro gay-marriage, yet you consistently (and accurately) point out that Kerry, Dean et al don’t support marriage equality. Why don’t you call your own party leaders on that lie? Huh?
That is because HRC, NGLTF, and liberal gays say that they are, Andy. The conservative organizations are listening to you and repeating what you say. If you want to admit that you, HRC, NGLTF, and all the other groups are lying when you claim that the DNC supports gays, THEN you can say the conservative groups are lying.
Then finally, my favorite:
(And if you read any gay liberal blogs, you’d see we all despised Kerry for that stance.)
Right. And that is Cher’s natural hair color. I find it hard to believe that you can despise a man for doing something which you yourself claim is “not doing harm”.
I’m guessing that “ad hominem” came up this week on Stephen’s ‘Word-A-Day’ calendar. He’s been tossing it into pretty much every comment lately… which is comical coming from a guy who constantly refers to Republicans as “theocrats.”
And don’t forget, any time you correctly label one of Stephen’s arguments or observable tendencies for what it is, you must be engaging in “ad hominem”.
We are obligated to stretch/distort the meaning of the term beyond recognition, so that Stephen can invoke it whenever and wherever it pleases him to escape a certain counter-point or argument in that way.
A few miscellaneous comments.
Regarding Stephen’s (apparently) continual complaint about how often “leftist” and “liberal” are tossed out around here, on the basis that it is merely ad hominem, he really should chill out. I’ve commented on a number of conservative boards over the last ten years, and I’ve come to the conclusion that conservative posters and commenters merely use the terms as epithets synonymous to “I don’t like.” They are virtually nothing more than noise words, and I pretty much ignore them. Stephen should, too.
Regarding gay groups, I don’t believe that the national groups such as HRC and NGLTF have done much to advance equal rights for gay people (in that I include lesbians, of course), and the primary reason that I pretty much ignore them is that, despite that deficiency, they are branching out into supporting other causes. Some state and regional groups, such as some in the New England area, NY, NJ and California, and most recently Washington state, have achieved some modicum of equality for gay people in some areas, and I would support the groups here in New England.
Regarding gay Democrat groups, there is a group in Boston. (I forget its name–I live in a suburb.) They provide endorsements to gay candidates running in the Democratic party’s promary. About a decade ago, they published an article in Baywindows, the local gay paper in which they actually wrote that issues like (i) abortion was a gay issue, because some gay people might want to have an abortion, (ii) welfare was a gay issue, because some gay people someday might need to go on welfare, (iii) affordable housing was a gay issue, because some gay people might need affordable housing to live in Boston (“affordable housing” is a defined term here in MA), etc., etc., etc., and they rambled on for some twelve issues. It was hilarious.
Regarding labels, IndeGayForum used to have a pretty active message board. They took it down about five or six years ago, but before they did, self-described libertarian Justin Raimondo, currently of AntiWar.com fame, came to the board and asked us to critique a draft of an article that he had written to be published by the American Enterprise Institute. I did an Internet search and read some of his other writings, and was amazed that he considered himself a libertarian. As the discussion continued, he claimed to be a Murray Rothbard “Natural Law” libertarian (“Right libertarian” as he called it), whereas the Libertarian Party was what he called “Left libertarian”). “Natural Law” is, of course, a religious concept. Raimondo’s draft AEI paper included a diatribe against gay marriage, and, as the IndeGayForum discussion further continued, he used the Natural Law nuttiness to claim that gays should not have the right to marry (members of the same sex) because it is not in their “nature” to marry, or to want to marry. The discussion continued further and the conclusion became hilarious.
Libertarians aren’t going anywhere politically anytime soon for a number of reasons, but one of them is because not enough of them cannot agree what libertarianism is. And more than a few of them have allied themselves with the Republican party. A few months ago, Cathy Young, of the self-described libertarian Reason Magazine published a column in the Boston Globe trying to justify that alliance, despite the party’s allowing the conservative christian tail wagging the dog, but it made no sense.
Stephen said:
“Sonicfrog: When the same individual or people use the same ad hominem fallacy over and over again, it’s tiresome, juvenile, and needs to be addressed.”
Yes. many here, as on liberal blogs, swim in ad hominens. That happens on the majority of blogs that tackle thorny issues. But spending your whole comment trying to point that out does nothing to bolster your argument against Alito. It’s the same technique by many radio / TV hosts AND their guests. They spend about thirty seconds talking about the actual issue, then spend the rest of the five minute interview accusing each other of ad-hominem attacks. It’s great theater for the base, I guess, but it does nothing to inform the general audience. Your first comment is a perfect example.
_____________________
“I just don’t happen to like a judge who almost always sides with BIG government and BIG business to the EXCLUSION of the little guy.”
There are alot of things wrong with your long post, but I’ll focus briefly on this statement. If you were a student of logic, you would immediately recognise the problem of this statement. It is an “Argument By Laziness” on two levels:
A) You have neither read or studied the entire history of Alito’s decisions and the legal reasoning behind them.
B) You don’t seem to understand the nature of jurisprudence.
Unless you’re holing back on us, there is nothing in this post or others concerning Alito that indicates otherwise. Instead, you rely on the talking points presented by biased groups who site only a handfull of cases out of thousands to try and build an arguement. If you respond to this post by explaining your beef against Alito with specific decisions and real legal case analisys that is not cut-and-paste from a lefty law blog, well, then I will have been proven wrong. If not, case dismissed.
Ooops. acidently posted before spell check. So if if anything is misspelled, don’t bother harping on it.
NDT: ““private consensual sex between adults” — that includes incest AND polygamy.” GIVE me a break. Try: private consensual sex between heterosexuals — that includes incest. It’s what people using logic call a non-sequituir. And you’re full of them.
It seems to me that the incest and polygamy issues are completely different.
Polygamy is a legal relationship recognized by the state. After the Congress passed a statute outlawing polygamy in the Utah Territory (Congress has plenary power in the territories), a Morman brought a case claiming inter alia that the statute was unconstitutional because it infringed his right to freely exercise his religion. The case went up to the US SupCt as Reynolds vs. US. The court handed down an opinion in 1879. The text is available on the internet, but it is difficult to find. The court held two things. One, that the free exercise clause gave him the right to hold to his beliefs, but not necessarily to act on his beliefs.
More important on the issue of polygamy, in an analysis that was somewhat similar to the analysis that subsequently developed under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause, the court, based on sociological evidence, held that the Congress had a rational basis for passing a law outlawing polygamy. The 14th amendment of course did not apply to the Utah Territory at the time, because the 14th amendment applies to the states, not to the territories.
Unlike polygamy, incest per se is not a legal relationship. If consenting adults wish to engage in an incestuous relationship, it is highly unlikely that the state would find out about it. If one of the parties to the relationship objects and makes his or her way to the police, that could be prosecuted as a sexual assault and/or battery–among other things.
More than a few states have laws forbidding relatives with a particular degree of consanguinity to marry. If two persons within that degree of consanguinity wish to marry, they can do what the same-sex couples in Massachusetts did. Bring an action against the state, and make a case that the state is discriminating against them. Under 14th amendment equal protection jurisprudence, the burden then shifts to the state that it has at least a rational basis for the discrimination. If the state can make a persuasive rational basis, the couple will lose, but if it can’t make a persuasive rational basis, the couple will win. (I’m using the minimal “rational basis” standard; there are other stricter standards.) That is what happened in the Massachusetts same sex marriage case–the state was unable to even make a provide a persuasive rational basis for the discrimination, and the state lost.
I suspect that people promoting polygamy will have a difficult row to hoe in the US SupCt in view of the decision in the earlier Reynolds case.
18: I love the response to private sexual conduct. You use the exact same anti-gay rehetoric that homophobes use….Are you really gay? usually supportive gay people don’t equate privacy for gays with polygamy and incest.
It’s no wonder gay republicans get a bad rap – responses like this are full of self-loathing that attacks other gays because you are more than happy to attack even a protion of your own identity so you can be a good little conservative and not piss off the straight conservatives.
Andy: Why is it that you make sense? Because, I suspect, you know that both A and not-A cannot be true at the same time. It’s known as the principle of non-contradiction, the preeminent rule of all logical reasoning in all societies since 500 BCE.
Your observation that ALL anti-gay momentum and effort in this country is initiated solely by the GOP should not be a revelation. Nor should it be odd that anyone who despises another person’s core being enough to legislate against it is pretty damn hostile to you. In law, they call it prima facie – translated: self-evident. I really agree with you that one can be a conservative and gay. According to one “outspoken” conservative by the name of Barry Goldwater; leave the gays alone. And today’s market has plenty of gay conservatives: Andrew Sullivan, Dale Carpenter, Paul Varnell, etc., etc.
What’s uniquely different about THIS blog and them is that many of the bloggers are willing to subordinate their core personhood to some political/theological ideal that isn’t even conservative. GWB and the current Republican agenda is so unlike anything that has preceded it in history. It’s definitely not conservative, but then again it’s definitely not liberal. So that may explain why many people use the appellation of “fascist,” especially in light of GWB’s unitary presidency. Anytime a leader insists he is above the law, fascism is a natural inference. Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, etc. had that one similar quality; they all thought they could govern alone. GWB seems to share that view, so the identification of GWB as a fascist may not be far off. But whatever he is, he is neither a Madisonian Republican or a Jeffersonian Democrat.
It’s no different than the gay Marxists I’ve encountered. Most Marxist societies have become fascist, or at the very least autocratic. Talk about a political ideology universally hostile to any and all things gay. It’s damn freightening! And one could tell Marxists’ discomfort, when this objection is raised, for tis universally true that communists are egregiously totalitarain and anti-gay. Alas, though, some people just don’t see the parallel between communism and its homophobia and social conservatives and their homophobia, even though the parallels could not be more obvious. Both are the very antithesis of a liberal democratic society, and both are hostile to all things GLBT.
You and “raj” make an unwittingly interesting observation. At least the Democrats are not aggressively persecuting GLBTs. Republicans, and only Republicans, are (is we exclude the Nazis and anti-Semites). The one and only political party that actually supports gay equality is the Libertarians. And they’ve done so consistently since their founding in 1972. Now, it’s interesting that this political party has many “conservative” features to it, although it uses the “liberal” appellation as it is historically derived, not as GHWB misconstrued it. Plus, this is the one party that extols gay equality. But this party of real principal, as raj notes, isn’t going anywhere. And I fully agree. Liberalism extended to the degree that Libertarians want to take it is simply not feasible in modern society, especially to some of its economic extremes. But no political party comes closer to the Founders than Libertarians, unless you accept the premises of the Democrat’s concept of “liberalism” as in “Jeffersonism” vs “Madisonism.”
Now, Andy, I know you already have done this, and so have I. Our first impulse is to gravitate towards that effect of least resistance. If that really were true, all GLBT would be libertarians, but they’re not. Our second impulse would be to accept compromise; no hostility, maybe support, but overall neutrality. So I understand why most GLBT are Democrats. They may not be “for” us, but they’re definitely not “against” us (Gov. Kaine, excepted). Then there are the Republicans, like myself, that really would like to see Madisonian democratic self-government with minority protections as the bastion of society. But a “queer” species of Republicanism has recently evolved. At its core it is hostile to the liberal conception of government being neutral to whatever one perceives to be the common good. Instead of that historical paradigm, it has become a government of self-righteous moralists. Many of them want to add the 318 biblical laws to the Constitution. They not only hate GLBT, but they want to punish us by denying us even minimal subsistence: wages and housing. I suspect, if they could, they’d imprison GLBT, but even though their leader GWB has done it repeatedly with other Americans, they’re not sure they can persuade the rest of Amerika to join them. They even became ballistic when the Supreme Court “allowed” private consensual sex — the thing that NDT, for example, automatically leads to polygamy.
See how they think. Even GLBT “social conservatives” buy into this kind of non-sequituir. And they, they, wonder why the rest of us look upon them as some kind of oddballs. Like you, Andy, I cannot conceive how a GLBT individual could possibly reconcile him/herself to social conservatism. How can you allow your core personhood to be abused and imprisoned for some political action? It’s the SAME question I’ve asked my gay Marxist acquaintances. How can you support your own anihilation/criminalization for some political utopia? If GLBT Marxists couldn’t answer, why is it a surprise that GLBT social conservatives can’t either?
A final observation: One of the key concepts at this country’s founding was “civic virtue.” It was the notion that all of us, no matter our country of origin or religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation or whatever, could ask of each other: At least do your civic duty. It’s a concept that floods Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and other Founders’ correspondence. No matter what our background (except blacks and women), we all shared a common interest: Freedom, equality, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. It took a civil war and another 100 years before blacks could even hope to achieve this common interest; women had to wait too. And now, it’s the GLBT. I think GLBT will attain equality, justice, and freedom, and the ability to pursue happiness according to their own dictates, but unlike Spain, Holland, Belgium, and Canada, ours will be a longer fight.
Ironically and sadly, the biggest obstacle to that achievement is GWB and the current Republicans. You’re absolutely right, Andy, it’s them and only them that’s holding us back. Perhaps even worse, many of them would remove even the basic rights we already have. I don’t know why it happened, but I do know how: Rove was able to tap into social conservatives discontent, and use its biblicalism to trump the Constitution against a harmless minority in order to “build” a coalition. I don’t know if you remember the catholicophobia around JFK. It ultimately did not work. Yet those very same people, using the Bible, have now begun a religious crusade to restore everything unto Jesus. Queers, of course, aren’t saved, so it doesn’t matter that they’re excluded from Jesus’ 1000-year reign. But their President, one of them, is sure to keep GLBT out not only of the “kingdom,” but also out of the country. If polls did not suggest otherwise, I’d say we BLGT are doomed. But social conservatives had their time, and they failed miserably. Nearly everything about their agenda, save the Supreme Court, will be reversed, when elections are next held. America, rightly, is disgusted with the lies, deceit, cronies, illegalities, corporate welfare, hostility to environmental issues, budget deficits, an illegal war, rendition, denial of habeas corpus, failure to outfit our military, incompetence, irresponsibility, etc., all in the Name of Jesus. Ultimately, we are not a Christian nation, and we’ll not be governed by a bunch of religious fanatics. We’ve seen what that has done in the middle east, and America’s experiment with “social conservatism” is nigh over. GWB no longer has any influence. The social conservatives are parsing the truth. It’s rapidly crumbling.
Someone, somewhere, will have read the Founders’ writings, will want to restore a republican democracy of self-government, and will win the affection of the voters. I hope it’s someone like Weld, Whitman, Guiliani, Feingold; but it won’t be another “social conservative.” They came, they screwed up, and they’ll leave. Maybe America will be better for it.
raj: I know you don’t understand the relationship to Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, but BOTH hinge on a notion called the “right to privacy.” It all started with a CT law banning contraceptives, the SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional, because of a right to privacy.
Now, I know you’re not aware of this, but the original Framers did not see a need to write the “right to privacy” into law, because all the Amendments point to it. And if you believe in “originalism,” then you know that the Framers presumed the right to privacy in all their Amendments. Can you think of a legal concept that is MORE basic to our Constitution than a “right to privacy?” If so, tell us.
Bizarrely, it was the Court “conservatives” that claimed that because the phrase was nowhere to be found, it did not exist. Mind you, Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist were all “originalists,” and all of them deny such a right exists. Bork’s denial of the right was his instant downfall.
Now, it is true that the phrase “right to privacy” is not in writing as such, but you’d have to be pretty otiose not to behold it in EVERY Amendment.
Personally, I oppose abortion, but that’s MY morality. The Court’s job is not to enforce anyone’s morality, but to be “neutral.” That’s the underlying principal of a “liberal democratic society.” I still oppose abortion, but I fully understand that MY morality cannot be coerced on everyone else. See, that’s where social conservatives and I disagree. They think their interpretation of the Bible is not only the right one, but that they can impose their self-righteous understanding on everyone else. That’s definitely a “social conservative” argument, but the U.S. is a “liberal” democracy, not a theocracy.
Ultimately, we agree. Abortion is NOT GLBT equality. But in ONE sense it is. If Americans do not have the right to privacy over their pregnancies, then they don’t have a right to which condom to use, or when to use other “tools” and how. So, while I personally abhor abortions, I have to admit that without Roe v. Wade there would NEVER have been Lawrence v. Texas. It’s known as “consistency.” That’s how Lawrence v. Texas prevailed. If a woman has the “right to privacy” over her pregnancy, which for most women includes a “public” spell, then GLBT have a “right to privacy” over how they use their genitilia.
You might want to take note that Rhenquist, Thomas, and Scalia, those “originalists,” dissented. To them, America is NOT a “liberal democracy,” but a religious state, aka, theocracy. That’s “social conservatism,” not “originalism.”
BTW, Roe v. Wade was a horribly-decided decision. But I’d rather they reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, than reach the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons.
NDT: You overestimate yourself. Why am I not surprised that your rhetoric mirrors GP and GPW? Maybe, because you don’t have arguments to make, like in #10 above, or simply because you make ridiculously stupid remarks, like #24? You’re quite good at ad hominems and non-sequituirs, coupled with contradictions; show us what other logical mistakes you’re good at.
(Just for my own personal interest: Are you a “born-again, ex-gay?” I only ask because you write like one. BTW, it’s okay. If you feel better, I certainly would not want to impose my beliefs on you. See, that’s how social conservatives and “liberals” differ.)
Usually supportive gay people don’t equate privacy for gays with polygamy and incest.
Actually, it is the Canadian Government that is advocating the expansion of marital rights to polygamists as the logical extension of the country’s gay marriage laws. Also, polygamists are suing for marital rights using the same-sex marriage lawsuits is examples. And, it was the same gay supportive people in the Massachussetts legislature that decided to follow up legalizing gay marriage with decriminalizing bestiality.
These are facts, these are reality, simply labeling them as “homophobia” isn’t going to make them go away.
I’d rather they reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, than reach the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons.
Yeah, screw that stupid “Government of laws not of men” idea.
#13
On occasion, you do write decent posts, Stephen.
I’ll be damned if I can find one.
Writing long, bloviating screeds with big words and stealing other’s re-definitaion of what a liberal is, just so he can comfortably hid from it, ain’t a good post.
#32
Difinition, that is.
Or definition.
D’oh!
#17
Yes, the Democratic leadership is useless when it comes to gay rights. But at least they are not doing harm.
I thought SILENCE = DEATH. Chalk up another item that doesn’t apply to the liberals.
I find it interesting that HRC is supporting anti legal abortion senate candidate, Bob Casey – and raising big money for him. So it seems that on the abortion issue, it’s only important when you are talking about Republicans.
That said, I with the Senators had asked Alito more about the separation of church and state – especially about the Creationism rulings – Edwards v Aguiliard etc.
Stephen, I’d like to exchange some thoughts with you without being interrupted by the Bill O’Reilly-type personalities who strive to dominate these comments. If interested, contact me at quarterback7fan@yahoo.com
#28 Stephen — February 4, 2006 @ 10:34 pm – February 4, 2006
raj: I know you don’t understand the relationship to Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, but BOTH hinge on a notion called the “right to privacy.”
Don’t be presumptuous. We have been discusssing the presumed relationship between RvW and LvT on the NWTimes gay rights board for some time. I pretty much reject what some people over at that board say about the presumed relationship made no sense to me, and I said so. LvT hinged not only on privacy but also on the liberty provision of the 5th amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th amendment, section 1. As far as I can tell, few if any abortions are performed in private–they are performed (if at all) in hospitals and womens’ health clinics.
I’ll let you know, as far as I’m concerned RvW has developed into pretty much a minor annoyance, and I will tell you why. Before RvW was decided in 1973, almost half of the states had repealed their anti-abortion laws, probably covering more than half of the population. The states that still criminalized abortions were listed in footnote 2 of the majority opinion, and it is notable that NY and CA are not mentioned. (NY had largely decriminalized abortions several years earlier. And St. Reagan signed a permissive abortion bill early in his governorship.) All that overturning RvW would do is return the issue to the states. Some states may recriminalize abortions; others, such as MA, CT, RI and VT, which criminalized abortions before RvW, probably would not.
Why do I believe that RvW is a minor annoyance? It is from a practical standpoint. I have seen reports over the last few years that it is virtually impossible to find doctors or other medical personnel who are willing to perform abortions for fear of being harassed by conservative christians in large parts of the country that would probably choose to re-criminalize the procedure. There was a report in the Boston Globe a few weeks ago that one of the Dakotas (I don’t remember which one) there was only one clinic in the entire state that was willing to perform abortions. One day a week. And, since they couldn’t find any of the local medical personnel who were willing to perform them, the clinic had to import the personnel from Minneapolis.
Personnally, I won’t tell you my position on abortion, because it is extremely complicated. But in my opinion if RvW is over-ruled and a state wants to re-criminalize abortion, they should do it by holding all parties to the abortion criminally responsible. Most proposals that I have seen seem to hold only the doctors criminally responsible. That is blatant hypocrisy. They should hold the women responsible, the men who impregnated them responsible, and the person who pays for the abortion responsible.
BTW, nobody that you mentioned are originalists. That has been discussed on various legal blogs. And I know that the ultimate cause of Bork’s downfall was RvW, but he had developed a good deal of animosity against him when he, at Richard Nixon’s bidding, fired Alexander Cox as special prosecutor in the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate. Since his two superiors in the Department of Justice had resigned that night instead of firing Cox, Bork showed himself to be little more than a toady.
#31 V the K — February 5, 2006 @ 12:14 am – February 5, 2006
Yeah, screw that stupid “Government of laws not of men” idea.
Have you ever been to law school? In constitutional law, we learned that the idea is really “a government of laws as applied by men.”
Government passes the laws based on findings that it wants the men to provide (I’m referring to the party controlling the committee hearings). And government applies the laws based on findings of fact that the judges want to believe (I’m referring primarily to courts, but also to regulatory agencies).
Stephen, you say almost the same thing in every thing you post here. And given what you said in a previous post, your every comment confirms what I have said in the post since you’re not challenging my ideas, obviously you’re unable to.
Eva, if it’s true that HRC is supporting Casey in Pennsylvania, then it proves they are primarilya partisan organization. And it’s a sad commentary on their decline.
#40
Stephen reminds me of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
She (Sheila & Stephen) talks a whole hell of a lot, but doesn’t actually say a damned thing.
Is it me, or is Stephen’s B.S. getting longer winded and deeper?
Have you ever been to law school?
Yes, I have. Your condescension fails to impress once again.
#43 V the K — February 5, 2006 @ 8:43 am – February 5, 2006
Condescension? How is an honest question “condescension”? I don’t know you from Adam.
I notice, though, that you did not take issue with the rest of my comment. Bumper-sticker rhetoric, such as “government of laws and not men, is not generally enlightening.
30: Thanks for blaming gays for everything. Guess it’s ok to be gay as long as you keep it secret and don’t want to enjoy the same rights everyone else has.
I notice, though, that you did not take issue with the rest of my comment.
Frankly, rag, I don’t bother with your comments because you are not worth responding to. You have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest, you assert fallacy as fact, and you argue that your stereotypes, prejudices and “suspicions” are of equal or greater merit than the objective facts and logic presented by others. Debating with you provides no enlightenment, and is therefore of no value to me. Intellectually, you are a BB gun in the presence of Howitzers.
GPW #38. For the THIRD time, there’s nothing to challenge. I AGREE with you. So I ask again, do you READ my posts? I think not.
With the TWO possible exceptions of the Log Cabin Republicans and LAMBDA, I find most GLBT groups obviously confused. Like I tried to explain to “raj,” there is an intimate correlation between Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, but he still doesn’t understand. Because of this correlation, it’s not surprising that many GLBT cite one in defense of the other. Personally, I think it’s relevant to a point, but nowhere near what HRC, PFLAG, etc. think it is.
If you’re of the mind of Judge Bork, a literalist, since the Constitution does not come out and actually say “right of privacy,” then none exists. That’s Scalia and Thomas’s view too. Senators tried to get Alito to tell us “his” view, but he simply wouldn’t. Because he wouldn’t, I would not vote to confirm him. Simple as that.
I don’t want to get involved in Constitutional Law or history, but there are several different approaches to both. I think we have a right to know how a nominee views the Constitution, without asking him to give answers to hypothetical cases. When it came to THIS question: Does the Constitution guarantee the right to privacy? Alito would not commit. As far as I am concerned, regardless of other parties, interest groups, etc., I don’t want him on the Court. If a nominee cannot or will not state that a right to privacy exists in our Constitution, which Roberts at least admitted, then I oppose the nominee.
#45
No.
It’s o.k. to be gay as long as you’re not a pain in the ass about it to the detriment of the rest of us.
Going upthread a bit:
#27 Stephen — February 4, 2006 @ 9:59 pm – February 4, 2006
In law, they call it prima facie – translated: self-evident.
Prima facie does not mean “self-evident,” at law or otherwise.
Literally translated, the Latin phrase “prima facie” is translated as “at first view.” In law, a litigant is said to have made a “prima facie” case that a fact is true if he presents evidence that is sufficient to raise an inference that the fact in question is true unless the evidence is rebutted. An illustration is given at http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm although others can be found merely by doing a search on google.com for “prima facie.”
Just a few paragraphs into #1, I noticed a very familiar style of going way off topic just a few paragraphs in to go on a generic anti-Republican, anti-GWB rant. I stopped, scrolled down, and sure enough saw exactly what I expected: another long post by Stephen repeating his response to every topic on this blog.
OK, I’m no fan of censorship, but… As long as he’s just repeating himself anyway, would it be such a horrible thing to cut out those posts… just until he actually says something new?
…sigh
Again I say “Get your own blog, Stephen!”
“Is it me, or is Stephen’s B.S. getting longer winded and deeper?” – TGC
Stephen seeks to dominate this blog by sheer volume and repetitive accusations as opposed to quality of posts. Meanwhile, he hypocritically accuses GPW of that. The hypocrisy is so overtly obvious, it would comical, if it weren’t so damned old.
#8: “And forgive me, since apparently I’m just an ignorant slut, but honestly, what is the difference in your mind between liberty and equality?”
I definately believe we have work ahead of us to get equal treatment of all citizens by the government. However, having said that, I would suggest that pure equality and pure liberty are practically antithetical goals, so it boggles the mind that anyone would say they’re the same thing.
Liberty is about being free and unimpeded from pursuing your own individuality. It’s about setting your own priorities, making your own choices, and pursuing your own goals, whatever they might be. While too much liberty can be a little scary to some people, too much equality attempts to impose a sameness across many people. Taken to the extreme, an example is communism where individual lives are governed from on high by a large and intrusive government trying to impose their sense of fairness.
That you would confuse the two is a little telling about the tyranny of the far left and how they fail to see how similar their goals are to the goals of the far right- both advocate the use of government force to impose their idea of how people should live their lives and both are, at different times and on different topics, enemies of true liberty.
#14 Michigan-Matt — February 6, 2006 @ 12:29 pm – February 6, 2006
This is a joke, right? It seems kind of silly to get bent out of shape about a silly protest march by about a thousand people in WashDC. Nobody much except them and the AP seem to have paid much attention to it. And the AP paid minimal attention to it. The beheading poster was stupid but it was also stupid to get upset over it–nobody will get close enough to GWBush to actually carry it out. But Jill Caroll, the Christian Science Monitor reporter in Iraq, has been kidnapped and the kidnappers have threatened to behead her. I guess you do not understand the metaphor with that sign.
The sign at the top of the stack is probably somewhere in the mideast (the sidewalk is dry, whereas it was obviously raining in WashDC. The sign was in English. I’m sure that more than a few people in the mideast can speak and write English, but I doubt that a young child, who is shown carrying the sign can. I would infer from that, that he was handed the sign and was told to hold it for the camera. You might ask yourself, why was the sign in English? The answer should be obvious: it was meant for European and American consumption.
You don’t have the slightest idea what my politics are, so I’m not going to go further. The “leftist” appellation–which nothing more than “I don’t like”–is somewhat silly.
48: Do you mean like, oh, say….those pesky black people who raised such a ruckus in the 50s and 60s?
Awww, cute. Now Kevin thinks he’s Rosa Parks.
And if Bareback Mountin’ doesn’t get the Oscar for best picture, that will be just like Bull Connor turning on the firehoses.
18: I love the response to private sexual conduct. You use the exact same anti-gay rehetoric that homophobes use….Are you really gay? usually supportive gay people don’t equate privacy for gays with polygamy and incest.
LOL…..I think V the K put you nicely in your place on that, Kevin. The point is simply that you liberal gays don’t think before you act. I am under no obligation to defend your stupidity because of my sexual orientation.
And as for you, Stephen, the sole reason you asked “if I was an ex-gay” is to discredit me. As I have previously shown, you certainly can’t do it with fact. Given that, I think it’s better to let you speculate and make it obvious how your arguments rely, not on fact, but on innuendo.
Meanwhile, I notice no response from Andy. Perhaps his apologists Kevin and Stephen can explain how laws stripping gays of rights “do no harm”, since they seem to agree with that statement.
And to a specific point, Stephen:
They even became ballistic when the Supreme Court “allowed” private consensual sex — the thing that NDT, for example, automatically leads to polygamy.
Hardly. What happened in Lawrence is that states were denied the fact to legislate something by a Federal court that is not a Federal power to deny. The denial was also contorted to the extreme; they argue that states have no power to regulate “private sexual conduct”, but have not struck down laws governing age of consent, multiple partners, blood relations, etc. As a result, there is now an inordinate amount of case law that has had to come into being to prevent those, which inadvertently limits gay rights as well.