Tweet
Re: Went out to protest yesterday
Let's be honest here: there's a "selective" something directed at political adversaries no matter which party is in power. Remember Clinton's FBI file gathering on political opponents? How about the selective auditing by the IRS of those who most openly and loudly criticized Clinton, remember that incident? To me both of those are far more troubling than alleged foot-dragging & selective enforcement by the FCC. If (and I stress the "if") the FCC is selectively administering the rules none of us should be taken aback because this sort of thing has existed as long as there've been differing political views.
Query: Do you believe in the 1st Amendment? If so you should favor voluntary prayer in schools. Or are the rights conferred by the 1st Amendment to be limited to some groups and denied others? I've never thought of 1st Amendment rights as something that we can selectively take away from some groups while protecting for others but I'm willing to listen to a good argument about why that should be the case. Personally I tend to think that free speech is a good thing and that if a child wants to say a prayer in school they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.
Before slamming Bush on the "gay marriage" amendment, we might want to examine the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. In case you've forgotten it's a federal law passed in 1996 (on votes of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and which was signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton) that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. That's the law in all 50 states (notwithstanding the MA S.Ct.'s attempt to override federal law), the District of Columbia, and all US territories today. Thus it's not at all accurate to describe a proposed Constitutional Amendment that does precisely the same thing as "taking rights away" because the alleged right is not part of our law today, nor has it ever been part of our law. The proposed Constitutional Amendment would do nothing more than elevate the current law to the Constitutional level. Nothing more, nothing less. The radical change to both the current and historic legal staus of marriage in this nation would be the extension of that status to same-sex couples. I'm not criticizing you at all for disagreeing with that policy, nor for disagreeing with the necessity of elevating the issue to the Constitutional level (though the Full Faith and Credit Clause does necessitate this action to preserve the rights of those states whose people do not wish to recognize gay marriage including the 11 that just passed similar referenda), but at least acknowledge that the current law of the land (and 38 states that followed Clinton's lead in the late 90s by enacting laws mirroring the Federal Defense of Marriage Act) does not favor your perspective and that thus it cannot be said that such an Amendment would "take away" rights from anyone who currently has them. Personally I believe that this is an issue best left to the states, perhaps by removing the issue from the purview of the federal judiciary. That's a far less onerous and far more reversible change than a Constitutional Amendment.
And could you please provide a reputable mainstream link that includes the quote from Bush stating that God told him to strike Saddam. I've heard that canard often but I've yet to locate a trustworthy source. TIA!
Let's be honest here: there's a "selective" something directed at political adversaries no matter which party is in power. Remember Clinton's FBI file gathering on political opponents? How about the selective auditing by the IRS of those who most openly and loudly criticized Clinton, remember that incident? To me both of those are far more troubling than alleged foot-dragging & selective enforcement by the FCC. If (and I stress the "if") the FCC is selectively administering the rules none of us should be taken aback because this sort of thing has existed as long as there've been differing political views.
Query: Do you believe in the 1st Amendment? If so you should favor voluntary prayer in schools. Or are the rights conferred by the 1st Amendment to be limited to some groups and denied others? I've never thought of 1st Amendment rights as something that we can selectively take away from some groups while protecting for others but I'm willing to listen to a good argument about why that should be the case. Personally I tend to think that free speech is a good thing and that if a child wants to say a prayer in school they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.
Before slamming Bush on the "gay marriage" amendment, we might want to examine the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. In case you've forgotten it's a federal law passed in 1996 (on votes of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and which was signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton) that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. That's the law in all 50 states (notwithstanding the MA S.Ct.'s attempt to override federal law), the District of Columbia, and all US territories today. Thus it's not at all accurate to describe a proposed Constitutional Amendment that does precisely the same thing as "taking rights away" because the alleged right is not part of our law today, nor has it ever been part of our law. The proposed Constitutional Amendment would do nothing more than elevate the current law to the Constitutional level. Nothing more, nothing less. The radical change to both the current and historic legal staus of marriage in this nation would be the extension of that status to same-sex couples. I'm not criticizing you at all for disagreeing with that policy, nor for disagreeing with the necessity of elevating the issue to the Constitutional level (though the Full Faith and Credit Clause does necessitate this action to preserve the rights of those states whose people do not wish to recognize gay marriage including the 11 that just passed similar referenda), but at least acknowledge that the current law of the land (and 38 states that followed Clinton's lead in the late 90s by enacting laws mirroring the Federal Defense of Marriage Act) does not favor your perspective and that thus it cannot be said that such an Amendment would "take away" rights from anyone who currently has them. Personally I believe that this is an issue best left to the states, perhaps by removing the issue from the purview of the federal judiciary. That's a far less onerous and far more reversible change than a Constitutional Amendment.
And could you please provide a reputable mainstream link that includes the quote from Bush stating that God told him to strike Saddam. I've heard that canard often but I've yet to locate a trustworthy source. TIA!
Comment