July 26, 2011
— Open Blogger Waking up in an Cleveland back-alley lovingly clutching a Ken doll while wearing nothing but one flip-flop (though not on either foot) and a Marco Rubio campaign pin stuck through his left nipple.
An Ewok never felt so ALIVE, and thanks the stars once again that on Endor, a weekend lasts no less than 4 days.
Posted by: Open Blogger at
08:30 AM
| Comments (195)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
Thank God this is on the ballot for more reasons than one.
Of course, no comment on the constitutionality or preemption issues.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at July 26, 2011 08:34 AM (pLTLS)
Afternoon all! It has been a very busy morning so I'm just now getting a chance to comment on anything from the last 24 hours. And I only have this to say:
AGAIN with the damn corporate jets!?!
Posted by: MWR at July 26, 2011 08:35 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: KillerDiller at July 26, 2011 08:36 AM (+ZX4J)
Posted by: nevergiveup at July 26, 2011 08:37 AM (i6RpT)
Have you seen Drudge? The White HouseÂ’s Fluffer is warning about a Depression!
Posted by: Emperor Barry at July 26, 2011 08:37 AM (dwSTt)
Posted by: Steely Dan at July 26, 2011 08:37 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Ben at July 26, 2011 08:38 AM (wuv1c)
I’d love to believe the Boehner plan is not a joke, really I would. But I see that, right away, Obama gets a $1 trillion credit extension (our current $14.3 trillion credit line apparently not being enough) while the “real” cuts in spending — which are trumpeted because they purportedly exceed the increase in the debt ceiling — will supposedly take place over the course of a decade. You have to say “purportedly” and “supposedly” because whatever this Congress does cannot bind any future Congress. (Has this Congress seemed to you like they feel bound by anything Congress did on spending in 2001?) The only cuts that really matter are the ones made today. So, leaving aside several other misgivings about the Boehner proposal — i.e., before we ever get to the other $1.5 trillion credit expansion President Obama would get next year, and the blue-ribbon committee half-staffed by Harry Reid that is going to solve all our spending problems — I have just one question: Mr. Speaker, what are the cuts that will be made now in exchange for permitting the president to sink us another $1 trillion into the hole?
Smooches,
Andrew C McCarthy
(I may have boosted this from NRO)
Posted by: The Hammer at July 26, 2011 08:38 AM (2M2fe)
Posted by: Steely Dan (not) at July 26, 2011 08:38 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Mr. Fire at July 26, 2011 08:39 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 26, 2011 08:39 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: nerdygirl at July 26, 2011 08:41 AM (/+j6L)
A to the men. There's a special place in Hades for conservative-talk radio folks who play and replay el-JEFe's clips to illustrate their points. Grrrrr.
Posted by: RushBabe at July 26, 2011 08:42 AM (Ew27I)
Leave the campaign pin in though as a reminder of the good time he had. Besides, I think that is required in the restraining order Marco has on him.
Posted by: GnuBreed at July 26, 2011 08:43 AM (ENKCw)
Posted by: RushBabe at July 26, 2011 08:43 AM (Ew27I)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 08:43 AM (Xm1aB)
So, riddle me this, morons:
If one can draw wild-eyed generalizations from the actions of one muderous, evile Scandi...what can one say about the morals of the Democratic congressional delegation given recent ummmm...events?
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 26, 2011 08:44 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: MWR at July 26, 2011 08:45 AM (4df7R)
@21 Please...no....please....NO!
Posted by: Tami at July 26, 2011 08:45 AM (ULMuv)
No tragedy goes unexploited. The guy from Missouri was wrong, imo.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 26, 2011 08:46 AM (jx2j9)
It's interesting to see how the drama we're seeing has played out before--in our own country. Our case study for today is Jefferson County, Alabama, which is preparing to file for bankruptcy.
Let me go a bit deeper on this. The sewer project in question was mandated by the EPA (political insiders), and had its cost inflated out of sight, apparently to line the pockets of cronies and corrupt outfits (sound familiar yet?)
Add to that happening on the watch of a shady politician with no track record of success in anything aside from laying his hands on public funds, and you start getting this feeling of deja vu I've had nagging me for three years now. (By the way, Langford shared Obama's love of pie in the sky projects, especially a pointless domed stadium project. He even had a thing about unicorns.
There are differences to be sure, but the whole thing echoes like a dry run for Obama...
Posted by: F--- Nevada! (I'm AoSHQ's DarkLord©, and I approve this message) at July 26, 2011 08:46 AM (GBXon)
It would be funny if this weren't so serious.
Posted by: The Hammer at July 26, 2011 08:46 AM (2M2fe)
Posted by: Jay in Ames at July 26, 2011 08:46 AM (UEEex)
Posted by: MWR at July 26, 2011 12:45 PM (4df7R)
He's on now.
Posted by: Tami at July 26, 2011 08:46 AM (ULMuv)
Posted by: Vic at July 26, 2011 12:34 PM (M9Ie6)
Fox? I thought he dressed up like a tiger...
Posted by: Insomniac at July 26, 2011 08:47 AM (v+QvA)
AGAIN with the damn corporate jets!?!
Posted by: MWR at July 26, 2011 12:35 PM (4df7R)
It must've polled well with the focus groups.
Posted by: Nighthawk at July 26, 2011 08:48 AM (OtQXp)
Posted by: nerdygirl at July 26, 2011 08:48 AM (/+j6L)
It would be funny if this weren't so serious.
His numbers are wrong, except for the last one on CCB. The Biden Commission did not save $80B and his number on the Ryan budget is too low.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 08:49 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 26, 2011 08:49 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: GnuBreed at July 26, 2011 08:49 AM (ENKCw)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at July 26, 2011 08:50 AM (ZDUD4)
The deer ate my tomatoes. I should eat deer.
I heard that if you urinate around the garden it keeps the deer away.Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 26, 2011 08:51 AM (QMtmy)
Linky, please, because I find that hard to believe- unless he's "pleased as can be" about the process (legislature instead of courts), or some such.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 08:51 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Weepin' Johnny B. at July 26, 2011 08:51 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 08:51 AM (Xm1aB)
Wha? That one I missed. Damn it all to hell. We're becoming like Moses' people wandering in the wilderness.....without a Moses.
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 26, 2011 08:52 AM (EIlEQ)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 08:52 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at July 26, 2011 08:52 AM (9rKkF)
Linky, please, because I find that hard to believe- unless he's "pleased as can be" about the process (legislature instead of courts), or some such.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 12:51 PM (8y9MW)
He talked about it in relation to states rights.
Posted by: Tami at July 26, 2011 08:52 AM (ULMuv)
Posted by: George Orwell at July 26, 2011 08:52 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at July 26, 2011 08:53 AM (9rKkF)
Posted by: t-bird at July 26, 2011 08:53 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: nerdygirl at July 26, 2011 08:53 AM (/+j6L)
Get a link to a sourced article before you believe it.
Not saying it can't happen, just saying a lot of misinformation can be spread quite innocently if you're not careful.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 08:53 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: The Hammer at July 26, 2011 08:53 AM (2M2fe)
I'm beginning the think the only members of his focus group are Michelle, Sushi, Malaria (or whatever their names are) and Jay Carney.
Posted by: CUS at July 26, 2011 08:53 AM (84pE9)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 08:54 AM (Xm1aB)
Which is completely in character. And I still want a link.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 08:54 AM (8y9MW)
Maybe he's on CNN.
COME ON, DICK! EAT YOUR PEAS!
Posted by: nerdygirl at July 26, 2011 12:53 PM (/+j6L)
Technically, since I have all your money to throw around, I'm a trillionaire. Therefore, my family doesn't apply. Suck it wingnutz.
Posted by: JEF at July 26, 2011 08:54 AM (/Mla1)
That was always in the bill. The difference now is that it's a joint committee made-up of current lawmakers instead of retired lawmakers or policy experts. They also have a long list of conditions and triggers. December is the deadline.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 08:54 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 12:54 PM (8y9MW)
First one I found.....
Posted by: Tami at July 26, 2011 08:55 AM (ULMuv)
Posted by: cherry π at July 26, 2011 08:56 AM (OhYCU)
Ok, Christ Christie just pissed me off by tweeting against a Missouri congressman who compared Amy Winehouse's addiction to our government's addiction to spending. Fuck you Christie!
And now my former dream candidate Rick Perry is just pleased as can be that New York legalized gay marriage.
Back. To. Square. One.
----------
Yea, good luck finding that candidate with the criteria you have seemingly set up here.
Posted by: Rich at July 26, 2011 08:56 AM (wnGI4)
Naaah. A "States' Rights" approach to Gay Marriage is completely fine (with me, anyway). I'll oppose Gay Marriage here in TX, but if the pouffers in NY want it, more power to 'em.
It's basically what he's said about abortion, too.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 08:56 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Mr Pink at July 26, 2011 08:56 AM (17WYn)
Posted by: CDR M at July 26, 2011 08:56 AM (JSetw)
Was he at least wearing an AoSHQ-approved banana hammock?
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 26, 2011 08:56 AM (UOM48)
The hole in his logic is that once a state recognizes you as married, gay or not, other states may have to. Even Texas. The article doesn't explain how he views that aspect.
Posted by: The Hammer at July 26, 2011 08:57 AM (2M2fe)
Posted by: George Orwell at July 26, 2011 08:58 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Pastafarian at July 26, 2011 08:58 AM (8/DeP)
How sad for Republicans that Dingy Reid is actually showing us up right now.
Posted by: Rod Rescueman at July 26, 2011 08:58 AM (HwE/1)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at July 26, 2011 08:59 AM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: CUS at July 26, 2011 12:53 PM (84pE9)
Well, there's them- and Michael Moore, moveon.org, the Kossacks, the SIEU and George Soros. You know, all the "mainstream" Americans.
*facepalm*
Posted by: Nighthawk at July 26, 2011 08:59 AM (OtQXp)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at July 26, 2011 08:59 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 26, 2011 08:59 AM (TMB3S)
We could not destroy them. WeÂ’re a peaceful theocracy afterall!
Nah. Not really an option.
Yeah. I suppose youÂ’re right. We're out of options.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at July 26, 2011 09:00 AM (jx2j9)
)Posted by: Lone Marauder at July 26, 2011 09:00 AM (/bVuS)
And now my former dream candidate Rick Perry is just pleased as can be that New York legalized gay marriage.
Oh, stop. He talked about the process:
"Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me," he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, Colo. "That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."
Perhaps you'll be relieved to know that Rick Santorum threw a purity straw-man at him.
Posted by: arhooley at July 26, 2011 09:01 AM (wPNzO)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 26, 2011 09:01 AM (UOM48)
A "real reduction" is often defined as the change in spending from year-to-year. That doesn't include cuts in projected growth from the baseline or slashes to spending authority.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:02 AM (o2lIv)
He really believes there are Dems that will comprise the "Cutting Commission" that really do want to cut spending. He's woefully gullible, imo. I don't see a whole lot of evidence of that. And still, no one is tackling the big elephant, entitlement reform. The American taxpayer, the ones who are going to be responsible for the price tag, are going to get steamrolled.
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 26, 2011 09:03 AM (EIlEQ)
Posted by: CDR M at July 26, 2011 12:56 PM (JSetw)
Don't forget--Vote Republican. If you give them the Senate, you might get $12b in cuts!!!
Posted by: glowing blue meat at July 26, 2011 09:03 AM (K/USr)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:03 AM (Xm1aB)
That's an open question- and why there's a fight over why it's a Federal issue at all. If you take the 10th Amendment view (which I largely do) then you view it like this:
Just visiting/passing through?: Your home State's laws preside.
Moving here? Comply with State law.
So, if (for instance) it were legal to drive at age 14 in (to pick a state, I'm making this up) in OK, and a 14 yr old were driving through Texas to visit his/her grandparents- that would be fine (presuming said 14 yr old wasn't speeding or doing anything else illegal). If that 14 yr old's parents moved (with kid in tow) to TX, the drivers license would no longer be valid, and the child would not be eligible for a full drivers' license until age 16.
It would work the same in Marriage: if you're driving through TX and something happens where your marriage is important, if your state allows Gay Marriage, you're married. If you move to TX, your marriage is no longer valid, and you need to register as a Domestic Partnership (or whatever we call it here,).
Of course, if you take the Federal View, then there shouldn't be different Marriage laws in different states in the first place.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:03 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George Orwell at July 26, 2011 09:04 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: t-bird at July 26, 2011 09:04 AM (FcR7P)
Those hairless,wild eyed kittehs Monty uses in his daily DOOM aren't just random occurrences here, at the AOSHQ.
Posted by: Fritz at July 26, 2011 09:04 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:05 AM (Xm1aB)
I dunno. Pick an issue, I'll tell you where I stand.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:05 AM (8y9MW)
I'll stand by my belief...this is the hill to die on and our leadership isn't serious about cutting. REAL cutting.
I'll pass on the Boehner plan.
Posted by: The Hammer at July 26, 2011 09:05 AM (2M2fe)
Did he also give a baseline? Are we talking about what the number is after the 2011 CR or something else?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:05 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: naturalfake at July 26, 2011 09:06 AM (jkSbV)
Posted by: Concerned Creationist Christian at July 26, 2011 09:06 AM (17WYn)
The Jersey City killer who sparked a near-riot last week at a sentencing hearing when he grinned at family members of the victim this morning created another courtroom scene when he said he would kill again if he was free
http://tinyurl.com/44edlgt
Makes my blood boil
Posted by: The Robot Devil at July 26, 2011 09:07 AM (136wp)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 26, 2011 09:07 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at July 26, 2011 09:08 AM (ZDUD4)
I'll stand by my belief...this is the hill to die on and our leadership isn't serious about cutting. REAL cutting.
I'll pass on the Boehner plan.
I don't quite understand your meaning, as I never said anything to the contrary. The difficulty here is that we're back to talking about arcane accounting and we haven't yet seen a full score of the plan. Remember that the entire score matters. So has anybody seen it?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:08 AM (o2lIv)
Here:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Posted by: Pastafarian at July 26, 2011 09:08 AM (8/DeP)
I heard that if you urinate around the garden it keeps the deer away.
I do that and I don't even have a deer problem.
Posted by: George Orwell at July 26, 2011 12:58 PM (AZGON)
Q.E.D.
Posted by: Warthog at July 26, 2011 09:09 AM (WDySP)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:09 AM (Xm1aB)
The people who scored it know. Did CBO score it or did someone else? Regardless of who scored it, where is it? We need to see it.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:09 AM (o2lIv)
So where do you draw the line? What things are allowed in the name of federalism and what things aren't?
------
The constitution drew the line once already.
And I don't see why, using the absolute power of the 10th ammendment, a state wouldn't be able to nullify/invalidate the marriage performed for people in a seperate state if it didn't comply with their own laws. That would seem to fall well within a state's rights. So if Texas wants to invalidate a gay marriage performed in New York when a gay couple decides to move to New York, it should be given that option to do so.
Posted by: Rich at July 26, 2011 09:10 AM (wnGI4)
I didn't say that. There are some issues that are specifically handled at a federal level (say, printing money. Interstate Commerce. a few others), and some issues that aren't.
Of hand, I say Marriage and abortion are States' Rights issues. Pick another issue, and I'll tell you if I think it's Federal or State (and even why, if you ask nicely).
And, for the record, Federalism is limited by nature.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:10 AM (8y9MW)
Well, how about this:
Effective Dec 31, 2011, the federal departments (fill in the blanks), will no longer operate or receive funding. These departments are redundant and/or unnecessary in their tasks and scope. The savings will be an immediate $100B in 2012.
Find 5 or 6 departments that add up to $100B and wallah...real fng savings.
Again, either we're on the edge, or we're not...can't have it both ways. And if we're on the edge, $7B is laughable.
Posted by: The Hammer at July 26, 2011 09:11 AM (2M2fe)
Posted by: blaster at July 26, 2011 09:11 AM (IBXko)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:11 AM (Xm1aB)
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
2012 is the hill.
Posted by: cherry π at July 26, 2011 09:11 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: t-bird at July 26, 2011 09:12 AM (FcR7P)
That's actually old news but he didn't actually come out and say it was ok.
What he said was that it is a State issue and not a federal one. He invoked State Rights and the tenth.
Posted by: Vic at July 26, 2011 09:12 AM (M9Ie6)
I did not catch it, what was the second number Boehner gave and what was it?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:12 AM (o2lIv)
We need a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
--------
Now THIS is an enitrely different argument all together. However, as the law stands right now and being the constitutionalist that I am, I can have no problems with Perry's position. The federal govt. has usurped far too much power already. The only legal way they are supposed to be able to do that is with an ammendment.
Now, I'd like someone to ask Perry the question on whether or not he'd support an ammendment because he did say that he did support that very same ammendment in Texas to their state consitution, so maybe he would support one to the federal consitution.
Posted by: Rich at July 26, 2011 09:12 AM (wnGI4)
Excellent point. I haven't heard Ryan say a thing about Boehner's plan.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:14 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:15 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:16 AM (Xm1aB)
My point is, whatever the numbers, it's becoming apparent they aren't serious.
Posted by: The Hammer at July 26, 2011 09:16 AM (2M2fe)
The Plan
In the beginning was the Plan.
And then came the Assumptions.
And the Assumptions were without form.
And darkness was upon the face of the Citizens.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh."
And the Citizens went unto their Congresspersons and said, "It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor thereof."
And the Congresspersons went unto their Party Caucus, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the Party Caucus went unto their Party Leadership, saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."
And the Party Leadership spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."
And the Party Leadership then went onto the President, saying unto them, "It promotes growth and is very powerful."
And the President went unto the National Television, saying unto the Citizens, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the country; with powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.
This is How Shit Happens.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 26, 2011 09:16 AM (4q5tP)
Yes, it is. And, when a gay married couple from NY comes to TX, they don't suddenly stop being married.
However, once they are no longer citizens in the State of NY, and are citizens in the State of TX, they must comply with Texas Law.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:16 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: brak at July 26, 2011 09:17 AM (VBfdv)
I'm not even discussing the AEA right now. The thought that the traditional political power here is a frakking Public Employee Union is enough to give me migraines.
Posted by: F--- Nevada! (I'm AoSHQ's DarkLord©, and I approve this message) at July 26, 2011 09:17 AM (GBXon)
Only in that he has always maintained that it is a state issue, not a federal one.
WTF?
Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at July 26, 2011 09:17 AM (ignDe)
You know what? I'm really sick of militant atheists. I'm almost as sick of them as I am of Islamists and their apologists.
Atheists sue to stop display of iconic WTC cross at 9/11 Ground Zero memorial
Link to CNN (sorry!). H/T Weasel Zippers
Posted by: MWR at July 26, 2011 09:18 AM (4df7R)
My point is, whatever the numbers, it's becoming apparent they aren't serious.
Lowry's numbers on the Ryan plan and the Biden Commission are wrong. Senator Kyl asked for a score and discovered that the Biden Commission would have only saved $2B this year and Lowry says $80B. Or is he talking about an earlier point in time? This matters.
The entire score also matters and the other number is highly important. As for me, I would like Boehner to take the House R budget and substitute it for the numbers he has now, regardless of what the entire score is.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:19 AM (o2lIv)
In any case this election is not about "gay marriage" and if we have a candidate who is good on fiscal issues and small government I am not going to kick him out based on "gay marriage".
(Although in Perry's case there is some debate about his small gov bonifides)
Posted by: Vic at July 26, 2011 09:19 AM (M9Ie6)
Ehhh... I don't think he'd be particularly for it, or against it. Again, if you believe it to be a States' Rights issue, then you don't think the Federal Government needs a stand on it (even a Constitutional Amendment) one way or the other. You believe it shouldn't be a Federal issue.
On the other hand, it is a sticky issue- and it's far from clear how the Courts would actually rule (despite my beliefs about the issue) if the situation of a Gay Married couple moving to a state which did outlaw gay marriage ever came up (as unlikely as that may be). So I can see arguments for that both ways.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:20 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: willow at July 26, 2011 09:20 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:21 AM (Xm1aB)
Well that was edifying. Care to explain why?
I've explained my position (albeit, using the example of a driver's license).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:21 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Bluedog803 at July 26, 2011 09:22 AM (XaqaA)
I expect a republican candidate for president to be solid on states rights. Or do you advocate the feds telling states what they can or cannot do?
Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at July 26, 2011 09:22 AM (ignDe)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at July 26, 2011 09:23 AM (ZDUD4)
That's fair, too.
But, really, a "States' Rights" stance is often seen as "dodging" the issue, so you kind of get the best of both worlds there: Conservative Cred with us Tenthers, and a 'I'm not dealing with that' for everyone else.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:25 AM (8y9MW)
Again, if you believe it to be a States' Rights issue, then you don't think the Federal Government needs a stand on it (even a Constitutional Amendment) one way or the other. You believe it shouldn't be a Federal issue.
------
No, there are those of us (I'm speaking of myself) that believe in the rule of more than anything. As of today, I do not believe the federal government has the authority to start declaring who can and cannot be married. As of today, according to the law, it's a an issue left to the states.
However, I would support an ammendment to the U.S constitution (albeit I wouldn't be rallying for it, my support would be passive). My support would be based on the same grounds that Dave's support for it would be. Moral decency issue. But, w/o that ammendment, I can't sit here and say the Federal govt. has and legal standing in that matter.
Posted by: Rich at July 26, 2011 09:25 AM (wnGI4)
Posted by: cherry ð at July 26, 2011 01:18 PM (OhYCU)
Thanks. Love that everything can be found somewhere on the intertubes.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 26, 2011 09:26 AM (4q5tP)
Okay, it's $31B total. Like I said, change it back to Ryan's.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:26 AM (o2lIv)
But when asked, the answer is "it's a state issue", yes?
Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at July 26, 2011 09:26 AM (ignDe)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:26 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Rich at July 26, 2011 09:26 AM (wnGI4)
I'll use Missouri, my home state, as an example.
Missouri has overwhelmingly voted to define marriage in the traditional manner.
If a "married" homosexual couple from New York enters Missouri, then the Full Faith and Credit clause compels Missouri to legally recognize that "marriage."
This is unacceptable. And Missouri's legal obligation to recognize that "marriage" does not expire if that couple later becomes Missouri citizens.
Thus it appears a federal constitutional amendment will ultimately be necessary.
---------
No, this is not yet true. As of right now no court has ruled that a state must respect the marriage of another state.It's still an up in the air question.
Posted by: Rich at July 26, 2011 09:28 AM (wnGI4)
Meh. I'm not huge into the Federal government trying to impose "moral decency" on anybody. That should be left to the States (who are theoretically closer to their citizens and therefore a better reflection of their moral values).
And, before we go too far with that: The Federal Government did that once, it was called Prohibition, and was (more or less) an unmitigated disaster. As much as Christians (myself included) would like to believe that "laws are about morality," they're really not. They are (and only should be) about protecting society from internal threats (the military and foreign policy are about protecting a society from external threats). So you'd have to convince me that Gay Marriage is actually a threat to society, and not just something distasteful before I could support a Federal amendment along those lines.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:29 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 26, 2011 09:29 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:32 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Bluedog803 at July 26, 2011 01:22 PM (XaqaA)
He's lucky he didn't get busted for that 5 years ago. Before they rewrote the law ( 5 yrs I think) they could have charged him with a sex crime.
Posted by: Vic at July 26, 2011 09:34 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2011 09:34 AM (Xm1aB)
You're still not explaining why you believe that to be true.
If NY gives a hunting license to someone, does Missouri have to honor it? It's a state issued document, backed by the "full faith and credit" of the State.
If I get a hunting license in Missouri and shoot a deer there, then transport it down through OK and back home to Texas that's all completely legal and above-board. If an OK cop stopped me (because he saw the Texas Plates and I was going .5 mph over the speed limit- jerk), and began inquiring about the deer, I'd be fine.
If, however, I got a hunting license in Missouri, and killed a deer in Oklahoma, that would be poaching. See the difference?
I'm suggesting Marriage is the same way. If a Married Couple (gay) from NY happened to be in MO and something happened where one had to speak for the other, MO would have to accept that- because they're still citizens of (and therefore married in) New York. However, if they moved to Missouri and Missouri specifically forbade gay marriage, they would no longer be married.
At least, that's how I'd interpret it. It hasn't come up before a court, that I know of, so it's still an open question.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:34 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at July 26, 2011 09:35 AM (ZDUD4)
I don't see anything gained by evading the question/hedging the answer.
Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at July 26, 2011 09:37 AM (ignDe)
You know what? I'm really sick of militant atheists. I'm almost as sick of them as I am of Islamists and their apologists.
Atheists sue to stop display of iconic WTC cross at 9/11 Ground Zero memorial
Posted by: MWR
These are not athiests. An atheist does not believe in any sort of supreme being or deity. These people are more correctly called anti-theists. Thease actively assail (some) religions.
Posted by: Blue Hen at July 26, 2011 09:37 AM (6rX0K)
The Boehner Plan: Can It Pass?
4 definite no
9 likely
3 still considering
1 confirmed yes
Everyone else is still reading.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 26, 2011 09:37 AM (o2lIv)
I'm sorry, that's an assertion (one often ascribed to by us here on the right) that hasn't actually been proven. We know that legalizing gay marriage will lead to other repugnant things (yes, polygamy, probably bestiality, etc.), but we don't actually have any proof that those things will hurt society very much at all- let alone "sever the union."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:38 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at July 26, 2011 09:39 AM (ZDUD4)
For those interested in background reading of Texas' Constitutional Amendment re gay marriage and court challenge, link to Wikipedia entry (shut up!) here. (preview tinyurl).
End result, gay marriage still illegal in Texas and Masschussetts-married same sex couple can not get a divorce in Texas.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 26, 2011 09:39 AM (4q5tP)
Which doesn't completely answer the "Full Faith and Credit" question, but suggests that my interpretation is the correct one (if I'm understanding the logic correctly).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:40 AM (8y9MW)
FYNQ?
Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at July 26, 2011 09:41 AM (ignDe)
UrbanDictionary is your friend.
NQ = Next Question. I'm guessing you can figure out the first two.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 09:43 AM (8y9MW)
F*** You, Next Question
btw, I meant should that be the response to uncomfortable questions, then?
Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at July 26, 2011 09:48 AM (ignDe)
Posted by: The Law of Unintended Consequences at July 26, 2011 09:49 AM (1+CnU)
But like all other amendments in today's climate it would take an Art V convention to get done.
While we are doing that we can fix all the other shit.
Posted by: Vic at July 26, 2011 09:49 AM (M9Ie6)
At least, that's how I'd interpret it. It hasn't come up before a court, that I know of, so it's still an open question.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 26, 2011 01:34 PM (8y9MW)
In the Texas case, the only marriage right that was examined was the right to dissolve the marriage. Texas does not recognize the same-sex marriage performed Machussetts, so they can not get divorced in Texas.
It would seem that the couple in question can not exercise any marriage "rights" in Texas. I don't think it's so much that they are no longer married by coming to Texas, but that the state won't recognize status. They'd have to move to a same-sex state for that.
Are we back to something akin to slave vs free states now?
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 26, 2011 09:50 AM (4q5tP)
I'm suggesting Marriage is the same way. If a Married Couple (gay) from NY happened to be in MO and something happened where one had to speak for the other, MO would have to accept that- because they're still citizens of (and therefore married in) New York. However, if they moved to Missouri and Missouri specifically forbade gay marriage, they would no longer be married.
No, Allen. You're not correct.
Not being mean, but FF&C means that the state has to recognize the legal acts of another state, unless those acts go against the public policy of the state as found in the state's constitution and laws. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493 (1939)
Any decent state constitutional amendment on marriage will include the terms "public policy", but even if not, it's OK, the policy is evident.
No state has to recognize a Tennessee marriage to a 14 year old, and no state has to recognize a gay "marriage".
Posted by: imp at July 26, 2011 09:50 AM (UaxA0)
Posted by: The Law of Unintended Consequences
according to the lefitsts pushing gay marraige AND gun control, nothing.
Posted by: Blue Hen at July 26, 2011 09:51 AM (326rv)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at July 26, 2011 09:53 AM (ZDUD4)
Currently the people who have gotten the BS hit job questions are Bachmann, Cain, and now Perry. Cain had that brief surge after the first debate so he started getting the "Muslim hit jobs". Bachmann is now surging big time and she is getting the kitchen sink. Everything from wanting to restart slavery to migraine headaches.
You will note that Romney is being hailed as the front runner and yet has not gotten any of these kinds of questions. Or if he has, it hasn't been publicized.
If he wins the nomination, then they will start with the hit jobs.
Bottom line people, do not pay any damn attention to the MFM hit jobs and supposed gaffes. That si the way they control the election and try to nominate our candidate. They will only be successful if WE let them.
Posted by: Vic at July 26, 2011 09:55 AM (M9Ie6)
It sounds as though you are saying you didn't like our choice of McCain as your nominee last election.
Posted by: MSM at July 26, 2011 10:05 AM (bbJJG)
No, no, no. Look at my post at 190.
Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at July 26, 2011 10:23 AM (ignDe)
Posted by: SuperFreakonomics Audiobook at July 26, 2011 04:20 PM (Y2XdG)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2899 seconds, 323 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Derak at July 26, 2011 08:33 AM (6jysy)