A rare firestorm of dissent is brewing. Republicans are madly spinning to show that John Roberts is a bigot.
Under the surface a rare firestorm of dissent is brewing within the Republican Party. To squelch the dissent, Republicans are spinning like mad to put to rest the notion, any notion, that John Roberts might be tolerant of Americans who are gay.…
Article comments
26 - gonzo marx
no Matt...not trying to make any implications for your own views, merely attempting to feebly express my own
my thought is that it is an equal rights issue, falling in the civil rights category..
as we found out with, oh let's say, blacks up until the 60's...leaving civil rights decisions up to states doesn't work out well..
that was my point there...humans in america get a certain amont of civil rights...i think same sex folks are just wanting the same ones for themselves
that make it any clearer?
Excelsior!
27 - Natalie Davis
Plenty of non-homosexuals support equality for all, Mr. Sussman. I firmly believe -- and yes, I am queer, but plenty of hets agree with me -- that any president qualified for office would take immediate action (perhaps in the form of an executive order) to insititute equality for all under law and leave discrimination to churches inclined to bar certain people from their rites. Any qualified public servant would do whatever it took to make an honest nation out of America.
28 - gonzo marx
ok..maybe i can say it better this way..
no matter who performs the ceremony, or what "vows" are exchanged..it is still the town/city that issues the "Marriage Liscense"
my position is that consenting adults should be able to get that Liscense...with all the rights and responsibilities that come along with it
churches don't have to go along with it...it's the civil rights of the folks involved i'm talking about here, not the "rituals" or the religious bits...
hope that makes it clearer
Excelsior!
29 - Matthew T. Sussman
True, it's about equality, and there are a lot of such issues that have gone to the states (driving laws, statutory rape, prostitution, death penalty).
Different states have different needs. Plus if issues come to the state I have more clout in what happens to my neck of the woods.
Plus, this isn't very comparable to 1960's minority civil rights. Gays share our buses, drinking fountains, restaurants, schools, voting privileges, and baseball leagues.
And if there was a same sex version of the Black Panthers, we would know about it from the Bravo Channel.
30 - Al Barger
I might go Natalie actually one better on this situation. I could imagine this situation being a diversionary tactic by Roberts himself. The main thing that makes me suspicious of him is his seeming totally resolute ambition. He's been SO careful not to say anything interesting his entire career, as if he had his eye on this SCOTUS job his whole life.
I don't know the man's heart, but I'd find it easy to believe that he would devote 10 hours to a left wing cause that he didn't particularly care about as a chit for just this situation. It would be like anti-Borking insurance, consciously making himself harder to attack from the left.
31 - Matthew T. Sussman
Natalie, who is the highest profile politician who has come out boldly in favor of marriage for all?
32 - gonzo marx
the analogy isn't complete..i will readily admit
perhps woman's voting is closer...but still not the same
it's a unique thing...as to it being a states issue...there is that whole federal bit, each state has to recognize things from other states...a marriage liscense woudl fall into that category...hence why the recent decision in Mass was fought against so strongly...
no easy answer here...i just don't see how it hurts anyone to let these folks get married, one would think that a committed relationship between these people would be applauded, not denied and derided...
just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion...
Excelsior!
33 - Matthew T. Sussman
The following isn't fact, just my one-sixth-billion, therefore doubling the power of Gonzo + Suss:
Agreed: Shame on anyone who "derides" same sex relationships. I applaud it. It's love. It's not marriage.
Nor am I in favor of a federal ban or even a state ban. A state Constitution ban was put under my nose, I voted no, but the decision is close enough for me to touch. There's a lot I don't understand about the issue, primarily because I notice so many unknown variables. And if they want to marry just so companies have to offer spousal benefits, then let them have benefits.
By the same token I think marriage should be even more protected, so that a man and woman can't just waltz into a city hall and walk out with a new legal status. Something has to be done about that divorce rate. (I blame J-Lo and Larry King.)
But I work in the morning, and it's way too late for me to be on Blogcritics at this point. But we will continue this good convo sometime in the near future on an undoubtedly similar thread.
Same bat time, same bat website... and I will probably sneak on the computer at work tomorrow and mindlessly type away in the comment box like I always do.
Night all.
34 - Dave Nalle
I'm against constitutional amendments on principle. But I still think the best solution to the gay marriage issue is for the government to stop recognizing all marriages of any kind and only recognize civil unions for couples of whatever gender mix. Then, if the couple wants to get 'married' too they can do it in a church that does such things. In fact, I think government recognition of marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state.
Dave
35 - Silas Kain
I'm with you Dave. I believe that 'marriages' should be registered with the local governments for the purposes that are quite obvious. Since marriage is being touted as an institution created by God, then it becomes incumbent upon a secular government to find an alternative word for marriage. In this case civil unions fit the bill.
I have done a complete 180 on my position with regard to gay marriage. While I feel it is a devisive issue and there are other things more important that require our attention, I can no longer allow this issue to sit on the back burner. It's a civil rights issue, plain and simple. It's not about water fountains, seats on busses or sports teams -- it's about respecting the rights and privacy of two consenting adults who enter into a contract committing to each other. It's legal here in Massachusetts. God hasn't torched the state to the ground. Our Mormon governor, as demonic as he may be, still stands strong.
36 - Balletshooz
"the best solution to the gay marriage issue is for the government to stop recognizing all marriages of any kind and only recognize civil unions for couples of whatever gender mix."
You hit the nail right on the head. Marriage "ceremonies" are religious issues, done in a church. If your pastor approves gay marriage he should have the first amendment religious freedom to perform a religious marriage ceremony.
Marriage licenses are "administrative". It is just a goivernmental piece of papaer. the "marriage" is already done, so if the paper is filed as a "civil union" or "marriage license" doesnt matter as long as the EPC is not violated.
37 - billy
let the floodgates open!
(AP) WASHINGTON A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it was withdrawing its support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays.
38 - Natalie Davis
Bravo, Mr.Nalle. I agree completely. However, legal marriage -- apart from religious marriage -- exists in the here and now. As long as it does, it is immoral and un-American to bar gays from it.
Mr. Sussman, the highest-ranking pols, I believe, would be Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich. Democratic presidential candidates Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun came out in favor of marriage equality as well.
I would disagree with your statement that a gay couple's relationship can't be a marriage. A childless het couple can get married. Again, religion is not the issue here. Many people get married legally without churches being involved. And many churches *have* married same-gender couples (and those marriages are legal in Massachusetts, though not in the backward 49). You appear to be limiting your definition of marriage to that accepted by certain strains of religious thought. That is not at issue here. We are talking about marriage in the legal sense only. Under that parameter, same-gender couples should have the same ability that het couples have. It's only right.
39 - Dave Nalle
>>I would disagree with your statement that a gay couple's relationship can't be a marriage.<<
I didn't actually say that. I said that it shouldn't be recognized as a marriage by the state, but that no marriages should be recognized by the state. I did go on to say that gay or hetero couples should be able to get a civil union from the state AND be married in whatever church was willing to do the ceremony for them.
Dave
40 - Silas Kain
Public Advocate of the United States withdrew its support of the Roberts nomination this morning saying:
Here's another hate mongering organization exempt from federal taxation under IRS section 501(c)4 and is based in Falls Church, VA which is quickly becoming the nation's capitol for bigotry and hatred.41 - Taloran
You can just hear the bile spewing out of them, even in that thankfully brief piece you quoted, Silas.
support for the radical homosexual lobby...
overturned a pro-family law...
appalling act of judicial activism
42 - Silas Kain
I've decided that it's time for those of us who are determined to faciltate real change should begin by standing outside the Baptist World Alliance in Falls Church, VA. From there we could march 8.5 miles to the Nation's Capitol where we can have a huge rally on the mall. That could be the kickoff to the 2006 mid term elections. And to really piss off the bigots we can sing "We Shall Overcome" all the way to the Rotunda while carrying paper mache crosses decorated in pansies.
43 - Dave Nalle
Sounds like the dumbasses just guaranteed his approval. How they could even come to that conclusion based on the tiny amount of evidence about Roberts totally peripheral involvement in that case is truly mystifying, but I'm glad they did. Raises a certain amount of hope that he's going to be a reasonable presence on the bench.
Dave
44 - billy
That is a fantastic idea Silas. I am waiting for some religious folk to stand up and answer some of the rhetoric of Dobson, Falwell, etc, that is in the mainstream media that claims to stand for all christians. I know alot of devout christians and their hearts are probably broken that poverty, social justice, tolerance, health, nature, and peace are not bigger priorities associated with christianity.
45 - Silas Kain
OK, billy, I'm on to something here. We will call it the 4-1-1 March. It can take place on Easter Sunday - April 11, 2006 beginning at the Baptist HQ in Falls Church. From there, we march all the way to the Capitol. For a march like this it would take 3 - 4 hours to complete the 8.5 mile stretch. We can have representatives from every state and the 4-1-1 March is to send a message to Washington that enough is enough. There's something poetic about having this on Easter Sunday. It's as if those of us who have been buried for so long could rise from the tombs of our captivity.
46 - gonzo marx
or it raises the spectre that what Mr Nalle supposes is exactly what we are wanted to think...
don't know, hate speculating, don't like stealth candidates with no record..
Excelsior!
47 - billy
Ill be glad to help. Keep up the effort and when that time starts approaching ill go to some of the other blogs and ask them to help too.
48 - Silas Kain
Here's the 4-1-1 on Public Advocate of the United States:
Twenty one days later the family friendly Delgaudio announces that the organization withdraws its support of Roberts because he "an appalling act of judicial activism." Mr. Delgaudio claims that his Falls Church, VA based organization is completely pro-family when truth be told it is nothing more than a machine created to crush the activities of any individual or group who does not subscribe to ultra conservative platforms. The organization enjoys a tax exempt status while it systematically commits character assassination of any pro-gay politician. Time to follow the money trail, folks, and see who contributes to any and all non-profit 501(c)4 organizations. I'm not limiting this to the hate groups like the one I mentioned, either. The financial records of all organizations that enjoy tax exempt status should be required to forfeit the right to privacy. Every penny that is taken in and spent should be accounted for and made transparent for the public's review.On July 20, 2006 Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio praised the President's decision on the Roberts nomination:
49 - Natalie Davis
Mr. Nalle: "I didn't actually say that."
I know, but Mr. Sussman did. The phrase to which you are objecting was addressed to him specifically. Look at the comment again.
Mr. Kain, that is an awesome idea! Count me in, and once there is more concrete info, I can get in touch with my Soulforce colleagues to see if there is interest in participating. Let me know if I can be of any assistance.
50 - Dave Nalle
I like the idea of using their own tactics against them to expose the funding of these groups.
At the same time we can't have the government deciding which groups are hate groups and which aren't and taking away tax exempt status on that basis. They could very well decide that all churches preach hate, or that mosques are hate groups, or that the Nation of Islam - which actually does some good work - is a hate group. Even hate groups have a right to be tax exempt if all they're doing is exercising free speech, however hateful that speech is - so long as they're not making a profit.
Dave
51 - Druxxx
It is one thing to allow hate speech because of the first amendment, but to give a group of bigots tax exempt status is just wrong.
We can debate what constitutes hate speech till the cows come home. I just think when it is obvious, they should loose their tax exempt status.
To discriminate is to hate. To give one group of people rights and deny them to others is hate. To tell someone their lifestyle should be against the law is to hate.
You can't hide behind the wall of religion. Freedom of religion should not give you freedom to hate.
52 - Silas Kain
Amen, Druxxx. If a group, religious or otherwise, wants to enjoy tax exempt status then any and all financial records should be transparent for public scrutinty. If this President wants faith based initiatives, we can begin by the faith based organizations taking the initiative to have enough faith to open the books for examination.
53 - Richard
Hot damn! The elephants appear to have been had. I will never give "W" the credit for this one, just look at the rest of his looney tune appointments.
54 - Anthony Grande
"The President is looking for his place in history."
Giving over 50 Million PEOPLE the right to vote for the first time already puts his name in a good spot in the History books.
The Elephant hasn't been had. Roberts was a lawyer and lawyers will defend or prosecute any case that will give them a name or money. So just because he defended some gay rights doesn't mean he supports gay marriage.
55 - Cerulean
Although they might not personally be extreme right wingers, Dubya and his father were more than willing to be stooges for the extreme right. Dubya could not have been more effective in pursuing their goals if he was.
This could be a purposeful leak. It could be an attempt to divide and conquer.
56 - Anthony Grande
Hey Cerulean, What is your definition of "extreme" right winger.
That's Right
57 - Dave Nalle
One man's stooge is another man's stooge user. It's not at all clear whether the Bushes are the stooges or whether the far right loonies are their stooges.
Dave
58 - Anthony Grande
Dave, what is your definition of "far right"?
59 - Temple Stark
they share a room with far wrong.
Thank you. Thank you. A few less tomatoes please. Thank you.
I'm NOT here all night.
- Temple
60 - Anthony Grande
(throwing tomatoes at the computer)
Temple Shark, so I can assume your definition of "far right" or "Extreme Right Winger" is: Someone who disagrees with my beliefs.