You're falling for a cheap ploy there. Scrapping DADT is not in the same ballpark when it comes to controversiality. Also, it would already have been history if it weren't for Obama. We are not talking about whyObama can't singlehandedly end this, we are talking why he won't simply let it die.
Congratulations America
Some stuff on 'conversion therapy', annoyingly broken in two parts
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
That's pretty crazy Nessus... not sure what I would do if i were him. Just lie to his parent indefinitely? Or do what he did, and now be cut off from his family. It's a sad story, I am happy for this individual though.
I don't want to repeat myself, or hear myself talk, I know my own thoughts. So I guess, I'll have to ask you. Why did Obama not end DADT. I have reasons of my own, and if i'm right it'll be pushed through the congress fairly soon after this election, and the military reports it's "findings" since i think they were doing an investigation on the effects the repeal would have. What are your thoughts on why Obama didn't end it?
On this point, I don't know how you say that with a straight face.. (pun intended). I mean, I think it's obvious gays or any minority would push to be treated equally and with equal entitlement in all regards, and in the case of gays that would include marriage. By marriage i mean recognition by the government that they are married. They don't necessarily care if the church won't acknowledge it. They just want it to be acknowledged by the government (all levels). There are many financial/situational perks that go with that, and there is a strong social statement that goes with that. If this is what you mean than we're in agreement.Originally Posted by Hazir
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 11-01-2010 at 01:53 AM.
I could care less for the 'social statement' and 'churches' can go and stuff it alltogether. What I cared about and care about are the things that come with marriage as a legal contract.
Congratulations America
continued http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us...l?ref=politicsIn Iowa, Voters Oust Judges Over Marriage Issue
By A.G. SULZBERGER
Published: November 3, 2010
DES MOINES — In a rebuke of the state supreme court with implications for judicial elections across the country, voters here removed three justices who participated in a ruling last year that made the state the first in the Midwest to permit same-sex marriage.
The close vote concluded an unusually aggressive ouster campaign in the typically sleepy state judicial retention elections that pitted concerns about judicial overreaching against concerns about judicial independence. After years of grumbling about “robed masters,” conservatives demonstrated their ability to target and remove judges who issue opinions they disagree with.
Each of the three judges received about 45 percent support with 91 percent of precincts reporting, according to The Associated Press, making Tuesday the first time members of Iowa’s high court had been rejected by voters. Under the system used here, judges face no opponents and simply need to gain more yes votes than no votes to win another eight-year term.
Financed largely by out-of-state organizations opposed to gay marriage, those pushing against the judges were successful in turning the vote into a referendum on the divisive issue.
“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican who led the campaign after losing the Republican nomination for governor, told a crowd of cheering supporters at an election night party peppered with red signs declaring “No Activist Judges.” “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free* and the home of the brave?
*unless you're gay.
Bets that the money marshaled against the judges came from out of state? Just like Prop 8 in California.
We the People.......except homosexuals.
We the People......out-of-state special interest groups with money.
Ha! Beat you to it.
Yeah, but money doesn't buy elections, and funding doesn't matter.Financed largely by out-of-state organizations opposed to gay marriage, those pushing against the judges were successful in turning the vote into a referendum on the divisive issue.
More than $3 million was spent on retention election races this year, easily eclipsing the figure for the previous decade, according to the Brennan Center.
Though several groups formed to support their retention, they were significantly outspent by the organizations that bankrolled the ouster effort, including the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association.
“We’re concerned about the precedent this has set tonight and what it means for the influence of money and politics on the judicial system,” said Dan Moore, co-chair of Fair Courts for Us, which supported the judges.
Iowa's state motto:
Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain
I don't see what you folks are moping about. In Braveheart didn't Mel Gibson yell "FREEEDOOOOMMM FOOOOR STRAAAIIIIGHT PEEEOOOOPLEEEEEE!!!!!"
They were also tossing gay lovers out of windows in Braveheart
The party of freedom wouldn't do that.
Not physically anyways.
Now it's just equality that gets tossed out the window.
It's just unfortunate that those judges were on the ballot simultaneous with the high republican turn out. I think perhaps if the economy was doing super well things would have been different in who came out to vote, and what people voted for. Recovery is coming to slow, but there is sustained progress.
So what happens next? Iowa getting a supreme court filled with judges who rather listen to the populus than uphold the law?
Congratulations America
The Iowa court ruled unanimously (9-0) that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Even if all three of the new judges disagree (unlikely), the result would be 6-3.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sorry, I forgot some can't read the whole link at NYT unless registered. Here's the FULL article:
DES MOINES — In a rebuke of the state supreme court with implications for judicial elections across the country, voters here removed three justices who participated in a ruling last year that made the state the first in the Midwest to permit same-sex marriage.
The close vote concluded an unusually aggressive ouster campaign in the typically sleepy state judicial retention elections that pitted concerns about judicial overreaching against concerns about judicial independence. After years of grumbling about “robed masters,” conservatives demonstrated their ability to target and remove judges who issue opinions they disagree with.
Each of the three judges received about 45 percent support with 91 percent of precincts reporting, according to The Associated Press, making Tuesday the first time members of Iowa’s high court had been rejected by voters. Under the system used here, judges face no opponents and simply need to gain more yes votes than no votes to win another eight-year term.
Financed largely by out-of-state organizations opposed to gay marriage, those pushing against the judges were successful in turning the vote into a referendum on the divisive issue.
“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican who led the campaign after losing the Republican nomination for governor, told a crowd of cheering supporters at an election night party peppered with red signs declaring “No Activist Judges.” “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”
Though the Iowa election was the most prominent, similar ouster campaigns were begun in other states against state supreme court justices running unopposed in retention elections — judges whose rulings on matters involving abortion, taxes, tort reform and health care had upset conservatives.
Together they marked the rapid politicization of judicial races that had been specifically designed to be free of intrigue. Over the last decade, just $2 million was spent on advertising in retention elections, less than 1 percent of total campaign spending on judicial elections in that period, according to data compiled in a recent report released in part by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. More than $3 million was spent on retention election races this year, easily eclipsing the figure for the previous decade, according to the Brennan Center.
The defeat was a bitter disappointment to much of the legal community here, which rallied behind the three justices, arguing that judicial standards require judges to follow their interpretation of the law and not their reading of public opinion. They had urged voters to consider issues like competence and temperament rather than a single issue when casting ballots.
The three justices — Marsha K. Ternus, the chief justice; Michael J. Streit; and David L. Baker — did not raise money to campaign and only toward the end of the election did they make public appearances to defend themselves.
“We wish to thank all of the Iowans who voted to retain us for another term,” the judges said in a statement. “Your support shows that many Iowans value fair and impartial courts. We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa’s high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.
“Finally, we hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa’s merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.”
Though several groups formed to support their retention, they were significantly outspent by the organizations that bankrolled the ouster effort, including the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association.
“We’re concerned about the precedent this has set tonight and what it means for the influence of money and politics on the judicial system,” said Dan Moore, co-chair of Fair Courts for Us, which supported the judges.
The judicial races were perhaps the most hotly anticipated item on the ballot this year, a sharp contrast from years past in which the election were so low profile that more than a third of those who cast ballots left the section blank. “That’s the main reason I came out,” said Michelle Kramer, 36, a college student from Des Moines. “People can do what they want to do, they can love who they want to love.”
Her friend and neighbor Cathy Hackett, 38, took the opposite view. “I voted no for every single one of them,” said Ms. Hackett, a customer sales representative who described herself as a conservative Christian. “I’m not anti-gay. I love everybody. But I believe that if two people are going to marry they should be a man and a woman.”
The outcome will have no effect on the ruling that triggered the campaign, a 7-to-0 decision that found that a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman represented unlawful discrimination under the state constitution.
But those who led the ouster campaign said they were more focused on highlighting to judges elsewhere, including those on the United States Supreme Court, the risks associated with leapfrogging public opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage. They noted that same-sex marriage has been initially approved by supreme courts in four states and by legislators in only three.
Jeff Mullen, lead pastor at the Point of Grace Church, who helped organize religious leaders in opposition to the judges, said the vote should send a message to judges nationwide. “They weren’t supposed to legislate from the bench,” he said. “They did. They’re out of a job.”
Depending on the speed with which new candidates are nominated, the replacement justices could be appointed either by Gov. Chet Culver, a democrat who lost re-election on Tuesday, or Terry Branstad, a Republican who previously served as governor. Each appointed one of the departing justices to the Supreme Court, and Mr. Branstad appointed Ms. Ternus to a lower court. Mr. Branstad has called for changing the selection system.
Oh cool, they were threathening Supreme Court judges not to uphold the law, this gets better all the time. Maybe these organisations should be investigated for illegal operations. I mean, what else can a 'warning' to a Supreme Court justice be other than a threath to his life and security? The justices are not elected, they are appointed for life, so there is no legal way to impose your will on them.
Congratulations America
There's a difference between state supreme court justices and SCOTUS. Now you know why DADT and same-sex marriage is such a problem for the United States of America. We're not so united after all, huh.
What? Where? I only saw reference to the state's Supreme Court, and those are elected *or at least have to run for reelection* Which is just a stupid idea in the first place. I can understand having some sort of recall or impeachment mechanic, but regular "retention" elections?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The message accross the country, all activist judges. That includes the US Supreme Court. The message is 'look, we threw them out, we're not stopping here'.
Congratulations America
I.E. They want to vote other "activist judges" out of office. Don't see how you can get an implied physical threat from that.
Hope is the denial of reality
He didn't say vote them out of office. He told it was a warning for all other 'activist judges'.
Congratulations America
A warning sent through the ballot box.
Hope is the denial of reality
He makes no comment that you could construe to mean he means through the ballot box and the ballot box only.A warning sent through the ballot box.
Congratulations America
If you want to charge someone with a crime in the US, the threat has to be explicit and specific.
Hope is the denial of reality
Just like in most countries, but it doesn't hurt to start taking notice before somebody crosses the line. These are the people that brought you bombs at abortion clinics and murdered physicians.
Congratulations America
Really? The mainstream abortion opponents did that? I didn't realize that.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote