Feingold walks out of hearing
By on May 18th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Feingold walks out of hearing
on anti-gay constitutional ban. During a contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) “declared his opposition to the amendment” and walked out. “If you want to leave,†committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said, “good riddance.†“See ya,†Feingold replied.
UPDATE: Feingold statement: “Today’s markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
He’s so friggin’ ballsy. I’d proudly vote for him for president.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:48 pmI love this man. I just wish the vast majority of the American public would open their eyes and see what a find we have in him. I want him as part of the next administration. I do not care if he is Pres or VP. He has to help us get out of this mess that the republicans have created.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:49 pmhe is the MAN! thank god there are a few people left in congress that are not hiding under their desks! all democrats should walk out of the building and not return until there is full disclosure on the nsa, detainee torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, etdc, the list is endless!!
May 18th, 2006 at 1:51 pmAnd that is what America needs in a president, and the Democrats need in a leader.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:54 pmThe only hope for the democratic party! Feingold!
May 18th, 2006 at 1:54 pmIs Feingold trying to be the Best Senator Ever?
May 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pm“I don’t need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold
Wow. Just WOW! I’m glad Specter cleared that up for us.
Russ Feingold is like butter. Love him, I do.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pmRuss Fiengold is THE MAN.
I would vote for him for president. The rest of the Democrats are a bunch of sissies. We need a leader like Russ.
Nancy Pelosi needs to be removed.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:56 pmSpecter should just admit that he is a hack and a lap dog of President Bush. This man needs to removed from office. In ten years, we will se Arlen Specter as the useless piece of shit that was a big part of the downfall of this country.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:56 pmSpecter should just admit that he is a hack and a lap dog of President Bush. This man needs to removed from office. In ten years, we will se Arlen Specter as the useless piece of shit that was a big part of the downfall of this country.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:56 pm“I don’t need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I,†Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold
Says the man who is trying to restrict the constitutional rights of the entire gay population. Me thinks you do need a lecture Arlen!!!
May 18th, 2006 at 1:57 pmIt’s a huge irony that Specter’s credentials as a “moderate” republican include being pro-gay rights (despite authoring an anti-gay constitutional amendment) and being pro-choice (despite the last two SCOTUS inductions).
“Magic Bullet” Specter certainly looks good in sheep’s clothing, eh?
May 18th, 2006 at 1:59 pmDoes this mean the GOP will no longer accept gay people’s votes, or will they only count as 4/5’s of a person for census purposes?
May 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm.
Arlen clearly learned ZIPPO as a human being in his life threatening bout with cancer.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm#4 – And that is what America needs in a president, and the Democrats need in a leader.
Comment by Bruce Gorton
Yay, Bruce! I consider that a ringing endorsement.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pmIs Russ Feingold the only democrat who isn’t being blackmailed or threatened? I want him for President.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:02 pmFeingold for President!
My bumper sticker idea:
Feingold ‘08: The Lone Democrat With Testicles
May 18th, 2006 at 2:02 pmSo in the Brave New Constitution, how much of a person will a gay be? 3/5? 4/5? And will they be more of a person than an immigrant, illegal or otherwise?
May 18th, 2006 at 2:03 pmgay marriage ban? with the world going to hell, they are focusing on appeasing their right wing christian fascists….
May 18th, 2006 at 2:04 pmI would put that on my bumper in a heart beat.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#13 – ooh GMT, freaky coincidence – oh, wait a minute, I can see Rod Serling outside my window with a microphone…
#20 – Feingold ‘08 – Got Balls?
May 18th, 2006 at 2:06 pmFeingold ‘08: The Lone Democrat With Testicles
Feingold ‘08 – Got Balls?
Get ‘em made up, and I’ll slap them both on my bumper!
May 18th, 2006 at 2:08 pmDamn Sen. Feingold is a great man.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:09 pmFeingold is definately a politician I would vote for: he actually believes in what he says/advocates unlike so many others. Specter is doing what the repubs attacked Kerry for – voting for something that he’s against. That’s just incredible. Why vote for a constitutional ammendment you don’t agree with. Oh, because you pander to the radical right.
I’m disparaged some for being ‘pro-business’ and the like on TP (I admit to the charges in a limited context) but I am very much socially liberal and would be proud if Feingold was my President.
He’d be MUCH better than Hillary or Gore. And no, I’m not a fan of the former because she is compromising values that shouldn’t be compromised and the latter would lead to defeat. But yes, I respect Gore a great deal – it would have been nice if he’d been energetic like he is now back in 2000.
On a side note, there are rumors Gore might run as an independent. I doubt it, but he’d certainly put uncertainty into the mix.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:11 pm“You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I.â€
I guess it’s not a flip flop if you do one thing and say another at the same time. The current crop of Repubs have raised this to a new art form.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#19 – They’ve got to “play” to their base.
Tax cuts for people so rich they don’t care about how much the country goes into debt.
Legislation to appease the “special interests” of the most radical of the ultra-radical-right-wing.
Wars based on lies in order to control the oil resources in the world.
What’s next? A special pass for Republicans to “get out of jail for free” when they’ve been convicted of crimes? Oh, wait. That’s a Presidential Pardon. My bad.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:12 pmIt does good to raise the reasons why he left. It is the pathetic supression by BushCo of common respect and fairness for the American public. Think of the great irony of the US being believed to be the great democracy….wrong!
May 18th, 2006 at 2:14 pmThe amazing thing is, Specter is supposed to be some kind of MODERATE republithug. Well, maybe he’s moderate when compared to Sanitorum (who will have his ass handed to him by Casey in November), but hey, who’s counting?
We are.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:16 pmIts nice to know that you know Gore has no chance….WTF?
I for one would back GORE immediately if he should decide to run.
and let’s not forget the fact that he actually did win if not for the cheating factor,
May 18th, 2006 at 2:17 pm#17, #22 -
#
Feingold ‘08: The Lone Democrat With Testicles
Feingold ‘08 – Got Balls?
I love it!
May 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pmWhen Specter gets cancer again and dies a painful death I’ll chuckle alittle. He’ll be sitting there on his death bed, saying: I only had a short time on earth and I spent HOW MUCH time worrying about gay people???????????????????”
Now THAT’S good gov’t!
May 18th, 2006 at 2:19 pmfrom CBS Dick Meyer, editorial director
” On the more distant right flank, the party’s Christian soldiers have stopped being such good soldiers. They are furious that Bush and the Republican Congress have delivered lip service but no action on issues like gay marriage, immigration, prayer in school, obscenity standards and abortion”
Bush Is Now a Lame Duck
May 18th, 2006 at 2:21 pmBy Dick Meyer
CBS News
next up: prayer in school, obscenity standards, and abortion.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:23 pm#31 – Please stop with that shit.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:26 pmAny attempt to write discrimination INTO the Constitution is “an affront to the Constitution.” You go, Russ. So proud…*sniff*
May 18th, 2006 at 2:29 pmThere aren’t enough other senators and reps standing behind Feingold. When that starts happening maybe things will start moving.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:29 pmRuss Feingold. Great Senator, or greatest Senator?
May 18th, 2006 at 2:30 pmCompassionate conservatives.
ever heard of a little thing called the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT?????
it does two things:
-allows any state to ban gay marriage if they so choose
-defines marriage as the union of a man and woman for the purposes of federal law.
…and oh yeah, it was signed into law 10 YEARS AGO, by one president clinton.
this bullshit political manipulation positively enrages me. thank god that the gay marriage ban has no chance of actually making it out of the senate, let alone getting equal support from the house.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:37 pmI hope Feingold runs in ‘08 and wins. This country needs a man like Feingold for President. A man with BRAINS. What a concept!
May 18th, 2006 at 2:39 pm#37 – RUSS FEINGOLD: Greatest Senator of All Time™
For all their talk about “Original Intent” the Republicans sure do want to change the Constituion all the time.
Arlen Specter vs. Thomas Jefferson, You decide.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:43 pmGood for him… Why waste time with a bunch of ignorant idiots like these homophobes. Let us progress into a society that embraces the miracle that makes the human race unique is so many ways.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#38 – Dan, I don’t think anyone here thinks Clinton was perfect. Obviously the man had his flaws. In comparison to the ass clown in the White House now, he’s looking awfully good.
Having said that, I agree with your frustration about the political manipulation going on with this issue.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:47 pmThe Republicans are cranking up for ‘08 elections and beyond. All they have anymore is hatred, fear and division to run on. That’s their ace in the hole and they play it well. They will try to create division and hatred against gays and immigrants. Along with that they’ll play the fear card as much as possible.
If Feingold and other brave men can take these strategies away from the Republicans, they will be left with nothing but a record of greed and deceit to run on in forthcoming elections.
Email Feingold and give him your support.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#31 – Please stop with that shit.
Comment by Zookeeper — May 18, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
Zoo – I don’t want Specter to gets cancer again and dies a painful death but I do kind of agree with obgyn’s sentiments.
There comes a time (hopefully) in everyone’s life when they will look back and asses their efforts and deed… I can’t help but think that this will not be one of those moments that Arlen looks back on with pride… in fact I hope that he does feel a sense of shame someday for what he’s been a part of here today.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:55 pmG.W.SuperChrist,
Zookeeper is specifically talking about Will OBGYN for Food’s “I hope XXX dies, so I can laugh about it” comments. Will OBGYN for Food uses this same lame statement in almost everyone of his threads. I am starting to completely skip Will OBGYN for Food’s comment all together. That is pretty bad, considering he is on our side, but Will OBGYN for Food comes across as being a 13 year old when he hopes everybody dies so he can laugh.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:00 pmNo matter that Specter has sometimes shown courage in challenging the White House, he is still a Republican and in the end, that is how he will vote. They cannot step out of line.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:00 pmFeingold, however, exemplifies a typical Democrat. Not marching in lock-step, able to see multiple facets of an issue, unafraid to have an internal debate, and able to stand up for what he thinks is right in the face of opposition.
Feingold has repeatedly shown that he has the moxie that many of us believe is a necessary requirement for a good politician.
How about a Feingold and Gore ticket?
A MAN among men.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:01 pmYES!!! Gore/Feingold 2008!!
May 18th, 2006 at 3:02 pm#46, Specter only challenges the WH when the cameras are on him – remember he still let Alberto ‘Torquemada’ Gonzales testify without an oath on the torture hearings
May 18th, 2006 at 3:03 pmI’m glad he stood up for gay rights, but I think he could have accomplished more by staying in there and debating it on record. This way it’s going to be a 10 second news blurb and over.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:07 pmSuperChrist – not just today, but everyday. I used to like him as well as McCain, however in the last year they have both shown their true colors. Like every other republican it does not matter what is best for the country, it is what is best for their party.
I did not like everything Clinton did, however, I understood that as president he was not in office just to pander to progressives, he was the president of the whole country and tried to do what is best for the whole country.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:09 pmRuss Feingold. Great Senator, or greatest Senator?
Comment by bluefish — May 18, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Colbert? Is that you?
May 18th, 2006 at 3:10 pm“JEFF GANNON…”Come on down!”
May 18th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI don’t wish anyone to get sick and die a painful death – but I do wonder what these people will think in the future if they have the time to reflect on their lives and accomplishments — will they be satisfied to tell themselves they were loyal to leadership? Or will they have doubts and self-recriminations about their lack of integrity, and their obedience to faulty leadership at the expense of national good?
May 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pmThat is the sort of misery I wish upon people who are mean, vengeful, and deliberately failed in their responsibilties.
How about a Feingold and Gore ticket?
Comment by Marie — May 18, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
I pride myself on understanding our government and keeping abreast (heh heh… I said breast) of the current situation in politics…. but can someone be a VP more than two terms? Is that two term restriction just on the Prez?
May 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#33 GWSC, you mean like Lee Atwater did when he was dying?
May 18th, 2006 at 3:16 pm#55 only on the President…unless the VP pick had previously held two terms as president and then I have no earthly idea what the constitution would have
May 18th, 2006 at 3:16 pm#49 TtT
May 18th, 2006 at 3:16 pmThat’s exactly the sort of thing I meant — Specter says he will be tough on questions involving wiretapping and challenge the W.H. ( just as he said he would be tough on A.G.) but when it comes down to it, I do not trust him — he is a Republican. I hear what they say, but I pay attention to what they do — therein lies the truth of their character.
# 45 Spudge_Boy – Ahhh… I did not know about is propensity for sadistic commentary.
# 51 Jules – Yes… everyday!
May 18th, 2006 at 3:17 pmThis whole “our side” “their side” thing is really just buying into “their side”.
To paraphrase Lincoln, its the parties who hope to be on our side, not the other way around.
Everyone has their own side. Sometimes, people agree on most things. Other times, they don’t. But everyone can’t vote themselves into office. So the Democratic Party (not Democrat voters) develops a platform, and the Republican Party apparatus does a similar thing. Then people look at those two platforms and decide which suits them better.
If you like more than two parties, create a parliamentary system. But this is what the FF created for us, folks.
Please, let’s try to stem the tide of approaching this thing as if we were rooting for a sports team.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#50 Tundra
May 18th, 2006 at 3:19 pmConsidering the media today and their bootlicking of Bush&Co, this is a ten-second blurb no matter if Feingold had stayed to fight or made his stand as he did.
Can we all say “Smokescreen?”
That’s what this is. The GOP is deflecting attention from the failing war in Iraq, the failures of Bush’s revamped FEMA, the lobbying scandals of the Repbulican Party, the warrentless wiretapping of Americans, and the overall disregard that this administration, and by association the Republican Congress and their rubber stamp, has for the average working American.
So, are we going to let it come to this? THIS is going to become the issue in November?
Pathetic, conservatives… really. Quite pathetic. If you can’t own up and discuss all of your failings, you pull out the ‘gays are bad’ card. The founding fathers would laugh you off the Senate floor.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:20 pmThis is great!! Why can’t other Dems take Feingold’s lead and fight back other Bushies? I’m for whatever it takes to get these fools out of Washington!!!
May 18th, 2006 at 3:22 pm#56 Jane
May 18th, 2006 at 3:28 pmAtwater survived long enough to see the gross errors in his life — too bad Rove has forgotten that part about his mentor. Atwater was a mean and nasty s.o.b. and I have charitably wondered if his brain tumor contributed to his nasty persona and his vile behavior. In any case, it has to be pretty miserable to face death and realize you have spent your life hurting others and being a revolting asshole.
Hopefully we are witness to the last throes of the neo-reich. They call it ralling the base, but it’s just a parade of all the old fear and hate devisive issue again. What if it dails, what if the King’s poll points continue to dive to the bottom? These uttraconservative nazis will be left holding their nuts when the congressional majority flips to the left. No one will listent to their shit any more. They will baseless and powerless. Russ is the MAN for the new left, he is strong and has integrity that stregthens his power. Spector just wagges an old, angry finger at the new pup, he is afraid of the future he sees in Russ, very afraid and knows his days are numbered.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:31 pmThe Christian Right and the Neocons lay in bed at night thinking of the various and sadistic ways the devil will torture the people who enjoy this site. They say they “pray for us” and label us “lost sheep” when in reality it’s their families Jesus spoke of when he taught dividing families.
And when these people enter periods of doubt and weakness of faith they recharge by entertaining the idea of punishing people with their own hands. And invading other countries. And killing people. And raping them. And filming it. And laughing. And pretending to torture family members to get other family members to talk.
Our government kills for Jesus. Our government kills for oil. And the worst part is they lie about it and can’t even own up to and acknowledge their own sins. These are people that Satan himself would spit out of hell because they are so sickening.
And I don’t need you idiots telling me what to think or say. The truth is self evedent. You treat this like some sort of chat room. Go to Myspace if you’re looking foe friends.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:35 pmAt this point Specter is just keeping his reserved space in the bunker open for when the Shi* goes down and is liable to say or do anything to keep it.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:40 pmNo trust at all in this half-bald poodlehead with mange.
Sorry, in my comment (#56) I was really referring to Comment #44, not 33. Typo!
May 18th, 2006 at 3:41 pmNow this is some good news! Someone liberal finally taking a stand.
In 2008, I plan to write in Gore (Pres) and Feingold (VP). Also Max Clelland for Congress. Am hoping for two qualified Senators to actually run here in Georgia. Don’t know if Diebold has yet been rigged to erase write-ins, but maybe there’s a loop hole there to beat that system?
May 18th, 2006 at 3:41 pmRight on Will! The truth is ugly!
May 18th, 2006 at 3:52 pmAnd I don’t need you idiots telling me what to think or say. The truth is self evedent. You treat this like some sort of chat room. Go to Myspace if you’re looking foe friends.
Comment by Will OBGYN for Food — May 18, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Dang – for an OBGYN you sure are sensitive!!!!
May 18th, 2006 at 3:53 pmKill for Jesus?
I think you nailed it…
Let’s see,
Muslims kill for Allah
Christians kill for Jesus
I wonder what Jesus or Allah
would think…could it be that
No Fundamentalists Go To Heaven?
Russ, it takes balls to stand up to Wingnuts!
Arlan, you’re a paper tiger neutered by the Freaks in the White House
May 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pmGore/Feingold 2008!!
I’d support that. President Gore, and Vice President Feingold. That’d be a great ticket!
May 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmThe corrupt republican congress and their incompetent president is the greatest combination of malfeasance and misfeasance visited upon the nation in its 230 year history. While the problems they created fester, they can still find time to devote to their prime concerns–Gays and Choice. Feingold is a rational human being and knows the “real” problems facing the nation that need immediate and concerned effort to solve them. My wife is a DAR–Daughter of the American Revolution. There are other DARS–Dumb Ass Republicans!
May 18th, 2006 at 4:14 pmIf God answers prayer, Feingold will be the nominee of the Dems. The results of the election: Does the “McGovern” ring a bell.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:16 pmI love the man too. How many of you are putting your money where your mouth is? If we are going to take this country back we need to get and keep good people in office! Russ just sent out an email the other day asking for support for Congressman Leonard Bosewell (iowa-3rd district).
link
https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=KVdpHCPmlUbvFpPjYibqlg%3d%3d
Give up a trip to Starbucks and send money! If not now, when? It’s time to take it back.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:19 pmThank you Senator Feingold for doing your Congressional job and protecting our Constitution.
How can there be such hatred for people who are different. This is suppose to be the land of the free and the brave. We celebrate differences. It appears that family values means two things to the brand of Christianity who has the most public outlets and who has the Republican party by the balls and are twisting them: (1) hate gays, (2) hate women. I suppose I could add in a third, (3) hate science. Wow! It should be noted, not all religions, not all Christians, hate gays and want to make them second class citizens. When did Jesus become so intolerate? The answer: he hasn’t, but man has. We should tune into and give a voice to the more tolerant brands of Christian religions and other religions. By the way I love Ellen, Nate (from Oprah) and the Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, and it appears multi-millions do too.
What does it mean to be a good citizen? A good person? And if a gay person serves his country, provides for his familty, helps his community, our government, shouldn’t they be equal and have the same opportunities and freedoms? Yes! Let’s get it straight folks, gay folks aren’t hurting anyone, and this is nothing more than hateful discrimination against people who do not have the power or money, and the people who have the power and money don’t like this particular group of people so they have publicly opted to go after them.
We need to have these discussions in a public debate forum. Bring it on and lets talk real family values. Until we have a real public discussion about this, it’ll be used as a political wedge issue. All I hear publicly from this brand of Christianity and the Republicans extremists, family values means, against gays, against women. I don’t know if all of them really believe this, or is it a way to divide people while they divert our attention and do more sinister things that really impact our lives. I think it is pretty rotten of Karl Rove to stoke the fringe hatred elements of our population, but that is the way the Republican party has decided to go. It doesn’t seem very moral or ethical, or good for our long-term growth, financially or personally.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:21 pm#75, does the name ‘Nixon’ ring a bell?
May 18th, 2006 at 4:32 pm#45 – Thanks for clearing that up, Spudge. I had noticed a trend with that one, and it makes me sick. I’m pretty sure that’s not the old “Gus the Loving OBGYN.” He had a brain — and warm hands.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:34 pmWill OBGYN for Food,
In your post number 66 you talk about how bad Christians think of ways of killling for oil and money. We were pointing out that just about every post you type has a) somebody dying and b) you laughing about it. Then you attack Christians (which really be neo-cons) for wanting to kill. That would be hypocritical.
Saying “I hope XXX dies, so I can laugh about it” is the level of maturity you will find on MySpace.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:39 pmAnd I don’t need you idiots telling me what to think or say…
-Will OBGYN for Food
Posting in every thread. every day ” I hope/wish _______ would ________ and die” is juvinile and sick. I rate it in the same place as IRI’s racial slurs.
Frankly it makes you look like an idiot, not us.
I will just ignore your posts in the future, like I do most the trolls if you continue.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:39 pmFeingold proves again and again, that he will stand alone against all opposistion if the need calls for it!!! He is a Dem that this independent voter would vote for in a New York minute.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:45 pmYay for Feingold!!!
I am so sick of the Bigotry of the repugs and their their Un-Christian Right
If it bothers you so much for gays to marry, Don’t marry one!!
This country was based on individual rights. When you deny rights to one group, you are violating the spirit of the Constitution.
You know, that “goddammed peice of paper” as Bush calls it. The one that starts with “We The People…”
Either we are ALL drinking from the same water fountain of freedom in this country, or no one really is.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:49 pmIf it bothers you so much for gays to marry, Don’t marry one!!
Hmm…I’m gonna start calling you “Biofuel”, Wayne. Because it’s soft turds like you that feed the Neocon Death Machine.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:00 pmLighten up guys, i’m not into this homosexual thing but what ever happened to”to each their own”?
May 18th, 2006 at 5:05 pmNow we find out Will OBGYN for Food is a closet troll. A new special kind of troll. One that attacks the people who’s side he is on. Joy!
May 18th, 2006 at 5:05 pmA constitutional ammendment that bans same sex marriage is not going to help with the high cost of gas or the increasingly high cost of health care. It will not help the budget deficit nor will it stop this runnaway spending by the Republicans. This is pandering to the American Taliban (religious right) that does nothing to improve the lives of the American people. It doesn’t make America safer and it won’t help simplify Medicare D for Seniors.
Marriage is an institution that is governed by the States and if the Constitution of the US adds this ammendment, then the States are losing thier rights. The American Taliban considers marriage as a religous institution. If that is the case, then civil ceremonies will no longer be legal. This will put a strain on the Los Vegas marriage business.
The Republicans are so out of line with the needs of the American people. Last Tuesday during a special election in a district that is 2:1 Republican/Democrat, a Democrat was elected with a 35% majority. That means that there were many Republicans that were willing to vote for a Democrat. This was a special election for a State office. Doesn’t matter – the message is the same. Repbulicans are out of touch even with their own constituents.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:08 pmBack to Russ Feingold, i just visited his web site. He has been a hellava busy man over the past few years…seems as though he would be a guy that would truly go to bat for “We The People”
May 18th, 2006 at 5:10 pmIf there are any gay people still voting for GOP candidates(minus Mary Cheney), what can I say other than double “WOW”!
May 18th, 2006 at 5:22 pmStill hung up on this gay issue thing huh?
May 18th, 2006 at 5:24 pmWow, after looking at Comment #84, I KNOW that’s not our old friend Gus the Loving OBGYN. I thought at first that it must be Gus, ’cause he used to change his name around (and why would anyone copy him?), but thatcomment couldn’t possibly come from Gus.
On topic – I’d be very happy with a Feingold/Gore ticket, or even Feingold/Edwards ticket. Despite being a New Yorker, I’m no fan of Hillary’s policies.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:26 pmHillary is just a low fat neocon, and i’m from NY
May 18th, 2006 at 5:30 pmHow about a Feingold/Richardson ticket??
May 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pmHmm…I’m gonna start calling you “Biofuelâ€, Wayne. Because it’s soft turds like you that feed the Neocon Death Machine.
Comment by Will OBGYN for Food
What a childish troll you have become. Now I am laughing. You are now on the same ignore list as IRI and MA.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:37 pmI don’t see whole lot of substance going on here….
May 18th, 2006 at 5:40 pmLighten up guys, i’m not into this homosexual thing but what ever happened toâ€to each their ownâ€?
Comment by Glenn Mac — May 18, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
“To each their own” would be “autosexual”, not “homosexual”.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:42 pmI repeat, not a whole lot of substance going on here…
May 18th, 2006 at 5:45 pmNo substance and no one commenting on the money thing? Can this be a case of all talk, no action? If “We the People” want out government back we have to pay for it!
May 18th, 2006 at 5:52 pmElaborate please on the “money thing” Oil money?,corporate money? ooorrr less money for the middle class??? whatchya mean?
May 18th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#96 – “To each their own†would be “autosexualâ€, not “homosexualâ€.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Wayne, you have an uncanny ability to bring the hammer down squarely on the head of the nail.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:15 pmI have yet to hear a single argument against gay marriage that makes sense, isn’t based on fear and ignorance, and isn’t based on somebody’s religious views.
That last category gets me because, as somebody pointed out in another thread, there are a lot of things in the Bible for which the penalty is the same as that for homosexuality. Why isn’t there a constitutional amendment to ban women from wearing clothes made from two different cloths? Why isn’t there an amendment to make working on the Sabbath punishable by death? The reasons are simple: They would be stupid amendments, and they would be forcing someone else’s religious views on the rest of the country.
As for the fear and ignorance, I have seen too many conservative people denounce gay people as a whole but admit that the gay people they personally know are okay. It’s the “others†that they fear. And I do believe it is fear that drives these people, especially the men, to hate gays. I believe that conservative men who denounce homosexuality are actually afraid of being anally raped. Stupid and ignorant, I know, but that’s what they’re afraid of. Or perhaps, they’re afraid that they’ll enjoy it.
Since there is not a single intelligent argument to be made in support of such an amendment, the only people who would be supporting it are either stupid or already elected to office (or both). Jon Stewart made a good point a couple of weeks ago: In the entire history of our country there has been only one amendment to the Constitution that restricted freedoms. And by a funny coincidence, there has been only one amendment in the history of our country that was repealed. The US Constitution, the foundation of our freedom as a society, should NEVER be used to restrict the freedoms of the people. Allowing gay people to marry and receive all the benefits that heterosexual married people enjoy is not a threat to anyone, and I defy anyone to prove to me that it is.
Also, I feel that Senator Specter owes Senator Feingold a very public apology for that “Good riddance†remark. To try to hold hearings on a Constitutional Amendment (about anything) behind closed doors so that the public can’t see the debate is appalling. It is also very telling of the Republicans that they believe their support for this horrible idea can’t withstand public scrutiny. What’s also telling is what they choose to care about when there are so many things that the Bush Administration is doing to make the US Congress virtually irrelevant. Does Senator Specter fully appreciate that no matter what laws he and his colleagues pass, President Bush will continue to do what he feels like doing, and not doing what he doesn’t feel like doing? Because if he understood that, he would begin holding them accountable. Since he hasn’t even tried to hold them accountable, it’s logical to conclude that he doesn’t understand the seriousness of the situation.
Get a life, Arlen.
Russ Feingold in ‘08 – Because having an idiot in the White House just hasn’t worked.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:28 pmSimpler question which causes more damage to a marriage, two gays getting married or two straight people getting a divorce,
if they want to defend marriage sooo much why not a constitutional admendment to ban divorce……could it be because the same people calling for a ban on gay marriage have a higher divorce rate than the state that allows gay marriage?
May 18th, 2006 at 6:34 pmLighten up guys, i’m not into this homosexual thing but what ever happened toâ€to each their ownâ€?
Comment by Glenn Mac
I am not gay, but I do have friends that are.
Gays are people.
They are busy living their own lives, dealing with the day to day bull just like we all do.
Why in the heck should they have to deal with bigots trying to turn them in to 2nd class citizens on a constant basis.
What does gay marriage have to do with hetro marriage? not a damn thing.
Does gay marriage put a hetro mrriage in danger?
Not at all.
The divorce rate is at an all time high and more people are living together than getting married than ever before.
#96 The other Wayne ( nice name by the way =)
May 18th, 2006 at 6:34 pmHillarious response hehe
#101 – Yay, Wayne!
May 18th, 2006 at 6:36 pm#103 – Yay, Wayne!
#102— yeah what he said =)
May 18th, 2006 at 6:36 pmif they want to defend marriage sooo much why not a constitutional admendment to ban divorce……
Comment by Clif — May 18, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
I’m gonna send that very suggestion to my neocongressman Nathan Deal and see what absurd form letter it generates :D
Thanks for the thought.
These people will then use the ban to prevent gay adoption while tens of thousands of children already live in foster care and all reptuable adoption agencies have loads of studies that show gay parents are no worse than straight ones, and do not affect the children’s sexuality (which makes sense since homosexuality is a birth trait like blue eys or black hair, and not a choice like bigotry, hate and exclusion).
May 18th, 2006 at 6:40 pmHere’s my sweetheart’s (Russ) statement from DKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/18/16392/8661
May 18th, 2006 at 6:49 pmLooks like both Waynes are on a roll today!
Also, #77 Jack, hear, hear, great post!
May 18th, 2006 at 6:58 pm#101 Senator Specter owes Senator Feingold a very public apology for that “Good riddance†remark
May 18th, 2006 at 7:00 pmYes, he does. But don’t hold your breath. Remember they all graduated from the same school of Rethuglicanism. Recall Sensenbrenner slammed the gavel down and turned out the lights when Dems were still talking at a meeting.
#102 Clif,
Good point, Clif. I was going to throw that in, too, but I knew my comments were already getting too long.
Thanks, Wayne (you must be one handsome devil), Zookeeper, Jane. And I like what Jack (#77) had to say, too.
Have I missed something? Were there any conservatives out there to tell us why there should be an amendment to our precious Constitution to restrict freedoms? Did their arguments make a lick of sense? Didn’t think so.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:06 pmWayne and I are heading home to watch Keith–see everyone tomorrow!
May 18th, 2006 at 7:23 pmMy choice would be Feingold and Obama. Wouldn’t that blow the socks off the red-neck bible-thumpers.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:23 pm#112 I’m with ya man. Obama said he wouldn’t run for prez but he never said he wouldn’t run for vice prez as far as I know.
Notice how the Democratic Presidents are always young and the Pugs are always old farts?
Russ has my vote. Hillary doesn’t stand a chance against this guy. Thank dog.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:34 pmMy email to Sen. Specter:
=====
Dear Senator Specter:
I am disappointed that you voted to have the marriage amendment move to the floor of the senate. I am also disappointed in your “good riddance” comment to the very honorable Senator Feingold. I would expect you to publicly apologize for such a remark. Senator Feingold seems to have a better grasp of the Constitution than you – he is protecting it from having discriminatory amendments added.
I believe that marriage should be gender neutral and that there is absolutely no need for an amendment to the Constitution that explicitly promotes discrimination against LBGT people. Legalizing same-sex marriage in NO way harms or lessens “traditional” marriage and there are NO studies that demonstrate that children raised in same-sex coupled households are any better/worse than “traditional” households.
Conservatives have always complained that gay people are promiscuous – and while that isn’t true – they now are doing everything they can do to deny these people a legal way to protect their relationships.
Since you seem to support this marriage amendment, I do hope you plan to work towards removing women’s voting rights (that’s also historical). Please also be sure to work on an amendment banning divorce – since marriage is a lifetime commitment (remember the “until death do us part” part?) – as a conservative, I’m sure you’d want to codify that into our Constitution.
Please re-consider your support for the marriage amendment. It won’t pass, it’s blatant discrimination, and it’s just plain silly.
Thanks.
-Tim
======
It ain’t perfect – but it’s better than nothing. It’s not like he’ll listen – I’ve written before and get the usual canned blah blah blah responses. I used to have a wee bit of respect for Specter, but everytime he “calls” for some investigation, he rolls over like a dog wanting his belly scratched. Putz.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:57 pmAnd I don’t need you idiots telling me what to think or say. The truth is self evedent. You treat this like some sort of chat room. Go to Myspace if you’re looking foe friends.
Comment by Will OBGYN for Food
I’m with ya when you talk about the death and disease of the murderers, liars and rapists.
I accept the fact that in life one must deal with death and disease.
I know a certain percentage of people are going to die painful deaths so it is my hope is that the painful deaths are reserved for bad people such as the republicans.
People here need to accept that all people die and guys like us, if we could control who dies of what and when we would chose republicans for the early and painful deaths.
Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:57 pmPresident Feingold. That sounds much better. He will lead us out of this Bush-imposed hell. It is time for reform. We will see if the American apathetic public has woken up. Become a DISSENTER
May 18th, 2006 at 8:21 pmCampaign for progressive legislation forum http://tinyurl.com/lyqwm
May 18th, 2006 at 9:19 pm#115 – I’d be interested in hearing the response you get, MrTim.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:09 pm#119 – Zookeeper – no problem, I’ll let ya know… I’d post the reply in this thread, but it may be several days (last time it was almost a week to get a reply) – I can email you, if you’d like – just let me know where (my email is: mrtimpa@gmail.com).
On a side note – I was watching Fox News and….
May 18th, 2006 at 10:27 pmIf he runs, I’m voting for him.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:00 pmFeingold for President 2008!!
OH could it be??
A true Patriot. A true Champion for the Constitution.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:33 pm#112 My choice would be Feingold and Obama. Wouldn’t that blow the socks off the red-neck bible-thumpers.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:47 pmComment by Clyde the Ripper
I’m with you — a Jew and a Black man — what a combination. Integrity, courage — I think it would sell! The red necks and Bible thumpers would be apoplectic.
[...] Feingold walks out of hearing on anti-gay constitutional ban… election year, maybe? [...]
May 19th, 2006 at 12:04 amPerhaps the Democrats should talk to the uptight, ain’t right, angry christians, and ask them how many times have the Republicans promised that if they voted for them, they would take care of the homosexuals for them. And have they kept their promises? Republicans control all branches of government, and have a firm grasp on the judicial, as well. But they are still not ‘getting it done’, for them. How long are they going to keep supporting these people? That could be interesting.
May 19th, 2006 at 12:18 amCyra, part of the reason Bush’s approval rating is slipping so low, is that the Evangelicals are no longer supporting him as much. And I think that’s why the right is pushing issues like this now….to try to win them back.
May 19th, 2006 at 12:56 am#126- Lily, that is exactly my point. They never follow through on their campaign promises, which is why it is still an issue every election cycle. But they have yet to catch on to it. It’s getting them to see it, that I am suggesting.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:41 amCampaign for progressive legislation http://www.zazzle.com/maximus7
May 19th, 2006 at 2:18 amRepubliKKKlan economic policies have destroyed more marriages and pose more of a threat to more marriages than any issue the RepubliKKKlans could trump up in the midst of an election campaign designed to divert attention away from their deathbringing economic policies and regulation policies.
Campaign for progressive legislation http://www.zazzle.com/maximus7
May 19th, 2006 at 2:21 amOh, and Senator Specter? How is that investigation on the illegal wiretapping coming along? Must be great, if you have time for this. When can we expect your report?
May 19th, 2006 at 2:40 amDidn’t get through all the posts, but in the first dozen or so the enthusiasm for a man who gets up and storms out of a room is pretty humorous to me. Typical democrat – don’t like what’s going on, then just bolt, get the heck out of there, remover yourself from the process…How honorable!
Americans can look to this page to see exactly what would happen if a guy (I almost said man) like this became President. Rather than stand up and face down our enemies, he would simply turn and run. Don’t you agree that’d be too bad for our brave American soldiers, to be led by such a weak, childish fellow.
Seriosly, I can remember things like this taking place back when I was in elementary & middle school.
Any way. The thing that really bothers me about this amendment is how the media has turned it into a negative thing. I’m pretty sure the amendment reads, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” not “Thou shalt ban all gay unions.” And yet liberals call it the gay marriage ban. I for one and glad that our government is considering defining the most basic and bedrock of our institutions, marriage.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:02 amYou want gay people people to stop having gay sex, then I say let them get married! That’ll put an end to it!
May 19th, 2006 at 6:28 am#112, 123 Obama supports Lieberman, that crosses him off the list.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:40 am#131 No where has it been reported that Feingold “stormed out”. He simply left the room after stating that holding this hearing in an area inaccessible to the public was not appropriate for a Constitutional amendment and that he did not wish to be a party to a quorum.
Why do we need an amendment to the Constitution stating what marriage is? Why is it so important? Can anyone answer that without bringing religion into it.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:51 amC Storm writes:
“Any way. The thing that really bothers me about this amendment is how the media has turned it into a negative thing. I’m pretty sure the amendment reads, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,†not “Thou shalt ban all gay unions.†And yet liberals call it the gay marriage ban. I for one and glad that our government is considering defining the most basic and bedrock of our institutions, marriage.”
So, you approve of discrimination being codified into the Constitution? Nice. Well, then let’s add to that amendment with a part that totally bans divorce. I mean, if you really want to “protect” marriage, you need to make it clear that divorce isn’t an option.
Ironically, I believe that the areas of the country most opposed to same-sex marriage also have the highest divorce rates. You might know that the ONE state which has legal same-sex marriage has the LOWEST divorce rate. Go figure.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:15 amNew strategy, same as the old strategy…
Democrats, one day you’re going to get this. You’re going to figure out the way this works, and you’re going to figure out a way to beat it….
May 19th, 2006 at 8:51 amGore/Feingold 2008. I will do the happy dance it that happens. We need them so much. To bring sanity back to our federal government.
Senator Feingold did his constitutional duty by walking out. That is what those people who elected him EXPECT for him to do. Too bad many of our own representatives are there only FOR THEMSELVES. PARTY BEFORE COUNTRY IS TREASON. I can’t wait for the Dems to take the house. Those Articles of Impeachment are already drawn up. High Crimes and Misdemeanors, hell even felonies. Leavenworth here they come.
May 19th, 2006 at 9:20 amFeingold committed political suicide—it happens every time a liberal leader reveals their hand… The people in Wisconsin will be running to the right.
May 19th, 2006 at 9:43 am[...] But yet again, liberals and progressives dismiss this issue so easily. Places like the Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, or Think Progress dismiss this whole debate as mere political grand standing. I suspect deeply however, that the republicans know something we don’t. This is the second time they bring this to a vote, and though they may not have sufficient support in the senate to approve an amendment, they clearly feel this issue has political traction in the country, traction they desperately need in the coming elections. [...]
May 19th, 2006 at 9:55 amAny day now I expect to hear Feingold and Specter kill each other in a bar fight.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:08 am#131,C. Storms,
May 19th, 2006 at 10:49 amI’m impressed that someone who seems so ignorant was able to figure out how to use
a computer, not to mention about finding this website.
I don’t think the people in Wisconsin will be running to the right here anytime soon. The president has got to be the most hated man in Wisconsin right now and this stae has been blue since “Fighting Bob” LaFollette.
May 19th, 2006 at 11:10 amrael imperial aerosol kid (”exits in the daylight, spraygun hid”), good one, thanks for the laugh!
May 19th, 2006 at 12:36 pmBruce Nick,
Ok, that is a good argument – it’s fun debating people like you who have so much substance and are so incredibly articulate.
Here’s the deal. Saying marrriage is between a man and a woman is not discriminating against anyone. Everyone is a man or a woman. If a man or a woman wants to get married they can, just to someone of the opposite sex. Because, after all, that’s what marriage is.
Even though it’s not discrimination, I would like to also point out that discriminating against people because of a choice they make isn’t really discrimination anyway. They decided to make a particular choice that makes them unwilling to get “married” as the government would define it if this ammendment passes.
Nobody is telling anyone they can’t live together, they just can’t get “married”. How hard is it to understand what the word “married” means?
May 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#144
May 19th, 2006 at 1:44 pmWhat you don’t understand is that gays have been pushing to redefine marriage for quite some time. They want their “unions” to be equally accepted by society as traditional marriages—with the same legal rights that husbands and wives have concerning eachother. I’m totally against this, but I think it will eventually happen. America’s traditional values are systematically being challenged and overthrown on a regular basis. Liberals would like nothing more than to silence every conservative voice, so they’re automatically for anything that sticks it to traditional values—so they’ll support gay marriages.
CStorms, why do you act like a Democrat leaving a room in protest is an everyday occurrence? “Typical Democrat-don’t like what’s going on, then just bolt”, oh yeah, that happens all the time.
Apparently you would rather have our brave American soldiers led by, let’s see, a dilletante loser coward who went AWOL from the National Guard, and his henchmen with their deferments from Vietnam? How many businesses did Bush start and ruin?Of course, look how well that’s turned out for America, Iraq, and the world.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:52 pmI disagree that it will eventually happen, because I think Americans are smarter than that. Liberals are losing the battle of ideas (they have none) and continue to lose that the ballot box. The reason they are so incredibly loud now is that they feel the pressure of losing year after year.
That’s why Feingold walked out. They are deperate and can’t figure out what to do about it.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:53 pm#144,#145: Such “traditional” values like blacks unable to marry whites? Or women not allowed to vote? You mean those traditional values? How about those slave owner’s traditional values?
There isn’t any logical argument against same-sex marriage – other than the “traditions” BS. I don’t see why conservatives have their panties in a bunch because two people of the same gender want to have access to the same legal rights that marriage provides.
Oh – and liberals are hardly trying to “stick it to” conservatives – we’re just trying to help you get your head out of the sand.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:55 pmI’m so glad that your channeling Russ Feingold’s thoughts now, C Storms, how do you do it? Feingold walked out because he is a man of principle, unlike so many elected officials. This is a stupid, intolerant amendment which should never have seen the light of day. Oh, that’s right, it hasn’t yet, has it?
May 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pmJanie,
Explain how walking out of a room, does anything to show he’s a man of principal. I understand that that’s how many children behave (and many adults, for that matter) when they get in an argument and disagree with someone. Turn & run. I just tend to believe that a “real” man would stand in there and debate his views. Walking out does absolutely nothing but make him look like a hero to elementary school kids and liberals, but like a whimp to the rest of us.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pmJanie,
Explain how walking out of a room, does anything to show he’s a man of principle. I understand that that’s how many children behave (and many adults, for that matter) when they get in an argument and disagree with someone. Turn & run. I just tend to believe that a “real” man would stand in there and debate his views. Walking out does absolutely nothing but make him look like a hero to elementary school kids and liberals, but like a whimp to the rest of us.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:08 pmSorry I left that last one twice. I actually misspelled principle. Must have still been thinking of elementary school. Any way, I actually just read Janie’s previous post. It does happen all the time. I’ve seen so many liberals storm off talk shows “all the time”, when things don’t go their way.
Hannity or Rush begin to make some sense in their heads and they hang up. That’s the liberal defense mechanism.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:10 pmOh, and to compare race to homosexuality is like comparing eye color to hair color. People can’t their eye color or race, but can change their sexual orientation and hair color.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#148
May 19th, 2006 at 2:38 pmThe idea of marriage is a Biblical one. the concept of the marriage vows and the roles of husband and wife come from scripture (insert your wild-eyed objections here). Marriage was considered sacred to our society. Now marriage is sacred to conservatives, whereas abortion and evolution is considered sacred to liberals. The idea of redifining the institution of marriage is appalling. To you it’s just a word—so it’s no big deal, but to us it’s a sacred intstitution—one which you don’t have the liberty to redefine to suit your sinful lifestyle.
C Storms: First, don’t call me Janie, I didn’t change your name, please don’t change mine. Second, what talk shows do so many liberals storm off of? We watch Hannity, O’reilly occasionally (just to see what idiotic things they say), and I haven’t seen any liberal guest “storm off.” I try not to make sweeping generalizations like that, and I suggest that you avoid it as well. By the way, isn’t Rush “pill-popper” Limbaugh only on radio now? How can one see a guest “storm off” a radio show?
May 19th, 2006 at 2:41 pmJanie,
I’m pretty sure I said that they “hang up” on Rush’s show. Yeah, I did there it is.
We watch Hannity, O’reilly occasionally
Maybe if you watched more than occasionally, you’d see it happen “all the time” like I do.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:52 pmApparently you don’t read well, my name is JANE.
We can only stand to watch them occasionally, they make our eyes and ears hurt. Maybe you should watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart occasionally, then you’d see how a liberal host can treat a conservative guest with respect. It’d be quite a change for you, since you watch Hannity and Bill O’Reilly “all the time.”
May 19th, 2006 at 3:00 pmThe idea of marriage is a Biblical one. the concept of the marriage vows and the roles of husband and wife come from scripture (insert your wild-eyed objections here).
Comment by Antagonist — May 19, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Really? Because I’m sure the Romans had marriages, and they pre-date the Bible. I’m pretty sure that there were other civilizations that had the equivalent of “marriage”, even if they called it something else.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:43 pmIt does happen all the time. I’ve seen so many liberals storm off talk shows “all the timeâ€, when things don’t go their way.
Hannity or Rush begin to make some sense in their heads and they hang up. That’s the liberal defense mechanism.
Comment by C Storms — May 19, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
I would like to suggest that you watch someone other than O’Reilly or Hannity if you want to learn the truth about anything. Both of those men have a well-deserved reputation for telling lies, half-truths and distortions to try to make their point. Don’t believe me? Besides not thinking you would, I invite you to check out http://www.mediamatters.org and read up on all the lies those two guys have told over just the past few years. [And before you start with the "that's a liberal website" nonsense, understand that yes, they are a liberal organization, and their mission is to combat conservative misinformation in the media. They refute the lies you've been fed with facts. Check them out.]
May 19th, 2006 at 3:54 pmComment by C Storms
Being gay isn’t a choice. Yes, I know you’ve heard this before, but consider: Why would someone choose to be a victim of discrimination, hate crimes, ostracization, etc? Clearly you’ve never known a gay person well enough to have an inkling of how they feel.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pmDiscriminating against people because of a choice they make isn’t really discrimination anyway….
It’s great to have you on the record about this. I assume you won’t ever try to bitch if you lose your job or are denied housing because you’re a Christian — or you’re a Republican — or whatever. No one is born Christian or Rebublican, you know — it’s a choice you’ve made.
Dumbass.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:36 pmWell, it looks like C Storms stormed off this site! Geez, conservatives, always turning and running, oops that’s a sweeping generalization, isn’t it? ;-D
I’m packing it in, too. Everyone have a good weekend! Hope for Fitzmas!
May 19th, 2006 at 5:27 pm#160 – Lily – thanks for replying to it – I hate how it’s always “you chose” when it really isn’t so. The usual retort is “did you chose to be straight?” As a gay man (in his early 40’s) I can honestly tell anyone that it ain’t no choice.
Marriage is a legal contract as much as it is a religious/cultural/blah-blah thing.
I’m tired of this.
(today didn’t start well – news this morning that a friend fatally shot himself just put me in a really sour mood)
May 19th, 2006 at 10:19 pmTalking to myself #164 – to clarify – this friend who shot himself was straight, with a great job, etc. (no connection to the current thread) – I don’t know why he did what he did.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:23 pmMrTimPA, I’m sorry to hear about this sad occurance, and your loss.
May 19th, 2006 at 11:13 pmI lost a friend due to a hate crime. Simply put, he was murdered because he was gay. No, he didn’t chose to be hated by ignorant, sadistic beings.
I chose to be white, male, heterosexual, and to be born in the United States. I think that only people like me should be allowed to get married.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:27 am[...] It seems to me that our culture has continued to devolve morally when it comes to the family unit and the importance of putting our children first. This me-first thinking that many parents and frankly adults in general not only have, but attempt to get the rest of society to adopt is a cultural cancer. It can be seen clearly in the debate over the “Defense of Marriage†amendment. Opponents claim the amendment is discriminatory, when in fact such an amendment would not only protect the sanctity of marriage, but would proclaim to the world that the most basic of American institutions is highly valued. Don’t our children need to see that we value the single most important factor affecting their safety, their emotional stability, their lives? [...]
May 20th, 2006 at 8:22 amIt’s a great question why people would make a choice that would put them in a position to be discriminated against, but people do it all the time. Body piercings, tatoos, homosexuality, all choices that people make to make themselves different from the rest of society.
May 20th, 2006 at 8:50 amFinally, a real Democrat. I know we are all tired from over 5 years rule of this corrupt and illegal ‘administration’. He appears to be more in tune with REAL AMERICA. I wonder if it is possible? I know I would support him. This nation cannot tolerate more of Bush,
May 20th, 2006 at 9:58 am#168: Spare me with your “morals” argument – it’s old, it’s tired, and it’s utter BS. If marriage is so “highly valued” why is the divorce rate so freakin high? Perhaps the biggest “fear” that right-wing bigots have is that if same-sex marriage were legal, the divorce rate among same-sex couples would be lower than the average. Hmm.
#169: Spare me with the “choice” argument – see above. Besides, it’s irrelevant. I don’t believe you made a choice to be straight. I think the only people who make a “choice” are bisexuals, since they’re naturally attracted to both genders.
Yawn.
May 20th, 2006 at 10:00 amWhen Feingold walks out on such important subjects as this, how can we be sure he has the fortitude and dedication to hold the office of the presidency?!
May 20th, 2006 at 5:31 pm#172, elbow: Simple – Feingold walked out because the venue where this amendment was being dicussed was too small and not open to the public. Sen. Feingold has morals and he sticks by them – something the Republicans could learn.
May 20th, 2006 at 7:12 pmAlso Elbow, Feingold was the only Senator dedicated to his oath to uphold the Constitution by attmpting to censure Bush. And he has fortitude enough to not give up on it.
May 20th, 2006 at 9:21 pmMr Tim, with respect, the articles description offers this excuse as secondary to the real cause of his actions!
Lily, I see little meaning in the direction of censure when compared to abandoning the responsibility of protecting our constitution.
Perhaps he’s been pandering to the Gay marriage crowed all along, maybe this situation proved an excuse to justify his actions and save face with his constituents?
May 20th, 2006 at 10:38 pmelbow – from the article: Not all those who voted “yes” support the amendment, however. Specter said he is “totally opposed” to it, but felt it deserved a debate in the Senate.
Sen. Feingold is apposed to the amendment, that’s true – and I believe he did a good thing by walking out of this “hearing”. I doubt he’s “pandering” to anyone – it’s probably not a popular position to be supportive of same-sex marriages (or at least opposed to an amendment denying them).
The bottom line is this thing won’t pass, so it’s political postering by the wacko right-wing.
May 20th, 2006 at 11:00 pmOne final comment since this thread will roll off – aside from some dubious religious references to homosexuality being “bad” in the Bible (and perhaps other texts) – I have yet to see a coherent reason to deny same sex partners access to marriage and it’s LEGAL and CIVIL benefits. As I said, biblical references don’t count (that’s a can of worms you don’t want to open – I’ve read the book so…), historical and/or tradition doesn’t count (denying women voting rights was the tradition, mixed race marriages were illegal). Finally – “it’s for the children” is also a false argument as we don’t require newly wedded people to procreate – and some couples can’t or choose not to.
So what’s left?
What’s left is nothing – nothing but some irrational “fears” that some how a same-sex marriage is going to “cheapen” a “traditional” marriage. With a divorce rate as high as it is (50%+?) it seems that straight people don’t seem to get it. (And, as I noted in a previous post, divorce rates are highest in the “red” states – Mass. has the lowest divorce rate – the only state with legal same-sex marriage. Go figure.)
May 20th, 2006 at 11:15 pm[...] Excuse me for pointing this out, but I’ve been in enough debates with liberals to know that you aren’t allowed to talk about morality. But, now according to Gore, not only am I supposed to think about moral things, but I’m supposed to include moral thinking in my imaginiation? [...]
May 22nd, 2006 at 6:19 amThe Evangelicals are just the same old bigots from the wrong side of the
May 24th, 2006 at 2:26 amcivil rights movement with clever new talking points that come from the
Christian Bible — which is apparently supposed to make whatever hatred
they spew ok because it is rubber stamped by Jesus. They are so loud
right now because they can feel the changes coming and they are AFRAID.
[...] Here’s a partial transcript from Tom Delay’s farwell to Congress & his lecture about liberalism. (In typical childlike fashion, several Democrats walked out.) In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy. [...]
June 9th, 2006 at 7:19 am