Jeb Bush ‘a poster child for gay marriage.’
By on Jun 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Jeb Bush ‘a poster child for gay marriage.’
“A coalition of civil rights groups that back gay marriage is using photos of prominent couples like the former Republican governor and his Mexican-born wife, Columba, in an advertising campaign marking the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave interracial couples the right to marry. The groups say they hope to use the couples and the court case to bolster their contention that marriage is a civil right that should know no bounds – even for those of the same sex.”
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
In which State was it ever illegal to marry a Hispanic? Whether you want to admit it or not, you cannot change your race — Michael Jackson notwithstanding — you can change your sexual orientation.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:09 amWhat is more comparable, if I were arguing your side, would be the freedom of religion in the First Amendment — you CHOOSE religious belief as well — unless you are brainwashed of course.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 amclassic move! I love it! oh, the irony
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 amBill O’Reilly was heard to say, “Jeb married a wetback? Unbelievable! How are the white males supposed to hold onto power in this country? … No, you shutup! Shutup! Shutup!”
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 amjake, you are as dumb as a rock. Do yourself a favor and read a history book.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 amSeparated at birth :
Jeb Bush and John Candy!
When ‘ol Jeb’s political career goes down the toilet — he can play John Candy in a movie.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 amFantastic! Throw their shit back in their faces!
Jake, you’re wrong, you can change your race — you have opted out of the human race.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 amjustice:
Can you cite a State where it ever illegal to marry a Hispanic? You will note I do not resort to personal attacks.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 amIn this thread (below) I cited a PEER-REVIEWED study which indeed found some homosexuals were able to change their sexual orientation:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/01/surgeon-general-nominee/#comments
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 amIn addition, if “marriage is a civil right that should know no bounds” that includes age and brother/sister too, right?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 amHow about inter-species marriage? Marriage to inanimate objects? Vegetables?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 amJake – you are writing your usual ignorant posts I see. Are you really this ignorant or are you simply trying to bait? Personally I believe it is the former.
Marriage in the March of Time (Washington Post)
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, February 12, 2005; Page A19
“In the 19th century, interracial marriage was illegal in most states. As the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund noted in a brief in a New Jersey case, “by the 1960s, at least 41 states had enacted anti-miscegenation statutes.” ….
It remained that way for generations, until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, ruled that state laws setting forth who can marry whom violate “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” — marriage — and the “principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
So much, therefore, for the ruling of the Virginia judge who, in 1959, had sentenced the interracial couple, the Lovings, stating: “Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 amComment by Jake — June 2, 2007 @ 11:26 am
What part of CONSENTING ADULTS do you neocons not understand?
Now, you could be considered a vegtable as you lack brain matter, but the progressives here are most certainly not vegtables!!
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 amHmmm. Another post where Jake pipes in with strong opinions on a topic affecting gays. Are you one of those that has homosexual tendencies but hates gays, leaving you with real self-esteem issues? Is that also why you frequent a message board and consistently get hated by everyone on the board? Wouldn’t you like to go somewhere where people are friendly towards you and your ideas?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 ammy, isn’t it odd how anti discriminatory law can be used to discriminate against a group not welcome in the club? sorry my fellow humans, you are going to have to wait a few more years, decades, centuries, to have human rights. unless by some chance, we can get rid of the politicians and leeches that populate the halls of our civil service, and replace them with people that have ideals and goals.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 amStrange to use Jeb Bush as an example for anything. Jeb does need to admit that his wife is the daughter of a Mexican drug lord.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 amjules:
How about incest then — they are CONSENTING ADULTS too.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 amVinnie:
No.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 amjake
you really should educate YOURSELF and not be such a stupid. It really isn’t that difficult to research for yourself is it? You spend countless hours spewing your opinions, at least source the factual basis for your positions if you want anyone to take you seriously. Here is a start point but you’d have to actually make an EFFORT and study it more indepth if you really want to be knowledgable and not just a blowhard know nothing.
Goodie for you that you don’t “name call” but I call em as I see em, deal with it. You neocons are such WIMPS. First thing you do is go crying to Mommy “Mommy! she called me a name!” buck up or shut up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 amHow about incest then — they are CONSENTING ADULTS too.
Comment by Jake — June 2, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Why – are you thinking of marrying your son?
I do not know any adults who want to marry a sibling or parent. I know many gay people and they are quite normal people.
So, I guess I will have to defer to the rule of law until the VAST majority of psychiatrists and psychologists are of the opinion that people who choose to marry a sibling are not suffering from a mental defect as they have for almost 30 years with gay people.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 amMarriage to inanimate objects? Vegetables?
Comment by Jake
Well a box of rocks and a bag of hammers got married had sex and made you…so yes.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 amJake is not here to contribute to any topic or discussion — he is here to disrupt and obfuscate.
Please ignore him.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 amHow about incest then — they are CONSENTING ADULTS too.
Comment by Jake
Strawman #1. How common is the practice of incest between consenting adults, Jake? Or wouldn’t you admit that 99% of such cases are between and adult and his progeny? How many grown-ups have you known that wanted to have sex with a sibling or parent? This is desperate and silly.
Strawman #2: The constant muttering from moralists like you that sexual orientation is a “choice”. This doesn’t even stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny. At one point in your life did you “decide” that you were attracted to girls (assuming, of course, that you are straight or even sexual)? I’ve never met anyone who made a conscious choice about this, and it certainly wasn’t my experience. Girls had a mysterious power over me and guys didn’t. Every gay man I’ve ever discussed this with (and there have been a lot) laugh hysterically at the notion. They just noticed boys’ butts instead of girls’. And why would anyone voluntarily “choose” to set themselves up for the ridicule and prejudice of moralists?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 amComment by dlet — June 2, 2007 @ 11:44 am
I almost peed myself on that one!!!
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 amJake: You should either move to Colorado Springs or move in with Ted Haggard.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 amJake move to Colorado springs.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 amjustice:
That link has ZERO proof that Hispanics were not allowed to marry whites. Have you ever heard of the One-Drop Rule? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
And, I did look up my question before I asked just to make sure: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=%22illegal+to+marry+a+Hispanic%22
jules:
I guess if YOU do not know any adults who want to marry a sibling, then it simply does not exist. Good, because I don’t know any homosexuals who want to marry either.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 amAs usual, Jake’s button is a gay one.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmConsider the case of Loving v Virginia, aptly named. At the time, 16 states had laws that barred interracial marriage, relying on natural law, that amorphous grab bag for justifying prejudice. Sounding a little like God throwing Adam and Eve out of paradise, the trial judge suspended the one-year sentence of Richard Loving, who was white, and his wife, who was black, provided that they get out of the state of Virginia.
In 1967 the Supreme Court found that such laws were unconstitutional. Only 40 years ago, and it was a crime for a black woman to marry a white man. Perhaps 25 years from now we will find it just as incredible that two people of the same sex were not entitled to legally commit themselves to one another. Love and commitment are rare enough; it seems absurd to thwart them in any guise.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmI guess if YOU do not know any adults who want to marry a sibling, then it simply does not exist. Good, because I don’t know any homosexuals who want to marry either.
Comment by Jake
Laws against incest exist because of the issues of inbreeding, Jake. Didn’t you know that? Never heard of reverse sexual imprinting? No? Why am I not surprised? Incest among adults is not only vanishingly rare, but resistance to sexual attraction among siblings is deeply imbedded in the human psyche. Look it up.
Your willingness to cling to this strawman merely demonstrates you have no logical points to make.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 pmJake is too stupid to know that the term “hispanic” did not come into regular use until the 1960s and 1970s . . . well after most of these laws were repealed. In his little mind, if the word “hispanic” doesn’t appear in the text of the law then the law obviously didn’t apply to people of Mexican or Central American ancestry.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pmJake is too stupid to know that the term “hispanic†did not come into regular use until the 1960s and 1970s . . . well after most of these laws were repealed. In his little mind, if the word “hispanic†doesn’t appear in the text of the law then the law obviously didn’t apply to people of Mexican or Central American ancestry.
Comment by Oversight is a Bitch.
Far be it from me to ever support the Jakes, but I think that anti-miscegenation laws in various states were pretty clearly targeting white/black and, occasionally, white/Asian marriages and spelled that out very clearly.
I think this particular ad campaign could have chosen a better example, frankly. Like, um, no Derek Jeter?
Or what would have happened if Condi had made that slip about her “husband”?
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pmI heard that the first lesbian couple to marry in Massachussets is already divorced.
I find it humorous because I think the idea of marriage is the problem, not the fact that gays want to be a part of it.
Humans, by evidence of the divorce rate, are not naturally monogamous like many species of birds. Sure, some people do manage to stay married for lifetimes, not have affairs and and it works for them, but the are in the minority. And there are reasons that granting marriage to gays won’t affect marriage, because gays are also inclined to divorce.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pmI don’t think it’s very kind to drraw attention to the fact that Jeb looks gay and his wife looks like a man.
Not nice at all.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pmThanks Joe! That is hilarious.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmJake
Go read some history books.
gummitch
Jake and his ilk aren’t moralists. They don’t argue in favour of morality, they just argue in favour of having someone to condemn. Take a look at how the “moralists” react to their political faction championing torture.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pmThey should have a posting limit so idiots like jake don’t post over and over. He sounds really frantic and desperate, too.
Unfortunately jake, reason can be spread on websites, but bigotry and stupidy are more difficult to spread. You have to grow up with that.
Loving vs Virginia was about white and “non-white” persons, not black and white. It addressed everyone not of pure white race. Columba is certainly not pure white. Years ago, there was particular concern about those who had some bit of african ancestry or indian ancestry. Some laws even specifically mentioned “mongolian” origin. In school, many american indians had to choose “colored” on forms because it only provided two choices – either you were white or you were colored.
Jake is either pretty stupid or pretty liberal. Maybe he is saying that Columba (mexican with obvious indian traits and some possible african ancestry) could have passed for white, and then the marriage would be legal. That’s a big assuption.
Obviously each state was concerned about different racial groups depending on the location. Virginia probably had a lot less mexican residents than say, Texas or New Mexico. Little laws were passed to discriminate on just the right group that became threatening or annoying. The main point of Loving vs Virginia was that ALL LAWS which discriminated against ANY RACIAL GROUP in regards to marriage was prohibited.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:16 pmheard that the first lesbian couple to marry in Massachussets is already divorced.
Comment by unbelievable — June 2, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
What do you mean, “already?” That was 3 years ago.
A lot of straight marriages don’t even last that long. But yes, I get your point. Marriage is stressful.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 pmre#37 Sam
Jake is NOT pretty liberal!
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pmlol
10-4.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pmSam:
You will note the following is NOT a personal attack against you, as I simply disagree with some of your conclusions. In that case, Mildred Jeter was a Negro woman (not Hispanic, which was my point above) and Richard Loving was a white man — your broader claim about “ALL LAWS which discriminated against ANY RACIAL GROUP in regards to marriage was prohibited” is dicta only — I still can’t find ANY law that was intended or used to prevent whites from marrying Hispanics. This case also recognizes that marriage is “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” How do you think Chief Justice Warren would have ruled on same-sex marriage?
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm“Jake is either pretty stupid or ” STOP!! I don’t need to hear any more. I pick your first option.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pmJake, Laws against Hispanic/other marriages aren’t likely to exist because, as many people forget, Spain is a part of Europe.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmExactly, Pete. I will re-ask my question: In which State was it ever illegal to marry a Hispanic?
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm“Jake is either pretty stupid or †STOP!! I don’t need to hear any more. I pick your first option.
Comment by Vinnie
Amen.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pmThere’s nothin’ wrong wit a little brown sugar.
But as to the gays, I it depends on how one defines “marriage”.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pmJake, just follow the links. Loving v Virginia outlawed the Racial Integrity Act, which specified non-white persons, period. And you and I know that any person with insufficient amount of european-white heritage is non-white. You have too much indian feature to your face, you’re skin is too dark, your hair is suspiciously kinky,…then you’re going to get a hard time.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pm“ALL LAWS which discriminated against ANY RACIAL GROUP in regards to marriage was prohibited†is dicta only
Comment by Jake — June 2, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
You are such as a*swipe Jake. This is the core of the decision. This ruling struck down as unconstitutional ANY laws that prohibited marriage based on race.
I said it before and I will say it again. There is no way you can be 75. I know many people who are 75 and not one of them is as stupid and uninformed as you.
That felt good. Now I am off to pick up my baby and take her to lunch. You all have an incredibly wonderful day :)
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 pmOnce the investigation into Jebbie’s complicity in the stolen election of 2000 in Florida is fully revealed, this guy will be toast. That’s why Bush 41 was poo-pooing the concept of another Bush in the white house – he knows that Florida’s got the goods on The Jebster. And, it’s merely a matter of time until his role in stealing the white house for his brother is made public. People need to follow the trail to Katherine Harris, you know….the Tammy Faye look-alike with the hyperaugmentation?? She’s part of this Bush triangle. Of course, she’s also part of the Dukie Cunningham triangle as well….some of those dots are being connected behind the scenes I’m sure.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pmAnd isn’t it ironic that the mid-term election in Katherine Harris’s district (Sarasota Fl) has the problem with the 38,000 “undervote” which is still under investigation???
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pmI can no more turn straight than a straight person could turn Gay. PEOPLE CANNOT CHANGE THEIR SEXUALITY only their behavior. Yeah, straight people can have gay sex, as well as gay people can have straight sex. Does that make one straight or gay? no. Anyone who suggests differently is either a religious fanatic or uneducated in the field of human sexuality and anthropology. Since religion is mere myth and belief, and anthropology and the study of human sexuality is SCIENCE, the two arguments are not between equally valid sides. One is reality based the other fantasy and hate.
Then for those of you who think we CHOOSE to be gay: who in their right miond would CHOOSE to be beaten, fired, evicted, disowned, discriminated (legally) in everything from housing to employment to child custody. Who chooses oppression? Of course, there’s no arguing with Jesus freaks. I just say to them, I don’t want to be in your bedroom, GET THE HELL OUT OF MINE!
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:27 pmWhether you want to admit it or not, you cannot change your race — Michael Jackson notwithstanding — you can change your sexual orientation. Comment by Jake — June 2, 2007 @ 11:09 am
BHAHAHA, is that what *YOU* did Jake*ss? Did *YOU* change your sexual orientation?
Because, aside from closeted, and ex-gay men like yourself – I don’t know a SINGLE straight man that believes he can become gay!!!! So how exactly does this happening – wingnut? Changing one’s *orientation*? How did YOU do it? They they *hug* and *stroke* you – as per the *standard* practices? HEHEHE, Jake*ss is a little f*g that hates himself – poor thingo!!! Not poor because he’s gay, poor because he’s so f*cked up!!!
In this thread (below) I cited a PEER-REVIEWED study which indeed found some homosexuals were able to change their sexual orientation:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 06/ 01/ surgeon-general-nominee/ #comments
Comment by Jake — June 2, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Oh, puhlease! This study didn’t *find* anything – as it wasn’t scientific. You *imply* as the unscientific community often does that it was *accepted* by peer review, whereas it was shot down…
Unscientific methods were used to acquire the data, and no ‘testing’ was done to verify it.
That’s right Jake*ss, there are methods to test one’s orientation. Shall we *test* you?
For people actually interested in the *critique* and shooting down of this study, go here.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/02/an-ex-gay-watch-original-video-the-spitzer-study-methodological-flaws-and-abuse-in-anti-gay-politics/
And, Jake*ss. While homosexuality *CAN’T* be cured, HOMOPHOBIA (a REAL MENTAL ILLNESS) can be treated. Get help, you lunatic f*cker – and take the rest of your mad cow denny crane’s with you!
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm“Since religion is mere myth and belief, and anthropology and the study of human sexuality is SCIENCE, the two arguments are not between equally valid sides. One is reality based the other fantasy and hate.”
Comment by slobeck — June 2, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
I wouldn’t go there if I were you slobeck.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pmThen for those of you who think we CHOOSE to be gay: who in their right miond would CHOOSE to be beaten, fired, evicted, disowned, discriminated (legally) in everything from housing to employment to child custody. Who chooses oppression? Of course, there’s no arguing with Jesus freaks. I just say to them, I don’t want to be in your bedroom, GET THE HELL OUT OF MINE!
Comment by slobeck
Bravo, slobeck.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pmI wouldn’t go there if I were you slobeck.
Comment by Mr. President
You’re obviously no slobeck, are you Mr P? :D
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pmI wouldn’t go there if I were you slobeck.
Comment by Mr. President — June 2, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Why, can’t handle when someone challenges your *myths*? Then would you care to explain what Galileo was persecuted, because he said the earth rotated around the Sun, whereas that MYTH (your bible) that you trust so much, said the opposite?
Yeah, who needs science, you perverted, closeted little wingnuts have a “myth” you want to believe at ALL COSTS!!!!!! \ dum bass
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pmThere’s nothin’ wrong wit a little brown sugar.
But as to the gays, I it depends on how one defines “marriageâ€.
Comment by Mr. President — June 2, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Oh, PUHLEASE, that’s just discriminatory b*llsh*t!
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pmMr. President:
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm“I do not know slobeck. I have not worked with slobeck. Still Sir. you are no slobeck?” Perhaps “Who am I and why am I here?” is more to your stylings
You’re obviously no slobeck, are you Mr P? :D
Comment by Zooey — June 2, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
No, no I’m not. But slobeck is on thin ice. The demarcation of science and pseudo-science has become very foggy in the past 40 or so years. It seems that the incorrigible foundation of scientific is not as meaningful as once was thought. That is why many now have a pragmatic attitude when it comes to doctrine, while theory can be very speculative, so long as there is a point.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 pmNo, no I’m not. But slobeck is on thin ice. The demarcation of science and pseudo-science has become very foggy in the past 40 or so years. It seems that the incorrigible foundation of scientific is not as meaningful as once was thought. That is why many now have a pragmatic attitude when it comes to doctrine, while theory can be very speculative, so long as there is a point. Comment by Mr. President — June 2, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Dear st*pid wingnut, the *science* hasn’t degraded, only wingnuts like you that ignore science, and claim there’s no global warming, homosexuality is a “choice” and the earth is 6000 years old keep spawning pseudo-science.
The *scientific* community knows the difference, only you ignorant rubes are too st*pid to tell the difference, and buy into the wingnut sh*t!
Science hasn’t changed, but I agree there is a proliferation of NON-SCIENCE by you republican religious zealot scumbags.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pmJake is just frustrated because he wanted to marry Jeb…
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:36 pmThis is great now when are they going to start advocating for me and my sister to be able to mrry?
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:16 pmWhile I do not know the particulars of Mrs. Jeb Bush ’s roots, just because she was born in Mexico does not make her of “another race”. While there are pure native americans in Mexico, blacks, and a large portion of the population is mestizo (of mixed spanish and other native races), millions of Mexican families are of European stock, either of Spanish peninsular heritage or of more recent immigrants from many other European countries. As is the case in many parts of Latin America, it is these caucasian parts of the population that are wealthier, better educated (in the sense of college level schooling), and generally more likely to blend in with the U.S. population without standing out (in contrast to those who are unable to enter the U.S. with the benefit of a visa and are generally performing farmwork, construction and other hard labor jobs U.S. citizens are unwilling to do). So, the Ad campaign mentioned above doesn’t really fit, in my opinion. P.S. I am all in favor of consenting adults marrying anyone they choose of whatever gender, sex, race or national origin. It is a personal decision and the government has no business interfering.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pmA Mexican in Texas was considered a wetback. And they were certainly not considered white.
I lived in Houston in the early70s; and as a Cuban-American, who just so happens to have zero Native blood (grandpa arrived on the shores of Havana from Spain in the late 1800s), when I told people I was from Cuba, they would look at my very European facial features and pigmentation and proclaim, “Gosh, I thought you were white!”
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pmI would marry anyone, were I so inclined, unles they were republican…one has to draw the line somewhere (oh, and being from TExas, Kansas or Utah is also a NONO for me…sorry, I admit my biased generalizations)
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 pmI see that Jake’s trolling has earned him lots of abuse, but nobody has seen fit to give an intelligent answer to the points he raises. First, about Jeb and his Mexican wife vis a vis miscegenation. The wikipedia article on Loving vs. Virginia notes a 1921 case in which a man sought an annulment because, he alleged, his wife was of mixed race, and the court decided the matter by some analysis of her physical characteristics. So Jeb’s wife being Mexican is irrelevant; had they been dragged into court under the miscegenation laws the question would be if she had any non-white ancestry, e.g. Indian or African — or if she looked like she did. From this pic, I couldn’t say. I’d say Jeb and Columba make a weak poster child for this campaign, as it really isn’t clear they’d have run into any trouble with those laws.
Second, I would like every would-be progressive to fill in the following blank with something intelligent: “I support gay marriage, but would not support polygamy, or marrying siblings, pets, extraterrestrials, or anything else because _____.” Hint: if you answered “You must be some kind of bigoted Republican gay-bashing troll to even ask that,” you got the wrong answer.
Third, Jake’s assertion that gays can decide to be straight is irrelevant, so I won’t comment further.
And here’s a final point that Jake didn’t make. The decision in Loving vs. Virginia rested entirely on the 14th amendment. Said amendment does not bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. So this ad campaign may be good PR, which is fine. But anyone who thinks this is a helpful legal precedent is fooling themselves.
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 amAnd as Barbara said after Jeb’s wedding, ” there goes the gene pool!”
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 amJake asked
According to , in South Carolina until 1967
Mestizo being “used to designate people of mixed European and indigenous non-European ancestry.” and referring to 60% of Mexicans.
There you are. Next incorrect argument that you will not bother to verify on your own, please.
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:17 pmGood point, raven.
P.S. for anyone NOT on the “ignore List” Mrs. Bush is not “mestizo” — any other arguments?
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:16 pmJake Really? References, please. I can find none stating one way or the other, so I’m curious as to how YOU know. By the way, you realize of course that you did not mention Mrs. Bush specifically, but “Hispanics” in general.
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 pmYes, I asked about ALL Hispanics, so I appreciate you answering my question. You do realize that TP specifically mentioned Mrs. Bush, right? Here’s one reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba_Bush
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 pmI found a little information on Mrs. Columba Bush….It is from Wikipedia, so I do not vouch for accuracy, however, it does make mention of her father being a “migrant worker”, which suggests that her family is unlikely to be of “100% hispanic stock”.
Columba Bush (born August 17, 1953) is the wife of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the sister-in-law of President George W. Bush.
Bush was born as Columba Garnica Gallo in León, Guanajuato, Mexico, where she grew up and attended high school. Her parents were Jose Maria Garnica, a migrant worker, and Josefina (or Josephina) Gallo. She met Jeb Bush in 1971 in León while he was teaching English as part of a foreign exchange program. They were married on February 23, 1974, in Austin, Texas. [1]) The couple have three children: George P. Bush, Noelle Bush, and Jeb Bush, Jr., the three “little brown ones” fondly mentioned by President George H. W. Bush in 1988. She made headlines
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm