When on March 26 the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about whether California’s ban on same-sex marriages violates the constitutional right to “equal protection of the laws,” these arguments will invoke the intersection of law and social science. The court should tread cautiously, if at all, on this dark and bloody ground. The Obama administration says California’s law expresses “prejudice” that is “impermissible.” But same-sex marriage is a matter about which intelligent people reasonably disagree, partly because so little is known about its consequences. When a federal judge asked the lawyer defending California’s ban what harm same-sex marriage
Lev. 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
I have no idea what the Quran says nor do I care, but the Muslims will not be as kind as Americans are to homosexuals law or no law.
Same sex "marriage" is only the law of a few states but we´re already seeing calls for polygamist marriage, group "parents" for children and seminars at places like Yale urging "tolerance" for incest and bestiality. Remember way back when - the homosexual activists claimed they only wanted "tolerance".
Now they want, instead of "Heather has two Mommies", "Heather has two Mommies and a Daddy" or Heather has Mommy and her brother, Uncle Andy, or Heather has Daddy and his Sheep. It´s coming and if we don´t stop it now that´s where we´ll end up. And they´ll demand that we pay for all of it. Goodbye society, hello chaos.
If government was not in the business of playing favorites in your relationships this issue would die on the vine the very next day.
How about we conservatives stick with that line rather than thowing Old Testament verses around? Only a church can "marry". The government can then punish or reward the relationship based on how the participants are treated via taxes and government benefits. Sounds a lot like TARP and the GM bailout, doesn´t it?
Homosexuals (male and female) have made up about 3% of every society in recorded history. Any laws the states enforce regarding SSM won´t make one more of less gay person or gay couple.
If you´re worried about traditional marriage, most of recorded history (including the Old Testament) included polygamy. First Kings 11:1-3 indicates that King Solomon had 700 hundred wives and 300 hundred concubines. He was considered wise.
If you advocate for liberty and limited government, this issue can never be used by the statists and Socialists to divide and defeat patriotic, Constitutional conservatives and little "r" republicans.
The biggest issue with traditional marriage is the lack of two-parent parenting in the black community. Some idiot Kardashian has a $10M wedding that lasts 77 days, nearly half of "church" weddings end in divorce, and you´re worried about a tiny fraction of society. Go figure.
I am against gay marriage for religious reasons. The Bible is clear that one man and one woman coming together as one is the definition of marriage and society has adopted this definition for centuries. It is troubling to think that man now wants to change this definition which would leave it open to further tweaking in the future. Once the government can define what is essentially a religious sacrament, there is no regress for those of us who do not accept it. It will be "law" and therefore, all will be forced to obey. Two questions beg to be asked: (1) If gays were given the exact same standing legally as a married couple under another name, would that be acceptable or is their goal not actually equality under the law, but enforcement of society to sacrifice their religious beliefs on the altar of tolerance. (2) What other religious sacraments can the government redefine.
#2, there is no such word as "homosexual" in the Bible. That is a recent interpretation.
Why is one sin any worse than another? How many heterosexuals engage in sodomy & oral sex? Many more than there are homosexuals in the world. And most takes place among married couples too! But it doesn´t matter. The Bible is a good book but it was still written by men--true, inspired by God, but still fallible men writing for a different time. How many of you cover your heads when in the house of the Lord? How many of you eat shellfish and pork?--also an abomination in Leviticus. To me, the most important words from God are the 10 Commandments, which everyone breaks. They´re the only words that can truly be attributed to God, himself. While the Bible is still great, it was compiled, edited & parts chosen as they saw fit to ensure consistency by the Universal Church. Ok, the slings & arrows are coming. But I can´t sit by & watch people malign others as if their sin was somehow "worse" than any other "sin".
Joseph Smith was also really good at interpreting God´s word in the 19th century, and he decided God wanted him and his key followers to have multiple sex partners via religious "marriage". Just ask the last GOP candidate for POTUS about his great-grandfather Miles Park Romney and why he moved to Mexico. Hint: it was to avoid one of the US government´s early attempts to define and reward/punish religious relationships.
I am far less concerned about what polygamysts do and whom they marry than I am about their abuse of male off-spring and their exloitation of government benefit programs (me, the taxpayer) to pay for their lifestyle choices.
Choose your battles wisely. Tossing around Bible quotes doesn´t help our cause. The Bible is conflicted on the "traditional" marriage issue to say the least.
....and while we are discussing this, ask yourself this: how did Solomon afford all those 1000 babes and build a huge temple? On the backs of the Israelite taxpayers and slaves a well as military conquests.
Do you think Solomon´s people would have voted to pay taxes to support his astronomical number of sexual play toys? To be at war constantly putting your life on the line so he could live in such style?
1. Marriage existed before governments. 2. Religion existed before governments. 3. Human societies for millennia severely discouraged homosexual behavior. 4. Governments glommed onto marriage to control behaviors. 5. Marriage is a societal construct for the production and welfare of children. 6. Natural Law indicates that homosexual behavior does not promote procreation. 7. No procreation, no more humans. 8. ´Gay marriage´ is a perverse new social construct born of economic greed to cash in on the constructs in societal law that benefit married couples.
Resultantly, marriage is a religious institution, existing for the benefit of children, and ´gay marriage´ is an oxymoron and has no place in a society that values its children.
#1 is right. "Science" has nothing to do with this matter.
What it´s really about is this:
1. Whether we must be forced to capitulate to a tiny group demanding that we change the very meaning of the word, "marriage."
2. And then, whether that tiny group may impose its radical redefinition on the entire nation, forcing us all to recognize the absurd and oxymoronic concept of "gay marriage" as the new "law of the land."
Like #5 said, it is the government funding and tax incentives that ought to be correct. I don´t care what people do in private, if they have ´ministers´ who pronounce them ´married´ I am find with that as long as they don´t therefor get a tax break or other funds.
It is gay adoption that bothers me, but apparently I am too late to protest that, it already appears to be a ´right´.
The only way to reduce this is education and you can see how successful that is. Have I mentioned (and I have) that I am opposed to ALL government funding of education at all levels?
What we really want is not to encourage behavior that is damaging to children: adults are free to do damage to each other.
Read all about it: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm
#15 - your points #3 and #7 are laughable. One presumes that for "millenia", homosexual relationships have been discouraged by "governments". Most governments through those millena have been monarchies and/or dictatorships. Read about the Greeks and Romans and their approach to homosexuality.
I can guarantee you the Muslim world discourages homosexuality, however. They use their religious teachings to even murder homosexuals.
#7 presumes that simply acceting a gay relationship means the entire society "goes gay", and we have no more kids. Highly unlikely. Thoughout recorded history, the gay population makes up about 3% of all socieies.
Nothing makes me look at another man in the gym locker room and think, "Wow, I gotta get me some of THAT!" My wife prefers me and admiring other males to women as well.
As another poster astutely pointed out, as a constitutional republic with diverse religious traditions and practices, government cannot redefine your religious view of what is and isn´t "marriage". It can only try to control with tax and benefits what punishments and rewards it hands on on various behaviors - like extra taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.
In the state where I live, it is illegal for me to buy alchol before noon today (Sunday)and it´s illegal to go hunting. The church didn´t want competition, so they pressured government to pass laws to provide them a supposed monopoly on my time this morning.
It is my hope conservatives come up with a simple way to support gay people and recognize there are many views on it. The media makes this a distraction from bigger issues. The gays I´ve known are kind, wonderful, hard working taxpayers who just want acceptance to live their lives without being labeled freaks. I don´t want to be associated with a party who is unkind to them but I can´t go to the liberal side. I´m fiscally conservative and socially - if it´s not illegal it´s none of my business. What party is most like that? Libertarian? That´s imperfect too.
If you leftoids think that traditional marriage is about shackin-up I got news for you.
Marriage=progeny, since time immemorial.
No progeny=no more people period.
The antics of Brokeback Mountain should have NO influence on the people of any civilisation who are engaged in the procreation of our species. Those people deserve support for populating our planet. Thats why we normally agree that tax breaks for raising children is a good and sound concept. If you don´t want the awesome responsibilty and joy of raising children, fine; do what you want. JUST LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE. The fact that this concept is ignored by some people to justify their weirdness just proves their selfishness and short-sightedness.
Survival is a merit-based activity. There are no trophies for second place. Breed or die.
But of course this isn´t about law or social science or the welfare of the children. It´s about what might or might not gratify the adults involved. Gratification and choice have become the summum bonum. Thou shalt not deny the narcissistic self-indulgent their pleasures and thou shalt not hurt their feelings.
Historically, "marriage" has been the union of opposites. Changing the word to mean any union deprives the historic arrangement of a unique term to describe it. A "pair" of shoes means a left shoe and a right shoe. A "pie" means a crust and filling. A "suit" means a jacket and pants. If we change those terms to include two right shoes, two scoops of filling, two jackets, we would need to come up with new words to describe a combination of left and right shoes, crust and filling and pants and jacket. And that is the whole point. By redefining marriage society says that the historic union is neither special nor unique, deserving of its own term. That is why it is said that this movement is "an assault on traditional marriage."
My, my, my. Lot´s of pontificating bombast in this thread. Guess a little talk of gay marriage will do that to people. What I don´t understand is, if we all agree that gays make up about 3% of the population, why are we being held hostage to the demands of such a small group of people? I believe the focus here is misplaced. It´s not why gays should not be allowed to be married, but why shouldn´t society promote and nuture an institution devoted to the continuation of the species? I have no problem with civil unions. In fact, I think that if a heterosexual couple has no intention of having children, they have no business getting married. Let them live in civil union. We could offer contracts: one year, two, five, etc. All legalities are covered with shared benefits, etc., but the definition of marriage would then remain intact, and it´s purpose unchanged. And, mark my words, if gay marriage is completely accepted by society, and legal in all 57 states, the next demand will be for science to figure out a way for gays to reproduce. Before you ask me if I´m joking, remember this: the slippery slope may be a supposed example of uncritical thinking, but when it comes to liberalism, it is always fulfilled. Always.
#22 says it very well. I do understand what the religious posters are saying, but our law does not come from the Bible. It comes from the Constitution. The federal government has no authority to do anything that is not specifically enumerated there. I have seen nothing about marriage in any interpretation, no matter how twisted. Therefore, it is none of the government´s business, federal or state. It is the business of the individuals involved and the churches that may want to (or not want to) perform the ceremonies or recognize the union. If it is wrong for libs to force their policies on people who object, why is it ok for us to force our beliefs on others? Either we cherish freedom or we dont.
Should there therefore be a timeline in which a married heterosexual couple will have to produce children or their marriage will be considered null and void? Will they automatically then be in a civil union or will they have to apply for a civil contract? Will a couple have to declare they intend to have children before they can marry and if they end up not being able to have children their marriage is voided?
So many complications to running everyone´s personal lives. Maybe we should just mind our own business?
While historically gays makeup 3% of the population they touch lives of many more(parents, siblings, co-workers etc.) I think there should be a big tent for a political party who wants to focus on the Constitution. Otherwise should there be political parties where everyone agrees on social issues? Good luck with winning elections. This thread shows that reasonable people can disagree but most of us agree on the Constitution.
Since the government loves to meddle so much, why not eliminate the marriage tax and make it advantageous to marry? Instead it now costs people, and you even see the elderly who should be examples for young people shacking up.
Unmarried parents are taking the easy way. No marriage=more money, benefits, easy dissolution. They can´t afford to get off the gravy train of food stamps, earned income credit, and higher standard deductions. So we pay.
When did it become MY job to pay for the procreation of others??
It´s amazing that there are so many here who don´t get it. Only the useful idiots think that this is a campaign to bring fairness and equality for people to commit and love one another.
The real purpose is ´fundamental transformation´. Leftists have always understood that words have a greater power to communicate and encapsulate broad concepts than any other social mechanism. Marriage is a fundamental, universally understood concept. From Marx onward, it has stood as a bullwark against true social transformation.
When you redefine a word that stands for a fundamental concept, you destroy it´s meaning and render the concept unexpressible in clear, unambiguous terms.
This battle is clearly a out the never ending war to destroy the burgoise.
Seems like Will takes a strong position to bash the conservatives and only a very small effort against the liberals. The conservatives worst enemies are those that purport to be conservatives but frequently join the other side in their attempt to show how fair and open minded they are.
#15 makes the case for marriage, a bedrock institution of civilization, simply. Since the dawn of man, it was a societal impulse driven by the need to socialize children and voluntarily self regulate sexual activity. Its religious trappings came millennia later and are unneeded to make a self evident case discouraging homosexuality. All this noise is indicative of the insidious effect of moral relativism on modern culture which insists that freedom is the paramount attribute. This canard is advanced by libertarian cranks who insist that the self transcends the soul and therefore, the universe rotates around the individual. We´d still be in caves if that mentality prevailed through history.
#8 and others, the New Testament does condemn same sex relationships--see Paul´s letter to the Romans. Leviticus was written for the Jews at that time. It doesn´t apply now that salvation has been made available to all: "first to the Jew, then to the Greek (ie, Gentile)."
#20, before boasting that your liberal views on homosexuality comport with Thomas Jefferson´s, I think you should first look into Jefferson´s actually said about homosexual behavior. He believed it was a criminal offense, akin to rape, punishable by castration.
There is no science at all, but there are shaky libtard social scientists.
Even the best science needs to be understood and interpreted, almost nobody says that in any way shape or form that science ever directly dictates law. A few wackos might, but generally they are lying when they say so, or writing the "science" backwards from the results they want to find. That´s not really science, in case that´s not clear to you.
I have a cartoon on my refridgerator that shows a person at the pearly gates and St. Peter looking through The Book Of Life. The caption reads "Ah. Here you are. On the S*** List". Interpret it as you may. Only The Big Guy gets to judge.
#37 Thank you for seeing through the "progressive" BS that at its core is to "fundamentally transform" society. Being against "gay marriage" does not translate to being against homosexuals or lesbians. Some are fine people, some are stinkers; just like all of humanity.
The purpose of marriage in society is providing a stable home for the rearing of children. Even if a couple cannot conceive or cannot adopt, their stable marriage offers an example as they become beloved aunts and uncles fulfilling the extended family role of a stable environment for children.
Since the 19060’s marriage has been under attack. It began with “no fault” divorce when the “progressives” claimed that children would be better off if parents in a “bad marriage” split up. The ravages of divorce on generations of children led to “shacking up”, which led to casual “hooking up” and the promiscuity that has had deleterious effects upon our society as a whole. Our entertainment media purposely portrays traditional marriage as lame and ineffectual while it trumpets deviant behavior. Yet, the argument now put forth by many is that because married people divorce easily, have adulterous affairs, and engage in questionable sexual practices that “gay marriage” is OK. It takes the consequences of the “war on marriage” as proof that marriage is wanting. Just like the “progressives” planned.
If homosexuals and lesbians wish the legal and tax benefits of a “union”, I’m fine with a civil union, but don’t call it a marriage. In my faith, Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament between the man, the woman and God. Marriage requires that it be unitive and complementary. If “gay marriage” becomes a right with “equal protection under the law”, will the law compel Catholic and other Christian faiths to marry same-sex couples? “Gay marriage” is ultimately an attack on religious freedom, as is the mandate to provide contraception, abortion inducing drugs, and elective sterilization. This all comes from the Father of Lies, just as Pope Frances has proclaimed. Do not be fooled by the “feel good” language of the “progressive” Marxists.
Re: the format of this site . . . I am very happy with this format, and find it far superior to sites that indent responses to posts. And I especially like the fact that this site puts the oldest comments at the top of the page. Fie on the sites that make you go to the end and read backward if you wish to follow the drift of the comments.
Thank you to the Lucianne team for all the years that we have enjoyed and learned from our fellow Ldotters. You make it easy.
I have to laugh at those who point to the Ancient Greeks and Romans and their tolerance of homosexuality. Where are those societies today? Extinct. Rome was particularly depraved in terms of libertine sexual behavior, cruelty and disregard for human life. It was into this world that Jesus appeared. How fitting, and how needed.
Dear #8 and others like you: the Bible is God´s word, i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not suspect because it was written by men who lived in historical times. God is not limited by time or culture, and his word holds true today. And there is NO way you can study the word and believe that God wants men to have sex with men or women with women. (Nor did God ever hold up polygamy as the ideal.) You´re desperately trying to justify sin.
There are alot of good points and views on this. My question is how does this relate to politics? For those so sure about society collapsing if gays marry - I get it. Who are you going to vote for? When you alienate a segment of people who would vote like you -is that going to save society? Look what we´re stuck with. For those like me that don´t want to be rude and hurtful to good people and think it´s not really my business as long as they´re law abiding - who can I vote for? I think there´s a great opportunity for a fiscally conservative - socially neutral political party. I don´t want to vote on religion. My views are my own through my life experience as are yours. We all get one vote. I respect your views and hope you respect that I´m entititled to my opinion too.
This is all a red herring - the slippery slope here is if gay marriage is made public policy or the law of the land, then churches stand to lose their non-profit status if they preach against it. Five, ten years down the line, our churches will have to decide to compromise biblical principles versus their tax exempt status - which they depend upon to help keep their doors open. As our economy worsens under socialism, the less people give. This may mean some churches will be forced to shut their doors because they will be taxed out of existence.
This is an assault on our freedom of religion, not about giving gays equal rights. Why don´t they create civil unions that would give them the same benefits as marriage, but keep it out of the realm of the church. Marriage is a sacrament, civil unions are not.
New Testament: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 2 Peter 6-11, Jude 6-8, Revelation 21: 5-8, Revelation 22:14-15
(Note: Chapter 22 is the last chapter in Revelation and it contains 21 verses; in Verse 15 it is again written that the sexually immoral are among those who will not go through the gates into the city.)
#40 – The admonition and condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture is as relevant now as it was then and applies to all time, for Jews and Gentiles. The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews, but apply to Gentiles as well; all people are to live by the Law and the Gospel. It is the means of grace, forgiveness, that has changed; no longer through animal sacrifices, but through the blood of Jesus, the Messiah.
#5 (aka #20)makes absurd arguments about homosexuality and society. Homosexuality is either positive, negative, or neutral in its effects on homosexuals and the rest of society. That is, positive, negative, or neutral in its physical, social, and moral effects. Only someone who can convincingly argue that the effects are positive or neutral can make a case for same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, the teaching of homosexual sexual practices, and so on. The evidence that homosexuality (and sorry, but only about 1.5% of any population is homosexual)is negative is overwhelming.
And yet militant homosexuals keep pushing their perversion on the rest of us--especially on children in the public schools, usually under the pretext of protecting some youngsters from harm.
I find it fascinating that those who were once considered to be suffering a psychological ailment now have convinced many that it is the rest of us, the "homophobes," who are ill. I also find it fascinating that militant homosexuals practically foam at the mouth if you mention the fact that they have never condemned NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or if you remind them of the landmark work of a famous American psychologist who said that he had never met a homosexual male who had had a good relationship with his father.
Reply 58 - Posted by:
get er done, 3/17/2013 11:51:47 PM (No. 9230289)
The current push by Obama and other liberals as advocates of same sex marriage is another chorus of "It´s all about ME."
There is reference in the New Testament to keeping the commandments and "the law." But it is clear that the specifically Jewish law--such as circumcision--was rejected by the apostles as something that applied to Gentiles. Peter even had a dream that told him to eat whatever he wanted. Leviticus sets out things that specifically applied to Jews at that time--things that set them apart as a people. Those rules don´t apply anymore since Christ has come for all mankind--in Galatians it says, there is no Jew or Greek; slave or free; male or female-all one in Christ. Surely, no one wants to kill homosexuals because Leviticus commands it and no one claims that the Bible forbids Christians from eating shellfish or pork.
#50, several different "books" were written by different men (inspired by God) over several different time periods. Like it or not, they were still men who are not infallible and who have their own personal prejudices as all people do. Some books were written shortly after things happened and others were written hundreds of years later. There were also sections removed by the Universal Church just as some books were chosen and others (that may have given a conflicting message) were left out on purpose. You can claim what you want about the choices made as being the proper choices. But remember, the church, like most other political entities was interested in amassing power and wealth...even back then. Why do you think they tried to destroy the gnostics?
And I did not say that homosexuality was not addressed in the New Testament at all...I said the actual word "homosexual" was not used. That is a recent interpretation.
By the way, the biggest mistake that conservatives make is using the word "ban". If you don´t want the state to recognize a marriage (which can be performed by any church that wishes to), then say that. Say it should not be legally recognized by the state. But to say you are for "banning" same sex marriage, you are essentially telling people they have no freedom of religion. And then you end up sounding like a close-minded bigot control-freak who doesn´t believe in freedom. Let people marry as they see fit since it happens anyway. Just vote to not recognize it. Yes, there is a leftist agenda, but they grabbed onto a real concern that some people feel should be addressed. They want recognition of the marriage so they can take care of their loved one if he/she gets sick. They don´t want to go through the extra requirement of having to create a legal contract or living trust to have the same benefits (and penalties) as a heterosexual married couple.
When science and the Laws of Physics are able to prove that two nuts on their own or two screws on their own can fulfil the functions of a bolt in the way only ONE nut and ONE screw can, only then can the validity of gay marriage be open for consideration. In the meantime no state legislation has the right to legislate what is against the fundamental natural designs and order, the laws of anatomy and of biology, It offends against Science itself which has a nasty habit of kicking back hard when it is offended, be it in the short or long term.
#61 –Leviticus was written to teach the priests how to act and teach the people; to care for people who are in sin. Romans is purest gospel and briefly sums up Christian and evangelical doctrine while showing the light and power of the Old Testament. Timothy wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Leviticus is among “ALL Scripture” and, therefore, the teaching, admonition, and condemnation are for all time; the ultimate judgment remains the same—then with banishment or execution, now on Judgment Day.
Pop quiz. With whom is the U.S. presently at war? At any other time in our nation’s history most Americans could have readily answered that question. Great Britain. Mexico. Spain. Germany. North Korea. North Vietnam. Iraq. Even college students who couldn’t name the vice president or their state’s governor would know who their non-college-material buddies were being sent overseas to kill or be killed by. These days the world is a bit more complicated. There are the easy answers: the Taliban. Al Qaeda. Then the waters get a bit murky. One might justifiably ask if America is at war with Syria,
Sandra Fluke keeps sending me e-mails. Okay, these e-mails don’t actually contain the type of Weiner-esque Democratic electronic solicitations that are suitable for disclosure only on “The Dirty.” But her messages could be considered provocative. In her latest e-mail, she said she wants me to meet her for a “chat” in San Francisco. Actually, her e-mails are all about money. With a pretentiousness so blatant it’s entertaining, Fluke is trying to convince me to give money to Democratic candidates. Political fundraising is a permanent exercise and, obviously, lists are not always properly culled.
Life in Maine, where Stephen King has spent most of his adult years, requires long drives down country roads, time that King, whose mind is restless, likes to fill by listening to books on tape. In the ’80s, however, he sometimes could not find the books he wanted on tape — or maybe he just did not bother. He had three children: Naomi, Joe and Owen. They could read, couldn’t they? All King had to do was press record. Which is how his school-age children came to furnish their father, over the years, with a small library’s worth of books
John Kerry says he can get an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement within nine months that would lead to an independent Palestinian state. That’s ambitious to be sure, but Kerry’s optimism raises a key question: With Syria torn by civil war, Egypt in the midst of a meltdown that may lead to another Arab civil war, and the Iranian nuclear program still the region’s major strategic threat, why is the secretary of state pushing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? Perhaps with everyone else in the region tied down fighting for vital interests or mere survival, John Kerry imagines he has a unique opportunity
Texas has done a lot of good for this country: the King Ranch and Texas-style chili. Dr. Pepper and the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders. Rick Perry and Ted Cruz. Patrick Swayze. Texas also gave America Sheila Jackson Lee. So let’s call it even. Since 1995, Jackson Lee (D.) has represented Texas’s 18th congressional district, which comprises much of inner-city Houston. Now at least one group on Capitol Hill is eyeing her for higher office: The Congressional Black Caucus is recommending that Jackson Lee replace Janet Napolitano as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Several Republicans have become concerned recently about the possibility of intensified intra-party fighting over the effort to defund Obamacare. The topic came up Wednesday when GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, a leader in the defunding effort, appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio program. At about 6:30 in the interview, Ingraham asked Cruz about the phrase “surrender caucus” that some have used to describe the Republicans who oppose the defunding effort. Cruz told Ingraham that he has never used the phrase himself to describe his opponents in the defunding debate. Cruz explained that his chief of staff, Chip Roy, did use the phrase,
To compete with those indelible images of Anthony Weiner’s erect penis, the New York City mayoral campaign now has new mental picture: the slutbag. That’s what Weiner spokeswoman Barbara Morgan called an intern with the campaign who had quit and written a tell-all for the New York Daily News. Olivia Nuzzi described the campaign as a adrift, Morgan as unqualified, and fellow interns as only taking on the assignment to get in good with Weiner wife and Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. And that’s not all Morgan called Nuzzi in a conversation with a reporter for Talking Points Memo
President Barack Obama is planning to bypass congressional Republicans with a surge of executive actions and orders on issues like voting rights, health care, job creation, the economy, climate change and immigration. And this time, he really, really, really means it. Really. Obama’s started to sell his pitch to congressional Democrats, meeting with caucus groups at the White House and going to the Hill on Wednesday morning to speak with House and Senate Democrats. “I have to figure out what I can do outside of Congress through executive actions,” Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus earlier this month,
Voter identification laws have Democrats up in arms. One of the reasons, as Nate Cohn illustrated last week, is that they disproportionately affected non-white and Democratic voters in North Carolina. This effect, however, only would have padded Romney´s lead in the state by 0.5pt to 0.8pt. In other words, it would only have made a difference in the tightest of elections, and North Carolina isn´t close to being the state that determines the winner in presidential elections. If Democrats want to be upset about something, they should turn their attention to felon and ex-felon voting restrictions.
A nthony Weiner´s mayoral campaign has imploded. But before a raft of new revelations about Weiner´s post-Congress sexting misadventures, he had a real chance of becoming the next mayor of New York City. In the meantime, Eliot Spitzer — Weiner´s fellow New Yorker, whose fall from grace was also well-documented — still has a good shot at becoming the city´s next comptroller. Despite their baggage, both men began their campaigns with a headstart on the competition. That headstart was provided not because they showed an aptitude for success in their previous political positions.
CLEVELAND – Three women held captive in a run-down home for a decade kept diaries documenting the horrific physical and sexual abuse they suffered on a daily basis, prosecutors said Wednesday. The women´s kidnapper, Ariel Castro, lured one of them into his Cleveland home with the promise of a puppy for her son and later locked all of them in a vehicle in his garage for three days when someone visited him, prosecutors said. Castro, a former school bus driver, claimed he didn´t have an exit strategy from his complicated double life and finally gave the women
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama´s national security team acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that, when investigating one suspected terrorist, it can read and store the phone records of millions of Americans. Since it was revealed recently that the National Security Agency puts the phone records of every American into a database, the Obama administration has assured the nation that such records are rarely searched and, when they are, officials target only suspected international terrorists. Meanwhile, at a hacker convention in Las Vegas on Wednesday, the head of the NSA said government methods used to collect telephone
Mark Levin, who hosts one of America´s top radio talk shows and is considered by supporters to be the people´s pundit on the Constitution, is rallying his 8.5 million-strong audience to demand an historic convention of state governments to halt the "oppressive power" of the federal government. The author of two New York Times bestsellers on the threats to the Constitution, Levin hopes his latest, "The Liberty Amendments," out mid-August, will spark the state lawmakers to tap a rarely used Constitutional provision to institute measures that would brake President Obama´s use of executive orders, bar thousand-page laws and
The former commander of special operations in Northern Africa told a closed-door briefing today that he was largely detached from events the night of the Benghazi attack as he was traveling at the time. The testimony of Col. George H. Bristol, USMC, Former Commander, Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command Africa, had been eagerly anticipated by members of Congress. Originally, lawmakers had been told by the Defense Department that he had retired — the actual date is Aug. 1, an “administrative error” according to the Pentagon — and that they didn’t have
FORNEY, Texas - George Zimmerman, the former Florida neighborhood watch leader cleared of all charges in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, was pulled over for speeding in North Texas on Sunday, CBS DFW reports. According to the station, Zimmerman was armed when officers pulled him over on Highway 80 in Forney, east of Dallas. (Snip) The officer reportedly did not recognize Zimmerman, who was driving a Honda pickup. Zimmerman told the officer he was armed and was then told to put the weapon in his glove compartment, according to the station.
Arizona Sen. John McCain was the Republican Party´s 2008 presidential nominee and he still wants the keys to the Oval Office. But he is beginning to sound more like a fan of likely 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. "She´s a rock star," he said in a newly released interview. "She has, maybe not glamour, but certainly the aura of someone widely regarded throughout the world," he added in a reference to her work as secretary of State. McCain, reportedly trying to win back his reputation as a GOP maverick, was asked by the New Republic
President Obama has been rolling up his sleeves campaigning across the country delivering a surreal stump speech message supposedly aimed at the middle class: big government works, Obamacare is manna from heaven, the wave of recent scandals are “phony” figments of the imagination, and all economic problems are the fault of the Republicans. Conveniently, he leaves out the bankruptcy of Detroit, a city run by his own party for more than half a century. His message is so stale and unconvincing, that even The New York Times and Washington Post have noticed. Both papers, usually loyal to Obama, remarked that
Serial sexter Anthony Weiner’s wife partly blamed herself last year when her horndog husband confessed to her that he was at it again. Friends and family told People magazine that Huma Abedin was kicking herself at the time for bailing out of couples counseling and focusing more on their newborn baby boy. But, thanks to a new round of joint therapy that continues even now, the couple was able to put the relapse behind them. “They really became a unit, and she feels much closer to Anthony now,” a relative told the magazine. That’s a long way from how Abedin
Gotta figure her lead would be even bigger without Joe Miller in the field here. Her nomination for the taking? Alaska should be a top tier pick up opportunity for Senate Republicans next year…but their top choice of a candidate is Sarah Palin. 36% of GOP primary voters in the state say they’d like Palin to be their standard bearer against Mark Begich to 26% for Mead Treadwell, 15% for Dan Sullivan, and 12% for Joe Miller.
Embattled Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner and an attorney in the Federal Election Commission’s general counsel’s office appear to have twice colluded to influence the record before the FEC’s vote in the case of a conservative non-profit organization, according to e-mails unearthed by the House Ways and Means Committee and obtained exclusively by National Review Online. The correspondence suggests the discrimination of conservative groups extended beyond the IRS and into the FEC, where an attorney from the agency’s enforcement division in at least one case sought and received tax information about the status of a conservative group,
Sen. John McCain — a Democrat? There was confusion Wednesday after the Arizona Republican mistakenly strolled into President Obama’s meeting with Senate Democrats at the Capitol. The room full of Democrats — who happened to be meeting in the same room where the Senate GOP usually holds their weekly policy luncheons — erupted in applause and laughter as the former Republican presidential candidate made his entrance. As McCain, 76, walked out of the Dem-filled space, reporters pressed him as to why he stepped foot in the room.
In preparation for the release of Oscar-bait film The Butler, Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey, and director Lee Daniels (Precious) sat down with Parade magazine. The film chronicles a butler (Whitaker) who works in the White House through seven administrations. Winfrey plays the butler’s wife. In the interview, Winfrey explained her sadness that so few Americans know about the history of the civil rights movement: “They don’t know diddly-squat. Diddly-squat.” She then said of the historic use of the n-word, “I always think of the millions of people who heard that as their last
If we learned anything about Barack Obama in his first term it is that when he starts repeating the same idea over and over, what´s on his mind is something else. The first term´s over-and-over subject was "the wealthiest 1%." Past some point, people wondered why he kept beating these half-dead horses. After the election, we knew. It was to propagandize the targeted voting base that would provide his 4% popular-vote margin of victory—very young voters and minorities. They believed. He won. The second-term over-and-over, elevated in his summer speech tour, is the shafting of the middle class. But
In her first speech since taking over the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy came out swinging Tuesday and promised to ramp up the aggressive climate change agenda laid out by President Obama.(snip)“Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs? Please, at least for today,” she said during remarks at Harvard Law School. “We need to cut carbon pollution to grow jobs. We need to cut carbon pollution to strengthen the economy. Let’s talk about it positively. Let’s approach this as an opportunity of a lifetime. There are too many lifetimes at stake.”