The California Assembly has voted to allow same-sex marriage. This is a hugely important move, not only because California is our most populous state, but also because it is the first time a state legislature has authorized gay marriage without a court telling it to. This, in other words, is the first time that a state has moved to legalize gay marriage because its democratically-elected representatives wanted to, rather than because they had to. As I’ve argued before, I think that in the long run it is a far, far better strategy to advance gay marriage through the legislatures rather than through the courts.
However, the Governator must sign the bill for it to become law, and the bill did not pass by veto-proof majorities. Apparently, Ahnold has not said much about what he plans to do. The politics are complicated for him – his popularity is at an all-time low, yet he has called a special election for November to push several initiatives (in particular one about redistricting) that he has more or less staked his reputation on, so he desperately needs both the Republican "base" and the many Democrats who voted him into office. Apparently, conventional wisdom right now is that he’ll veto it.
On the local marriage front, two key Senators have announced that they no longer support the Travaglini-Lees "compromise" amendment that would have banned gay marriage but required civil unions, concluding that gay marriage didn’t cause society to crumble after all. Looks like this amendment is on its deathbed, if not yet quite out of its misery. And today is the deadline for Attorney General (and, not incidentally, gubernatorial hopeful) Tom Reilly to decide whether the outright ban on gay marriage passes constitutional muster. We’ll update when we hear anything – if you hear before we do, post it in the comments. UPDATE: Reilly certified the amendment – see the next post.
As I’ve argued before, I think that in the long run it is a far, far better strategy to advance gay marriage through the legislatures rather than through the courts.I don’t disagree — but one might make the case that moving slowly is quite harmful to those gays who would get married now. So, I don’t blame some members of the pro-gay-marriage group for pushing hard by any means necessary.
“I think that in the long run it is a far, far better strategy to advance gay marriage through the legislatures rather than through the courts.”I agree.
It’s a matter of emphasis, I think. There needs to be a continuing conversation with the public about this. The hard-right is making its case in public based on fear; the pro-marriage side needs a friendly, neighborly public face.Good on CA. Arnold should sign it and move on. A surprise on this would change the subject for him, in any event.
It is amusing that Senate President Bobby Travaglini here had Arnie’s attitude — please, oh, please, let the courts do it and take the heat. It backfired backly for one and is likely to do the same for the second. Regardless of whether Schwarzenegger okays or vetoes, he’s pissing off millions. It will go to one court action and one ballot initiative after another.The top court in the state can do it quickly. They are also used to taking the heat from the reactionaries and opponents who failed civics class. Yes, courts can define and clarify law as well as legislatures can pass it. Bobby and Arnie sat on their hands when they should have acted. Let `em stew.
Certainly, but no legislature was ever going to act until a court moved the ball forward 20 or 30 yards first. Civil unions were terribly controversial when Vermont’s court required them in 2000, and now they’re a moderate compromise now that one state is actually marrying couples. Backlash is real but no progress would be made without breaking the logjam.
no legislature was ever going to act until a court moved the ball forward 20 or 30 yards firstI agree – that’s why I argued that the Mass. decision was a good thing. We serve as an example to the country to show that gay marriage and civil society can co-exist (amazing that a real-life example is needed, but there you go). Now, however, it seems to me that when a legislative solution might be available, it should be aggressively pursued with litigation as a last resort, rather than a first resort. Backlash is, as you say, real, and the best way to avoid it is to go through the democratic process the first time. Of course, even that won’t eliminate backlash – if Ahnold signs the bill, look for lawsuits galore – but if the pro-marriage position starts with a clear democratic mandate, so much the better.
And let’s not forget that we’ve got a ConCon coming up in a week. I don’t expect this will have any significant impact on what happens here, but nationally speaking it signifies that we’re not the only state that’s aggressively tackling the issue, which will hopefully help with momentum elsewhere.
I’m trying to support the logic of allowing Gay marriage to a friend who has baffled me with the following question: If you support Gay marriage then you also have to support polygamy because how can you use your logic for gay marriage but then say “no” to 2 women who want to marry one man or vice-versa. I’m flummoxed and need help
Well, I can use the logic that forbids gay marriage to also forbid interracial marriage. The arguments then were very similar — God doesn’t approve, it’s bad for children, etc etc. I doubt your friend would want to stop interracial marriages, though.
Hi John, A tough one, to be sure… but society is full of limits on quantity, but not on choice. You can choose to be a resident of any state, but (for tax purposes anyway) you can’t be a resident of multiple states. You can vote for whomever you want, but you can’t vote twice.Ultimately, gay marriage is different than polygamy because polygamy laws are neutral; they prohibit ANY group of three or more people from getting married. But gay marriage laws say that some consensual adults may marry, whereas others can’t.To turn this around, theoretically if your friend supports anti-gay marriage laws shouldn’t he/she also support anti-miscegenation laws? Until Loving v. Virginia it was a “tradition” that only same-race couples could marry– the trial judge in that case even invoked scripture in declaring the Lovings’ marriage illegal. Does that sound familiar?
Sco:That doesn’t help. Are you saying that Gay Marriage is okay but polygamy is not and if so how can you say you’re not being discriminatory if you say “no” to polygamy if you apply the same arguments for inter-racial marriage, Gay Marriage.
Nate:How can you say three or more “ANY” people can’t get married. How can you justify them from entering a marriage. Up until Goodridge, only heterosexuals could get married, how can you say it’s okay for 2 homosexuals but not for 3 “any” people, aren’t you being discriminatory?
John, what is the baseline principle in support of state-sanctioned heterosexual marriage?
David:Massachusetts does not define marriage in our statutes. Therefore, there is no legislative background or record to answer your question. With the recent Con/Con debate,and the Stae’s argument in Goodridge, I believe the rationale was for the family, etc. But my point is how can you say it’s okay for 2 guys/gals but not for 3 and if you impose limits aren’t you being discriminatory like some say those opposed to gay marriage are? I i
I’m not making any judgements about polygamy — personally I think that it is so very often an explotative relationship that it should be illegal, but that’s beside the point. I’m questioning the very premise of your assertion that if we support X, logic dictates we have to support Y.If you’re talking about legal justification, however, I’ll leave that up to David, as I am certainly not a lawyer.
I’ll dive in: monogamy is inherently more stable, since you’re just dealing with one person at a time in the relationship; polygamy is not. The state has an interest in promoting social stability through marriage.That’s why I’m pro-marriage, anyway.
John: My (and I think sco’s) point is that polygamy laws are OK because they don’t discriminate against any particular groups of people. Polygamists are a group determined solely by their actions, and aren’t protected. Do we at least agree that the government can make SOME laws regarding people’s conduct? If so, shouldn’t those laws be as neutral as possible? To return to the parallel of anti-miscegenation laws (I still fail to see how this situation is any different), I would rather there be no state-sanctioned marriage than racially-biased state marriage.
John: My (and I think sco’s) point is that polygamy laws are OK because they don’t discriminate against any particular groups of people. Polygamists are a group determined solely by their actions, and aren’t protected. Do we at least agree that the government can make SOME laws regarding people’s conduct? If so, shouldn’t those laws be as neutral as possible? I still fail to see how this situation is any different than racial intermarriage laws, and would like to hear how it is.
John, I think you miss the point of my question. I’m not looking for sources in Mass. law or any other law. I’m asking you why the state should sanction marriage at all (assuming that you think it should). After all, it would be perfectly reasonable to have “marriage” be only a religious sacrament, and allow people to enter into whatever contractual relations regarding disposition of property, etc. that they choose. So why should we have the state sanction “marriage”? Once you have answered that, we can then determine whether the state should also sanction gay marriage, and whether it should sanction polygamy.
David:The Legislature was denied any role in this process, the only alternative is a constitutional amendment. if the legislature was allowed to do something, they should change the law so EVERYONE gets a civil union and if you want to get “married” go to a church. Charley: is it discriminatory for some to argue that the state has an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage?
Nate:The State became involved in the regulation of marriage because of the potential for off-spring and it became governmental policy to promote families as a stabilizing influence for society. A white man and a black woman can have natural children; therefore miscegnation doesn’t make sense and is racist only. Homosexuals are not a protected class and can’t produce natural children so why should the Stae support their marriage. We can support them through civil unions, can’t we?
they should change the law so EVERYONE gets a civil union and if you want to get “married” go to a church.I actually think that is a pretty good idea as a matter of principle. As a practical matter, however, it is of course never going to happen. That leaves us with what to do given the current state of affairs. Now, your suggestion that “everyone gets a civil union” excludes, I would assume, polygamous groups, presumably because you think that “civil unions” ought to be reserved for two-person unions. I agree with you on that. But given the reality that current law allows, and is going to continue to allow, heterosexual “marriage,” can’t we apply your principle – that straight or gay couples should be allowed to enter into state-sanctioned unions of some sort – to marriage, thereby concluding that since we have straight marriage we should have gay marriage as well, and simultaneously exclude polygamy as inconsistent with your “civil unions” principle? Doesn’t this solve your problem? If not, why not?
David:No it doesn’t solve my problem because how can an advocate of Gay Marriage say they don’t support polygamy and deny polygamists the right to marry when their argument for Gay marriage is that it’s discriminatory to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Isn’t it hypocritical to suggest that straight and gay marriages are superior to polygamist marriage?
Hmm. Again, you seem to be missing my point. Let’s assume that the legislature takes your advice and wipes out civil “marriage” completely. It will then institute a regime of “civil unions.” Do you believe that civil unions should be (a) limited to heterosexual couples, (b) limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples, or (c) understood to include polygamous relationships? If your answer is (a) or (b), what is the basis for your limitation?
The State became involved in the regulation of marriage because of the potential for off-spring and it became governmental policy to promote families as a stabilizing influence for society.John: As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a collection of property, visitation, and other rights. You are right: the state does (and should) promote families as a stabilizing influence for society. Homosexuals can adopt children; if the state is interested in stable families shouldn’t it strengthen those types of families the same way as “traditional” families, through a legal contract? After all, adopted children are no less a government concern than biological children. My point is that families of same-sex couples with children exist; if we’ve determined that the government’s interest is in promoting stable families then why not encourage those couples into gay marriage?
John, the argument for including gays in marriage is that hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples have set up homes and families according to the principles that opposite-sex couples do, and according to the principles that guide legal treatment of opposite-sex couples with kids. This is a social change, and the law has lagged in recognizing it because people don’t want to think about gays and are happy to lock us out of the legal system. Yet this situation creates legal disabilities for same-sex couples with kids, and even without kids, by giving our relationship no legal status in a way that resolves to discrimination by gender.Our laws don’t really recognize groups of adults of more than two living together and forming homes. There is no adoption by three people. There is no way to file your taxes as a group of three individuals without forming a corporation. Most importantly, our society doesn’t really have a place for polygamous relationships, so the few that exist are mostly private and operating outside the legal framework. If our society ever changes so much as to have a million Americans living and raising children in group situations, there may well be a call for government recognition of these groups so the children don’t fall into the legal cracks. We’re a long way away from that happening. I can tell you this, though, the question which is obviously ridiculous in our current situation is only ridiculous because polygamous couples are so invisible and rare.Lots of people would like to believe that gay couples don’t exist or as rare as I’ve just described. They’re wrong. Objectively wrong. The census proves it. Their wish to ignore us doesn’t mean that there aren’t very real disabilities accruing to gay families that no straight couple would ever accept.To answer some of your other questions, I have to ask if you’ve read the court’s decision in Goodridge. It addresses many of your concerns.
Brittain:If polygamists decided they wanted to get married, as a minority (even if there’s only 10 hypothetically), would you extend them the mariage privileges? How could you not? Isn’t your rationale that they’re not prevalent denying the few that exist their rights?
John, if I were interested in having freshman-year quality conversations, I’d be all over this. This is as much fun as discussing whether we should require death row inmates to be organ donors or whether it’s better to shift the runaway train onto the siding and kill one person instead of letting it hit five. In the meantime, I’ve given you my reasoning, which I’ll state again. The law is intended to recognize society. Society has changed in the sense that gay couples are now living lives the way that straight couples do, a change from the past, much as life changed in the 1950s with the rise of interracial marriages, and in addition the rise of interfaith marriages. The basic institution looked the same, served the same purpose, was woven into the law the same way, only the classes of people allowed in were expanded to reflect societies changes. Churches continue to observe older rules–how many Catholic churches will recognize a secular wedding between a Catholic and a Jew? But the law moves on.Polygamous groups are welcome to press their own claim to changing marriage law. They’d face two obstacles gay couples don’t face: principally the practical problems in expanding an institution built for two individuals into one built for free. I can tell you that admitting gay couples into marriage has required nothing but new forms, the same way that allowing interractial marriages required nothing but new forms, while people observed existing laws. This would not be possible with groups larger than two. Secondly, they’d need to show that there’s a social need out there to be fulfilled. They’re welcome to try. The courts and legislature are open to all. If you read all this and still miss my arguments, I recommend you read them again. Thanks.
john galway:I appreciate your dogged questioning; it’s something that my pro-gay-marriage mind has been pushing around for years. Santorum’s man-on-dog marriage scenario and marrying a minor are easy to refute: there’s the issue of consent. Neither animal nor child have the (legal) ability to consent.Polygamy is a problem. So is (in some cases) incest. I mean, if a heterosexual wants to marry his first cousin and at least one of the two is barren, then what’s the problem? Of course, this leads to… what if gay first cousins want to marry? After all, the odds that they produce offspring parented by both gay partners is zero.These are edge cases to be sure, but gay marriage and interracial marriage used to be considered edge cases too.As for polygamy, my response is: limiting marriage to two people is important because so many of the rights and privileges of marriage rely on only two people. Some examples include: * Consent for medical treatment if spouse can’t due to injury/illness. * Gov’t medical benefits such as social security, etc. * Guardianship and custodial issues in the case of divorce * etc.There’s also a fundamental reality that with two people that the relationship is necessarily symmetric. This results in all sort of realities, ranging from who left the seat down to any decision implicitly being unanimous. With 3 or more spouses, the following difficult questions arise: are all three married to each other, or are there three seperate pairings of people? What if Adam wants to divorce Betsy, but Chris doesn’t? Are there now two pair-wise marriages, or does Chris have to choose between Betsy and Adam? In a pair-wise non-polygamy marriage, all of your efforts are for yourself or one other person. You simply can’t be put in the (legitimate) position of favoring a third person. With any type of polygamy marriage, favortism, and hence jealousy, crops up really easily. Barring a single “leader” of a polygamous marraige and numerous concubine-esque followers, it renders marriages destined to constant bickering, jealousy, and 2-against-1 dillemas.So, that’s what I’ve come up with. I don’t know if it’s “enough” to justify not extending the rights of marriage to polygamists, but maybe it is.
See, I think we’re coming at this the wrong way. We’re in defensive mode and it’s time to frame it better.Instead of trying to differentiate gay marriage from polygamy, we should be forcing others to differentiate it from heterosexual marriage. As far as I can tell, there are only 2 arguments that can be used:a) tradition/religionb) gay marriages don’t procreateAddressing the first response, I don’t personally believe that the government has any business regulating based purely on religious or traditional grounds. There’s room for precedent, of course, but when it comes to discrimination, past examples do not legitamize current abuses.As for the procreation argument, if anyone believes that marriage is strictly for the purpose of reproduction then they should feel free to oppose gay marriage. Of course, they should also oppose marriage for women over 45, anyone who is unable to conceive, and those who have no interest in having children.When we’re put in the position of distinguishing gay marriage from polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever, there’s no way to satisfy staunch opposition because they’ve already grouped them together in their minds. That’s why this has to be addressed on different terms; terms that put gay and straight marriage next to each other and ask why one and not the other.
To me it is about the states interest in promoting family. I believe the court over reached in Goodridge, just like the Supreme Court over reached in Roe v. Wade at a time when legal abortion was spreading. As a result it polarized the country and hurt more then it helped. That is what Goodridge did at a time when civil un ions were beginning to catch which would mean legal marriage woul;d eventually come. Now we are further polarized because of a result oriented decision (like om Mihos, David) which is causing more problems for gays then they realize.By the way, other then David, John Galway is the only pewrson who has a true legal understanding of the law. Brittain sophmoric scolding get us nowhere.Sophmoric scolding is my job,Thank you very much.
That is what Goodridge did at a time when civil un ions were beginning to catch which would mean legal marriage woul;d eventually come.[sic]It’s not obvious to me that the above statement is true. Furthermore, it does nothing to address the inequality in the mean time. I think that Troll’s statement is probably on target, but I’m not certain, and that lack of certainty warrants additional consideration IMO.
I’m sorry troll, but I just can’t buy the “let’s not rock the boat, it will come in time” argument. I’m all for due process and there’s something to be said for avoiding as much backlash as possible. BUT, where would black people be if everyone had taken that attitude in the ’60’s? Where would the country be if the colonials said “they’ll lower taxes eventually. let’s not throw all the tea in the harbor.”? There are times for slow change and there are times to fight harder. This is the latter.(Oh, and I’m not really sorry… it’s a figure of speech.)
when gay marriage is compared to black struggles,I want to puke. If you get civil unions without being called marriage you compare yourselves to rosa parks. Go feel soory for yourself somewhere elsze. I ain’t buying it
I’m not feeling sorry for myself. I just see this issue as an important struggle for civil rights, and just as importantly, recognition. When discrimination is state-sanctioned, it sends a message that this group of people is not worthy of equal treatment. That’s not a message I want my government sending.
The onus is on the folks who oppose gay marriage to say why gay folks should not have equal rights.There is equality, and there is inequality. Puke on.
What sophomoric scolding? John Galway’s only interested in discussing this as an abstraction, and when presented with different reasoning, gets upset that I’m not thinking the way he wants me too.This kind of argument is like saying that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to have nuclear weapons, and that the 1st Amendment means I have the right to go to the basilica and read Howard Stern scripts aloud in the middle of Mass. The law has never been about ridiculous reductio ad absurdum; it’s about roughly fitting principles to society in the interest of justice. That’s why Justice carries scales.If Galway is so up on the law, he wouldn’t bother with polygamy, because he would know that Goodridge rested on the ERA provision of the Massachusetts Constitution that bans discrimination on the basis of gender. What that does is open the rights of marriage to two people, regardless of gender. The number of partners never came into play. That’s why I referred him to Goodridge.
The Legislature was denied any role in this process, the only alternative is a constitutional amendment. if the legislature was allowed to do something, they should change the law so EVERYONE gets a civil unionInteresting, though, that that’s not what the proposed legislative amendment does, isn’t it? What I mean by that is, John, I think you don’t really support civil unions for everyone as a solution at all. I hear an awful lot of people suggesting that as the supposedly correct approach, but noone actually pursuing it politically. If you had ever genuinely thought it through, I don’t think you would have glossed over so easily the huge difference between your alleged ideal and what this proposal actually does.As far as polygamy, why exactly do you oppose it? I haven’t heard your reasons. As eury13 points out, its always been a heterosexual practice and certainly satisfies the criteria of biblical endorsement and reproductive potential which we hear so much about in relation to SSM.Distinguishing SSM from other marriage variants may be useful and necessary for constitutional lawyers rendering decisions that will be cited as precedent. [Or maybe not.] But a run-of-the-mill SSM supporter has only as much responsibility to justify their positions on unrelated issues as opponents do, no more. We down here on the ground don’t make constitutional law. And obviously the amendment process is a political one not constrained by the necessary appearance of consistency that judges have to deal with.Polygamy = red herring.
Troll, I thought you had promised to disappear?It’s great that Rosa Parks is a hero of yours, but when I try to imagine you back in the days of the movement itself, all I get is a distinct picture of you scolding her for creating a backlash that’s going to hurt her people.In any case, the comparison with the AfAm civil rights movement is based largely on the legal issues involved, not the social ones. The rhetoric has spilled over into the political realm, but it started with our legal teams. They would have been hugely delinquent if they hadn’t tried to squeeze every last drop of juice out of Loving v. Virginia and the entire history of cases that legally established the rights of black Americans.I think just about everyone understands how far the comparisons go and where they stop.
hey world citizen I disapeear when the electiuon is over.As far as what I would do in the day, FUCK YOU You self rightous asshole who which little life experience/
World CI am hater because I don’t agree with you. Is that it?Obviously I must have been turning the hose on blacks in alabama. I don’t see gay mariage as a constitutional right. i.e. I am a hater and probably a racist andan anti-semite. The diversity of the progressives. Fuck everyone unles they agree with our religion. And tyhey are never to ask questions.Progressives want the party to be more of a cult. Don’t question. Do as we say.That atitude is why this party isn’t going anywhere.This self rightous atitude with no rom for debate has ruined what once was the party that saved the middle class
World – How do you know what john g. really means? I like that proposal. Just so you know, I am not against gay mariage, I just don’t see it as a civil rights issue.Much like I am not against abortion but Roe v. Wade was a lousey decision not well reasoned. And most legal scholars, both liberal and conservative, agree.Judges have different functions then legislators.I doubt you would inderstand the difference. But then you do not have to. You are merely a leeming, my robotic, narrow minded, self-rightous friend
Dear Troll:Ouch! Would you run your spellchecker before posting in future?
Who’s getting upset @ being questioned? Hrm…
In all seriousness, Troll, you say “I just don’t see it as a civil rights issue.” If it’s not a civil rights issue, what is it? Just trying to get your take.
I’m wading into dangerous water by presuming to speak for the troll, but I assume what he means by “not a civil rights issue” is “not an issue that should have been decided by judicial interpretation of equal protection or other anti-discrimination provisions of the state or federal Constitution.” That’s a legitimate position – 3 SJC justices agreed with it, including one (Sosman) who might support gay marriage on the merits (then again she might not) – and it doesn’t mean that he’s against gay marriage. There are lots of people who support gay marriage but don’t like courts making the decision. Oh, and re Mihos: it was the majority opinion, not the dissent, that was results-oriented – they didn’t think Mihos and Levy “should” have been fired over the business with the tolls. In my ever-humble opinion, that is!
Gawd, what an outburst.With all your supposedly much vaster “life experience,” you still throw tantrums like a three year old.Is that because someone called you on the little trick you’ve been playing over and over again whenever the issue of SMM comes up? Implying that framing it as a civil rights issue denigrates African Americans, and then coming to their rescue as a defender of their sensibilities? Who the hell exactly are you to play the race card anyway?Not that it is any of your fucking business, troll, but as I type this my black partner is sleeping in the next room in the bed we’ve shared for six years. I’ve done quite a bit of talking, listening, thinking, and soul-searching about the very issue that you like to casually raise simply as a little wedge tool–to illustrate how supposedly nasty and selfish gay people are for wanting the right to marry.If you’ve got some wisdom (ha!) or personal experience to share that’s relevant to the issue of racism as opposed to just a slogan you heard on the teevee and a whole load of hypersensitive umbrage, I’m listening. All I’ve ever seen from you in the past though is bullshit spew, so I won’t hold my breath.
Thanks David.As for NMihos, I just think you are not seperating an independent quasi governmental agency with a regular administrative agency, such as the Department of Transistional Assistance.But your eloquance re: SJC dissent on gay mariage is right on. I am with Judge Sosman.Simon. Get with the programj. I am lazy. I do not spell check.
WorldYOU WIN!I am soo sorry. I had no idea you had a “black partner”.Oh you lucky boy.Obviously you are a very enlightened person with many life experiences. And of course having a black man to sleep with just increases those experiences exponentialy.My oh my. Please forgive me.You asked for my pesonal experiences. Well, you win. I fucked a black chick once. But I have never sucked on a black cock or had one in my ass. YOU WIN!
And World.. I may just be a three year old. But I am honest about it. You self rightous, pretentious, egotistical, gay nazi.
And of course World, your black man speaks for all blacks. I’m sure he was around in the sixties also.
Wow, that was nasty. Nasty as I’ve ever seen it here or on any blog, outside of the comment spam we received a while back.Troll, you want to apologize for that?
No
I know I was out of line Charley, and I apologize to all who had to read that, except World Citizen. Perhaps I should have sent it to his e-mail.But this “some of my best friends are black” bullshit could not be ignored.
Mihos: nope. Head of DTA or any other regular agency can be canned for any reason or for no reason. Heads of authorities can only be fired for “cause,” established after notice and a hearing. That’s what Swift did, at no small political cost to herself, but it wasn’t good enough for the SJC. It shouldn’t be for the courts to decide whether the “cause” that the Gov sets forth is “good enough,” unless we want the courts managing personnel decisions in the executive branch (which they’re not very good at, and which is unfortunately now what we’ve got). The 4 in the majority wanted to send Swift a message, and that’s what they did.Personal attacks: let’s lower the volume folks. You have a personal score to settle with someone, take it outside.
I don’t want governors overstepping their authority. Cause has to be big. If a matter is put to a vote and the member votesd against, I do not see that as being cause. But that is why we have lawyers.David, you never answerd me about Bob casey and his views on abortion
Sorry – what was the question? I must not have seen it.
Bob Casey’s father was governor of PA and was pro-life. He was marginalized by the party. I am wondering where his son stands on the issue. I am assuming he is a moderate if not conservative democrat.
Troll:You sound like you’ve had experiences with Yahoos like I’ve had. You shouldn’t be upset when they say they proclaim they understand everything. Also, troll, they expect folks like us to hurl obscenities at them because then then can walk away and say “see, the natives are un-educated and we really do need to enlighten them.” Therefore, troll, let’s just continue to point out their hypocritical & elitist viewpoints and how they think they’re mainstream but in fact they’re not. All they do is read the anti-catholic communist daily from Morrissey Blvd, listen to 90.9 and that’s the way it is. Yahoos!
Thank you John. perhaps you could respond for me in the Deval patrick thread. Brittain and Charley say Finneran was bad, bad, bad, for democrats. I am tired. Could you? And alsoexplain to Brittain the reason why I asked her about Andrea Cabral in regards to Finneran. She is just soo clueless.
perhaps you could respond for meAnd alsoexplain to BrittainYou’re pathetic.
Thanks brittain, comoing from you that is a compliment.
what’s wrong brittain? Oh my god there are now 2 people who cooment on thios blog and aren’t part of the mutual admiration society.That bothers you doesn’t it Brittain?Hmm, maybe I will stay around. Me and JohnGalway will point things out that you may not agree with.I guess that is pathetic, huh?Did you not get my point about Andrea Cabral?Yes I know the difference between Suffolk and Middlesex Counties. But I was pointing out the differnce between her soon to be indicted perjury and the lame one against Finneran. But she is black and therfore we love her. “The new Boston”And the Globe goes ahead and editorializes against indicting her for pejury. What hypocrites. I agree with Harvey Silvergalte (yes I am sure you have no clue who he is) that the finneran indictment is a miscarriage of justice.But because you do not like finneran he is therefore evil.I love the independent, critical thinking on this blog.I big circle jerk if there ever was one.
I love the independent, critical thinking on this blog: I fucked a black chick once. But I have never sucked on a black cock or had one in my ass. YOU WIN!Listening to and trying to understanding the experiences of people who have actually experienced both racial and anti-gay discrimination is more what I was thinking of than fucking, troll.In case you missed it, the point is that I don’t believe your high-horse attitude about who gets to define what civil rights are has a scintilla of sincerity attached to it. It’s just a useful talking point you picked up somewhere among fellow travelers in your beleaguered little world.Your black man speaks for all blacks.He doesn’t claim to speak for anyone but himself and neither do I. I’ve done some serious listening to people, not just him, who have had different experiences than mine, that’s all. I’ve tried to do my best from there.You sure dish out a lot of shit considering your lack of ability to take what you have coming to you in return.
World, just because I don’t agree with you you attack. I attacked back. And because I do not believe it is a civil rights issue but agre with the dissent in Goodridge you tell me it is a useful talking point I picked up somewhere. Well you are right. I picked it up from reading the decision, reading many other court decisions the last 40 years and practicing law for 35. Yes it is something i picked up. Just liike David picked up his views. And David did agree that the dissent was a legitimate argument regardles of what you believe. Much like David and I disagree on the Mihos decision.But because I disgree with you you atack my intelligence. And then you give yourself credibility by telling me your boyfriend is black.I am sure I have had different experiences then you, yet you don’t listen, you atack my credibility. And if i make sense, like agreeing with Judge Sosman, then I am just a puppet with no thought process of my on.Your atacks are just proving Joh Galway right.I do take what I have coming. David gives it to me god, Charley does too. (most of the time, but he occassionally has his hissy fits). But you and others (Britain) just agree anf add nothing. You are “me to” commentators on this blog. Very boring and very obtuse.
Yeah, ythe first time i let it be known I’m a lawyer. Say what you want World, but I was smart enough to pass the bar. (first time)Which is no big deal. But I believe I am more grounded in the law, the difference between legislative, executive, and judicial powers and the uinderstanding of the role of the speaker of the house and senate president then you, world citizen.Mosrt others on this blog just want to heat what they want to hear and damn everyone else.By the way your name says it all. As if you are superior then others because you are a “world citizen” watching out for us.Get over yourself.
The last I checked, and I apologize in advance if I’m incorrect, but Brittain was questioning troll’s credibility and announced Finneran was “bad” for the Democrats and was used by Republicans against incumbent Democrats. I pointed out to Brittain that Finneran ran the House re-election campaign and did so admirably, standing up to the rhetoric and producing results, the re-election of all Democratic incumbents. Brittain didn’t respond with any facts because she doesn’t have them. It’s just “Finneran is bad” was the mantra repeated over and over by the yahoos because he was a working-class Irish kid who worked his way to the top, had morals (that’ll be proven when he beats the Sullivan “I want to be somebody” indictment)and didn’t hold his finger up to the wind when making political and legislative decisions. Kerry should learn “waffling” doesn’t get you anywhere. Take a position man and stick with it. Finneran stuck with his positions, his positions weren’t endorsed by the Yahoos, so he’s bad. They speak out of both sides of their mouths, troll. One the one hand they say we want principled politicians but only if they agree with me on every issue. What’s the lithmus test, ask our party chair, fat ass Johnson, abortion, teacher’s unions and now Gay Marriage. My party is leaving me, I don’t understand it. Wait, I do, it’s the Yahoos! They won’t stand side-by-side with the Longshoreman from Somerville who says “I’m with you on everything, except I don’t want my daughter in the local high school, I want her to go to the public charter school.” Oh that’s terrible because fat ass union heads (not the 99% of great teachers) who say “no” because they can. Keep it up troll, we’re the real Democrats, the New Democrats that won re-election for 2 terms with Clinton, the Yahoos won’t let us in because normal people are taking care of their families, doing chores and running our economy while the activists show up on Saturdays to talk about Kyoto and Global Warming which allows Fat Ass Johnson to run the State Party. Hypocrites! Yahoos!
Troll, I like you when you have something to say. I like you even better when you have something to say and I don’t agree with you.When you moan and cry and insult people, when you complain that no one talks about real Democratic issues like jobs and health care and then start week-long pissing matches over trivia, when you whine at people to respond to you and then dodge the fight you started, when you go on and on about the one politician you hate and how everyone’s going to vote the way you want, you’re boring. Stick around if you want, but whether anyone else cares what you’re saying is up to you.Just do me one favor, spare yourself the delusion that people are sick of you because you’re saying stuff that we disagree with. B.S. I love it when people disagree with me, it’s how I learn stuff. What I have no patience for is when people get their ass handed to them and they don’t have the balls to admit it, but hang around making a fool of themselves. I was one of your biggest fans here. You’re doing a lot to make yourself look like a sad old man instead of someone with something smart to say. You like John Galway because he agrees with you, but you don’t have a clue how much he knows or how he knows it. All he’s shown me is that he can talk in a way you like, but he can’t line up his own arguments. I have to admit, when I saw you buddying up to him, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But then he said the last election showed what a good job Finneran did getting votes for Democrats. If you’re half as smart as you say, you know what a ridiculous, igorant comment that is. But the guy agrees with you, so he’s your new best friend and the smartest guy on the blog.Waste of my fuckin’ time. And yours, too.
John, you seem to have a lot of anger. You should try some meditation. Eastern traditions have a lot they can teach you about spirituality. Somerville’s a great place to explore alternate paths to healing. Good luck.
I just read galway above Brittain. I agree with him.again you add nothing to this blog. Just the same ole same ole.I have been honest on who I like and donm’t like. Barios is a phony. Jehlen ofers nothing but is a pupet for gay actibvists and teachers union. Phil Johnston and his band of mery men is ruining the party, and Barney Frank is great.She just shows up.I have clue on how much galway knows by what he has said. Obviously he has some educated background on the issues.I disagree with him on the polygamy stuff. I do not see it going there and do see a difference.So I take it you do not like my tone. I guess. Because I have always tried to point to facts when going off on a rant. Such as Harver Silverglate above; the Soldiers Home story on Jehlen; my civil rights argument is based on the Goodridge dissent; most legal scolars agree that Roe v. Wade was not sound judicial reasonimg and abortion should have been legalized by legisslatures,But my tone can be offensive. And I will insult.GuiltyGrow up Britain, we are all adults here. You should be able to take it.Now you say I have nothing say. Wrong! I have nothing to say that you want to hear.
Hey John, you are so right about being labeled by the yahoos. See how Brittain is now trying to make you out to be daffy. Anger problems.You are right john about the m.o. of the yahoos.
Brittain everyone on this blog sounds like they have anger issues when talking about things they don’t like. Such as Romney, Bush, people against gay marriage. Arlene Issacson (not sure if i have name right) looked like she had anger management issues when I saw her on tv last night blasting Reilly.The two gay guys who want to post the names to intimidate people who sighn the petition, they have anger mangaement isues.Oh wait, sory. They agre with you. So that is not anger management problems, that is fighting the good fight.My wrong.
Brittain:Just to reference your previous comment about my statement being “ignorant.” Let me repeat the facts. The Republicans and Romney ran candidates against Democratic members of the House. Finneran was the Speaker. The Repubs financed literature, got editorials, etc state-wide linking Finneran to their local State Rep. Those Reps, many of them throughout the State were targeted with Republican opponents. Finneran ran the House re-election efforts and fended off the anti-Finneran linkage efforts in several legislative races with rational arguments on what the legislative accomplishments were of the individual rep and institutionally. The Democrats all returned to the State House. Finneran is even credited by Fat Ass Johnson, ask him, with being the person behind the return of so many Democrats given the money & rhetoric thrown about to trhe House. Facts, Brittain…FACTS. Finneran may not have been nominated for a statewide office by the yahoo dominated party, but he did his job for his members and got them re-elected, and pointed out their institutional accomplishments. Troll, quickly, I don’t see polygamy either but only 4 years ago in this State, the discussion was about domestic partnerships for SS couples and now it’s marriage. My point really is how do you define any state barriers to any relationships and justify it following the rationale of Goodridge and supporters of SSM.
troll, you might want to think about your own signal to noise ratio before telling other people how little they contribute. I rarely comment here, though I read just about every thread completely through, so even if 100% of what I’ve ever said is complete and utter bs, I’m still way behind you in terms of total output.You want satisfaction? Okay, yes, I do think you’re a mouth breathing, Herald reading, troglodyte townie bigot. Happy? Go ahead and write me off with a clear conscience. You can have the last word and we’ll leave it that.
That’s your best World, Call me a townie. Hmmm, you are prejudice. I’m a herald reader, hmm. yes i do read the herald, along with the globe, the NYT, and the Wall street journal.But you have labeled me. good for you.I could be from southie though. Why a townie? Perhaps You must be anti irish catholic. But that is allowed under the progressive dem rules. Right?I don’t understand your point about total output. But since you gave me the last word you don’t have to explain yourself.You can fret abiout me to your partner tonight. That mean troll.
World CitizenYour needed to tell me your partner is black makes me think your only self perception is that of a gay person with a black partner. There are hundreds of thousands of gay mixed racial couples in this country but you are the small minority, like many in different demopgraphic groups, who identifies only with gay and minority issues and percieves oneself only as a person suffering from or enjoying the benfits of your particular group. You have no identity of your own. You are hypersensitive to jabs ( both real or percieved)which you believe offends your group. Beyond identifying yourself as a gay person with a black partner you have no realization of self.No real personality beyond the one that fits the stereotype of your particular group.Don’t be sad. Your condition is not uncommon. Usually a sign of immaturity. Once people become awaree of it they usually work it out.Your condiditon shows though.Take care of it.