Foreshadowing?
By Mitch Berg
Two bits of news from yesterday.
While I’m not especially knotted up about gay marriage – I support civil unions, yadda yadda – it lost big in North Carolina yesterday. Bible-belt bigotry? Or a sign that social issues are winners in swing states? We’ll see.
And as you’ve no doubt heard, Scott Walker drew almost as many Republican voters to his meaningless primary than all the Democrat contenders put together in Wisconsin yesterday – an effort that cost millions in union money and led to the Dems getting…
…Tom Barrett, the Sharon Sayles-Belton of Milwaukee, a man who’s presided over the decline of a city that…well, was where Happy Days was set, anyway.
If you’re a union member? Get ready to have your paycheck tapped harder than ever.
I’m going to slip a few bucks in the figurative online mail for the Walker campaign. Now’s when it get serious.
May 9th, 2012 at 8:22 am
Althouse notes that the Democrats garnered fewer votes than there were signatures on the recall petition: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/05/come-on-everybody-lets-follow-wisconsin.html
The implication is that the signature verification process for the petition was flawed, that is, a significant number of the signatures were fraudulent.
May 9th, 2012 at 8:28 am
Not only did I send money to Walker, but to his Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, as well! That courageous woman has put up with more vocal vitriol from cowardly knuckle dragging union thugs than any woman should have to take! I can’t verify this, but I had also heard that her personal property was vandalized and that her family was also subjected to harrassment.
The public unions sent a black fire fighter from Moscow, I mean Madison, Mahlon Mitchell, to challenge her!
May 9th, 2012 at 9:42 am
I think a large part of what happened in North Carolina was a response to what happened in California. In California, they agreed to civil unions that addressed pretty much everything that proponents of SSM said that they wanted (e.g. right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, hospital visitation, leave property, etc.) although even without civil marriage or civil unions, you can usually address most of these things through wills, health care directives, power of attorney, etc. which are available to pretty much anyone. The courts however wouldn’t hear of it and basically said “if you give them an inch, you have to give them a mile.” The lesson learned by people who believe that civil marriage is and should be between a man and a woman was that it was not acceptable to engage in half-measures – either they have to refrain from creating civil unions so that gay couples don’t have to create wills, powers of attorney, etc. for their partners or they run the risk that an activist court will use that as an impetus to force them to change the definition of civil marriage.
May 9th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Not sure the R turnout means much in this primary. They were incentivized to vote for the fake Democrats in the Senate races (check those numbers — many Republicans voted in those races as crossover was allowed — all races were on the ballot).
On another topic, what do you make of Bachmann getting Swiss citizenship? It’s a socialist country — universal, mandatory healthcare coverage, gay marriage, cradle-to-grave care (free university). She said her kids want that kind of nanny state option. What gives?
May 9th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Yes, Thorleywinston, here in Hawaii same-sex marriage advocates have been quite open about using the civil union law as a springboard for gay marriage.
I wonder . . . as an American, do I have the civil right to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman?
May 9th, 2012 at 11:03 am
” as an American, do I have the civil right to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman?”
Of course. You can believe anything you want to believe. I can believe in polygamy, but that won’t make it the law.
May 9th, 2012 at 11:29 am
So I am as a free as a North Korean in matters of belief, Sanity? That is nice to know.
May 9th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Stink’s Dictum: Gay marriage is actually a recruiting tool. Once the state places their seal of approval on gay marriage, advocacy groups will be at the public schoolhouse doors the next morning – under the umbrella of “inclusion” – demanding they have a say in curriculum.
Stink’s Second Dictum: Every teenager is confused about sex. Allowing gays to be their “coaches” at any time during this confusion could irreparably scar a natural evolution through their adolescence.
May 9th, 2012 at 11:35 am
“So I am as a free as a North Korean in matters of belief, Sanity? That is nice to know.”
Yes. The difference is that the North Korean does not have freedom of speech. You can freely speak about your beliefs (on this blog, for example). Freedom of speech here is GREAT!
May 9th, 2012 at 11:44 am
“Every teenager is confused about sex.”
Speak for yourself. I was NEVER confused about sex.
“Gay marriage is actually a recruiting tool.”
Seems they are doing VERY well without this as a “recruiting tool.” Not sure it matters much at this point . . . gays live together openly (same as heterosexuals — many live together without marriage) with or without legal civil union. Not sure about the public schoolhouse thingy . . . tolerance of all beliefs is already required at public schools (religious, political, etc.). Not sure this makes a difference — nearly every school has a “gay straight alliance” club already, mostly motivated by the fact that gays don’t have same rights as others.
I suspect that legalizing gay marriage won’t change much of anything. States that have legalized it aren’t reporting the schoolhouse effect you speak of . . . Iowa seems fine.
May 9th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Whether you are homo or hetero, we all have the same rights.
May 9th, 2012 at 11:51 am
You spelled ‘Hetero” right!
We CAN hope for change!
😉
May 9th, 2012 at 11:54 am
That is a fact.
May 9th, 2012 at 11:59 am
“Whether you are homo or hetero, we all have the same rights.”
The right to marry the opposite sex is not the same (equivalent) for someone with homosexual (same sex attraction) orientation. Just like the old days, when the right to only marry within your own race was not the same if you were white and in love with a black person . . . but that injustice was corrected.
May 9th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Anyone want to comment on why Bachmann became a citizen of a socialist country?
May 9th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
The weirdest rationalization I’ve heard for normalizing homosexuality was that it was no more pathological than being left-handed.
There are numerous pathologies associated with being left-handed. Lower birth weight, shorter life span, and (I think) a greater tendency to contract diabetes among them. The other odd thing about handedness is that, like homosexuality, and unlike, say, “blackness” or “Native American”, you can’t test for and measure “gayness” objectively. Studies with similar methodologies don’t even agree on the percentage of the population that is left-handed. “Handedness” also has a significant social component. In cultures that disapprove of being left-handed, there are fewer left-handed people.
The conservative religious opinion that gay behavior is a choice seems more rational the liberal opinion that there is something called “orientation” that we are born with and that can never change.
May 9th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
“Of course. You can believe anything you want to believe. I can believe in polygamy, but that won’t make it the law.”
Yes. For example – President Obama believes the same thing as Mitt Romney on gay marriage. Although the GLBT groups say they believe Obama is ‘evolving’ on the issue, they, just like the people who believe in Creationism, can believe what they want to believe.
As was demonstrated in California with Prop 8, it really doesn’t matter what the majority of voters believe (as expressed in the voting booth) – it matters what a federal judge says. So thank you Sanity for reminding all of us that at the end of the day we mere voters have no voice beyond voting or commenting on blogs or talking with our buds over a few beers or grumbling along with our fellow unemployed at the unemployment office.
All that matters is what the ‘proper’ authorities think. I like the cut of your brown shir, er, a, jib, Sanity.
May 9th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
I’m confused. Are you are saying left-handedness is a “lifestyle choice”, not inborn? And it’s ok to discriminate against lefties because there are cultures that disapprove of left-handed people?
May 9th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
” I like the cut of your brown shir, er, a, jib, Sanity.”
Mentioning that we have freedom of speech makes me a fascist?
Is this an alternative universe?
May 9th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Can anyone tell me why Bachmann is now a citizen of socialist Switzerland?
May 9th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Just like the old days, when the right to only marry within your own race was not the same if you were white and in love with a black person . . . but that injustice was corrected.
There is a lot of ignorance on this topic. The Virginia statute against inter racial marriage overturned in “Loving vs. Virginia” dated from the 1920’s. It wasn’t an ancient prohibition overturned by progressives. It was a modern prohibition. The same people that enacted it voted for FDR four times.
May 9th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
I’m confused. Are you are saying left-handedness is a “lifestyle choice”, not inborn?
I wrote what I wrote clearly, Mr. Sanity.
May 9th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“I wrote what I wrote clearly, Mr. Sanity.”
Your response cleared up everything. Thanks!
May 9th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Please, please, send money to the Walker campaign. He’s in trouble:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/167779/wisconsin-democrats-easily-outpoll-scott-walker-recall-race-set
The primary did not go well for him:
“Walker’s 626,538 was far behind the 665,436 received by Barrett, Falk, Vinehout and La Follette.
Presuming that most of the 19,920 votes cast for Kohl-Riggs will go to Barrett in the general election (while the 4,842 votes cast for a Walker-allied “fake Democrat” in the Democratic primary will go to the governor), that means that the anti-Walker vote was 55,000 votes ahead of the pro-Walker total.”
Is Wisconsin a bell wether for the nation?
May 9th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Comparing a contested primary and a non-contested primary.
You are a silly person, Mr. Sanity. Or maybe you just play one on a blog.
May 9th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
“Mentioning that we have freedom of speech makes me a fascist?”
No. How about these two?
“Of course. You can believe anything you want to believe. I can believe in polygamy, but that won’t make it the law.”
“You can freely speak about your beliefs (on this blog, for example). Freedom of speech here is GREAT!”
Implicit in your response to Terry was that he can believe in whatever he wants and have all the free speech he wants, but when it comes to the law – well, the law is the law and it doesn’t matter what he believes or expresses on this blog.
In the context of this discussion about the results of the polls yesterday, it would appear that you hold that the expression of beliefs on blogs is ‘great’, but the expression of the majority of the people at the polls doesn’t matter when it conflicts with the law which is properly decided by an authority. What good is free speech if it can’t be used to persuade a majority of people towards a belief that they might express at the voting booth when an authority can simply strike it down?
Please persuade me otherwise.
May 9th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
“Comparing a contested primary and a non-contested primary.”
It’s not that simple. Republican turnout was twice what it was in the previous primary. I personally know Republicans in Wisconsin who turned out to vote for the fake Democrats.
May 9th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
“Implicit in your response to Terry was that he can believe in whatever he wants and have all the free speech he wants, but when it comes to the law – well, the law is the law and it doesn’t matter what he believes or expresses on this blog.”
That’s right. The law is the law. I can run a blog and rant all day long about how I want polygamy, but it won’t matter much. But it’s my right to support it and yell it from the rooftops. How does acknowledging this reality this make me a fascist?
“expression of the majority of the people at the polls doesn’t matter when it conflicts with the law which is properly decided by an authority”
Yes. Historically, this is how it works. A majority of people in an area (think of the 1950’s south) might like the idea of keeping the races segregated, or not allowing certain people to sit in the front of the bus based on skin color. This happened, so should they have prevailed? Just because a majority believes something, that doesn’t make it Constitutional or even right. Get used to that concept. That’s how the law works.
“What good is free speech if it can’t be used to persuade a majority of people towards a belief that they might express at the voting booth when an authority can simply strike it down?”
The authority is often the Bill of Rights or our Constitution or legal precedent. We have a three-legged stool of government — Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. Those are powerful “authorities”, especially the Judiciary, that work to make sure our rights are secured in the face of a mob mentality. Without guaranteed rights we could become WWII Germany (it must be OK to kill the Jews because the “majority” thinks so, right?), or worse.
May 9th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
“The right to marry the opposite sex is not the same (equivalent) for someone with homosexual (same sex attraction) orientation.”
Because Insanity climbs on a roof and screams it out loud?
Don’t make me go all Tina Turner on your sorry arse.
Now go back to licking those dog’s balls near your dish.
…
Whether you are homo or hetero, we all have the same rights.
In your heart you know I am right.
May 9th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
I’m not aware of the election(s) that put the Jim Crow laws in force. Authorities did this. These laws were in conflict with peoples rights – as endowed by their creator – to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These were struck down as unconstitutional as they were in direct conflict with these inalienable rights.
Do the people get to have a voice? Aren’t the voters interests betrayed if judges decide as they did with the Prop 8 vote in California or Bush V. Gore in 2000 that the peoples will be damned – we judges will make the decisions here?
If a majority of people – your neighbors for example – decide to do something that you don’t agree with – something trivial like what color fire trucks should be – is that the ‘mob rule’ you fear? I often hear folks on the Left point to their fear of Right Wing Christianists imposing their will by mob rule, but honestly the only ‘mobs’ I’ve seen lately were storming and threatening the legislators in Madison, WI after a statewide election and more recently in St Paul demanding funding of a stadium (regarding which the people had no ability to vote on here).
Yep – we the people have guaranteed rights. The Bill of Rights and our Constitution protect our rights – and impose restrictions on the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary – not on the people. When I hear or read of people (like Thomas Friedman in the NYT) praising the dictators of China as being able to ‘get things done’ I recoil. Your comments tended -in my opinion as a lowly blog commenter- towards praising authority and that the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box, as damnable.
May 9th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
What kind of sociopathological thought process drives a person (in this case, “Sanity”) to imply that somehow keeping marriage between a man and a woman by having the People as a check against a deconstructionist and postmodernist lawyer in robes somehow leads to fascism and extermination, or that it compares to miscegenation laws?
When a queer judge in California can unilaterally abrogate the common understanding of marriage based upon his absence of critical thought about the complete absence same sex marriage in the entirety in the history of Western Civilization, its religions, its culture, and Anglo-American jurisprudence, there’s a problem.
May 9th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
He’s either nuts or the numbers are really strong in his favor on this.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-backs-same-sex-marriage-2012-05-09
My guess is that they’ve run the numbers, and Obama can support this and win.
“These laws were in conflict with peoples rights – as endowed by their creator – to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These were struck down as unconstitutional as they were in direct conflict with these inalienable rights.”
This same logic will be used to strike down the anti-gay marriage laws.
“Aren’t the voters interests betrayed if judges decide as they did with the Prop 8 vote in California or Bush V. Gore in 2000 that the peoples will be damned – we judges will make the decisions here?”
No. They are following the law. See your statement above.
“Yep – we the people have guaranteed rights. The Bill of Rights and our Constitution protect our rights – and impose restrictions on the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary – not on the people. ”
Yes, and these guaranteed rights trump the ballot box poll.
” towards praising authority and that the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box, as damnable.”
No, I’m praising guaranteed rights. I’m praising the Bill of Rights, which I believe in. How about you? Do you value protection of your individual rights and freedoms?
May 9th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Sanity;
If you are going to quote people, please be accurate.
I’ve watched/listened to the video clip and read the transcripts from at least sic different outlets and saw the same thing. Michelle Bachmann explaining why she was getting dual citizenship. In none of them does she state, as you allege, that “her children wanted that nanny state option.” She said that they wanted to go through the dual citizenship experience together.
So, now I have a question for you, hypocrite. So f-ing what if she does have dual citizenship?! First and foremost, it’s none of your business, because it isn’t affecting you. Second, lot’s of people have dual citizenship, including the black messiah. The day that she denounces her US citizenship for Switzerland, THEN you might have a concern. Further, if you are so worried about Switzerland being socialistic, then you should be just as concerned at how fast the U.S. in heading in that direction and try to stop it. But, judging by your posts, that’s just fine with you. Hypocrite!
May 9th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Let’s decide, as a majority mob, that “Sanity” is actually a threat to the Republic and he should have his tongue ripped out and his keyboard disconnected. Because we’re the majority and because we happen to concur he’s about as consistent as a train wreck, we should have that right and ability, right? After all, we’re the majority.
Sorry, Sanity. The mob has spoken.
May 9th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Let’s decide, as a majority mob, that “Sanity” is actually a threat to the Republic and he should have his tongue ripped out and his keyboard disconnected. Because we’re the majority and because we happen to concur he’s about as consistent as a train wreck, we should have that right and ability, right? After all, we’re the majority.
Sorry, Sanity. The mob has spoken.”
That’s right. No rights for those with an opposing opinion on this blog! Screw the right to free speech and opposing ideas!
You guys are funny.
May 9th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Thanks for the non-sequitors. I guess I’m not going to get you to affirm that the people have any rights that some authority figure doesn’t award them and can therefore take away later. Currently, all people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Based on recent history of overturned elections and overturned laws made by legislatures: if the authorities order it – a few people will have the right to marry members of the same sex.
Doesn’t really matter to me. I’m pretty much a live and let live type. I would never stand before two people who wish to make a contract with one another. Making such a contract with a same sex person is not something I plan to do (well unless some judge orders me to if that is ‘the law’).
And Stinky – you have it wrong. Commenter Sanity objects to the majority mob ripping his tongue out and disconnecting his keyboard. He appears to have no objection to a judge imposing this sentence on him if it fits with ‘the law’ such as it is interpreted at the time.
May 9th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
I thought I told you to go back to licking those dog’s balls near your dish.
“Do you value protection of your individual rights and freedoms?”
Yes insanity, I do but you do not.
Whether you are homo or hetero, we all have the same rights.
And don’t make me go all Tina Turner on your sorry arse.
…
In your heart you know I am right.
May 9th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
” I’m pretty much a live and let live type.”
And that’s why you understand that gay marriage is a “live and let live” issue. Who someone else marries makes no difference to me (or you). It does nothing to affect my life. Nada. I married the person I wanted, and I’d marry that same person if gay marriage were legal. My life is the same, either way. It does not affect my happiness, nor does it affect my rights to a good life, happiness, etc.
On the other hand, “live and let live” doesn’t go very well with a law that makes it legal to rip out my tongue because I don’t agree with you. In fact, that would be ruled unconstitutional on based on the freedom of speech amendment.
Neither issue (ripping out my tongue or denying gays marriage rights) is about what the “majority” wants or votes for. Both are ultimately decided based on precedent and the Constitution. Majority rule is a fail in either case, because the law is clear.
Try again.
May 9th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
PS: Anybody know why Bachmann applied for citizenship to Switzerland?
May 9th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
PS: Anybody know why Bachmann applied for citizenship to Switzerland?
As part of the International Concern Troll Full Threadjack Initiative.
May 9th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“So, now I have a question for you, hypocrite. So f-ing what if she does have dual citizenship?!”
Well, it goes to the issue of her character, and that affects my decision to vote for (or not) her. She’s the public official who represents me, and that makes her citizenship my business. As I recall, Obama’s citizenship seemed to be a valid issue to many (even people who never voted for him) because he represents them.
“First and foremost, it’s none of your business, because it isn’t affecting you. Second, lot’s of people have dual citizenship, including the black messiah.”
That’s news to me. What other countries is he a citizen of? Proof?
“The day that she denounces her US citizenship for Switzerland, THEN you might have a concern.”
AS a dual citizen she has already compromised her US citizenship. She owes allegiance to two countries now. How can she serve on the Intelligence committee?
“Further, if you are so worried about Switzerland being socialistic, then you should be just as concerned at how fast the U.S. in heading in that direction and try to stop it.”
Ha, ha. I’m not worried about that, just pointing out the hypocrisy of Bachmann (“I’ll repeal Obamacare”) — why would she want to be a citizen of a socialist state? For the free healthcare? It was meant to be funny, but the humor somehow got past you.
May 9th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
“Hypocrite!”
I’d be a hypocrite if I were critical of US Healthcare reform, and then I applied for citizenship to a country that has universal, state paid healthcare.
But I didn’t do that. Bachmann, however, did.
May 9th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
“Who someone else marries makes no difference to me (or you).” – So you don’t have any objection if a man “marrys” his cousin or friend (same/opposite sex) or brother? It’s not what you said or meant – but hey, if you can interpret my noting your non-objection to anything a judge rules as the same as my believing that a judge could rule that you have your tongue ripped out – why not. You’ve already shown your self as unable to acknowledge any argument that conflicts with your own.
“Both are ultimately decided based on precedent and the Constitution. Majority rule is a fail in either case, because the law is clear.”
So you are comfortable and abide with the 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case, where corporations that weren’t in the media business were in effect ‘given back their tongues’ by five judges who overruled precedent and if some polls are to believed, went against the majority? Was the law ‘clear’ that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals? If so, why was it ever an issue?
You seem to have an issue with anti-authoritarianism. If a judge says it, you believe it. Kind of like a fundamentalist Christian who believes everything in the Bible literally and can’t stand to see a different interpretation than the one you wuz taught in Sundee school.
You need to get out a little more.
PS: I think the law and precedent says Michelle Bachmann can become a dual citizen. Got an issue with that?
May 9th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Sanity, as the Prince of Darkness I wish for you to solve this riddle. If you support gay marriage how is that any different from polygamy, polynamory (multiple men marrying one woman), 3 men getting married, 3 women getting married, brother-sister getting married… I could go on. The arguement you use for same-sex marriage could be used in those instances as well. If you support same sex marriage but not polygamy you are a hypocrite.
May 9th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
“Sanity”: As a Jew, I have a right of return to Eretz Yisroel. Are you going to accuse me of having dual loyalties?
May 9th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
No. They are following the law. See your statement above.
*Sigh*
So you agree with Dred Scot?
Libs always end up in the same place. When the people make a law they approve of, the people are exercising their just prerogative. When the courts overrule the people and make a law they approve of, then the courts are right. When neither the people nor the court will make a law you approve of, then it’s “damn them, I’m still right”.
You can’t run a country of laws based on moral vanity and self-righteousness, “Sanity”.
May 9th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Ron Paul : Dual Citizenship is Treason
http://www.dailypaul.com/163253/was-must-low-level-translators-give-up-dual-citizenship-but-not-rahm-emanuel
May 9th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Sanity –
I have no idea, nor do I much care why Bachmann has taken out Swiss citizenship. However, a casual glance at the history of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries suggests that no matter who you are, and no matter where you are, you probably should have an exit strategy.
May 9th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Swiss secret bank accounts?
The Swiss gov’t and banking industry by treaty law have to turn over financial records on American citizens (given the appropriate paperwork). They DO NOT have to turn over anything on SWISS citizens. Presumably any financial chicanery by dual Swiss citizens would never get to the US.
. . . .
May 9th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Usually libs, as a last resort when their prescription for a just society is rejected by the people and the courts, will fall back on justification by progress. This is some variation of “history is on my side” or “as society evolves, people will see that my position is just”.
Problem is the idea of history as progress seems to be a Western concept, developed sometime in the early 19th century (by Heidegger, I think) to explain what appeared to be a narrative force in history, without requiring a deity to provide it.
Typically historians reject teleology these days. The “progressives” of the 19th century were not in the process of becoming the “progressives” of the 1920’s who endorsed eugenics, and the progressives of the 1920’s were not in the process of becoming the “progressives” of the 21st century who want to normalize homosexuality. This is a narrative we project backward from the present. The narrative did not exist in those days.
Marxist historians may have a different take. I understand that the “dialectic of history” is a concept still believed in by marxists.
They should be avoided by serious thinkers. Marxists are notoriously bad at being able to actually explain what the future will be like.