Absurd View: Hasselbeck, Shepherd suggest clergy could have been jailed without Prop 8
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On The View, Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Sherri Shepherd both suggested that without Proposition 8, a California ballot measure to amend the state constitution to reverse the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, members of the clergy who refused to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies could have been prosecuted. In fact, as the court itself made clear, the ruling applied only to state officials, and "no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
During the November 7 edition of ABC's The View, while discussing the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and effectively overturning the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted that a "priest" in Sweden was "put in jail for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple, so then they put him in jail because the law stated that you could not discriminate based on sexual preference." Later in the discussion, co-host Sherri Shepherd said: "I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed." However, contrary to Hasselbeck and Shepherd's suggestion that as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling -- or without the passage of Proposition 8 -- members of the clergy "could be jailed" for refusing to perform gay marriages, neither the decision by the California Supreme Court, nor Proposition 8 had anything to do with members of the clergy.
The California Supreme Court's ruling applied only to state officials. The ruling directed "state officials [] [to] take all necessary and appropriate steps so that local officials may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples" [emphasis added]. The court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
Additionally, contrary to Hasselbeck's assertion that a Swedish priest was jailed "for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple," Swedish Pastor Ake Green reportedly was convicted in 2004 under Sweden's hate crimes law for making incendiary statements about gays and lesbians, including calling them "a deep cancer tumor on all of society." In November 2005, his conviction was overturned by Sweden's highest court, which reportedly said his sermon "was protected by freedom of speech and religion."
From the November 7 edition of ABC's The View:
WHOOPI GOLDBERG (co-host): I don't know if you all are aware of this, but a record number of minority voters turned out for the election, and apparently it helped socially conservative victories on issues like gay marriage. In California, they've -- there is now a ban on gay marriage, and they're trying to revoke the rights that were initially given to folks who are gay married couples who are trying to take the rights away --
BARBARA WALTERS (co-host): By the state Supreme Court.
GOLDBERG: By the state Supreme Court -- said yes, that was OK, it was fine.
WALTERS: The state Supreme Court voted that gay marriage was legal. Our friend Ellen DeGeneres, for example, got married, and it was extremely important to her and her partner, of course, and now Proposition 8 proclaims that -- puts a ban on gay marriage. And one of the reasons we were talking about it earlier was that some church groups opposed it because they said if a church group said, "We will not do a gay marriage, OK?" They could be sued and they could lose their tax-exempt status if they -- if their religion or whatever it is precludes their doing -- having gay marriage. And that also it would mean that gay marriage could be taught in schools, if they wanted to.
GOLDBERG: I don't understand that.
WALTERS: Which don't you understand?
GOLDBERG: How would it be taught in schools? I mean, marriage isn't taught in schools, so why would gay marriage be taught in schools?
WALTERS: Well, in the same way sex education is taught in some -- or discussed. I don't know that it -- this is -- I'm telling you their fears, not my fear -- that it could be, that if somebody brought it up, it's something that could be discussed or something that could be in the curriculum. Who knows? But the bigger issue seems to have been the churches. Certain churches.
HASSELBECK: It was said with precedent, I think, in Sweden there was a church, a priest who was then jailed, and I think since then released. But he was put in jail for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple, so then they put him in jail because the law stated that you could not discriminate based on sexual preference, I believe. But this is -- I guess 5 million people voted and wanted to protect the definition of marriage as it had been stated, and I think that people felt a victory in California because it was -- it came from the people, that these people came out and voted. It wasn't set by judges, so I think that's where they were coming from.
SHEPHERD: This is also -- this is also -- you know, you said that they -- this is also the second time this has been up for a vote. The first time, the people said, "No, we don't want gay marriage."
WALTERS: And then it went to the court.
SHEPHERD: Then they overturned it and the people voted against, so this is the second time.
WALTERS: You know, I didn't know that a proposition, that is an amendment to the state constitution, superseded the state Supreme Court.
GOLDBERG: Neither did I.
WALTERS: You know, I thought the Supreme Court was the final word, but evidently, the finally word is the amendment.
HASSELBECK: But their argument there I guess was -- are you to legislate from the bench. It kind of goes back to that argument, and that the actual amendment should come -- if they're going to do anything to the constitution, it should come from the people, as it is for the people.
GOLDBERG: Well, the people should also be given all the information, and not frightened into things. Now, I think if kids who are the product of a gay couple are asked about it in school, they should be able to explain it, and that's shouldn't be afraid -- that shouldn't be something that frightens people. I always say, look, if you think gay marriage is wrong, don't marry a gay person. You know what I mean? But wait, wait -- because pretty much -- and I've been around a lot of gay people most of my life, and gay people do not -- and there are always boneheads everywhere, let's get that -- there are straight boneheads, and gay boneheads, and boneheads everywhere. But I believe most gay people who want to go get married do not want to go someplace that doesn't want them to -- they don't --
WALTERS: They won't go to the church.
GOLDBERG: -- they wouldn't go to the churches. That's why we do it in the backyards -- not we, like I'm gay -- but I have been at so many gay marriages -- you know you always talk about being the bridesmaid? I'm the bride's thing, whatever. You know?
HASSELBECK: It's interesting that the actual majority of the votes -- I mean, I guess it was at the urban minority communities voted overwhelmingly for this proposition.
GOLDBERG: Yes. They were told in the churches that people would be teaching it in the schools if they allowed it. I'm just telling you what, what --
SHEPHERD: But also -- excuse me, also not only that, but you know, I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed, sent to jail because he's preaching something that's --
WALTERS: But you know, that is so --
[crosstalk]
WALTERS: Supposedly, if a preacher -- under -- if the ban did not pass, and a preacher preached against homosexuality, which you say happens in churches that you've been to, he could be, quote, jailed, because he is preaching --
SHEPHERD: I don't know what the quote is around jailed. Jailed is jailed.
WALTERS: Well, because he could be jailed. But I mean, I think that's really rather farfetched that they're going to come --
SHEPHERD: No, it's not farfetched at all.
WALTERS: Well, that's why the ban --
SHEPHERD: Somebody was jailed.
WALTERS: You would have voted for the ban?
SHEPHERD: It's something that I struggle with because, you know, I have my friends who are gay, my uncle Tommy, uncle Jimmy, as Jeffrey likes to call them. And it's something that I struggle with because I don't want rights taken away from people, you know, being able to care for their partners and, you know, rights that they have. And then also, too, I am a Christian and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. So it is a struggle that I have.
WALTERS: But you see, my point is, and again -- you know, I'm sort of saying a little bit of what Whoopi said -- the idea that a preacher who preached against homosexuality, that the law enforcement, that the -- I don't know, the local sheriff would come in and say, "You're against the law, we're going to jail you." Now, is it possible? Yes.
GOLDBERG: Anything is possible.
HASSELBECK: We're a litigious society. I mean, I think there are lawsuits that get brought up all the time, and I don't think anyone would hesitate to bring a lawsuit --
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I do, I do. Because this was so important to folks because it's not just about being gay, and it's not just about partnership. If the state and the country were to allow gay partners the same rights as married people have, this wouldn't be an issue. But the issue -- but the issue is --
HASSELBECK: But would you want -- if that were the case, would you then be OK with it not being called marriage?
GOLDBERG: I would -- I'm not gay, so I don't know, but I can only speak for what I see. As we said a couple of days ago, if I -- if Sherry and I were married, and we have built our life together, and I die, you, my cousin, could come in and say, "I'm taking everything that you guys [inaudible]." That's the law, because --
[crosstalk]
HASSELBECK: But you do have rights as a -- difference state to state is the problem.
GOLDBERG: Civil unions do not allow me to die and you to automatically get my stuff.
WALTERS: It could also affect children.
GOLDBERG: It can affect -- also, if we've adopted children, they can come, you can come, and grab that child. If we can find, if the states can say this is what civil union is, it is everything but the word, people I think would be more happy.
WALTERS: Another proposition -- another proposition that I believe, and I could be wrong, I have to check the information, but one of the states prohibited gay people from adopting children. We talked about that.
GOLDBERG: Which drives me crazy, yeah.
WALTERS: Was it Nebraska? I don't want to say it, I don't think so. Somebody look it up and -- somebody look it up and whisper in my ear. Where is it? Not Oregon. No.
GOLDBERG: No, Florida has always had that law.
WALTERS: We'll find out and tell you. But the idea that there are children who could be adopted who might not be adopted, I mean, that -- I mean, the gay marriage, I can see, really --
GOLDBERG: We'll find out in the commercial break.
Well, now the Troglodytes can point to Prop. 8 and claim that they saved California from sliding off into the ocean. And who can prove them wrong?
San Andreas, for one...
Maybe hasselbeck should fulfill her promise of more skin ??? How these pwople jump to conclusions is an amazing thing feat of convoluted thinking process.
Hasslebeck didn't just make this up herself.
This was part of the Prop 8 campaign-- TV commercials in California actually stated that churches would be "required" to perform gay marriages... or else....
A more dishonest political campaign cannot be imagined. And it worked.
They even-- on election NIGHT-- ran robocalls featuring Barack Obama, claiming that he was in favor of Prop 8 and against gay marriage. They spliced together a speech he had made at one time.
Obama is opposed to gay marriage though, right?
So I guess he would have voted yes on 8. I voted no on 8, but I have to say, I think it's more important for Obama to win the presidency right now than for gays to have all their rights right now.
Obama is against using state constitutions or the U.S. Constitution to deny people rights.
Obama came out against Prop 8, which made this Mormon-led campaign even more dishonest.
Yes, gay marriage could have been a slippery slope for Obama that he cleverly avoided. Biden foolishly stepped into it by appearing on Ellen, but the Repubs were too inept to capitalize on this inflammatory topic.
I suspect that in 2012 gay marriage is all we are going to be hearing about from the other side. This, abortion, and the Pledge of Alegiance, if Newdow prevails in the "under God" case.
California has shown that these wedge issue always work.
It's always been my view that everything east of the San Andread fault will eventually slide into the Atlantic Ocean.
I hope you're right, SF. I've been looking at some potential beachfront properties in Yucaipa and San Berdoo.
hasselglenbeck is a total moron. a looney-tune bimbo. Right wingers suffer from terminal stupidity. What comes out of her piehole makes as much sense as flatulence. I wonder what %age of the viewers that watch the "view" do so because of hasselbeck? She is truly the token hillbilly.
It should be remembered, too, that the Cal. Supreme Court is an almost all-Republican group these days. Very conservative. Packed with right wingers, home of the atrocious Janice Rogers Brown.
But not all is hopeless for gay couples. This proposition may not withstand federal review. Plus, all someone has to do is get married in Vermont (a pretty place) and by the U.S. Constitution, California has to recognize the marriage. Nothing in the Cal. law can trump the federal.
I think our best hope for this situation is that Obama will serve two terms, and get a chance to appoint three of four non-Troglodyte Supreme Court Justices. I don't wish anyone ill, but maybe Scalia or Thomas will retire within the next 8 years.
Once the court is brought back from the Right Wing cliff, maybe they will finally acknowledge that Gays deserve equal treatment under the law, and erase all these fascist bans on gay marriage that are popping up like weeds.
It was not conseratives who passed prop 8. It was the 70% of African American voters who supported the measure that gave it the support that was needed to pass. BO has said that he does not support gay marriage, and as was seen by the vote, many dem voters do not as well. You can not place the blame for this one on the republicans. With out a ton of support from the dems, it would have failed.
It was the 70% of African American voters who supported the measure that gave it the support that was needed to pass.
70% (according to exit polls) of the 4% who showed up and voted. The measure likely passes w/o this demograpic.
Victor
White voters voted against prop 8 by a margin of 55 to 45. With out the vote of African American voters, it would have failed.
7.5% of CA is African American. Factor in 64% voter turnout and factor out ineligable voters, and African American voters represent 4% of the vote. This means that 70% (according to exit polls) of 4% voted for Prop 8, which passed by 4.6%. It passes w/o African American voters.
There are only 2.26 million Black people in the entire State of California. We are just 6.2% of the entire population in this state. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&_lang=en&_sse=on&geo_id=04000US06&_state=04000US06
Black people are the smallest minority in California other than Native Americans and Pacific Islanders, which come in at just under 7/10ths of 1% and 3/10ths of 1% respectively.
In contrast to the 6.2% of California that is Black, non-Hispanic whites constitute 43.1% of the California population, Latinos 35.9% and Asians, 12.4%. (There is a 1.2% overlap, mostly between Blacks and Latinos since of course there are a bunch of Latino Black people although you’d never know it sometimes listening to the rhetoric.)
There are 7 times as many white people in California as Blacks.
There are nearly 6 times as many Latino people in California as Blacks.
And there are double the number of Asian people as Blacks.
Actually pearlene (and I know this sounds really bad), but look at the data you presented.
Yes it says Africian Americans are only 6.2%
But there are 3.3% that are listed as "two or more races"
And I don't agree with this, but a lot of commentators )on both sides) add the two together (this helps when you want to inflate your group's numbers.....but looks bad when you don't want high numbers.)
And there is also the question, because minority populations have a higher percentage of individuals who are considered "poor" and don't have fixed addresses/phones (let alone those who don't have land lines, just cells). A number of people believe that minority populations in the US are seriously under counted.
just talking statistics and population counts hear. Not that larger issue of gay marriage.
You could probably factor in the Hispanic vote as well as other minorities in CA. Nevertheless, the Whites could not have done it alone.
Um... ok. I guess there's a point in that. But I don't see it.
Victor
The point is simply that the vast majority of minorities tend to vote for the dems. The issue of gay marriage seems to be one that splits the dems along racial and ethnic lines. While the numbers of minority voters increased this election, so did the numbers of minorities who then voted to support prop 8.
And I don't understand your point either.
There's nothing to understand, Victor. POV is pulling it out of his rear.
What people don't get is that Prop 8 wasn't a democrat or republican issue. The right-wing so-called 'christians' funnelled money into the 'Yes on 8' campaign and used fear, lies and children to pull otherwise fair-minded voters over to their side.
We on the side of 'No on 8' were lazy, IMHO. We could have done more; we could have done a better job of rebutting the disgusting commercials (and yes, I live in San Francisco, I saw my share of both sides' commercials).
But, leave it to the right-wing to fund disgusting commercials using children as props, fomenting hatred and lies, spreading fear and panic, 'Oh my G-d, the gays the gays the gays!!!'
We had the right to marry our partners for the last 5 months. The world has not come to an end. Reinstate our rights, NOW!
African American voters also made up 10 % of all voters, not 4%
Where are you getting this information?
Where are you getting this information?
A better question is where are you getting your logic.
You start by saying 7.5% of California is African-American. Without checking, I'll accept that as correct.
You then assume that equals the same percentage of voting population.
Then you assume that the turnout in CA is the same as the national turnout.
Then you assume that the turnout in CA is the same across racial demographics despite frequent media reports of higher-than-normal turnout among blacks across the US.
Then you incorrectly "factor out ineligable voters" (without explaining by what measure) - voters who would not have been included in turnout figures.
Three assumptions plus a mistake do not add up to a reliable result.
I posted in haste and accept that there's some flawed logic on my part. But again, the African American population is - in fact - 6.7% in the state of CA. I find the claim that African American voters made up 10% of the total to overstated.
That doesn't seem too unlikely to me. We did have an African-American Presidential nominee. Maybe there was a rise in the number of black voters and/or a drop in the number of white voters, which would explain the rise of that percentage.
Ok, you could very well be right.
According to the US Census, 6.7% of California is African American.
This argument reminds me of that little shell game the Republicans like to play when they cite that a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights act. While this is technically true, they twist it and say that more Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill, which is not true.
Of course, the Black community has its share of anti-gay bigots. It's just a political anomaly that they are generally progressive, but still very backward on this one issue. Tennessee Democrats are the same way. A similar Bigotry Amendment was on our ballot in 2004. Half the state's Democrats voted for it.
The fact is that this legal bigotry is the brainchild of White Conservative Theocrats... they conceived it, lied about it and sold it to a gullible, ill-informed electorate.
Majority rule does not apply to equal protections under the Constitution. The Constitution does not address who can/cannot marry. Therefore, passing a proposition to ban gay marriage violates equal protection for all. If those goes before the court, like it should, then the court should overturn this proposition and give everybody the same rights.
I place the blame for this in two places; the Mormon Nutjobs who financed the Pro-Bigotry campaign, and the opponents of Prop.8, who apparently didn't take the threat seriously until it was too late. I think early on, they assumed that such a Neanderthal amendment would never pass in California.
Don't try to claim that passage of prop 8 was somehow consistent with Obama's views. There's a difference between opposing a new measure which grants rights of marriage and supporting a measure which takes away an already-granted right. Obama opposed proposition 8.
Everyone should be against amended a Constitution to restrict rights of certain citizens.
I agree. That's one reason I opposed the Flag Burning Amendment. Generally, our Constitution has been amended to expand individual rights, not remove them.
A notable exception was Prohibition.... a folly foisted upon us by... you guessed it... Fanatical Religious Troglodytes.
You can not place the blame for this one on the republicans.
For once, I agree with you, POV. The republicans are NOT to blame for Prop 8 - the blame rides squarely on the shoulders of the so-called "Christians" who use Jesus' message of love to spread hate and fear.
It's a real slippery slope when individual rights can be put up for popular vote. If this is allowed to stand, the day could come (probably not in our lifetimes, but not long after) when Christians could be a minority in this country and the Muslim majority could vote to impose Sharia Law on everybody.
One more thing in closing. My wife and I have been married for 15 years now. And the California Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on our marriage. I believe that instead of worrying about what gay marriage could do to the "sanctity of marriage", the so-called Christians should be more concerned about the hgigh divorce rate among evangelicals......
WZ
I don’t really disagree with much you said. My initial post was responding nerzog, and others who share the view that a simple change in Supreme Court Justices will solve the problem. I think it goes much deeper than that. Had BO been a clear supporter of gay marriage, then Prop 8 might have never passed.
I don’t have any problem with gay marriage either. I do fear however, that if not done correctly, then churches could be sued and lose their tax exempt statues if they refuse to support them. I think that is a very real concern, but I think a carefully worded law could be passed to avoid that. I simply think the issue of gay marriage does not have near as much support in dems circles as people believe, and I know it does not have near the support in the black community. As long as the issue could be resolved in a way that gives churches the option to conduct the marriages, and does not force them or threaten them into doing it, I personally have no problem with gay marriage.
I think it goes much deeper than that. Had BO been a clear supporter of gay marriage, then Prop 8 might have never passed.
It doesn't matter. This vote and every other vote on this issue is unAmerican. No one should be allowed to vote away the rights of another citizen even if 99 percent of the public supports it.
It might be worth reconsidering your opinoin that "churches could be sued and lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to support them." The state would not need a "carefully worded law" to avoid that situation. Clergy aren't forced to marry anybody, and they aren't sued for any refusal. Some churches will not perform marriages for divorced people, some will not perform interfaith marriages. The people getting married still have the right to get married (as homosexuals would without this ban) but no one has ever had the right to get married in whatever church by whatever clergy they want.
Also, churches lose tax exempt status in very limited circumstances where they engage in political activity. Usually, they don't even lose tax exempt status then. Refusing to sanction certain marriages based on religious beliefs is not political activity, especially in light of all the other things in the last few election cycles that apparently don't count as political activity.
And, of course, the idea of prosecutions is just silly. There is no prosecution for something not prohibited by criminal law - until California attempts to enact that kind of criminal law, there's no point discussing it.
People tend to have a strong view of one side or the other with regard to this issue, but this fear of prosecution or lawsuit angle is a strawman that's being used to scare people.
Please forward this e-mail to Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
11/10/08
On the Nov. 7 edition of your program, The View, you stated that clergy could be put in jail for refusing to perform the marriage ceremony for gays.
This is just flat-out wrong. The California Supreme Court's decision explicitly pointed out the ruling did not apply to the clergy in any way.
Please have the integrity and decency to apologize to the American people. When public figures make a bad gaffe it is important to apologize. I know you don't mean to purposefully spread the rankest of right-wing propaganda, so just apologize and be above board about it.
Best regards,
Had BO been a clear supporter of gay marriage, we'd probably be talking about President Elect McCain right now.
I hate to admit it, but that is one form of bigotry that still permeates all strata of society, including Democrats. We're working on it, though.
Let's hope so, Nerz. You were perfectly clear in referring to the courts and not voters as conservative( Pointy's confusion is his own), and as long as large numbers of voters remain confused or uninformed, conservative groups with money will be trying stunts like this to get the base out.
HASSELBECK: But their argument there I guess was -- are you to legislate from the bench. ...if they're going to do anything to the constitution, it should come from the people, as it is for the people.
"Legislating from the bench" is a pet phrase for knotheads like Hasselbeck to support mob rule. As long as these things can be taken out of the hands of those who understand the law, and the public can be played for their ignorance and bigotry, we'l probably see similar propositions from those encouraged by the success of Prop. 8.
And what they really mean about "legislate from the bench" is that any ruling that disagrees with their world view. If it agrees with them, then they are all of a sudden big fans of legislating from the bench, whatever that means.
It's called checks and balances people, which is why we have a judicial, executive, and legislative branch of our government. So that the Supreme Court, either of the US, or of a certain State, normally has the last say as to what is, or is not constitutional (if suit is brought against a law, or a proposition such as this, which is what I hope will happen).
People who disagree with gay marriage have NO legal basis to say it shouldn't happen. It's forcing your moral values, and what YOU think is right, it has no legal basis.
I would challenge anyone who agrees with a gay marriage ban to tell me why, legally, that this should happen. You can't.
Of course they can't. They'll throw out the lame excuse that legalizing gay marriage is somehow imposing our moral views on them, but that's nonsense; opponents of gay marriage were not being forced to do anything, and the only "right" being denied them is the "right" to codify their bigotry into law.
This will eventually have to be settled on the Federal level. There are still too many pockets of ignorant bigotry in the various states.
Its funny that it wasn't "legislating from the bench" when Scalia and co overturned the DC gun ban.
Exactly, and that one, I agreed with.
Again, checks and balances, checks and balances.
Beware of that term and "activist judge." As soon as they do something you don't like, they're activists.
I realize they no longer have a lawyer on the View, and I don't think they ever did have a good one, but way back in my rural public high school we learned that the Constitution, although made by the people, often works to protect the minority. Not that Hasselbeck's view is completely wrong (Constitutions are often changed "by the people"), but it misses a very important point - Courts often interpret equal-protection provisions against the majority because that is exactly how those provisions work. Segregation ended for many reasons, but one important reason was the realization that a majority was using its ability to control the law as a way to negatively affect the rights of minorities.
Good point. It's rare that the majority needs protection. Of course, our White Christian Majority gets a little whiny sometimes...
This whole "legislating from the bench" meme is just stupid. The State Supreme Court just did what its SUPPOSED to do. Look at the legality of the law and rule on it. The Story that the Court overturned the will of the people is somewhat correct in the fact that it overturned an UNCONSITUTIONAL law.
As for uninformed voters, Yeah pretty much. Here's my question to all you bigots out there. Before Prop. 8, How many pastors were being thrown in jail. Answer: NONE. So if you change NOTHING, which is what would've happened if PROP. 8 didn't pass, then why, all of the sudden, would they start being thrown in jail? They wouldn't. Its a LIE that the right wing put out thewre and stupid bigots bought.
Col wannabe
There was no confusion on my point. Simply a clarification that not all issues can be blamed on conservative voters. Your failure to see that prop 8 could not have passed with out significant support from the dem voters is your own problem, and your confusion on this issue, And your failure to acknowledge the true issues involved here show a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity on your part.
You're still confused. Nerzog was talking about conservative justices. You diverted onto the topic of democratic voters who supported Prop. 8. This has been discussed here at length, so what you see as my "failure to acknowledge" is just me not rehashing a related topic.
POV, Col. Sanders is correct. The point is that the only way to drive a stake through the heart of these bigoted referendums is to extend Constitutional protection to Gay Marriage, and only the Supreme Court can do that. Otherwise, the Troglodytes will keep trying, and they will always be able to find enough fools, Republican and Democratic, who will stupidly go along in some states.
"I think our best hope for this situation is that Obama will serve two terms, and get a chance to appoint three of four non-Troglodyte Supreme Court Justices. I don't wish anyone ill, but maybe Scalia or Thomas will retire within the next 8 years."
Actually, Obama will most likely need to replace the liberal judges. The liberal ones are really old and decrepit, and I don't mean that in a deragatory way. It's just that, they're the oldest ones.
Exactly. That's why this election was so critical. If McCain had won, he had already promised to appoint more judges like Scalia, which would have tipped the court into the Troglodyte abyss.
With Obama, we will most likely hold the line at four confirmed Neanderthals, with one swing vote. What I'm hoping for is that Thomas and/or Scalia might resign within the next 8 years. With Thomas it's just wishful thinking, but Scalia is 71, so there is a remote possibility.
You'll have to take Scalia's robe out of his cold dead hands.
Well, you're probably right. Besides, people that mean tend to live well into their 90s... just for spite.
There's probably some corollary between that principle and the facts that Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin died young, but all those hair metal bands from the '80s are still touring.
The myopic VIEW: the public must legally define what marriage is so it won't be corrupted.
The view from space: Heterosexuals have so corrupted marriage that it needs to be rescued. If two adults of any persuasion can form a committed bond that stabalizes the atmosphere in which children must live, they should be celebrated.
Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Firstly, that doesn't sound particularly wise to me.
Secondly, I assume when the conservatives want to define marriage, they would prefer the "traditional" definition. One doesn't get much more traditional than the 2000-year-old Judeo-Christian celebration of the sagacity of Solomon...
It's also ironic that it's the Nutjob Mormons who were pushing this, given their history of playing fast and loose with the "traditional" definition of marriage.
Problem is, I think this may signal the revival of the "Culture War", now that the Troglodyte wing of the Republican Party has been sent scurrying back to its cave. They can wreak havoc on the local level with nonsense like this. Look for a massive push for Anti-Evolution education measures and more Anti-Gay bigotry.
>>Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
>>Firstly, that doesn't sound particularly wise to me.
Especially since it was pre Viagra.
I've read a good deal of the Bible and pretty much the only thing I've found that it says about marriage is that if a man screws a woman she's his wife.
And, it is a fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, yet specifically condemned divorce. Paul was the bigot, not Jesus.
You won't hear that little factoid in any of the Troglodyte churches.
Nerzog, I'm shocked that you don't seem to know about the Gospel of Falwell, in which Jeebus sez: "Blasted are the gays, 'cause they are something different in my sight."
Yea, verily....
I used to post on my local newspaper's website (before they removed that function) and got into some heated discussions about this topic. I challenged the "christians" to show me a passage in the bible where Jesus mentions/condemns homosexuality. They could not. Of course, they brought up Leviticus and Romans (in which Paul talked about divorce not homosexuality. They tried to crop the passage about divorce and say it was about homoesuality)
I don't think it has been updated in a while but a funny site:
www.godhatesshrimp.com
Mary, Hasselbeck summed up in one simple picture! ;)
Snoopy, you overheard these gals doing their girly talk. Now we can guess who's on the other end of that internet connection...[I don't know, how about Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, maybe that anti-Witch pastor?]
They have both of their USB ports covered up...........................with deceitful thoughts..
I am extremely dissapointed in all four hosts of the view. Not one of them could speak with any confidenc in the facts of the issue. I am so very ashamed of them. Even Barabra, who is a news woman did not know the facts. What a disservice to the LGBT community and the other 47% of the voters in California. I demand they correct this horrible situation immediately and arm themselves with the facts of the case.preform marriage ceremonies for whomever they want
I feel that left handed people should not marry. Left handed people choose to be left handed just for the attention. Children will be taught to be left handed in kindergarten. It is well known that left handed people spread diseases. My God says that left handed people are sinners and the state should not sanction left handedness. If left handed people want to live together maybe we can call it left handed partnerships.
Sounds stupid huh?
RayC, I write/draw left-handed, but throw & bat right. Under your laws, am I Bi? Am I Bi-Curious for wondering?
You should have been taught as a child to write and draw the proper and godly way. Maybe you can go to a left handed re-education camp where you can feel the power of the Giant Speghetti Monster. I am sure that if you are touched by the devine noodley apendage you will turn away from your left handed sins.
I think states can learn something from the example set by the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. State constituional amendment processes make it relatively easy in this day and age of big money and out-of-state influence to hastily foist wedge issues on people. The founding fathers anticipated this. It's too bad the states have not learned enough by now to emulate the same rationale.
You know... it's that whole SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE thing?!
These people, these superstitious religious conservatives, are sofa king STUPID!!!
I tend to agree. Of course, these nudnicks will argue that Separation of Church and State is a "myth".
Now that the election is over, they can start pushing their Regressive agenda from the shadows. The Religious Right is wounded, but not dead.
I strongly suspect that they will glom onto Simple Sarah's bandwagon over the next few months, and try to propel her to the upper levels of the Republican Party. If the smart Republicans don't push back, the Religious Right Frankenstein they have created will devour them.
The way I've often heard this from the far right is that separation of church and state is a one-way street:there's nothing wrong with religion interfering with government, but it's impossible for government to interfere with religion. But today we're supposed to believe that jack-booted stormtroopers are going to kick down the giant double-doors and drag your priest from the pulpit for not marrying gay people.
I've heard that argument, as well. I think it's safe to say that the wall is meant to protect both. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the problems created in Europe because of the mingling of State and Religion.
The Religious Rightniks just refuse to admit that Separation of Church and State has actually been good for Religion in this country.
the religious community is constantly misrepresenting the facts. "they" don't want anyone to pray in school. no, it just can't be an organized effort on school time. "they" don't want the ten commandments in the courthouse. again, it does not belong there. just do your thing and leave me out of it. stop playing the victim when you are free to go to church, pray, put up all your christmas mangers, etc.
Oh, yeah..... I almost forgot about the Ten Commandments thing. I expect that to come up again, as well.
In essence, they are doing all of this just to pick fights, because it helps them motivate their flocks, which is good for fundraising. Any church or individual can plaster the Ten Commandments on their property, but displaying the Ten Commandments for the enlightenment of others is not the point.
None of this has anything to do with morality, not really.... it's all about political power for the Troglodytes, and trying to morph our secular government into something more closely resembling a theocracy.
I have never been able to listen to these idiots. Reading the transcript was painful enough. The ban just passed so if any of the "scary" things the opponants claimed were actually going to happen they would have already happened. There's no way in hell a minister is going to be jailed for refusing to perform a gay marriage if a phamacist can refuse to fill a perscription for emergancy contraception with no repercussions. I highly doubt that Sweden story but even if it's true guess what? THis isn't Sweden.
I forgot to say also that if religion is the only grounds for opposing a law then there are no grounds at all.
The First Amendment has two religion clauses: the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. No need to guess. One clause limits the government's power to prevent people from freely practicing their religion. The other one prevents the government from establishing an official state religion. Of course the devil - so to speak - is in the details.
These two mentally challenged ladies do serve a purpose in society. If you are uneducated, desperately poor, emotionally troubled, or have just lost your job and you for whatever reason find yourself lounging on the sofa and watching the dreaded daytime teevee, you can comfort yourself with the fact that you are indeed smarter than Sherri and Elisabeth, and that's one thing for which to be grateful.
What you suggest is in fact the "traditional" state of affairs. Look up dexter and sinister in a dictionary ;)
I love that cartoon. There is a gay couple in our neighborhood. To my knowledge, they haven't harmed anyone, or even caused our property values to drop. They do decorate very nicely for holidays, though...
Is that Barney? If so, he must approve. ;-)
They also conveniently forget the countless examples of the evil perpetuated by the conglomeration of Religion and Government.
How is Theocracy any less tyrannical than Communism or Fascism?
It's full.
ok, does anyone really take these people seriously? really, who looks to "the view" for insightful commentary, and careful analyis? anyone, anyone, buehler, buehler?
There just may be some people out there who look to "The View" as a source of commentary and analysis. After all, there are countless individuals out there who actually think that Jeff Christie, Sean Insanity, M. Rotten Levin, Bill O'Falafel and Michael Weiner are good sources for news and information.......
Please consider contacting ABC and politely complain about the anti-gay marriage lies and propaganda on The View...
http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html
You can also contact Sherri Shepherd directly through her website.
Be nice but correct the misinformation.
http://www.sherrishepherd.com/index.php?option=com_contact&task=view&contact_id=2&Itemid=3
If a state can amend their Constitution to deny rights to a specific set of citizens, in this case gay people, what stops them from reinstating slavery or indentured servitude? Hasselbeck and her kind are the face of American facisim. Why she is tolerated and given a platform eludes me.
Looks to me that the same old prejudice and bigotry is once again on display by many here who rail against those who hold religious belief.
Who are these "many" you are referring to, specifically?
What bigotry?
I've never seen a more ignroant group of women in one place in my life.NONE of them understood the Court ruling Or the law OR Prop H8.
The first thing out of Whoopi's mouth OR Barbara's should have been, "We don't know the law or the reality of what we are talking about so let's wait until someone with intelligence can explain it to us'
No one was going to go to jail for refusing to marry a gay couple in a church.
AND if we revert to allowing the Tyranny of the majority to rule the minority then blacks should be the LAST people to vote for Prop H8. It took COURT rulings, you know, "legislating from the bench" to give blacks their due rights.
Ignorant bunch of women.
BY the way, THIS is what actually happened in Sweden:
[b]First of all, though Swedish Pastor Ake Green was convicted in 2004 under Sweden's hate crimes law for calling gays and lesbians "a deep cancer tumor on all of society," his conviction was overturned by Sweden's highest court, protecting his freedom of speech and religion.[/b]