I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Kidding aside, i want to see how this plays out in the US. That is, American citizens getting married in Canada and then having that marriage "legalized" in the US (you know that this will happen). I suspect it will be different from state to state, until the Bush administration puts a stop to it.
Boy, that Canada is just asking for it, ya know?
You either have to laugh or cry when life is this close to being a Southpark movie.
Oh no, they've killed Kenny. The Bastards!
One thing is for certain: Loverboy definitely did have weapons of mass destruction.
I'm all for gay marriage, and more and more I see conservative efforts to "rationally explain" their opposition to it as akin to Third Reich racial theory.
But this guy Morford is a blithering nitwit, as are most columnists for the SF Comical. I mean, this is perhaps the most liberal city in America, and its best opinion journalists seem to come straight from a junior high Democrats Club.
I liked Jim Cappazola's take on it: It was only a short time ago that his relatives figured out they should stop asking when he was going to get married. Now, they can start up, again.
Moford's genius is that he captures the insanity of the early 21st century, where the official line is war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ingnorance is strength.
Plus, he pisses off the freepers something fierce. Always a good thing.
"this guy Morford is a blithering nitwit..."
He musta hit the MBF mark but good - as usual.
One note: Morford is a columnist for sfgate.com, the online arm of the Chronk, which won't allow him in their print edition because he'd tear their moronic brownshirt fuck columnist, Debra Saunders, into little teeny meeses pieces.
Morford's damn good. I laughed out loud at the bit about Ashcroft knocking himself unconscious on the statue. 
By God, let's promote family values by denying a huge segment of the population the right to form a family legally. Yeah, that's the consistency we're looking for. If we don't let them get married, they'll all convert to heterosexuality! Of course. And if they don't, we'll sic Jeebus on them.
Morford's piece is hilarious. I can just see Ashford running in tight circles trying to bite himself on the ass.
"If we don't let them get married, they'll all convert to heterosexuality! Of course. And if they don't, we'll sic Jeebus on them."
The Southern Baptists have already started.
Does anyone know exactly how foreign marriages are addressed in the US?
I mean, if two US citizens go (for example) to Italy for their wedding ceremony, do they have to do something when they get back for it to be recognized here? Or is it automatic?
Some winger woman was just extolling the virtues of marriage...about how everybody who gets married becomes healthy, wealthy and wise and also happy and well-adjusted. So, why not let gay people have the same lovely benefits...hmmmm.
Hey, Beckham gets pedicures!
Lighten up on the MBF usage, already. Although there are some that seem to fit all three aspects of that term (Limbaugh comes to mind), to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you on any topic as a moronic brownshirt fuck -- that marginalizes you, not them.
Besides, there are no MBFs in SF. The rightest right winger here would be practically a progressive most places in the country. I think Nader may have gotten more votes here than Bush in 2000.
sekmet - "some winger woman was just extolling the virtues of marriage...about how everybody who gets married becomes healthy, wealthy and wise..."
I guess someone forgot to tell the divorce rate about that.
The real problem is that if gay people are allowed to marry, their marriages will make straight marriages look dull, stupid and useless. 
Truly, gw (in spite of his initials) is much more like Erik the C than the trolls. Lighten up on him for now.
The real problem is that if gay people are allowed to marry, their marriages will make straight marriages look dull, stupid and useless.
That must be it.
The Falwells and Robertsons of America are afraid we'll make marriage look faaaaaaabulous again.
To be fair, I can acknowledge the value of absurdity, especially when combatting the almost obscenely square John Ashcroft. My problem with Morford is that he conmbats EVRYTHING with absurdity. I've never known him to write a coherent passage. Which would be okay if he were funny or something, but I don't find him funny. Just a value judgment.
Mira! Escucha! Nadie del Casa Blanco ... esta muy suspiciosa, no? Donde esta el erupcion de los fanaticos? Es inevitable.
Seraphiel - married in Italy lately?
I would think that the MBF's would love this. Anything that encourages them homo-sexshuls to move to another country after they get kicked out of the army should be fine with them. Of course, they might share their valuable language skills with the Canadians, who are already far ahead of us in the area of bilingualism.
MBF: "I don't know what that 'bilingualism' stuff is, but it soundsimmoral to me."
In response to other comments-- the US
recognizes marriages abroad. An Italian couple, for instance, does not become "unmarried" if they visit or move to the U.S. But there are "public policy" exceptions, I think, which might be one exception to the "full faith and credit" requirement for states to recognize each other's laws. In some states, for instance, miscegenation was permitted, in others it was a crime.
And I think NPR, which informed me about this yesterday and probably has their interesting story online at npr.org under "All Things Considered,"
said that when some states did legalize interracial marriages, Virginia criminalized them.
As for state's rights, hasn't the Federal Defense of Marriage (for hets)
pre-empted the field already?
thx Seraph!
tom - full faith and credit, as you point out, applies only to marriages occuring in the U.S. What would be applied in this case are international conflicts of laws issues, many of which are governed by treaties. Even things like marriages. That said, I have no idea how this one would fly. God, has it really been 20 years since I sat in Conflicts class? Yes, it has. So maybe someone with more smarts could illuminate the situation.
tom - more smarts than me, not referring to you at all. Sorry, when I reread my post I realized it could look like I was talking about your comment. Just to be clear, I wasn't
Thanks for the economic boost, southern neighbours. My sister makes wedding cakes for a living, and she's looking forward to the season of her lifetime this summer.
Seraphiel - married in Italy lately?
Hah. No.
I'm just anticipating a sudden upsurge in Canadian tourism after they take their bold and audacious step into the wonderful world of equal rights.
And I'm wondering how these marriages, perfectly legal in our NAFTA partner to the north, would be treated by the law in the US...
Every state currently has a full faith and credit thing going with the others, so a marriage legal in one state is automagically legal in the other 49.
This is why the bigots have fought so vigorously to prevent it from being legal anywhere in the US: if one state goes for equality, it sort of drags the rest of them along whether they like it or not.
But how does this work with marriages from other countries?
Seraph, I think it's only a matter of time before the dam breaks here. The conservative bigots (not identical groups, but with a dismaying amount of overlap) are already fighting a dejected rearguard action: http://www.nationalreview.com/
fr...1903.asp#009933
From the Washington Times:
Time to face facts: Gays gain victory
By Jonah Goldberg
The gays have won. The problem is no one will admit it.
The biggest and latest news is that Canada is poised to legalize same-sex marriage. But the signs of the gay victory have been all around for us for years.
http://www.washtimes.com/comment...y/
jgoldberg.htm
This question was asked on newsnight the other night:
From transcript:
BROWN: Mr. Chretien says the government will draft new legislation in the coming weeks, send it on to Canada's Supreme Court to make sure everything passes legal muster. The measure would affect civil weddings only. Churches opposing gay marriage would not be forced to perform same sex weddings.
This raises a number of interesting questions here in the United States where there is enormous political opposition to the idea of gay marriages. We're joined tonight from Chicago by Neal Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law School, former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Briar, good to have you with us.
NEAL KATYAL, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Good to be here.
BROWN: If I am -- if I get married, a heterosexual marriage in Canada, and come to the United States is that marriage recognized everywhere in the country?
KATYAL: It is absolutely. That's the standard American policy. If you have a marriage that's celebrated and valid in one country, my parents came from India and got married there, their marriage would be valid here. Your marriage as a Canadian heterosexual couple would be valid here as well. BROWN: Then does it also follow, as A follows B, that if I get a gay marriage in Canada and come to the United States that that marriage too would be recognized?
KATYAL: No, it does not and the reason is that that general recognition principle of marriages has always had an important exception, the public policy exception, so that if a marriage violated the public policy of the American government or the state, then it wouldn't necessarily be valid.
And so, there have been examples of interracial marriages or teens that get married in one state and then move to another and they don't meet the age requirements and many times states have said we're not bound, we're not obligated to give credit to your marriage if it violates our own notion of public policy.
BROWN: Is there any other area than this one where this sort of dispute would arise?
KATYAL: Well, sure. I mean it's arisen in the courts in really three main circumstances. One is the incest cases in which you have people, say you have an uncle and a niece in New York who want to get married but New York doesn't permit uncles and nieces to get married because the familial relation is too close.
So they go to Rhode Island to get married and then move back to New York and the question is is New York obligated to recognize that marriage and the answer that the courts have generally given in state- to-state is we're not obligated to. We often do as a matter of deference recognize that marriage but they're not obligated.
And similarly here, it's possible to see a state saying we want to give credit to a marriage in Canada. We don't like the idea that a couple could live in Canada for years, a gay couple as married, get transferred for job reasons or whatever to the
Hmm. I'd been claiming for years that I wouldn't get married on principle, until my friends Rich and Joe could do so. *Sigh* Maybe we can go halves with them on the chuppah.
oops..the transcript got cut off..here's the rest..
BROWN: Just setting the Canadian example aside for a second, is a civil union in Vermont where it's legal have any weight in any other state?
KATYAL: It does not.
BROWN: OK.
KATYAL: There is no -- there is no weight to the Vermont civil union.
BROWN: So, if -- back to Canada now. If this has no legal implication does it have in any sense a political implication?
KATYAL: Of course. I mean Canada has taken a step, a huge step forward for gay rights and indeed many nations around the world are taking similar steps. You know, Belgium and the Netherlands already recognize same sex marriages. And so this is a huge statement by our neighbor to the north and one that's likely to have a powerful symbolic effect though not necessarily an ultimate legal one.
It's not that states will be forced to recognize marriages from Canada in the United States but they'll be under increasing pressure in any number of circumstance, child custody and property being the two most obvious to recognize those marriages.
BROWN: In the sense that it changes somewhat the terms of the debate it doesn't seem as outrageous because look just north of the border it's perfectly legal in Canada.
KATYAL: Right, exactly, and elsewhere in the world. Lots of countries are enacting all sorts of equality protections for gay rights and here in America we're still kind of I think playing catch up a bit.
BROWN: Is it in any sense likely that gay activist groups can use this, can fashion arguments out of the decision by the Canadians that will further their efforts in the United States?
KATYAL: Absolutely. I mean one of the key arguments being made indeed in the United States Supreme Court right now is the notion of equality that if -- that laws should basically apply symmetrically between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
And Canada has taken the step to say the principle of equality, not some arcane principle like privacy, but one of equality mandates similar treatment for marriages of gay and heterosexual couples and that type of reasoning I think will be used by activists here as well.
BROWN: Professor, thanks for your time tonight, good to have you with us, nice job too.
KATYAL: Thank you very much.
BROWN: Thank you.
regards,
Like gw said, it's only a matter of time before gay and lesbian marriage is legalized in the US. It's gonna happen. Probably not in the next couple years, but it's gonna happen. Canada is, hopefully, speeding up the process here...
"there are no MBFs in SF"
Gee-Dub (not to confuse you with President Flight Suit),
Mike Savage Weiner is in SF. Talk about your nitwits! And while I'll grant you that not all conservatives are MBFs, our polarized political climate makes it difficult to distinguish the two these days. I'm sorry you don't find Morford funny, but he is. Coherent too. At least to me he is. Different values you and I judging from I suppose.
Anyway, imagine if I went to some conservative blog and said, "Ann Coulter is a nitwit." Wait, she's not intentionally trying to be funny. Who do you guys have over on your side of the fence who tries to make fools of liberals with humor? If such a person does exist and I put in the comments of a conservative blog that he or she is a nitwit, how do suppose that would fly?
This has just put a thought in my head. I'd like to read some conservative humor along the lines of Morford, Pollack, The Onion, etc. Anybody know of any?
"there are no MBFs in SF"
Gee-Dub (not to confuse you with President Flight Suit),
Mike Savage Weiner is in SF. Talk about your nitwits! And while I'll grant you that not all conservatives are MBFs, our polarized political climate makes it difficult to distinguish the two these days. I'm sorry you don't find Morford funny, but he is. Coherent too. At least to me he is. Different values you and I judging from I suppose.
Anyway, imagine if I went to some conservative blog and said, "Ann Coulter is a nitwit." Wait, she's not intentionally trying to be funny. Who do you guys have over on your side of the fence who tries to make fools of liberals with humor? If such a person does exist and I put in the comments of a conservative blog that he or she is a nitwit, how do suppose that would fly?
This has just put a thought in my head. I'd like to read some conservative humor along the lines of Morford, Pollack, The Onion, etc. Anybody know of any?
Another reason to invade Pender Island, BC.
The are also pissed about the whole pot issue.
From the long transcript above:
BROWN: Then does it also follow, as A follows B, that if I get a gay marriage in Canada and come to the United States that that marriage too would be recognized?
A small point, but I thought that B followed A, rather than the other way around.
You would think that the right would be for gay marriage as it would give more business to the wedding industry. I thought that the right was for business. And it would also benefit the publishing industry. All those how-to-do a wedding books and those wedding magazines could branch out.
Listen up now. I found this article about Republican strategy to deal with Global warming and Environmental issues.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
climat...,906979,00.html
At the end they have this nasty little Frank Luntz quote, the article is based on an old memo. This phrase seems to be the Bushco road map.
And it is so Orwellian.
It deserves to become a slogan against Bushco.
"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.
Take some time to read the rest of the article.
..."The true strength of America happens when a neighbor loves a neighbor just like they'd like to be loved themselves." --George W. Bush, Elizabeth, N.J., June 16, 2003
Yes, George, we know.
You would think that the right would be for gay marriage as it would give more business to the wedding industry.
Actually, I was thinking more of why the wedding industry itself isn't promoting gay marriage or fancy commitment ceremonies. Have any of the gay magazines had wedding issues yet?
The wingers won't have to even appeal to their usual tactics to get gays not to come to Canada to get married...all they'll have to do is yell, "Look out! It's the SARS!!"
Seriously, though, having read through the relevant sections in the Charter recently, I can't see how this decision could have gone any other way. Kudos to the SCOC!
More importantly, has Modern Bride caught on, perhaps by lauching a Postmodern Bride subsidiary? I'm only slightly kidding about this. Why should gay people not bankrupt themselves on finery, catering, and reams of engraved napkins, too? And American capitalists are just the ones to help them do it, I say!
Gotta love that Jonah Goldberg article. The gays have won? What the hell does that mean? My heterosexual marriage is even more of a sham than it was two weeks ago? I have to start going to Tom Cruise movies?
"I have to start going to Tom Cruise movies?"
Maybe Tom can stop using the beards, move to Canada ( he already sent his kids to France) and finally get married to the man of his dreams.
It's kind of amazing really, that Canada is turning into this liberal paradise, with gay marriage and legalized pot, anit-war, and we're down here being squatted upon by the huge gray toads of neoconservatism.
Chibi:
Mike Savage is based in San Francisco?? Okay, I take it back. I've never heard the guy personally, but everything I read about him makes him sound like an ass.
Regarding funny conservatives, the term itself is rather amusing. There are plenty of conservatives who think they're funny (like Goldberg), but they're mostly pretty smug and annoying. I think the only conservatives I find funny are PJ O'Rourke (who's way past his prime) and James Lileks (who can be over the top sometimes, but when he's on, he's on). Scrappleface is kind of the right-leaning Onion, but while it has had a few zingers, it's not nearly up to the level of The Onion.
Seeing as how we breeders are failing at marriage 50% of the time, I suppose its only right that we let someone else have a shot at it.
Did anyone hear O'Reilly last night interviewing a Canadian DJ? I can't quote directly, but O'Reilly said something like, Well, Canada is a secular country, while we here in America are Christians. And then at the end, he assured the Canadian that what happened up there would never, never happen in the US. hahahahaha!
Doesn't Vermont acknowledge civil unions for gay people?
Poor O'Reilly. And all his homophobic asshole friends. hahahahahaahahahahahahahahah!
Go Canada!! Glorious and Free!! I kinda remember when the US used to be like that.
Cap'n Dunsel - like I said earlier, maybe the right is so afraid of gay marriage 'cause it'll make straight marriage look so bad.
My straight marriage excepted, of course. My previous 2 straight marriages are another story.
When I think about it, my gay nephew and his partner have a much better track record than I do. They've had a loving, monogamous marriage (in a church, but of course, not recognized legally) for 11 years now. And it's the first for both of them!
Tena:
It's interesting. Speaking as a conservative (but not a Republican), it wasn't that long ago that we thought conservatives in this country had finally turned the corner -- that people like Christie Todd Whitman were going to lead our side of the aisle forward and away from its grim Ralph Reed associations. "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" seemd to be the catchphrase of the mid-90s. Even George W Bush looked kinda progressive (at least, for those who didn't live in TX). He was a "compassionate" conservative! He spoke Spanish! During the campaign I recall he said something about not balancing the budget "on the backs of the poor," which seems incredibly ironic now.
It's been something of a rude shock to see conservatives get back into power nationally, but find that these particular guys are still pretty firmly in the grip of the religious right. And I think I speak for a lot of conservatives: we like tax cuts, we like robust foreign policy, but we grit our collective teeth when (for example) Bush gives tacit support to Santorum, or when Ashcroft says virtually anything.
gw - Are you certain you aren't my conservative husband with a nom de plume? He's fond of saying he is conservative fiscally, but liberal socially. Sometimes he's kidding himself, but he's so good looking that I let him.
Really, many here have reminded everyone quite often that the problem with this admin is not their conservatism, it is their extremism. Which, as others have said before me, is gonna be what does them in.
Doesn't Vermont acknowledge civil unions for gay people?
Yes, but the civil union statute carries no weight outside of Vermont.
Vermont might be nice and all, but I don't want to have to live there to be treated equally.
The one and only real reason why gays are prevented from utilizing their constitutional right to association (marriage) in the U.S. is that their very low divorce rates would embarass the hell out of the Southern Bapbigots who marry someone new every time they feel like a screw. Serial monogomists all. The Bible belt has the highest divorce rate of anywhere on Earth, well over 60%! So. Bigot marriages are mostly failures and they would lose their scapegoats big-time.
E.E. - well, gosh, I'd be surprised to ever see the Southern Baptists run out of scapegoats. The Bible Belt is such a fun place. And the Baptists aren't even the worst of it - not by a long shot. But I'm not going to start dissing the Church of Christ, I don't want to offend anyone. Oops!
The Netherlands recognizes gay marriages as legal and binding....has for a while now.
As for Loverboy, well, they were definitely terrorists....but I think they sold the WMD to Britney Spears. They account for her, uh, augmentation....
Tena: not unless you are my progressive-activist wife writing under a nom de guerre.
Take note, all you Democrats: Howard Dean will never be President. If Bush is unseated in 2004, it will be by someone who can both (1) embarrass the Bushies on their social positions, and (2) sound reasonably macho on foreign policy and terrorism. Ie, someone like Kerry or Lieberman.
And don't believe the WMD thing is going to do it either. Check this op-ed piece in today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/2...ion/
20KPOL.html. This is a pretty perceptive piece, and I think it captures what the middle of America probably feels: Bush & Co may have cherrypicked the evidence to strengthen their case, but the idea that he flatly lied about Saddam's threat is just DOA.
Tena's right: the soft underbelly of the Bush administration is their backwardness on social policy. But in today's America, no one who is "soft on terrorism" will be in a position to take advantage of that.
It's wretched when you have to sell out some of your principles for the sake of other principles. But that's two-party politics in a nutshell.
Take note, all you Democrats: Howard Dean will never be President.
It's precisely this sort of terrified knee-jerk response that gives us reason to hope. Keep shouting it from the rooftops. Put on billboards. Carve it into the moon.
Remember 1992? To paraphrase conventional idiocy from the time: "George H. W. Bush will not be unseated by a Democrat, or anything less than the hand of God."
How is Dean "soft on terrorism"? He was one of the ones saying an Iraq invasion would distract us. And if he manages to get Wesley Clark on board as a VP, the myth of Bush's effectiveness on national security will squish on itself like a soggy rolled-up sock.
but the idea that he flatly lied about Saddam's threat is just DOA.
Oh? Here's a lie:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
And another lie, this time from Rummy:
"The area in the south and the west and the north (of Iraq) that coalition forces control is substantial. It ... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday on ABC's This Week. "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
The only problem, Gee-Dub, is that the GOP no longer believes in fiscal conservativism.
It's about neo-feudalism, about crony capitalism, about neo-fascism. It's about restoring the Divine Right of Kings. It's about repealing the Enlightenment and the last 300 years of human progress.
It's about undoing the American Revolution and betraying everything that Revolution stood for.
The GOP is the party of naked treason. Nothing less.
"Go Canada!! Glorious and Free!! I kinda remember when the US used to be like that."
Anyone see the Simpsons where fights broke out through Isotopes stadium. Someone started singing the Star Spangled banner, and it was deemed too violent. Then they spontaneously broke Oh Canada.
Gotta love that social engineering of the Simpsons.
Thanks Seraph. I knew that would get a response. And I'm not even that political...
I put "soft on terrorism" in quotes because I meant "perceived as" as much as "is." Simply put, most people do make a connection between Iraq and terrorism -- and that includes both thinking people and ignorant people. By "thinking people" I mean the PNAC types (and Thomas Friedman) who see the threat of Islamist terrorism arising primarily from the swath of dyfunctionality that is the Middle East. To people with this view (and I think a lot of people believe it, even if they can't articulate it), the key to eradicating terrorism is forcing real chance in the region, and Iraq was the first step in that process. And you can point to several things that seem to show that it's working - or at least, that things are at least changing.
As for the ignorant: what percentage of people was it that believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11?
What this means for the election, I think, is that you can't be against the war in Iraq but still tough on terorism. PLEASE NOTE I do think it's possible to make a legitimate argument that Iraq will really impede our progress in the effort against terrorism. I don't agree with that argument (and it's probably irrelevant now anyway, since we're stuck in Iraq for better or worse), but it's legitimate, and I think that's what Dean is trying to say. But I don't think that's going to go over well with the voting public.
Re WMDs: I've said this before: Bush & Co were clearly wrong about lots of things they said they knew for certain. But that does not make them liars. I mean, come on, would Rumsfeld really have said something as obvious as "We know where they are" if he didn't think he did?
Moreover, I'm talking about context and scope here. The whole world knew that Saddam definitely had, as recently as a few years ago, lots of bad stuff. And the whole world agreed, even on the eve of war, that there was a real risk that he still had the stuff. The disagreement was what to do about it. To say now that the Bush admin was wrong about the particulars of the current threat (and, by the way, everyone else must have been wrong too) -- that's just not going to push Bush out of office. It's just not. Especially not with all the mass graves, etc.
You do have a good point about Bush 1: that is, a really bad economic climate could kill Bush 2 despite his currently strong numbers. But what I said was, if that happens, it won't be someone like Dean who will do it.
Gary: even you can't really believe all that, can you? Neo-Feudalism? How do you support a charge like that?
Oh, gw, have a little hope, willya? You're depressing all of us who won't vote for a rock in 2004 as long as it's a Democrat.
The future remains to be seen, after all...
Re WMDs: I've said this before: Bush & Co were clearly wrong about lots of things they said they knew for certain. But that does not make them liars. I mean, come on, would Rumsfeld really have said something as obvious as "We know where they are" if he didn't think he did?
No, it's even more simple than that:
Did they know they were lying, or were they too stupid to recognize their own wishful thinking?
gw, Gary's not that far-out. Rove's idol is Mark Hanna, McKinley's brain, and he'd like nothing better than to return us to the Gilded Age, when a small group of rich people sat on most all the money, and there was no safety net, no child labor laws, no worker safety protections, no anti-trust statutes, etc. Laissez-faire! Teapot Dome!
Feudalism might be too harsh a term, but it's not totally unwarranted.
Anyway! On topic:
Will it take an actual court challenge for this country to legally recognize a marriage contract made in a foreign country between two of its citizens?
Just one more little OT comment - sorry Seraphiel.
gw - my conservative husband is completely disgusted with the Bush Republicans because they are not fiscal conservatives at all. They are building the biggest government ever. And God knows, it's the ugliest.
"Bush & Co were clearly wrong about lots of things they said they knew for certain. But that does not make them liars."
The never-ending self-delusion is staggering...
Seraphiel - on the question of whether it will take a court challenge for this country to legally recognize a gay marriage made in another country - yes, unless a federal law is passed recognizing gay marriage. If the Supreme Court said that the marriage is valid in the U.S., then it would be. Any state court decision would apply only to that state and then it would be a state to state battle. Even with full faith and credit, Vermont's legalization did not extend to other states.
Or, imagine this. Gay marriages become more common in churches. Over time, here and there, state courts begin to recognize them as marriages for certain purposes. A body of common law builds up and then gay marriages become de facto legal. Eventually, a court ruling comes out that is definitive. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agrees. By then, it is such a common fact of life that there is no longer much if any controversy over them.
gw, Dean spoke in Minneapolis today (well, St. Paul, really, but that's just Minneapolis Junior), and after listening to him on Minnesota Public Radio, let me assure you that he can both embarass Junior & Co. and sound macho on foreign policy. He supported the attack on Afghanistan, and he thinks we can't allow North Korea to get nukes.
Maybe not as stupidly frat-boy macho as, well, Frat-Boy, but unless a miracle happens in Iraq (regarding their acceptance of us, etc. more than WMDs), people will begin to wonder just why in Hell we're still there. Dean won't promise to pull us out, but he's sure not likely to get us stuck anywhere else. And I can assure you that Joe Sixpack does not want his taxes going to help some damned foreigner who's just going to shoot at our soldiers anyhow.
In other words, I still think Dean's our best shot. Lieberman does not stand a chance.
gw,
Lileks... I checked out his sight a bit. Yeah, he's got a sense of humor--gallery of unfortunate food, etc., but I think his political writing is pretty weak and sounds basically like regurgitated Bill O'Reilly. Which brings me to another thought: I was channel surfing one night and came across some infotainment show on Fox (not News) and ol' BOR had some commentary about "Rap vs. Rock" and... well you had to see it. He said that in ten years, Rap would be gone and that Rock-n-Roll would still be going strong because Rap wasn't actually music at all. No melodies. And then of course for his exhibit A and B for why Rock-n-Roll is so great he gave us the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac (still going strong!). Now THAT was funny.
are you still committing those heinous and atrocious acts of buggery, ehrenstein?
the farmer | 06.20.03 - 10:51 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
'cause it's really creeping me out, what you do to boys.
the farmer | 06.20.03 - 10:52 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
i mean, fucking 'em up the ass and everything.
the farmer | 06.20.03 - 10:53 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
you sick, demented arse jockey, you.
the farmer | 06.20.03 - 10:55 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
i mean, quit fucking 'em up the ass, you twisted sick fucker.
the farmer | 06.20.03 - 10:56 pm | #
,
Friday night, and the right-wing circle jerk kicks into high gear.
I was channel surfing one night and came across some infotainment show on Fox (not News) and ol' BOR had some commentary about "Rap vs. Rock" and... well you had to see it. He said that in ten years, Rap would be gone and that Rock-n-Roll would still be going strong because Rap wasn't actually music at all.
Which is people who dislike rap has been saying for twenty years. It's like when people talking about Japanese animation being just a fad, even though it's been around in this country, in one way or another for fourty years.
No melodies. And then of course for his exhibit A and B for why Rock-n-Roll is so great he gave us the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac (still going strong!). Now THAT was funny.
Wait. Aren't those possibly the two most liberal rock bands out there? I mean, Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop" was used by the possessor of the Clenis, with their approval and support!
Well, two of the most liberal bands out there. I can think of others that are quite liberal.
I have no idea what those bands politics are, but the ARE old. Culturally, I think they're entirely insignificant--basically just nostalgia for Boomers. Hip Hop, on the other hand, is definately influencing the way people think right now. It was pretty much the same as when you saw old people in the fifties worrying about the "Jungle Music" that was ruining their teenage sons and daughters. The racist undertones were barely concealed in the piece, saying how it glorified violence, sexism, drug use (and Rock and Roll is so squeaky clean, eh Bill?). BOR appeared completely ignorant that Hip Hop has been around for about 25 years already and is more popular now than ever. Here he was talking about it like it was the latest fad all smug like he is. Absurdity at its finest there, boy.
"Pansy Division" is an excellent band.
"Blame Can-a-da!
Blame Can-a-da!
They're not really a country anyway."
I have no idea what those bands politics are, but the ARE old. Culturally, I think they're entirely insignificant--basically just nostalgia for Boomers. Hip Hop, on the other hand, is definately influencing the way people think right now. It was pretty much the same as when you saw old people in the fifties worrying about the "Jungle Music" that was ruining their teenage sons and daughters.
Well, I knew they were old, classic rock bands, but they are also very liberal, especially Don Henley of the Eagles, who, with Glenn Fry, wrote about 'compassionate conservatism' in '70s with the song "The Last Resort" from Hotel California and specifically mentions Reagan as "this tired old man that we elected king" and Star Wars SDI program in his own song, "End of Innocence". And that's not to mention the SCLM's theme song, "Dirty Laundry". I think a lot of his music was pretty relevant of the issues at the time, but could be viewed as insignificant nostalgia now.
However, I'm going to also agree with you the racist overtones in the criticism of rap music. I recall seeing an ad for some shirts in a magazine that had "flush rap down the crapper" with "it's all right to be white" shirts.
I'll also agree about Rap being pretty influential. Rap-metal is probably the most recent music genre to be accepted by today's youth, and even normal rap music has it's own subdivisions, like the Old School of Grandmaster Flash and the Sugar Hill Gang, Politicial Rap of Public Enemy and KRS-One, Gangsta Rap of Ice-T, NWA, and Snoop Dogg, Hip-Hop, Bling Bling Rap, West Coast, East Coast, Southern, Russian...you get the picture. Even a lot of Techno and Club Music borrows heavily from rap, especially in regards to sampling, bass, and BPM, even thou it tends to be more European and Asian based.
As for being a fad, the Sam Goody I walked into today over a third of the floorspace devoted to music was rap titles, with spanish-language music, techno, soundtracks, and the 'popular' (which is pop music and all of rock) filling the other two thirds.
Another stab at BOR, or as I call him O'Really, about the comment about rap glorifying violence, sexism, and drug use, while rock music gets a pass:
Has he ever heard "Life In The Fast Lane" from the aforementioned Eagles, where they mention about taking "all the right pills" and "there were lines on the mirror", or Clapton singing about "Cocaine" (which was also the drug du jour of 'witchy woman' Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac), or any of the Beatles later albums? What about the Rolling Stones with that song about open revolution in "Street Fighting Man", and that's not to mention the Clash and the Sex Pistols in the '80s? Why was Johnny Cash be sent to Folsom Prison, was it for tax evasion, or was it because he "shot a man in Reno/just to watch him die"?
ya know. i do have plenty of sweaters. sigh. not as much time to go barefoot.
Gays who enjoy a toke will be flocking here in droves. I wonder how long we have before Rummy wants to "liberate" us?
make a bingo game make a bingo game make a bingo game // party poker stock symbol party poker stock symbol party poker stock symbol
cheap soma cod cheap soma cod cheap soma cod. soma in san diego soma in san diego soma in san diego.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
