Home

Try OrlyNuts... they're delicious!

  • Sep. 16th, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Yard

I've written before about the psycho lawyer/dentist who falls for just about every fake Kenyan birth certificate she can find online to "prove" that our President isn't really our President because he isn't a Conservative President, and surely real Americans wouldn't have voted him into office.


Well, Ms. Nutso-Cuckoo has once again had a suit dismissed challenging our elected President's eligibility to be elected in the first place. And wonderfully, the judge wasn't shy about telling her to stop wasting everyone's time:


“Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, plaintiff unashamedly alleges that defendant has the burden to prove his ‘natural born’ status,” Land states. “Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.

“Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so,” Land says.


But, here's the best part -
Land ordered that the defendants — who include Obama, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Col. Thomas MacDonald, Fort Benning garrison commander — will recover any costs from the complaint from Rhodes.


Now, that's justice. Now, Captain Rhodes should be drummed out of the military with a dishonorable discharge... or sent immediately to southern Afghanistan since that is what she is obviously trying to avoid with this foolishness.

EDIT: Read the judge's dismissal order at "Below the Beltway".

Straw man Arguments. Who's makin' them now?

  • Jul. 21st, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Yard


Some dufus named Matthew J. Franck has written an opinion piece for the national review slamming the law suit against Prop 8 in California. His post was in direct response to a piece by David Boies that I commented on already.


Naturally, he tries to argue against Mr. Boies' suit by pointing out that he's making a bunch of straw man arguments. And, he does this by... making a bunch of straw man arguments! Dunder-head.


I had to respond to him by email with this:


Funny,

I'd say that about you.

"Nothing about their racial differences made for a relevant consideration between a man and a woman naturally capable of marrying."

Nothing about their being different genders are relevant for consideration in being "naturally capable of marrying" either. Marriage in and of itself is a man-made, civil contract matter. And ergo, there is no reason that same-gender couples should be any less "naturally capable" either... whatever that is supposed to mean.


"depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex."


This argument has actually been made by same-gender marriage foes in arguing that gays and lesbians aren't being discriminated against. Perhaps, not in court... you'd probably know more about that than I... but the pundits have certainly made that case. "Gays aren't being discriminated against because they can get married, if they'd choose a partner of the opposite gender."


"But it has everything to do with same-sex marriage's necessary severing of the link between marriage and procreation."


Talk about strawman arguments! By that logic, anyone who isn't planning on having kids should be barred from marriage. Along with: the old, the infertile, those who've had vasectomies, those who've had their ovaries or womb removed (perhaps due to cancer for instance)... this argument shows where your true motives lie - and its not with constitutional arguments, but with your definition of what marriage is for which sounds amazingly biblical. And, the bible doesn't dictate our laws - thankfully - we're not a theocracy.


"In any event, the question of changing sexual orientation is quite irrelevant to the issue of who is entitled to marry."


Really? Because if only straight people can marry each other, and gay people can only marry straight people then doesn't that imply that if only gay people would be straighter then they could happily marry? This is completely about orientation and whether one can 'be changed' in order to fit better into the straight world - including marrying.


"It is incumbent on him to show why restricting marriage to one man and one woman is a violation of those clauses."


It's a violation of the 'due process' and 'equal protection under the law' because it specifically targets one group and tells them specifically that they may not have 100% of the rights and priviliges of other groups of people.


"On the other hand, Boies passes merrily by the very serious argument that state recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will lead to official infringement of the religious liberty of many Americans."


Another straw argument. Those states with same-gender marriage recognition have already included rules barring the forcement of religious organizations to perform, recognize or acknowlege those unions in their religious settings. Religion and Government are two very separate things and secular laws are not dictated by the bible... at least they shouldn't be in a "free" society. As for the adoption question and Catholic organizations... I'd have to know more about why they've been forced out, but my first question is "Were they taking state funds to perform their works?" If the answer is 'yes, but...,' then shut up. If they're taking handouts from the state, they should be following the law and if they can't do that, then they shouldn't take state funds (including their tax exemptions). But, I would like to know more about why they can't operate as a private, religiously based adoption agency. That would seem unfair and unjust to me.


"It is a statement of fact about a central institution in our civilization—a fact historical, natural, and moral, backed up by many centuries of wisdom about men and women, children and families, law and culture."


Straw argument. Societal mores are not static and change over time and the law follows. 'Natural' and 'moral' are relative terms depending on the culture. And many centuries of wisdom also allowed slavery, miscegenation, disallowed men of women of different ethnicities from marrying, disallowed different Faiths from marrying, allowed people to be legally murdered for witchcraft, thought mental illness was actually possession by evil spirits, etc. etc. etc.


"Justice requires that the lawsuit brought by David Boies and Theodore Olson be laughed out of court."


Justice requires that the judges of the Supreme Court issue a reminder that "the bible says so" isn't a legal argument.


I would highly recommend that everyone email this twit and point out his utterly transparent attempts to paint somebody else with the very brush he's the one wielding... It's not even Pot/Kettle... it's trying to deflect attention from the empty arguments that the Right/Social Conservatives want to use that have nothing to do with an actual legal argument.   MJFRANCK@MSN.com

Local Rights vs. Developers

  • Jun. 21st, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Yard


I've received an update from a post about Harsens Islands, 'Lucky 7' and 'Grand Pointe Development' for which I'm grateful - I'm sure this will be in next week's paper, but I'm pleased to post that the development companies have suffered another defeat in their attempt to rip apart the island for cluster housing development.

The prior posts on this continuing saga are HERE.


The newest update (from Thursday) is HERE.


Thank you to the anonymous replier to my post of 09-05-08! As well, I want to thank 'The Verifiable Truth' by name on this post for collecting all of the legal documents, the developers filed plans and the commission's, DEQ's and court's rulings in regards to this issue.


This isn't the first run in with the dollars behind these develpment scheme... as reported in the same article linked above, H.I. has already had to fight off attempts to build a large casino/resort project on the island (which, honestly - once you disclude [is that a word?] the land owned and managed by the DNR, is not that large) by the same guy and the Bay Mills Indians (a tribe belonging to Northern Michigan) and the Ilitch money.


Everyone seems to acknowledge that Harsens Island is a 'Blue Water Gem', but where we who live here want to see it remain semi-natural - others want to turn it into a little metropolis and thereby destroying the very characteristics that has made it recognized as a 'Gem' in the first place... but what the hell, they won't actually be living here, right?


At least we can score another win in keeping them from destroying what we love about living here (and paying the $100 every two weeks for the ferry tickets).

Civil Rights and the Civil Contract

  • Nov. 8th, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Yard


Since she has encouraged sharing, I'll post this link to Susan who has a well-voiced blog entry on why denying us gay-folk the basic right to marry is inherently breaking the social contract.

As everyone knows, several states have managed to pass more "one man-one woman" style Constitutional Amendments.

While, personally, the California decision was especially heart-breaking to me - despite living in Michigan - I find it appalling that changing a state constitution is so easy. Not specifically for these sorts of initiatives, but for Any and All initiatives!

I can't think of anything more dangerous to a functioning democracy than to allow the majority to change the legal social contract to suppress a minority at whim. I understand the impetus behind it - frustration with our political class led to these sorts of changes in state laws to allow the People to assume a more direct ownership over their own local governance. I get that. But, it has also allowed out-of-staters-with-their-own-agendas to co-op what was supposed to have been about the citizens of a state influencing policy within that state... not pushing around people in others.

In addition, the pendulum was swung too far. Now the majority (in states that allow ballot initiatives to alter a constitution) can unduly write discrimination into a constitution. And once a law in on the books, it's far harder to remove than it was to place.

At least the people in Connecticut realized the Right's plans and denied them the opportunity this year to convene a Constitutional Convention and start legislating against the gay minority.

So, yes... we've had some more heartbreak in the gay community this election cycle. But hope has not been extinguished and the battle to be treated as 100% equal under the law continues.

We cannot forget the rays of hope amid the gloomy news. The Gen-Y'ers / Next Gen overwhelmingly opposed the message of hate and fear coming from the Mormons in California (from Utah). They weren't enough to keep the ballot from passing, but they'll be more than enough to strip that repugnant amendment back out of the state constitution in the next decade as they supercede their grandfathers and fathers in the corridors of power. And we mustn't forget those who are straight and angry now, either. Every year, we become less and less of the "other" who can be so easily abused and trod upon.

Even those who we used to have to fear... straight, macho, army veterans/heroes... are less and less likely to see us as threatening, sinful, 'sick', and 'perverted'. We're just people... and that image is becoming more pervasive despite the forces of intolerance huddled in their "burn everyone who isn't like us" churches.

And, though we want our full civil rights to live our lives protected by the law as any other citizen of this grand nation, we need to remind ourselves of just how far we've come in such a short period of time. We will get there. We will get there within my lifetime. The election of an African-American shows that the great majority of America is leaving behind the fearful, hateful, small-minded people of the far Right. And with that leaving behind of old fears, our time will come as well... and sooner than we imagined.

 

Little by little....

  • Sep. 11th, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Yard

Florida's ban on gays becoming adoptive or foster parents is unconstitutional, rules a Monroe County judge in letting a Key West adoption go forward, the Miami Herald reported.


Bit by bit, we're inching closer to being 1st class citizens with full and equal rights, obigations and protections.


Rob

Tags:

Profile

Yard
[info]harsens_rob
harsens_rob

Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner