The Dumbest Thing I've Seen On Cable News Today....

[Lord Jim]

90% of the time, MSNBC walks off with this award....

And they certainly had some strong contenders today....

The strongest being on The Lawrence O'Donnell Show where he and several supposedly "independent" liberal pundits, obviously spinning for the White House, all agreed that Joe Biden's interview comments today supporting were just spontaneous comments, "Joe being Joe".....

Rather than being what they clearly are....part of Obama's deliberately calculated strategy to have it both ways on this issue.... This wasn't one of Joe's one liner boners...he went on at some length; there's no way he does this without White House approval. (And if there's anybody who thinks the timing on this...coming just a few days after the controversy in the Romney campaign over his openly gay foreign policy spokesman resigning...is accidental, I've got some beach front property in Arizona I can let you have cheap...)

No, as truly dumb as that claim was, believe it or not there was something even dumber....

I was flipping around the channels a little while ago and came across Greta Van Sustern's show on FOX News....

She was interviewing Donald Trump on the subject of....

The affect that the French elections will have on the US economy....

Say what?

What the hell does Donald Trump know about the likely impact of the French elections on the US economy? Why on earth would you book him to discuss this topic? FOX has access to numerous economists and foreign policy experts that Van Sustern could have called on to talk about this....

Geez, Trump? Really?

(BTW, I confess I didn't stick around to see what he had to say....)

"Coming up next, Snooki Polizzi will be discussing the likely ramifications of the upcoming Federal Reserve Board meeting...."

[Scooter]

deliberately calculated strategy to have it both ways on this issue

You mean like the Republicans pushing for a federal marriage amendment and then trotting out Mary Cheney every so often to pretend they don't think gay people are the scum of the earth?

[Joe Guy]

(BTW, I confess I didn't stick around to see what he had to say....)

Oh, I see...

Now you're basing your opinion of what the Donald had to say about an issue on what you didn't bother to see and/or hear him say.

Pardon me!!?

I'm now putting you on ignore you ignorant slut!

But I might read what others quote from you since I have no choice in that matter.

And I will respond if I deem it necessary.

[rubato]

An opinion show is not a news show.

And Obama had all of the gay civil rights votes already. This is merely a reminder.

[Lord Jim]

You'll notice I didn't actually criticize what Trump said, without having listened to what he said, Joe....

[Joe Guy]

Good thing I have you on ignore, because then I might be compelled to respond to that last post of yours that I didn't read.

[dgs49]

Anyone exploring Vice President Biden's public blabbering over the past thirty years would conclude that he lacks the mental discipline to stay on message about anything..."and I mean that literally, not figuratively." (Biden's favorite phrase). Everything Biden says is "off the cuff." Obviously.

And there is no need to shore up this Administration's support in the gay community, and to secure its infinitesimal influence in the upcoming presidential election. You are talking about maybe 2% of the population, that is overwhelmingly centered in Democrat-leaning states. Do you think it might help them to take California? New York? Massachusetts?

Really.

He is an idiot. Let him speak freely. The more his remarks are publicized, the more ridiculous this Administration looks.

[BoSoxGal]

54% of Americans support gay marriage, according to the most recent polls.

Hardly an infinitesimal influence in the electorate.

The world is changing dgs; get with it or getoveritalready.

[Big RR]

BSG--while it may well be that a majority of American voters support gay marriage, I really don't think that it will be a definitive issue in this election for the supporters (there are amny other issues to worry about) while I do think that many opponents, who see it as the end of civilization as we know it, might vote solely based on that issue.

And BTW, what candidate has come out in support of gay marriage? Certainly not Obama, unless there has been a recent change in his position I haven't heard of.

[dgs49]

The question is not how many people support gay marriage (a STATE matter, as we all know, not FEDERAL), but rather how many prospective voters in states that are "in play" care whether either Our Beloved President or our Embarrassment of a Vice President stand on this vital and overwhelming issue.

The answer is approximately zero.

To anyone paying attention to this issue, it is abundantly clear from the actions of the United States Department of Justice that this Administration has no use for DOMA, so it's not like their political tendencies on this issue are not already well known.

Furthermore, the people who would consider it important as an issue in a Presidential election (i.e., liberal idiots) are already entirely within the Democrat camp, and not likely to be swayed by VP Biden's "revelations."

The more Biden is quoted in the media, the better it is for Republicans.

[Big RR]

Gay marriage is a state matter? Then why is there this groundswell of support for the DOMA? And why do gay marriage opponents care if it is enforced or not?

As for who consider an important issue in a presidential election, I see far more rhetoric from the right on this issue than from the left, idiots or not.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I saw something really dumb on TV today

Then I realised I hadn't switched it on.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I got that.

[Long Run]

, Meade.

LJ, in line with Meade's point, you probably only have to wait another couple of hours to top that.

[dales]

I saw something really dumb on TV today

Then I realised I hadn't switched it on.

I suggest that is a good thing, television ....... BLAAAAAAH!

[dgs49]

The definition of marriage is a state issue, absolutely. Each state is free to define marriage in any way that they want, and more than half of the United States have specifically enacted laws to define "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.

HOWEVER, Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution states that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." So that if a couple of sexual preeverts gets married in, say, Massachusetts, and decides to move to Pencil-fucking-vania, where I live, then the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would have to recognize them as being married in Pennsylvania. The DOMA was intended to avoid this perverse (play on words intended) situation where the preeverts are married in Massachusetts, but unmarried in Pennsylvania. So also it is with the various states (e.g., North Carolina - today, as it turns out) passing laws saying that they will only recognize a fucking man and woman as being married, and no queers from out of state need apply. No sir.

Hence, we have the Vice President of the whole copulating United States opining that he ain't got no problem with any marriages under the sun, whether they be man & woman, man & man, Dog & cat, or what have you. But in his official capacity as being a "hearbeat removed from the Presidency," his opinion on the matter has no legal significance whatsoever. He and the others in the Administration have simply made a calculation that it is better to say something vaguely in support of queer marriage, in case there is someone out there who is fond of such arrangements, who hasn't read a fucking newspaper for the past three years.

Watch your local cable news channel for the next breathless update on this story, where we are told that Our Beloved President also feels, spontaneously of course, the exact same way as Biden does on this pressing issue, but doesn't have the courage to say it out loud.

I wonder how the Reverend Jeremiah Wright feels about this issue. Barry is on record as pretty much agreeing with him about everything spiritual. But somehow I think he would not be as welcoming to Heather's two mommies as Joe and Barry would be.

[Scooter]

HOWEVER, Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution states that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." So that if a couple of sexual preeverts gets married in, say, Massachusetts, and decides to move to Pencil-fucking-vania, where I live, then the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would have to recognize them as being married in Pennsylvania.

We have been over this. Full Faith and Credit does not require any state to recognize the marriages performed in another state. If it did, then in the days that interracial marriages were prohibited in many states, an interracial couple could have gone to a state where interracial marriages were legal, get married, and then return to their home state and have that marriage recognized. But that was impossible, because FFC did not oblige states to do any such thing.

And if that was all that DOMA purported to do, it might have been palatable. But as you know, DOMA goes much farther than this, in prohibiting the federal government from recognizing certain classes of marriage which several states have deemed to be legal. That is DOMA's most significant effect, and one which gives the lie to you claim that states can define marriages however they want. Well, no, they can't, because they have to deal with the consequences of not having the federal gov't give recognition to those marriages, which creates a host of problems for all concerned.

So also it is with the various states (e.g., North Carolina - today, as it turns out) passing laws saying that they will only recognize a fucking man and woman as being married, and no queers from out of state need apply. No sir.

North Carolina already has a law limiting marriage to a man and a woman. The present constitutional amendment goes far beyond that, putting all manner of couples in unmarried, conjugal relationships in legal limbo. District attorneys in NC have already weighed in that the amendment will invalidate huge swaths of domestic violence laws as they apply to couples who live together but are not married, which is exactly what happened in Ohio after it passed its own version of marriage apartheid.

Hence, we have the Vice President of the whole copulating United States opining that he ain't got no problem with any marriages under the sun, whether they be man & woman, man & man, Dog & cat, or what have you.

You claim not to be making comparisons between the two, but it is physically impossible for you to discuss same-sex marriage without bringing bestiality into the discussion. One has to wonder what you fixation with sex with animals is all about. Something you're not telling us?

[Scooter]

A review of the (non-)use of Full Faith and Credit wrt marriage:

Conservatives say that without a constitutional amendment, Goodridge goes national. Gays will travel to Massachusetts to get married and then their home states will be forced (under the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to recognize their marriages...The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.

I guess your going to have to continue to rely on bestiality comparisons, Dave, because your legal "analysis" is worth the toilet paper I just used to wipe my ass.

[dgs49]

Talk about "courageous":

President Barack Obama's campaign says he's "disappointed" with North Carolina's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Obama campaign spokesman Cameron French said in a Tuesday statement that the ban on same-sex unions is "divisive and discriminatory." French says same-sex couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.

Obama officials have been embroiled in a national discussion of same-sex marriage since Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that he is "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage. Obama himself hasn't embraced legalizing gay marriage, saying his views on the subject are "evolving."

Surely, this a more daunting challenge for Barry than deciding whether to flip the switch on the Bin Laden murder.

[dgs49]

My dear Scooter: You have found and quoted an OPINION saying that without DOMA, legal gay (and other unconventional) marriages from one state will not be a problem for other states. Certainly it is a valid opinion, but not dispositive of the matter. As you very well know, without DOMA (and even WITH DOMA) the gay legal lobby would be seeking in court to assert marital privileges for such relocating couples in virtually every state. Because the OPINION you cite is not based on any binding SC precedent, but merely the fact that it hadn't been done before. Which of course, it couldn't, because gay marriage is a new phenomenon.

The DOMA law was passed to cut off this plethora of "Full Faith & Credit" lawsuits before they started. My posting is accurate.