Politics & Pop Culture from a homocon.
This newspaper applauds the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear arguments in two same-sex marriage cases — one on California’s Proposition 8, which bans such marriages, and one regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriage has been percolating at the state level for several years, leading to a patchwork of laws that create more confusion than clarity. The court can undo that confusion by determining the constitutional parameters of this issue.
We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the right of gay couples to marry based upon the fundamental American ideal of equality before the law. It is critical that the court also make clear that such a ruling won’t require churches whose doctrines oppose same-sex marriage to perform such ceremonies.
Debating the reversal of centuries of views about the institution of marriage cannot be considered without upheaval, and we recognize that the notion of gays and lesbians marrying can divide families, friends and, especially, generations. But the growing support for same-sex marriage, including within families whose gay members have changed the way these unions are seen, makes the embrace of gay marriage less of a radical shift.
Polls show that American attitudes have shifted dramatically on the subject. Surveys by organizations such as Gallup reveal that half or more of Americans support the concept of gay marriage. Equality in marriage laws is particularly embraced by younger Americans, including some younger evangelicals.
Even leading conservatives favor gay marriage. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is among the most notable. So, too, is former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, who will lead the team arguing in favor of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.
Olson contends that the federal government lacks the right to deny gay couples the opportunity to marry. He also will argue that the ban denies gay couples the right to due process. As the Republican wrote in Newsweek, “This bedrock principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike.”
We respect that some religious traditions see same-sex unions as an affront to their canons, scriptures and traditions. The First Amendment protects such places of worship from being compelled to conduct same-sex marriages. Additionally, the justices should take care to carve out strong and significant protections so that the institutions’ religious liberties, for instance their tax-exempt status, are not circumscribed.
In 2004, this newspaper opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We have backed efforts to outlaw discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. Now, we believe that the Supreme Court should conclude that equality under the law includes the right of gay couples to wed.
What’s at stake before the Supreme Court is how a secular society should respond to the growing demand for same-sex marriage. That is where Olson’s arguments seem so persuasive. How can a secular government grant marriage rights to some but not others?
Health-wise, today is a pretty fantastic day! Had my annual checkup this morning. My blood pressure was an astounding 122 over 80. I say astounding for those who don’t recall last summer, I was in the hospital for what turned out to be severe stage 3 of hypertension.
My good friend Patrick P took me to the hospital where I was quickly admitted after being triaged. What I thought was a major asthma attack turned out to me being diagnosed with the beginning stages of heart disease. A blood pressure level of 198 over 93 proved that. I had been misdiagnosed a few years earlier with asthma.
Last November, I saw a new doctor and a nutritionist. And together, we’ve worked a path towards a healthier life. No fads. No diets. But a change in lifestyle.
I’m not going to tell you that I have been 100 percent committed to this change. Nor will I say that I have not cheated or followed every restriction. But I am eating much healthier. I’ve cut down on my drinking (very hard). And as evident from my runkeeper.com posts, I get my exercise by walking all the time.
With tonight’s walk to and from the RNC headquarters for a holiday party, I hit an amazing milestone. I recorded my first walk on November 25, 2011. That was for 3.31 miles. With tonight’s 4.35 walk, I have officially walked 501 miles in 54 weeks! Cue up that contagious song from Benny and Joon by the Proclaimers. I’m down 43 pounds, my BMI has dropped by over 4 points, and my blood pressure is perfect. I still smoke too many cigars, but that’s not gonna change anytime soon.
But as I conclude the year, I revel in the knowledge that I’m much healthier than when I started.
I read a Politico posting this afternoon suggesting that former Congressman J.C. Watts may jump in the race for RNC Chairman next month. An interesting proposition.
But let’s look at a few basic facts. Mr. Watts says he is being “encouraged” by supporters to run. Who are these supporters? They don’t seem to be current members of the RNC. In fact, the article points out that Matt Pinnell, the Chairman of the Oklahoma Party and one of the 168 who will vote for the next RNC Chairman is backing Priebus for reelection.
While a cursory look at the RNC Rules does allow for a non-member to run for Chair or Vice-Chair, in order to be nominated, one must have the support of at least the majority vote of RNC members in each of three states in order to have his or her names placed in nomination. So where does he go for those initial votes if his home state chairman is supporting Priebus? And even if he were to get nominated, where does he get the votes? Preibus already has 130 of the 168 votes locked up.
I am not saying the Mr. Watts wouldn’t be a good chairman. But there is no groundswell within the voting membership of the RNC to replace Priebus with Watts, or anyone else, for that matter.
My belief is that in six weeks, down in Charlotte, Reince will be nominated and reelected by acclamation. I just don’t see any other outcome. But stranger things have happened.
This post goes out to my liberal friends. Not all of them. But they know who they are. They are the idiots who were going around saying that if you disagreed with or wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama then you were a racist. [roll eyes…]
On its face, that is a totally ignorant statement. But let’s follow their line of thinking for a second. So if disagreeing with and refusing to vote for Obama means one is a racist, then shouldn’t the same work for disagreeing with and refusing to vote for Allen West? Are the people of Florida’s 18th Congressional District racist? No. Are they many of the people who called Congressman West an Uncle Tom? Perhaps. But let’s actually call a spade a spade…so to speak. Does it only work when criticizing a black liberal? Are black conservatives not afforded the same rigorous defense? [still rolling eyes…]
Now we have a member of the House Democrat
ic leadership saying words such as “incompetent” are code words for racism. Give me a fucking break! In the case of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the use of the term incompetent is code for lacking the qualities needed for effective action.
David Duke is a racist. There are many things you can call Senator John McCain, but that ain’t one of them.
That was my original thought when a little bird spotted the former Secretary of State dining this weekend in Georgetown with not only Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, but also retired United States Naval Commander Harlan Ullman, of “shock & awe” fame, and also one of the names released by the DC Madame some five years ago.
It most definitely could be time for payback since the General endorsed President Obama both in 2008 and 2012. Only time will tell…
“If there is a mandate, it is a mandate for both parties to find common ground and take steps together to help our economy grow and create jobs, which is critical to solving our debt,”
- Speaker of the House, John Boehner
Having spent the last day inside, and knowing that I likely won’t be going anywhere for the next day or so, I decided to join the few other idiots outside. But don’t worry, I didn’t venture very far. I bundled up, made a giant cup of coffee, and strolled 100 yards or so to my bench near my apartment.
With towel and umbrella in hand, I collected a Don Diego Playboy from my humidor and I perched myself down for a quick smoke. I mean, it might be days until I can enjoy another cigar!
With a steady pour of rain coming down from the sky, and wind gusts approaching 30 mph, I enjoyed this mild bodied smoke. With its Connecticut wrapper, this Lonsdale went great with my Starbucks Italian Roast, my second cup of the day, and helping of Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 10. It had a very smooth draw with an even burn, but was still a bit lacking. The cold air didn’t help.