I recently had a conversation with a friend over something odd. If the largest stadium were full, what size city would it be, and would it be the largest city in the state.
As it turns out when full, Mountaineer Field in West Virginia is the largest City in West Virginia. Probably most surprising is FedEx Field is the second largest city in Maryland (well in years where the 'Skins aren't completely terrible.)
I put together a map illustrating the relation between stadiums and states.
***Due to the inexplicable intervention of the Supreme Court late last night, marriage equality has been delayed in Kansas. I have updated .gif to reflect the accuracy of the history.***
I put together this .gif file based on the date when marriage equality reached some sort of res judicata, and people were able to actually get married in those states.
A brief history of marriage 2004-2014
Miles to go and all that Jizz Jazz. Texas and Arkansas are due soon, and Montana and South Carolina have no excuse to deny marriage equality a single day longer.
All that is left of interest is what the Supreme Court will do with the 6th Circuit, since they clearly did done fuck up. Remand it to the 6th en banc, reverse without comment? I dont know.
I probably won't go through the decision because of the possibility of an anger seizure from the stupidity.
On October 6, the Supreme Court denied cert. to the490 kagillion 7 marriage
cases before the Court.
I celebrate the fact that on Monday morning, 58.92 percent of the
country will have full access to consensual marriage based off of 2013
population projections.
Prior to last week’s non-decision-decision, I listed several reasons as to why this will be a historically significant failure of the Court. In
around two years it appears that every jurisdiction in the United States will
acknowledge marriage equality, without the Supreme Court acting.
In the upcoming months after Texas and Florida (and a few other stragglers)
recognize marriage equality, around 89.90 percent will be able to, with
consent, marry whomever they choose.
But that still means that tomorrow, around 40 percent of gay people will have
fewer rights than heterosexuals on death row. It also means that due to the timing, there will be no decision like
Loving v. Virginia for gays. The Roberts Court will not be viewed by kindly by history over their non-decision, like the Warren Court. There is no apology for 230 years of legal discrimination.
I am
reposting this graphic created by Randall Munroe at xkcd.com, who created a graphic
that explains my feelings better than what words can express.
On August 22 for SCOTUSblog Lyle Denniston wrote an in-depth article on divining the will of the Supreme Court in regards to certain types ofsame-sex marriage:
Since
early this year, the Supreme Court has stepped back into the same-sex marriage
controversy five times. While it has done little to explain those
actions, it has sent some signals about its thinking. Its most important
signals may have been those it appeared to have sent Wednesday, in putting
off the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Virginia.
Between
the nine lines of that order, the Court implied that
it will not be rushed into a decision about which, if any, cases it is going to
review. And it left no doubt that the Justices themselves, not the
lawyers or their clients, are in charge of the timing. The Court, in
short, has not yet gotten caught up in the race to settle the basic
constitutional issue just as soon as it could possibly do so.
Just as a refresher, the Supreme Court upheld the stay for the 4th Circuit and the 10th Circuit, but has allowed marriage to proceed in Pennsylvania and Oregon based on the logic put forward in Hollingworth.On the face it does appear to be a bit of a mix signal. The article goes on to say:
The
Court had been urged, by all sides in the Virginia case, to speed up the
process of finding a case for review by turning a simple request for delay into
an actual, formal petition — a move that could have cut short several
procedural steps, and set up the Virginia case as a prime candidate for review.
The
Court silently refused the suggestion, simply delaying things in Virginia until
after a county clerk actually files a petition for review, in the usual form
and on the usual timetable. That was a clear sign that the Court was
doing its best to act as if it were business as usual, even on this hot
constitutional controversy.
Obviously it would be nice if the Supreme Court would speed up the process, yet it is the Supreme Court. Perhaps the entire circumstance can best be summed by the sentence, "That was a clear sign that the Court was doing its best to act as if it were business as usual, even on this hot constitutional controversy."
Is a
grant of review a certainty in coming months? There is never a
sufficiently strong advance signal to predict that.
In a weird way this article tells us everything and nothing. I do not find it unusual for the the Supreme Court to resist from being pushed into doing anything. And as for giving signals, the Supreme Court is notoriously leak-proof.
There are two issues that emerge after reading the article: will the court even take up the issue and its significance; and why is there such a sense of urgency around this issue.
After reading the article, it is apparent that certiorari is not guaranteed. Due to the massive number of federal cases that have moved in the last year, it is tempting to say the Supreme Court will act; even though as Mr. Denniston has pointed out, marriage equality is a "hot constitutional controversy."
Though it is unlikely, what would it mean if the Court were to deny certiorari? The practical effect is that all the jurisdiction where marriage equality has been acted on by a court, but where a stay is in place, same-sex marriage will be legal. So if certiorari were denied tomorrow, the map would look like the following:
86.4% of American would live in a state with marriage equality. Denial of certiorari would probably be the greatest failing of the Robert's Court. It has been 47 years since Loving v. Virginia and now is the time. I mean for fuck-sake, Felons in prison have a constitutional right for 26 years when the Court granted it in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). Felons before gays... felons, you know the people who can't vote because the have done bad things, people segregated from the rest of the population and locked away because they have done terrible things. They can get married. So, yah, if they don't act fuck 'em.
Addressing the second question, the urgency of the issue comes from the opposing sides, each with their own motivations. The marriage opponents want the Supreme Court to put a quick end to the spread of marriage equality. The longer lower courts are able to issue pro-equality rulings, the more jurisdictions will issue pro-equality rulings.
For the marriage supporters, it is an issue of cruel fact that every minute of life counts. According to the CDC in 2011 In the US there were 2515458 deaths. Based on the controversially low CDC figure, 1.6% of the population is gay. Currently 43.5% of the US population lives in a state where same-sex marriage is currently available (places where gays can walk on down to the county clerk and actually get married.)
Therefore, around 62 gay people die each day unable to get married, or around 22,740 per year.
This year, two prominent women in the equality movement died. In March, Vernita Gray, who married Pat Ewert in Illinois, unfortunately passed away. While earlier this month, Fredia Hurdle, who was among the Plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case, passed away unexpectedly before she could marry her partner of 24 years. My morbid point is that everyday for a large number of Americans, our rights come too late.
I think it is important to start the deeper analysis by focusing on the question of whether or not an Article III Court can even hear a possible lawsuit by the House of Representatives against the President.
But what of the
alternative of suing the president? First, someone with a definite legal
grievance against the president, who can show that the president’s actions have
actually caused that person (or that organization) some injury, must be
available to file the lawsuit. Second,
the courts must be willing to allow themselves to be drawn into the middle of a
dispute between the other two branches of the federal government, and must have
the power to actually resolve that dispute in a specific constitutional way.
Suing a president – that is, the mere fact of filing a lawsuit – is much easier
than getting articles of impeachment approved by the House. But succeeding in such a lawsuit is another
matter.
Mr. Denniston [1] rightfully points out that in civil litigation one must always point to some form of injury. I cannot stress this enough. Injury is the foundation of law. Without injury, there is no need for adjudication. The first question that the court needs to be answered is if the elements of a lawsuit have been satisfied.
The problem insofar as analyzing this avenue is that as of this moment the House of Representatives has not put forward a Cause of Action. So we do not know what precisely the House is suing over, which makes it difficult to say with certainty if the elements have been met.
The second point of the article is referring to the Political Question Doctrine, which I find to be just as interesting as the first issue. It is also the area that I want to examine further in depth.
Federal courts will
refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it
does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like
abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that
federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that
Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore,
the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole
responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the
executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central
Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits
challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political
questions. Nixon v. United States, 506
U.S. 224 (1993).
So essentially if the Constitution makes a subject the sole responsibility of one branch of the government, they cannot be sued by the other in an Article III Court. (A bit of topic, but this is one of the reasons the Constitution establishes impeachment proceedings.And as in Nixon v. United States, Article III Courts cannot hear questions to impeachment proceedings.)
While we still run into the same issues as before, in that the House Representatives has not put forward a Cause of Action, the H. Res. 676 does provide enough guidance to discuss the basics of subject matter jurisdiction.
As anticipated before I read the article by Mr. Denniston, in the next article I will be covering Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
[1] Here is the biography of Lyle Denniston as provided by SCOTUSblog, "Lyle Denniston has been covering the Supreme Court for fifty-six years. In that time, he has covered one-quarter of all of the Justices ever to sit, and he has reported on the entire careers on the bench of ten of the Justices. He has been a journalist of the law for sixty-six years, beginning that career at the Otoe County Courthouse in Nebraska City, Nebraska, in the fall of 1948. He is not an attorney."
On July 30, 2014 H. Res. 676 passed the House of Representatives with a vote of 225 - 201, near completely down party lines.It was introduced on July 22, by Pete Sessions of Texas.
The text of the resolution reads as following:
H. Res. 676 In the House of Representatives, U. S., July 30, 2014.
Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official's duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision.
Sec. 2. The Speaker shall notify the House of Representatives of a decision to initiate or intervene in any civil action pursuant to this resolution.
Sec. 3. (a) The Office of the General Counsel of the House of Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall represent the House in any civil action initiated, or in which the House intervenes, pursuant to this resolution, and may employ the services of outside counsel and other experts for this purpose.
(b) The chair of the Committee on House Administration shall cause to be printed in the Congressional Record a statement setting forth the aggregate amounts expended by the Office of General Counsel on outside counsel and other experts pursuant to subsection (a) on a quarterly basis. Such statement shall be submitted for printing not more than 30 days after the expiration of each such period.
There are several interesting issues that creep up in the Resolution. It sets forth that the scope of the civil action is limited to portions of the ACA including action for failing to implement a provision. It also also for multiple actions against the Executive Branch. So the lawsuit(s) is because the President either enforced or didn't enforce the ACA, or both? Ach Nee! The Office of the General Counsel of the House of Representatives will represent the House, but the resolution allows for the services of outside counsel. How they will pay for outside counsel is at this point anyone's guess. Perhaps they will raise taxes or borrow from China. So if Speaker Boehner elects to go forward with a lawsuit (or several) based upon the Resolution, we still do not know what he is suing over. There is no Cause of Action with in the Resolution which is highly problematic. There must be a reason for bring forward litigation. The House voted to sue the President without a Cause of Action. It's not good enough to say "we don't like Obama, and we don't like the ACA; therefore lawsuit." It just doesn't fucking work that way. It frustratingly stupid. It's kind of like if a grad student submitted a midterm paper that was lacking a coherent thesis paragraph... but this is more important. Perhaps it's more like submitting your tax filings but instead of numbers there are emoticons. And damn near every Republican signed off on it. Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaahahah stupid bastards....There are also no end dates so if a Republican President is ever in office and fails to implement the ACA or a section thereof and the Democrats regain the house. Wham!
The lack of a Cause of Action in the Resolution does not mean a lawsuit will automatically fail; it is the just an exemplar of how disreputable the 113th House Leadership is.
.... I just don't know what to write as this story is flat out infuriating. It somehow manage to push out a story about an AG who is "gratified" that a gay couple cannot get divorced, because a court ruled they weren't married by that state's definition of marriage. It also pushed out a story about a former CEO who was booted from his corporation essentially for not going along with a scheme to drain the company of all of its resources while cutting labor costs and raising prices on consumers.
So yes, this one is special. And from Florida, of course.
[...] was only 42 years old
when he died last month, after grappling for four years with the rare disease
amyloidosis. His family, including his mother [...] wanted him to be
remembered at the family church in Florida where she was baptized. But the day
before the service, [the mother] was standing at her son’s casket during his wake
when she got word from New Hope Missionary Baptist Church in Tampa. She says
they told her that would be “blasphemous” to proceed with the funeral and that
they were canceling it – because [the deceased] was gay.
Just to clarify and not that it really matters; however amyloidosis, which regularly appeared as a possible solution to nearly every disease on the show House, is a autoimmune disorder (or more specifically a group of disorders) that causes an excess build up of certain type of protein in the bone marrow. It can lead to attacks on the heart, kidneys, liver, spleen, nervous system and digestive tract, possibly leading to organ failure and death. Carry on:
New Hope’s pastor, T.W. Jenkins, says he only learned that [the deceased] was gay when congregation members saw a mention of the man’s surviving
husband in his obituary — and called Jenkins to complain. [The deceased] and his
husband [...] were together for 17 years before they married in
Maryland last year.
I struggle to think of anything less classy. I know the tale of Antigone is not Christian in origin, but denying funeral rites is the kind of bullshit that led previous cultures to fear divine wrath. As a man who is not religious, even I understand the thought process which would lead one to believe in divine judgement against someone denying funeral rites. It takes a particularly heartless and terrible human being to refuse a basic level of compassion to the grieving and a utter lack of empathy bordering on psychopathic. From my experience funerals are about the living, not the dead. Respect the feelings of the living.
And once again, way to go T.W. Jenkins, you stupid, ignorant fuckhead. You have managed to reduce a man's life down to a sexual act, which apparently is his only defining feature. Let's ignore the fact he had been with the love of his life for over 17 years. Let's ignore the obvious grieving of family torn by tragedy. Let's ignore every quality that made him a human being, because he had sex with a man. T.W. Jenkins you are loathsome piece of shit.
I'm tired of this shit. It makes me feel awful writing this. I wish the family well and offer any condolence that I can, which may is no where near enough.
In this article I will layout my objectives for the series. I will be covering the legislation passed by the House of Representatives, case law from previous lawsuits against a sitting president, the various documents submitted to the court, and any court proceedings that may occur.
I will also make a greater effort than normal to reach out to other sources for legal opinion on the topic.
From the start of the series I do not believe that a lawsuit will succeed against the President; however, I do want to take this more seriously that what what the circus show deserves, and if I discover a legitimate cause of action, I will acknowledge it.
From what I currently understand of the situation, the biggest part of the debate is whether or not an Article III court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit in first place. If the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, there will be roughly seven more articles to this series. The House Resolution, 3 Court Cases, Cause of Action, A Response, and then a Court Order. So yeah, around seven. Obviously if the Court accepts the suit it will be a longer series.
I will also try to make as few Boehner/Boner jokes as I possibly can and will also limit myself from calling Speaker Boehner, John of Orange, to a minimum.
In this part I will be focusing on the modern jurisprudence in relation to obscenity. In the United States, court turn to the Miller Test to define whether or not a work is to be considered obscene.
Prior to the Miller Test, the definition of obscenity more or less was non-existent as there were over 30 obscenity trials between 1966-1972, all with different standards. As previously discussed, the Roth Test had the most weight to it; however it was a deeply flawed test due to its incompleteness.
The effect of the Miller Test are that it clarified obscenity, liberalized obscenity laws, and reduced the number of obscenity cases.
To understand the effects of the Miller Test, it's necessary to under what it is.The Miller Test on obscenity can be found in the holding of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973):
a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary
community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law,
and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is
thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate
independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.
For a material to be obscene it must fail all of the three prongs of the test.
The first prong of the Miller Test is the Roth Test verbatim. It establishes who determines obscenity (average person), which standards (contemporary community), what material (ones with the purpose of giving a man a stiffy.) My Black's Law Dictionary is away from me at the moment, but a common definition of prurient is "that which incites lasciviousness or lust."
The second prong of the Test establishes that the obscene material must depict or describe sexual content as defined by the appropriate state law.
And thirdly it establishes that the material must be taken as a whole, and whether the material has relevant redeeming factor such as artistic, political or scientific value. The third prong is interesting as it is a check on the second prong, as it makes sure that the state law isn't overly stringent.
Prong three is where the test becomes revolutionary.
The Miller Test, as it is stated, makes it easy enough for the adult film industry to tailor their material to fit the test. Films and naughty magazines simply need to mascaraed as art. I think the pizza delivery man's penis was a metaphor for the internal conflict of modern social conditions and between the internal, animalistic drives of a rugged individualist with lube.
I posted the following video to YouTube which goes further into the circumstances of Miller v. California. It's perhaps a bit cheeky and the production quality isn't the greatest, but I recommend watching it if you are still interested in the matter.
I want to reemphasize that I am not a apologist for the Miller Court. I think obscenity generally is an unwarranted burden on free speech. What I respect about the Miller Test is that it improved the situation, and hopefully our legal structure will continue to protect artist from obscenity charges. But every once in a while a trigger-happy prosecutor will still unjustly target a pornographer on obscenity charges in a wave of conservative fervor.
This week was short and I haven't noticed much in the way of news. So I punching down, so to speak, by focusing on this story that appeared on Rawstory.com written by Eric W. Dolan:
Students in a
freshman biology class in Atlanta’s Grady High School were shown a PowerPoint
presentation that linked evolution to Satan, abortion, divorce, racism, and
homosexuality.
The Grady High
student newspaper, the Southerner, reported that Anquinette Jones used the
PowerPoint presentation to teach the theory of evolution to her students during
a freshman biology class last spring.
One slide in the
52-slide presentation included an illustration that shows creationism and
evolution as two sides in a war between good and evil. Creationism is shown to
be from Christ, while evolution is from Satan. The illustration suggests
evolution is the driving force behind euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography,
abortion, divorce, and racism — social ills that are all defeated by
creationism and Christianity.
My bullshit detector is wobbling a bit right now. I don't think anyone could be this fucking dumb and the primary source is a high school newspaper... so yeah... not to denigrate high school students...
Ok, I found another source, which actually shows and links to the primary sources. Uggh.. The article written by the high school students is actually well written and appears to be factual... uggh.. my faith in humanity is both downgraded by the stupidity of a biology teacher and yet bolstered by great journalism that gives me hope for the future.
So let's march on.
One slide in the 52-slide presentation included an illustration that shows creationism and evolution as two sides in a war between good and evil. Creationism is shown to be from Christ, while evolution is from Satan. The illustration suggests evolution is the driving force behind euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, divorce, and racism — social ills that are all defeated by creationism and Christianity.
So... uggh deep breath... find my happy place... slide... Ok, you are trying to get people to accept creationism in the middle of showing why and how evolution works. And to a bunch of 15 year old boys, you say pornography drives evolution. You don't understand 15 year old boys, do you? 15 year old boys are porn-freaks.
In fact in the middle of your presentation one of the students was either watching a porno on their iPhone or drawing naked ladies in their notebook.
But after looking through the slideshow it appears the rest of the material was fairly solid. So unless the teacher undercuts the rest of the slideshow with a stupid verbal rant everything's fine:
Jones told the
Southerner that the PowerPoint presentation originated with the Atlanta Public
Schools system. But students told the paper that Jones had brought up
creationism and criticized evolution in her biology class before.
“She always had
random comments about [creationism],” student {Name Redacted} told the Southerner.
“If someone would ask if we were going to learn evolution, she was like, ‘No, I
don’t teach that.’”
“[I] have gay
parents, and [the cartoon] said that evolution caused homosexuality and it
implied that to be negative, so I was pretty offended by it,” another student,
{Name Redacted}, said.
Happy place... happy place... happy place... Ok think of the positives on the story. Students are demanding accountability from educators.
Students are taking the initiative and become active and engaged in democracy and their future.
And it seems that the students understand why this circumstance is wrong, or at least some of the students seem to understand why this is wrong.
Happy Freedom Day, Decleration of Independence Day, or 4th of July, which ever one floats your metaphorical boat.
I'm coming up on a busy stretch right now, so I will make no promises to myself or anyone else about what I will be posting. However, I do want to post something about the Miller Test soon-ish. So yay to that.
Have fun and keep all of your digits safe when playing with explosives.
The group says it has about 300
outreach workers scheduled for Pride, and those workers will be based at First
Baptist Church on Hennepin Avenue along the Pride parade route.
Its leader Steven Uggen told a
group gathered in April at The Well, A Living Church in Robbinsdale, that
people will be cured of “HIV or AIDS” at the Pride festivities. Uggen says that
by healing those with HIV, it will prove to the LGBT community that they should
find Jesus and leave “the lifestyle.”
A.) There are reportedly 300 people not only dumb enough to buy this Aids-Denialist bullshit, but they are also willing to participate.
B.) There are reportedly 300 people who think they can channel God to heal people.
C.) This organization thinks that the Gayz haz the Aidz. HIV is a virus you fucking dumb pieces of shit. What the fuck is wrong with you. Do you think that MILLIONS of South Africans chose a sinful life style. You fucking fucks.
D.) If anyone stops taking their antiretroviral cocktail due to these bottom feeders... ughh so fucking pissed. Mother.. son of...
There is a phase, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," but these assholes are really pushing it.
The 10th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision, issued a broad ruling upholding the District court ruling. A stay was also issued until Certiorari . As a result marriage equality has spread throughout the entire 10th Circuit, but due to the stay, marriages will not be granted, unless the state officials in the other marriage lawsuits dismiss their cases.
Also Indiana surprised everyone when a Federal Judge struck down the state marriage ban. And immediately people were gay married. Like in less than an hour. I mean crap, I couldn't find my birth certificate in less than an hour. So good for them. Their marriage may have set some new ground speed record or something.
Anyway, to celibate today's wins I have update the map:
Moving from the 9th Circuit decision, it's funny how a longer decision such as the 9th Circuit's can be reversed by so few words. One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958) states:
Eric Julber for petitioner.
Solicitor General
Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Leonard and Samuel D. Slade for
respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for
writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476.
And that's it. The Supreme Court here is referring to the Roth test which states:
"whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."
In other words, does the average person see it as directly sexual. And in One's case, nope. While Roth does go mostly uncommented, the 9th Circuit didn't entirely ignore Roth:
The poem pertains to sexual matters of such a vulgar and indecent nature that it tends to arouse a feeling of disgust and revulsion. It is dirty, vulgar and offensive to the moral senses. Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, 16 S.Ct. 562, 40 L.Ed. 765; United States v. Limehouse, 285 U.S. 424, 426, 52 S.Ct. 412, 76 L.Ed. 843; Tyomies Publishing Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 1914, 211 F. 385, 390; United States v. Roth, 2 Cir., 237 F.2d 796, 799, 800.
So it would appear the consequence of One, Inc. v. Olesen is that depictions of homosexuality is not per se obscene. That simple though is so short, but it was the first pro-gay ruling in American History. Without this ruling there may not have been a gay rights movement. No communication, no organization. Stay tune for the conclusion of this series which examines the Miller test, which comes out of Miller v. California. The Miller test is the current obscenity test.
To fulfill my obscenity and obligatory masturbation joke quota, if you disagree with any position expressed here, you can go finger yourself, super-deep like a sock puppet.
I have to admit I was kind of struggling this week looking for material for this segment, which for sanity's sake is probably a good thing. But then this morning I saw a video, and I knew then and there I had found the one, my precious douchebag. *Sniffle*
On Thursday around noonish, a bunch of goons from NOM invaded the Capitol steps to tell 'em what they really think. And then there was Huckleberry Hound Mike Huckabee.
I frequently prefer to read an article rather than listen to it, so here is a transcript of what he said:
The President and the Congress are not required
to defy natural law.[1] They're not required to redefine marriage.[2] They are
required to follow the will of the people, the Constitution, and the law that
has given us the greatest nation on earth, a nation that we will lose, if we turn our backs on our origins.[3] There is no doubt in my mind that this
country would not exist had it not been for the providential hand of God. I'm
also convinced if we reject his hand of blessing we will feel his hand of
judgment.[4]
[Break]
And it's time for us as an American people to
say to our own government “Enough of you restricting us. Enough of you
redefining our institutions.[5] We are not under an obligation to defy God in
order to obey you. We are under an obligation to obey God and the law and if
necessary to defy an institution that is out of control.”[6]
Ugh, I'm so sick of word salad. That's what I had for dinner last night. Perhaps it's because the video was an excerpt from a longer speech, but little sense making it was.
I will try to break it down into bit size pieces of WTF:
[1] I do not understand what natural law has to do with any of this quite frankly. It's literal a head scratcher due to the way it is worded. Is he trying to say "the President and the Congress are unnecessarily defying natural law"?
[2] Congress and the President are not redefining marriage. To play along with your venacular it's dem court thingys in dem buildins wit dem men folks who haz that there hammer do-hickey dats redefining marriage. The current gay rights movement is seeing it's largest successes through Article III jurisdictions, rather than through the legislative process or administrative law. By the way ain't ya a former governor who really really should know better? Numb-nuts.
[3] "They are required to follow... the Constitution." The judicial system is following the constitution in extending equal protection to all citizens by extending marriage privileges. Also a majority of people are in favor of marriage equality. You were against the tyranny of the minority when it was basically only gays in favor of gay marriage, so let me guess you now will be against the tyranny of the majority/minority. Dumb-ass.
[4] "I'm also convinced if we reject his hand of blessing we will feel his hand of judgment." Congrats Mike you are now as relevant as William Jennings Bryan. Jack-ass.
[5] "And it's time for us as an American people to say to our own government 'Enough of you restricting us.'" Hah hah hahahahahaha aaah haha. Do you hear yourself at all? Dumb-Fuck. Perhaps it's a wrong language thingy. Verstehen Sie, warum das heuchlerisch ist? Homo-Ehe beschränkt nicht die Zivilrechte oder die Freiheit der Mehrheit. Homo-Ehe gibt die Homosexuallen Zivilrechte. Arschloch!
Please don't make me whip out the french.
[6] Huh? I honestly am just perplexed by the rest of the statement. "We are under an obligation to obey God and the law and if necessary to defy an institution that is out of control." So does that mean he is advocating Christianists to not get married? Or defy the government, in which their participation in gay marriages isn't required? Dick-for-brains.
