Shoptalk: Who Wrote That *#!@% Editorial?
- Print print this page
- Discuss 57 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Web commenter Bentpan really let us have it the other day. Appending one of many comments to the end of The Pilot's Friday editorial expressing opposition to Amendment One, Bentpan wrote: "I notice no one at The Pilot taking credit for this opinion piece. Don't blame them. What a steaming pile of left-wing propaganda."
The not-so-subtle implication here was that the pointy-headed person responsible for writing the editorial, which took issue with the idea of making same-sex marriage even more illegal than it already is in North Carolina, lacked the guts to come forward by name, opting instead to cower behind a cloak of anonymity.
I started to get down into the fray and post an explanatory reply, but another commenter, who goes by the handle Hembloche, saved me the trouble. After taking issue with the substance of Bentpan's post, Hembloche added: "Oh, and editorials are never signed. It's considered the official stance of the paper as a whole."
Thanks, Hembloche. You got it exactly right.
I wrote about this general subject years ago in another Shoptalk column, but the above-mentioned Internet exchange - and the recently announced change of editors, with accompanying modification of job descriptions - prompts me to revisit the matter for purposes of clarification.
Three basic kinds of opinion writing appear regularly on these pages. First, there are letters from readers, which we always require to be signed, and which appear under the "Public Speaking" column like the one at the bottom of this page. Next are pieces such as this one. Readers often mistakenly refer to them as "editorials," but they're not. They're columns. And they're always signed.
Last but not least, we come to the pieces that run down the left side of this page and are set in larger type. These are indeed editorials. And editorials, in The Pilot and in virtually all other papers, speak in the name of the paper as opposed to some particular individual.
Editorials, as Hembloche noted, are always unsigned - not out of cowardice, but simply because they express institutional stands on the issues as opposed to personal ones. A few newspapers here and there have experimented with signed editorials, or at least initialed ones, but that has never caught on.
One reason editorials are anonymous is that they are often a consensus opinion arrived at through team effort. On rare occasions, one might even find himself writing an editorial making the best possible case for an argument that he personally disagrees with. Putting the writer's name on that one would be especially meaningless.
In roughly the first half of the 14 years I spent as editor of The Pilot, we had a full-time opinion editor, Brent Hackney. He edited columns, handled letters, and wrote most of the editorials - though we had regular informal editorial board meetings that included Publisher David Woronoff (who always has the ultimate say on such matters), Brent and me.
When Brent left, we decided not to replace him in that job. Instead, I absorbed most of those responsibilities. And, with a different editorial board and much help handling letters and laying out pages - and sometimes help writing editorials - I spent years being responsible for both the news and opinion sides. It got rather taxing sometimes, and I was frequently nagged by a feeling that I wasn't always doing justice to either half of my job.
With the welcome advent of John Nagy as our new editor back in February, the responsibilities have been divided up differently. In my semi-retired, half-time status, I am responsible for the opinion pages only. In that capacity, I now compose almost all of the editorials - with a lot of very helpful subject-matter input from David, John and others.
John, freed from this direct responsibility, is able to focus more attention on our news coverage - and on things like our digital operation, which is a special strength of his. He, David and I also constitute a new editorial board that hashes out stands on issues. So far, I like to think this division of duties is working out well.
Anyway, there's not a whole lot of point in demanding to know who is responsible for a particular editorial. As you can see, it's a simple question with a complicated answer.
Steve Bouser is opinion editor of The Pilot. Contact him at (910) 693-2470 or by email at sbouser@thepilot.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Bentpan 1 year ago
"Amendment One appears at the very bottom of the May 8 primary ballot. That’s somehow appropriate, since it is beneath the dignity of a great and enlightened state like North Carolina." one generation to impose its own intolerance and doctrinal zealotry on future ages that are unlikely to share those attitudes. That effort to clamp the dead hand of the past on the future seems pretty arrogant and controlling."Amendment One is dictatorial, demeaning and discriminatory. "
Bentpan 1 year ago
I have absolutely no idea how I ended up with 2 different fonts in the above post or how to fix it. I apologise, it is very difficult to read.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
Bentpan: Look, people have brought up this issue time and time again but there is no real response to it yet so I’ll ask just one more time: Divorce rates in this country float around 50 percent. Do your morals and values allow for the destruction of a marriage through divorce?
Bentpan 1 year ago
DoubleHeroides I don't know what you want me to say, is divorce a bad thing, of course it is, it shatters families and frequently leaves the children without that feeling of certainty and security that would lead them to a lifelong commited relationship, but I honestly fail to see the connection of one to the other. Is traditional marriage in crisis for many? Yes, does that mean we should abandon it, I don't think so, but I'm a little biased, I've been married to a great woman for 26 years and hope for a lot more.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
My point Bentpan is that if there is already an existing law against gay marriage in this state then the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is already protected. If the issue isn't about personal rights but more about protecting marriage then why aren't you concentrated more on protecting marriage by preventing divorce through legislation instead of defending government redundancy?
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
And my question was whether your current set of morals and beliefs allow for the idea of divorce to exist as a moral and defensible action? Because if so, as you just stated, divorce harms traditional marriage. It is an issue for your argument because it creates the idea that you are not consistent.
Bentpan 1 year ago
The courts have overruled the peoples intent over and over, Prop 8 in calf. is a prime example, A clear majority in one of the most liberal state in the union stated their wishes and an activist court ignored them, An amendment is very necessary and I'm certain it will not only pass but pass with an indesputable majority. As for legeslating divorce, how do you propose we do that, force people to stay together ( not possible nor advisible ) make divorce cumbersome and difficult ( I believe thats already the case) provide a cooling off period ( I believe there is a one year waiting period from time of legal separation) so it seems there is deterent legislation in place for those seeking a divorce.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
I am not advocating for or against divorce or the process, for obtaining a divorce, nor at any point have we discussed any similar amendments in other states or associated action by any courts. Again, my point is that you have stated that things that erode or harm traditional marriage are not moral because you are moral and you support the defense of traditional marriage. I think we can both agree on that assessment.
Therefore if we already protect marriage through an existing law that no one has challenged or wanted to change in all the decades it has been a law in North Carolina why then would we 1) want to bring attention to the law and possibly have it changed? 2) Worry any more about it and instead concentrate on other ways to protect traditional marriage.
Further, if we are admitting as you stated that there can and often are (as evidenced by divorce rates) issues in traditional marriages, for all the good marriages (such as yours) there seem to be an equal number of bad ones. How do we account for the numbers telling us that traditional marriage is only 50 percent good in the first place?
Bentpan 1 year ago
DoubleHeroides "How do we account for the numbers telling us that traditional marriage is only 50 percent good in the first place? "
Part of the problem could be your focusing on the now rather than marriages history, over the course of the last 20+ centuries marriage has to be considered a huge success, The last 50 years not so much, but my take is that we as individuals have become so selfish and in such need of instant gratification that marriage an institution based on sharing ( giving all to another) is entered into with the cavalier attitude of we'll see what happens rather than a real commitment to build a life together, It's my hope this is just a cycle and that we as a people will regain those values.
Bentpan 1 year ago
DoubleHeroides, It has been a genuine pleasure having this debate with you but unfortunately I must return to work. I look forward to further "talks" with you.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
I agree with you on that last post wholeheartedly. I too got a lot out of our discussion and I’m sure we’ll “talk” to each other sometime on another issue!
PBinNC 1 year ago
Interesting discussion, but on the old topic, not the one this column addressed. Must say I laughed out loud when I read the comment about people not attaching their names to the Editorial, about which these folks continue to comment. I guess the one who commented about the anonymous Editorial doesn't read many editorials because I don't recall ever seeing one attributed to a single individual, i.e., signed.
getreal 1 year ago
It is unbelievable that all of this bigotry and debate, the support of denying equal rights for a certain segment of the population is all based on the "Bible" and "God's" word. Which "God" are you referring to? Is your's the only "God" out there? How do you know that for a fact? Does your "God" talk to you? Does he text you or email? If you stand back and look at this whole mess of an amendment, it is based on people's beliefs, be they real or imagined. Be they factual or fantasy. The basis of the beliefs have never, ever, been proved to be fact and are based on a book of fairytales. Man's fear of death and the unknown has brought about diverse and varied religious beliefs that have caused more hate, death and destruction than any other force known to man. All for what? The argument that "My imaginary friend is better then your imaginary friend?" Everyone who pays their fair share of taxes and contributes to society, deserves the same rights as everyone else. This is America, that is why you have the freedom to choose a religion in the first place. If you feel so strongly that what people do in the privacy of their homes should be the basis for rejection and lack of rights, then , please by all means, do not collect taxes from them and make up the difference from your own pockets! What other people do, as long as it does not harm you, is their business not yours or anyone who holds up a Bible to hide behind and discriminate!
Bentpan 1 year ago
getreal 6 hours, 9 minutes ago It is unbelievable that all of this bigotry and debate, the support of denying equal rights for a certain segment of the population is all based on the "Bible" and "God's" word. Getreal if you had bothered to read this thread before going on your anti religion temper tantrum you would have seen nowhere is the bible, god or even religion in general discussed or even mentioned . For myself I am in fact a social moderate ( who BTW is not a christian ) who sees gay marriage as a radical fringe issue. But I'm sure your lack of respect for the beliefs of others and your bigotry makes you a sage adviser ( in case you missed it, thats sarcasim )
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
@Getreal: Bentpan is right, we never touched on religion at all in our discussion.
geoffcutler 1 year ago
Anyone who reads a newspaper should understand what an editorial is, and how it differs from the rest of the Opinion page. What I love about this piece, is the headline. Very funny! And we could use a little laughter around here. Good one, Steve!
JD 1 year ago
@Bedpan "your focusing on the now rather than marriages history"
You are focusing on a work of fiction written by desert people.
getreal 1 year ago
Bentpan, I was referring to all the articles that have appeared in this newspaper, not just this particular one. You cannot deny that the word of "God" has been mentioned many, many times on this subject, and used to explain the reason to vote for this biased amendment.
Bentpan 1 year ago
getreal 38 minutes ago Bentpan, I was referring to all the articles that have appeared in this newspaper, not just this particular one. You cannot deny that the word of "God" has been mentioned many, many times on this subject, and used to explain the reason to vote for this biased amendment.
I've also read at least 1 column and 2 letters where god was used to as a reason to vote against this amendment, what's at issue now is your ( and Vipers ) apparent hatred and bigotry towards christians. and to be honest I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you. In this aspect of the debate I have no dog in the fight and with your narrowminded view of society as a whole. it really is akin to talking to the proverbial wall.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
@ JD: Slow down a minute, I may be incorrect but I am assuming that the “work of fiction written by desert people” that you are referring to is the Bible. Again, while Bentpan and I do not agree on the issue of Amendment One, in our discussion above and truly in any discussion that I have seem him comment on in other articles regarding Amendment One Bentpan has always staunchly held that their stance is not based upon religious principles. A discussion of morality or a moral believe does not have to be tied to a religious belief.
@getreal You are correct, religious arguments have played a role in the discussion of Amendment One by others however they did not play a role in this one between Bentpan and I.
debsalomon 1 year ago
Let me play the dummy on this one. I respect and admire the religious beliefs and thoughtful discourse on this subject. But I must have missed one very important fact: How does allowing gay people marry threaten heterosexual unions? Are you afraid that Tom and Betty who have been friends with Frank and Ann for ages will suddenly regroup as Tom and Frank and Betty and Ann just because it's legal? Are you worried that Dottie and Bob, engaged to be married in June, will say hey...wait a minute. Maybe Dottie should look around the office for a cute gal and Bob should pick up some guy at the golf course. Seems like traditional people who want traditional marriages will go for it, no matter who shows up at the wedding chapel across the road. Furthermore, and much dummier, the laws being debated refer to civil licenses to wed, I presume. The law cannot force a clergyman to marry a gay couple. So those who object so vociferously should turn their rhetoric toward the churches rather than the government. Please don't jump on me too hard. The world needs a few dummies to balance the preachers.
FightFireWithFire 1 year ago
Bingo, Deb. But one thing you left out. The people in the government are using the church, and religion, so we do need to jump on them. The church is something that people are now using to back their beliefs.
Bentpan 1 year ago
debsalomon 36 minutes ago Let me play the dummy on this one. I respect and admire the religious beliefs and thoughtful discourse on this subject. But I must have missed one very important fact: How does allowing gay people marry threaten heterosexual unions? .................................................................... You're being deliberately obtuse, Homosexuality while tolerated by society ( as it should be ) is not accepted by mainstream society. Most including myself see it as aberrant human behavior, it is neither healthy nor normal. That is not to say homosexuals are evil or are lesser human beings but to mainstream and normalise what is clearly a sexual disfunction is a wrong (or threat as you put it ) against society as a whole. As I've said before traditional Marriage is the bedrock of not just our society but all civilised society for over 2000 years,.
Arestorer 1 year ago
That is not to say homosexuals are evil or are lesser human beings but to mainstream and normalise what is clearly a sexual disfunction is a wrong (or threat as you put it ) against society as a whole.; Sounds just like the argument against inter-racial marriges in the 50's.
Bentpan 1 year ago
Arestorer 4 minutes ago "Sounds just like the argument against inter-racial marriges in the 50's." As if the issue wasn't complex enough for you, now you want to drag a 60 yo race card into it. how about debating the issue at hand ?
debsalomon 1 year ago
Bentpan: Best be careful with words like dysfunction, normalize, aberrant, mainstream and bedrock. They are subjective, open to interpretation. What is your bedrock is another person's flying carpet. The world is big enough to accommodate a variety of lifestyles, without discrimination. Which would you rather have as neighbors ... a married man who is addicted to crack cocaine, beats his wife and abuses his children or a happy, productive gay couple who has adopted two special-needs children and require the benefits of marriage to care for them? Marriage does not guarantee anything except divorce nearly 50 percent of the time. I'm done.
Bentpan 1 year ago
debsalomon
"Which would you rather have as neighbors ... a married man who is addicted to crack cocaine, beats his wife and abuses his children or a happy, productive gay couple who has adopted two special-needs children and require the benefits of marriage to care for them?"
What is it with you people and extreem polar fantasy scenarios, you have no real rebuttal so you come up with nonsense..........As for;.. "dysfunction, normalize, aberrant, mainstream and bedrock. They are subjective, open to interpretation". no they are not subjective and open to interpretation, that's just you attempting to deflect the conversation. And....."I'm done." is you cutting and running,
clodfelter37 1 year ago
If this ammendment passes we will find ourselves in a big mess. The attorneys will love it because they will be getting many $$$$. The ammendment is not needed and we do not need to be messing with the constitution.
AM910 1 year ago
clodfelter just hit the point. This amendment, if passed, is going to cost the state MILLIONS of dollars in legal fees - and the state is close to broke as it is. And if everyone is so passionate about this amendment passing, get ready for the Divorce Amendment - it will be pushed.
JER 1 year ago
So bentpan, does your "traditional marriage" include a guide to what activities are permitted between the man and the woman? Since you find lovemaking between gay couples "aberrant human behavior", how do you feel about oral and/or anal intercourse between a man and a woman. Anything repulsive about that in your view? How about masturbation? Did Jesus give you the go-ahead on that?
JER 1 year ago
This is a reply to geoffcutler and is a carryover from a thread that came to an end before I could reply to his comments about me. To refresh his memory, the post in question included the following comment: "... just do something besides whine about our military, the flaws you see in our constitution, or how not enough is being done for you. Just do something...anything."
Your inference in that post is that you are a giver and I am not. We know you are a giver because you spent a entire column and several follow up posts describing just how much you give. We get it Geoff, you are a big humanitarian because you told us what a big humanitarian you are. Real humanitarians don't spend a lot of ink telling everyone how wonderful they are. They just quietly and privately go about doing it. As a result, you have no freaking idea what any of us give of our time and funds. What I have to say about our military is far from a "whine". The military needs to be brought back home and the individuals who have committed atrocities need to be prosecuted. If there are no flaws in the constitution, why do we have so many amendments to it? Were you in favor of slavery? Did you think women should not vote? Why I believe that it is you that is in favor of adding an amendment to the NC constitution. And I have no idea what the hell you are talking about when you make idiotic comments about wanting anything done for me. When have I ever said anything even close to that? When you run out of ideas, you make stuff up.
LSM 1 year ago
"But I must have missed one very important fact: How does allowing gay people marry threaten heterosexual unions? "
Quite simply, with homosexual marriage the law, then the preaching or stating of parts of the Bible would become hate speech. This has hapenened in Canada, Great Britain, and other places. So at the cost of allowing one minority group of people a protected right, another right (free speech) will be taken away. This is actually the very purpose of all this, and has nothing to do with "love".
geoffcutler 1 year ago
Poor JER....You're incessant personal attacks will get a response. Get used to it!
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
@LSM if your contention is that by adopting this amendment it could result in Christians facing lawsuits and criminal action for “hate speech” because those Christians against homosexuals and homosexuals marriages are expressing their particular religious views all because the amendment was included in the constitution when homosexual marriage is already against the law wouldn’t you then want to vote against it. Would that not preserve the already existing law against gay marriage but also help prevent, in your mind, the possibility of Christians being persecuted? By that logic it sounds like you should vote against Amendment One.
LSM 1 year ago
Laws are always being changed, whittled away by different political manuvers. A little bit different with a Constitutional Amendment. Sad one has to do this to protect against one's rights.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
@LSM I will admit that I misunderstood your post when I responded to it just then, looking back at it my post doesn't hold up too well, but all that aside I’m curious if you could provide some specific cases from other countries where the preaching of religious beliefs against homosexuality has constituted hate speech and it has been litigated. There was a time not too long ago that the KKK marched in Carthage very loud and proud and I don’t seem to recall anyone arresting them for hate speech and I don’t know anyone that defends their actions. Freedom of speech will still be alive and well if this amendment does not pass (mainly because everything will literally stay the same) or even if homosexual marriage is ever allowed in this state (at some future time unknown to me or anyone else).
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
Further, if your argument is that this amendment will preserve your right as a Christian and a citizen of this state to continue to speak out against homosexuals and their lifestyles would that preclude me from defending them? If we need an amendment restricting the ability of citizens to get married based on a biological condition outside of their hands or a private lifestyle decision they chose in order to preserve your right to expression how does that jive with everything else that people speak out against? At what point does a law enacted by the state mean that you cannot speak out against the law itself. That seems to fly in the face of America and our ability to organize and make changes to our government. It just doesn’t make sense.
Bentpan 1 year ago
DoubleHeroides That seems to fly in the face of America and our ability to organize and make changes to our government. It just doesn’t make sense.
I know this wasn't your intention but isn't this the essence of an amendment passed not by politicions but by the people.
Bentpan 1 year ago
JER , I finally get it, while the rest of us are talking about concepts like Values, Morality, Tradition, your contribution is oral and anal sex followed by masturbation. I truly understand now, where many understand these concepts and have them as an important part of their lives along with Honor, Charactor, Duty, Integrity. To you and some of your brethern on these threads, they are sadly just words with no more import than any other part of your vocabulary.
Bentpan 1 year ago
Tell me does anybody know if you type with one finger, can you get tunnel metacarpal syndrome?
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
@Bentpan: The point was that LSM contended that if homosexual marriages were legal (at some point) then when a Christian or Christian group stood up and publicly decried homosexuality as amoral or against God or evil (whatever stance they want to take on it) they could be charged with a hate crime or hate speech. Thus, contends LSM, in order to preserve his / her right to free speech in order to continue to speak out against gay marriage as being wrong we should adopt this amendment. My counter argument was that what LSM said didn’t make any sense in the face of how free speech and hate speech work or at least my understanding of it.
And to address your underlying point of “if the majority votes it in then surely it is the will of the people and must be the law of the land” I go back to what I said to you on another article on this issue: Just because the majority votes for something doesn’t make it right, moral or correct. To quote my own mother again on this topic “if everyone jumped off a bridge….”
Arestorer 1 year ago
Bentpan20 hours, 39 minutes ago
Arestorer 4 minutes ago "Sounds just like the argument against inter-racial marriges in the 50's." As if the issue wasn't complex enough for you, now you want to drag a 60 yo race card into it. how about debating the issue at hand ?
Ignorant Predjustice........Is what I saw then and what I see now...
Bentpan 1 year ago
DoubleHeroides I understood your point thats why I prefaced it with "I know this wasn't your intention" but surely you can't argue that a society has no right of self determination, to determine the form and values that all agree to live by, we are not talking adolescents doing something stupid in a schoolyard. These are the involved (voting) adult citizen from all stratum of the society you live in. It is not only their right but a duty to set limits and provide a framework that meets the needs and values of that society.
Bentpan 1 year ago
Arestorer "Ignorant Predjustice..."
FWI it's spelled- prejudice-, if you're going to refer to someone or a group as ignorant, it's usually a good idea to spell the very next word correctly, otherwise It kind of loses it's punch, hope this helps.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
@Bentpan: That’s correct, society has a right to self determination. That is also why we have a constitution, to establish the baseline for our society. If something new comes along that wasn’t specifically spelled out or is not commonly understood to comply with the constitution there needs to be a system of checks and balances to evaluate if the new thing or idea conforms to the established norms of the constitution. That’s what the courts are for.
Now, having said that and I think (hope) we can agree on that statement, the question becomes at what point does a majority systematically or wholly changing the fundamental principles of a society (changing the constitution) be classified as the natural ebb and flow and evolution of society versus a (and this could be any issue, I’m speaking generally here) possibly misguided idea that has sprung up in the collective mob consciousness.
I don’t really have an answer to that. Women got the right to vote through a constitutional amendment and that was great, dictators rise to power through parliamentary action or the will of the people and that turns out bad. The road goes both ways, unfortunately what side of the road something like that is on is a matter of opinion and something that the historians might be the only ones to figure out.
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
Remember, historically communism rose to prevalence in some countries as a “people’s movement” of the masses, the majority. I’m not equating or linking Amendment One to communism because that would make me an idiot, but on the topic of self-determination in society is it always okay for a government to do something so long as the majority of people agree with it?
Bentpan 1 year ago
DoubleHeroides I do in fact agree with much if not most of what you say, but I have, shall we say faith, in my fellow citizens, to do the right thing. As for ........................................ "systematically or wholly changing the fundamental principles of a society" Isn't that what gay marriage support is about? We who support Amendment 1 are trying to preserve those fundamental principles of our society.
getreal 1 year ago
Hey Bentpan, I'll tell you what, why don't you tell us all what you and your wife do sexually in the privacy your own home? Then the public can decide if it is "normal" in their opinion or not. If it is decided it is not what some of us consider "normal" you should have your rights taken away, as you propose for others. I personally could not consider taking away another's rights based on what I consider is the norm, but you would. I enjoy reading your replies to my and other's posts. You never answer relevant questions directed towards you and you twist our words to suit your view on the subject. You remind me of a poor magician trying to fool the audience. I will never change my opinion and nether will you. My opinion however will not hurt the rights of others, your's will. I hope you will never have to experience the rejection and loss of rights you want to impose on people you do not even know. Please read the 10th amendment, it promises EGUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL UNDER THE LAW. Now that is a good amendment!
Arestorer 1 year ago
Bentpan2 hours, 2 minutes ago;; Oh but you knew exactly what I was talking about, didnt ya? No reply? You think whats happening now,is not"Prejudice"?
Bentpan 1 year ago
Getreal " I personally could not consider taking away another's rights based on what I consider is the norm"........................................................... Tell me getreal, do homosexuals currently have the right of NC state recognised marriage? NO, so what "right" is being taken away?
Bentpan 1 year ago
Arestorer I already addressed your post, if you want to stay on topic thats fine, but I'm not following you out into the land of destraction.
Arestorer 1 year ago
Do you mean, Why the Editorial was not signed??? Or the other land of destaction, that you went off on?? Listen"weed",you dont rule this blog space..I'll talk about whatever I want to bring up.Ya'll the ones that got off topic..
Bentpan 1 year ago
Arestorer you are absolutly right you may discuss what ever you wish, but your post was directed to me, so if your not interested in my response, refrain from directing posts to me in the future. I believe you'll be much happier, though I would like to know one thing, what does "weed" mean?
getreal 1 year ago
Bentpan, 11 minutes ago. Ok, then tell me why this amendment is so important? If the rights are already being denied why do we need this one? BTW you never answered my question from another post on another letter. Are you willing to take money out of your own pocket and pay the taxes now paid by people denied their rights in this state? They are being taxed and denied the breaks you are entitled to just because they are not recognized as a "married" couple. They shouldn't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us because they are not enjoying the same rights. Please make your check payable to "those who feel superior and entitled".
LSM 1 year ago
Here is an example of the Canadian Government and anti-gay hate speech. http://usspost.com/canada-anti-gay-speech-43206/
Here in the United States hate crime laws are already in effect, and the country has a President and Attorney General ready to use them for political gain.
Attorney General Talks About Hate Crimes at LGBT Safe Schools Conference
Filed By Karen Ocamb | March 20, 2012 5:30
http://www.bilerico.com/2012/03/attorney_general_talks_about_hate_crimes_at_lgbt_s.php
JohnChappell 1 year ago
Now that the question of taxes has been raised, it made me wonder how many agree with the early founders on "no taxation without representation."
If you don't have a vote, you don't have to pay taxes.
If we went along with the founders we could solve illegal immigration. If felons and undocumented residents got a break on taxes, I bet it wouldn't be long before there was a move to legalize them, because the state and the nation could sure use the money.
Bentpan 1 year ago
Actually Mr Chappell the Founders' federal government (A) levied no income tax untill 1913 ( their primary income being derived from tarrifs) (B) allowed only landowners to vote (not sure when that changed). And Illegal immigrants currently cost the federal government in excess of $25 billion dollars annualy and that figure is dwarfed by the collective costs to individual states.