Column Targeted Only One Side

As of Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Given the political tenor of The Pilot, it isn’t surprising that Steve Bouser’s column (Feb. 8) disproportionately singled out the present Republican slate of presidential candidates by disparagingly likening their quests to become president as nothing more cerebral than that of “reality TV” show contestants.

What part of Barack Obama’s Democratic nomination acceptance in Denver, and his ultimate presidential victory in Chicago, was not a full embrace of “American Idol”?

The Doric columns, the Hollywood entertainment roster, the Bruce Springsteen concert, an adoring audience mesmerized by a rainmaker not seen since Burt Lancaster in a movie by the same name? Was there a scintilla of “genuine political process” in that almost two-year exercise of a presidential election last time around?

Does “truth matter(s)” in his 2012 State of the Union speech, riddled with its inaccuracies and misinformation? Is his snide use of clever sound bites and divisive rhetoric analyzed as a tactic designed to mislead the public, or does it translate into his “talking in relatively gentlemanly fashion,” about class warfare? How much of the Obama presidency is itself a “reality TV” show?

No strangers to the scene, the mainstream media have successfully employed their scorched-earth policy aimed at the Republican candidates. Debate questions are designed to personalize, belittle and visually antagonize the contestants, ergo the “reality.”

Disdain for the Republican side is palpable, resulting thus far in keeping the pressure off Obama’s dismal record and failed policies, and harping on the politics of personal annihilation, which became so popular with the advent of Carville and Begala in 1992.

The Pilot has merely taken another page out of their Clinton playbook by characterizing the Republican slate of presidential candidates as nothing better than a poor choice from an even more degrading phenomenon known as “reality TV.”

Jane Fagan

Pinehurst

More like this story

bufordsplay 1 year, 3 months ago

You are absolutely right Jane. Despite the fact that the President is a liar and a thief, we have the dumbest vice President in history and yet the media gives both a pass.

AFCHIEF 1 year, 3 months ago

READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY

The Quote of the Decade:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006!

BUT HERE IS GETTING A FREE PASS AGAIN

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

How about the pass they're getting from the media, and the public, for that matter, on the price of gas. Saw on Fox News this morning (Fox haters begin pulling hair out), that the price of gas when the president took office was about $1.84 per gallon. Now it's up 93% to between $3.50 and $4.00 depending on grade and where you live. And nary a word. Anybody remember the abuse the Bush administration got when the price of a gallon of gas rose like this? Outrage is apparently selective depending on whether the resident of the White House is a Republican or a Democrat. Anyone surprised?

OldSpook 1 year, 3 months ago

AFChief, well done! As instructed I read that slowly and carefully. I also about hurt myself laughing when I read who made that statement. However, we have become a nation weakened by an entitlement mentality. Our debt will continue to grow as long as the majority continue to sell themselves into slavery by accepting the charity of their "benelovent" government masters.

jgc 1 year, 3 months ago

Jane, the reason the Republican candidates are singled out is because it is the "only game in town", the Democrats are not going through this political circus that continues to reach new lows every election cycle. I was recently in Florida on business and several people I talked with were so worn out from the mudslinging and personal assaults, they were disgusted with the entire charade and were becoming alienated from the whole political process. That is the real red flag and danger in today's political climate (I can't wait for it to be our turn on the primary calendar--it will be time to do more reading and avoid the TV and radio airwaves)

Both sides are equally guilty of what unfortunately has become our perverse election process. I'd bet the ranch that if both parties were going through a primary process, the performance would be the same for both sides in equal levels if shame.

Unfortunately, after starting with a great opening, you go off course and blast the President with opinion and attacks-which is your right and I respect that, but it results in a lost opportunity.

Rather than getting comments on how embarrassing and shameful the politcal process has become, which would make an interesting forum for all political pundits who write on this page, you've thrown out red meat to the conservatives to rehash the same complaints/attacks on the president, which I've read ad nauseum from them in recent weeks. Once again, no problem with that and at times fun, but a fresh discussion on the sad state of affairs of the overall process would have been a better read

jimt 1 year, 3 months ago

Well, it is my hope and dream that the "Mainstream Media" gets behind Rick Santorum. I hope Democrats in open primary states will vote for Santorum in droves.

Santorum v. Obama gives two clear choices regarding the direction of the Country.

Further, it greatly simplifies things for me. I think the Country could survive Romney and still be a Country I'm comfortable in, even though I think, if I believe his rhetoric, he and I disagree just about on everything. Not so with Santorum. He's a theocratic right-wing home schooling fundamentalist true believer. If he wins, Costa del Sol of Spain here I come!

I know, I know, the righties will say "good riddance," or "love America or leave it." And I'll be doing the second case if Santorum wins, so relax, don't get your hatred up. I already know all about it.

Hey Dusty, I've seen quite a number of "Hillsdale College" sweatshirts among the young people standing behind Gingrich or Santorum while they're speaking. Do you think TAP has one too?

moonchild7 1 year, 3 months ago

The reason Geoff that the price of oil/gasoline is going up has NOTHING to do what-so-ever with Supply and Demand. It has to do with the OIL SPECULATORS( Hedge Funds, Wall Street) such as the extremely Conservative KOCH BROS. The American people (the 99%) are being Robbed and Used by the Very wealthy capitalists and corporations.(the 1%). Can't any of you guys see that?

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

The comment had nothing to do with why the price is so high, just the fact that it is, and Obama getting a media pass that Bush didn't. And jimt, do you write those gags all by yourself?

Courseaire 1 year, 3 months ago

MC7 - I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Maybe if I can get a hold of some of those paranoia pills, I'll be enlightened. Would you be so kind and send your suppliers contact info?

moonchild7 1 year, 3 months ago

Sorry Geoff, I guess I don't read as well as I used to. You were aware that George and Dick were Texas "OIL MEN" weren't you? As in the HIGHER the price of gas the MORE MOOLAH they could make and also it's a sorta well known FACT that if you start a war in an OIL RICH country(especially one you know you can win)then you just might make even more money for yourself and your cronies, so, NO PRESS PASS ALLOWED FOR HIM OR DICK.

jimt 1 year, 3 months ago

Yep Geoff, all by myself. Why? Should I refer that you need help to craft your prose?

Clearly your memory isn't so hot either. I gave you a long tutorial that marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, according to every state constitution and the British "common law," that provided the Framer's starting point when drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You still don't get that. Instead you still refer to "Holy Matrimony," as your basis for opposing gay marriage. The only thing that makes matrimony "holy," is a decision by the couple to have their marriage blessed by whatever religious affiliation they belong to IN ADDITION to being recognized by the State in which they reside, and up until recently when Conservative judicial and legislative activists decided in an act of "Amittere legem terraeto ," to rewrite over two hundred years of legal precedent in this Country, that being that a marriage in one state HAD to be recognized by ALL the other States, by stipulating that gay marriage was an exception. What's my proof, you might ask? It's quite simple; until the actions of conservative activists, a couple married in a civil ceremony was just as legally married in the view of every State in the Union as a matter of settled law, as a couple married in a Church, Temple, Mosque, or any other religious facility--"ipso facto," my friend.

For what it is worth, which I'm sure in your case is absolutely nothing since you seem to be a firm believer that law is nothing more than what you happen to agree with at the moment and therefore every Court decision you disagree with can either be ignored or used as a political wedge issue, this logic train is precisely why well-known conservative attorney and former "W" legal official, Ted Olson joined with David Boise, to argue for the overturn of Prop 8. Ironic isn't it, that you and every other opponent of legal gay marriage are acting in EXACTLY the same way for which you deride liberals?

AFCHIEF 1 year, 3 months ago

MC7, the USA has a chance to reduce oil dependency from foreign countries. But your boy Obama is playing politics as usual and won't pass the Keystone oil pipeline project. Costing thousands of jobs and a reduction of 8% of oil having to be imported. THANKS OBAMA, we all know you can afford $3.70 a gallon for gas.

Arestorer 1 year, 3 months ago

Wouldnt a pipe-line from another country still be importing ?? CHIEF

jimt 1 year, 3 months ago

Actually, AFCHIEF, the U.S. process for routing and doing environmental impact studies for oil piplines was short-circuited by Republican legislators who attached their preferred route, even absent e.i.s., in violation of current U.S. law, to a completely. Also consider the following from "TEXAS ON THE POTOMAC"

"Senate Republicans try to attach Keystone pipeline approval to highway-funding legislation

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., left, accompanied by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., center, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated Tuesday Republicans would push for a vote on a transportation bill amendment that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

The amendment co-sponsored by McConnell, R-Ky., GOP Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota and several others would approve the TransCanada Corp. oil pipeline from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries... It’s one of a number of amendments Republicans have floated for a bill that would reauthorize surface-transportation programs for two years.

A similar effort by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to tuck it into the highway bill during a Senate Finance Committee vote was shot down when Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., ruled the amendment non-germane.

Moreover, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., balked Tuesday at what he viewed as efforts by Republicans to slow down consideration of the chamber’s surface-transportation bill with amendments he said weren’t germane.

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives...has already made similar pipeline-approving language part of its five-year surface-transportation legislation, which President Obama has threatened to veto.

Senate Republicans...don’t appear to be letting up as they seek to circumvent the Obama administration’s denial of a permit for the project on Jan. 18. They have long claimed the project would create thousands of jobs and the resulting pipeline would bring much-needed oil from a friendly neighbor in Canada. Pipeline opponents call those notions exaggerated."

So when, as a matter of political strategy, one side starts attaching non-germane proposals to other bills, just who is "playing politics?"

They knew Obama would veto the Transportation Bill if the pipeline language was attached, and the Republicans went forward so they could campaign on the issue.

Oh, and AF, Canada is NOT part of the U.S., you dolt, so even with an increased flow of their oil there would not be "...a reduction of 8% of oil having to be imported." In fact, this pipeline would increase the amount of foreign oil we import.

justmyopinion 1 year, 3 months ago

"The reason Geoff that the price of oil/gasoline is going up has NOTHING to do what-so-ever with Supply and Demand. It has to do with the OIL SPECULATORS( Hedge Funds, Wall Street) such as the extremely Conservative KOCH BROS"

Explain this in further detail not jus the DNC version you wrote on here. Lets hear the complete explanation of how supply and demand doesn't affect gas prices? Explain in detail how a Hedge Fund effects the price of gas? What role does Wall Street play in it? Do you know or just mouthing off as usual. Based on what you wrote, No, I don't get it. So please explain...... This should be interesting...........

skylinefirepest 1 year, 3 months ago

Maybe all you non-thinkers will agree that while it is still importing...it is NOT importing from countries that hate us!!! Comprende??? Huge difference to our national security, which Obama apparently doesn't bother to consider. The media loves Obama and their stories reflect it. And by the way, Moonie, I never read even in the left media where Bush and Chaney being oil men ever had anything to do with the price of gas! Maybe you can enlighten us??

Courseaire 1 year, 3 months ago

NC Constitution on Marriage: A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:

(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and

b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or

(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe

moonchild7 1 year, 3 months ago

Read this and WEEP justmyopinion: WSJ 12-14-11, "Explaining High Oil Prices" by Christian Berthelsen.

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

Jimt, your memory isn't too hot, either, since I've told you before, I'm not against same -sex marriage. But you only hear what you want to, and then proceed with your tutorials as if you were tenured or something.

Thatcher 1 year, 3 months ago

MC7-- Most liberals like to state their distain for "foreign oil." Reality? Unlike conservatives, liberals distain ANY oil. Solar? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/. It simply does not work to produce efficient and affordable energy. Electric cars? http://www.dailytech.com/January+Chevrolet+Volt+Sales+Plunge/article23917.htm. And since most liberals oppose nuclear power, electricity for electric cars must come primarily from coal-fired plants. Then there's this: pollution-wise, electric cars are worse than SUVs: http://io9.com/5885802/electric-cars-could-cause-worse-pollution-than-your-gas-guzzler. How about high-speed rail (trains)? http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/more-failure-obamas-high-speed-rail-plans/291886. Or: http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/281953/californias-high-speed-fail-system-doubles-cost-greg-pollowitz. Hope that helps. P.S. Don't sell your car.

jimt 1 year, 3 months ago

"jimt, your memory isn't too hot, either, since I've told you before, I'm not against same -sex marriage. "

Not so Geoff. You want it put to a state or national referendum. I argue it's a fundamental right with a long history of precedents flowing from the both the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14th Amendment. We don't put fundamental legal and social rights up for popular vote. We're a Nation predicated on "majority rule," yes, but also "minority rights."

Further, you still keep referring to marriage as "holy matrimony." It's hardly a stretch for me or others to conclude that in your mind marriage is a religious undertaking. So I have to keep reminding you that it's a "contract."

Coursaire, "NC Constitution on Marriage: A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry."

When was this clause written into the State Constitution? If it predates the enactment of the 14th Amendment, I would argue it is null and void, if and when tested by a Federal Court (excluding perhaps, the Supreme Court so long as the conservative judicial activists remain the majority). If you're so certain that this clause ends the debate in North Carolina over same-sex marriage, why are we being asked to vote on another Amendment to the State Constitution this coming May?

I might point out the NC Constitution still has a clause requiring elected officials to be subject to a religious test:

"Sec. 6. Eligibility to elective office.

Every qualified voter in North Carolina who is 21 years of age, except as in this Constitution disqualified, shall be eligible for election by the people to office."

"Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

I have no doubt that this Clause, if it was part of the original writing of the Constitution, was intended to rule-out Office by anyone other than White Protestants. But under our current "enlightenment" Catholics, Jews, even, heaven forbid, Muslims, could qualify for Office under this Clause. But not atheists, not agnostics.

Wanna take any bets Coursaire on whether this disqualification for office would survive a challenge in Federal Court? Wanna bet $10,000? Or are you, like Perry, "not in the betting business?"

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

jimt, I referred to marriage as holy matrimony? When? You'll have to show me where I said that, otherwise I'll have to assume you've hitched a ride on Moon's lunar shuttle. My argument has never been against same-sex marriage. It's been against the process that has tried to achieve it.

jimt 1 year, 3 months ago

Cutler:" jimt, I referred to marriage as holy matrimony? When? You'll have to show me where I said that, otherwise I'll have to assume you've hitched a ride on Moon's lunar shuttle."

Geoff, I just finished checking your collected comments of the last two weeks. Couldn't find you referring to marriage as "holy matrimony." So, whoever it was that referred to marriage recently as "holy matrimony" see what I wrote (mistakenly) to Cutler to put you in your place!!

Moon, any room on that shuttle?

teufelhunden 1 year, 3 months ago

OldSpook-you speak volumes!!! That is soooooo true!

Thatcher 1 year, 3 months ago

jimt-- What a gracious thing to do! Make a mistake, admit the mistake, and do so clearly and with added humor! Congrats to you! Wish others here would have the same mind-set when they make a mistake or post things that they later discover are incorrect. I owe you a beer!

moonchild7 1 year, 3 months ago

Well, Thatcher, I'm not against OIL per se, since it is really a very important commodity. It's the TOTAL "mismanagement/corruption" of the industry and our ENERGY needs in America that has bothered me the most. In that article I mentioned previously America now EXPORTS more Diesel Fuel than we import. And while the worlds DEMAND for OIL is growing every day, ours has dropped. I don't know your age but if you were one of those who had to get up in the middle of the nite to get in line for gas back in the 70's maybe you'd "understand" my disdain a little better. Life Experience is supposed to influence a person's opinion's and my opinion ever since has not been good. I was young, married and attending college with little money. The cost of gasoline doubled and I heated my home with OIL. It got very expensive and I even ran out on a cold winter nite because I didn't have enough money to pay for the 100 gallons they required. Had to borrow from a friend, and yes I did repay them. Houses and buildings use more energy than autos/trucks. If every home and commercial building had at minimum a Solar Hot Water Heater the drop in our energy needs would be tremendous. Reagan took the solar panels for the hot water heaters off the roof of the White House after Jimmy Carter had had them installed. What a doofus. And I take the train often to NYC to visit with my son. Can't wait for the High Speed Rail since it will cut several hours off the trip.

AFCHIEF 1 year, 3 months ago

MC7, mismanagement of our energy needs. Kind of like Obama handing out a couple BILLION DOLLARS of OUR TAX PAYER money to companys like Solyandra that are now bankrupt.

Yukonjohn 1 year, 3 months ago

First off, Jimt,good job. I appreciate a man that can stand up and admit that they have made a mistake!!

Second, I am no fan of President Obama. To my way of thinking, he is doing the exact opposite on almost everything he has attempted.

The reason the Republicans have been made to look like clowns, is because they ARE!!!! Other than Ron Paul, they are all poor imposters of someone that would make even a bad President!!

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

Jimt, that was funny. Moon's shuttle departure and arrival times, however, are unpredictable and somewhat erratic, so you'll want to call ahead to check seat availabilty and lift-off schedules. Appreciate your acknowledgement of the mistake. Have a safe trip!

Courseaire 1 year, 3 months ago

jimt - You stated: "I gave you a long tutorial that marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, according to every state constitution and the British "common law," that provided the Framer's starting point when drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" I just posted what the NC Constitution states (I haven't checked other states) and it clearly states marriage between male & female (doesn't even mention "holy"). I also like your mea culpa. And let's not forget that our own greedy, evil, corrupt Texas & Oklahoma oilmen are the only reason for the high gas prices. Place blame where it's due. Where does the shuttle depart, I may want a ride.

nothingspecial 1 year, 3 months ago

Fact is Bush's stance on oil led to cheaper gas which most helped our poorer Americans. President Obama's stance on oil is raising the cost of oil, for a number of reasons, which is most hurting our poorest Americans when they need the help the most. Fact is there is no viable transportation fuel alternative to oil other than to conserve it all we can, and produce all we can so we can't be blackmailed.

justmyopinion 1 year, 3 months ago

Read this and WEEP justmyopinion: WSJ 12-14-11, "Explaining High Oil Prices" by Christian Berthelsen.

MC7- I read it but as I thought, it didn't back your argument. The first 3/4 talked supply and demand. The remaining merely explained how supply and demand and the fear of supply and demand moved prices.

"Can't any of you guys see that? " MC7 says. NO, I still dont see what your saying and YOU still can't explain it to us

skylinefirepest 1 year, 3 months ago

Without a secure source of oil and refinery capability the very security of the country is at stake. I'll remind Moonie that oil is the foundation for the production of literally everything we have in this life. Our clothes, our food, our transportation to and from work and play, our homes, our comfort....literally everything depends on oil. We need a supply that is not dependent on sources that don't have our best interests at heart. Everything else is sub-ordinate. If the Obaminator is so damn smart you'd think he would realize that but he acts as if our national security is not an issue with him. Truth is, I don't think it is! His actions since being elected have not convinced me that Obama cares one whit about this country and I personally think his end goal is the destruction of the United States as a world power.

moonchild7 1 year, 3 months ago

It's really too bad that the "simple things" pass you by, justmyopinion. What you can't or won't see will continue to make you a neanderthal. The speculation of oil stocks/futures should be illegal. The Supply/Demand market is the cornerstone of Capitalism but those "rules" were of course changed in the '90's when this speculation BS came about. The DEMAND in the U.S. is down so market rules say that the price should also be down but NOOOOOOO, it's not. It's going up because of any and all excuses the oil industry wants to vomit out. Here's another one to try: Bloomberg Business, 1-9-12, "MORGAN STANLEY SEE SELLING OPPORTUNITY SHOULD OIL SURGE" by Christian Schmollinger. And guys, sorry but my LUNAR MODULE is a ONE-SEATER. Only enough room for me and my LUNAR MOON DUST.

JER 1 year, 3 months ago

Which of the following statements is false? 1) The United States produces 36% of the oil it uses and imports 64% 2) Of the 64% imported, the three major foreign sources are: Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. 3) Canada is by far the largest supplier to the United States, supplying almost as much as Saudi Arabia and Mexico combined. 4) The #1 exported product of the USA is fuel (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) 5) The United States uses the most oil of any country in the world 6) The United States uses more oil than the next four largest consumers combined. 7) California uses more oil than China (the 2nd largest consumer of oil). 8) President Obama sets the price of gasoline sold in Moore County.

justmyopinion 1 year, 3 months ago

MC7- Do you even realize or know what you are saying? You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

The_AnonymusProfit 1 year, 3 months ago

Well I read the article, Very well written, then i started reading the responses, the first few were good well thought out, even jimt made a good point, an Obama v Santorum match up would be a distinct line in the sand.

However after that the comments drag down into the usual blither with moonchild7 ranting about stuff and not making any actual sense and the rest of the bandwagon following behind.

The plain truth is that the author is correct, or election process has become in and of it self disruptive, deciteful, and disparaging. We have no real statesmen to elect, were have no Roosevelts, no JFK, No Eishenhower, No Regan to look to for real actual leadership.

Yet we as a people all agree with this and do nothing about it. We refuse to open our minds up to 3rd party candidates or some lesser known 2 party candidates for reasons that I have yet to understand.

It is not the governments fault that it acts the way it does, it is the peoples fault for allowing it to happen. Remember we have a constitution that allows us to throw our our leaders and put in new ones.

We live now in a country where unelected people make decisions for us and we have no ability to say yay or nay. It is simply time to march on Washington, kick the whole lot out, and start over.

marathonman 1 year, 3 months ago

Well said The_AnonymusProfit......there is nothing more I have to add to this mess.

jimt 1 year, 3 months ago

Coursaire, I realize that you only quoted the NC Constitution as written. You do realize don't you that the principal of federalism in terms of what is and what is not "constitutional" trumps individual states constitutions say don't you? So, citing 14th Amendment principals a case can be made that state constitutions that state that marriage is only between a man and a woman could be rendered moot. That's my point. I cited the passage in the NC Constitution regarding eligibility requirements for State office as an example of a given passage, as written being rendered moot if challenged on Federal Constitution grounds.

nothingspecial 1 year, 3 months ago

AP: Great point about fact that many powerful different groups of people have learned how to manipulate public opinion.

As we socialize less with others and look more to brief or entertaining sources for current events we fall prey more and more to this.

As we allow the Family and Faith to breakdown too we are also growing up to be further distracted from being informed and solid citizens by handicaps that are the result of faulty life skill development.

Courseaire 1 year, 3 months ago

I still fail to see where the 14th amendment applies to marriage and where it would trump the male/female union and support gay marriage. I know you'll say that unless gay marriage is recognized, then they aren't being treated fair and equal under the law. The Constitution applies to fair and equal to individuals (one male, one female), not male-female, male-male or female-female as one individual.

Arestorer 1 year, 3 months ago

TAP;We live now in a country where unelected people make decisions for us and we have no ability to say yay or nay. It is simply time to march on Washington, kick the whole lot out, and start over.:TAP..

I hate to, but I agree...Also,If we would throw the special interest, and lobbiest out of Washington, Most of the worthless politicians would follow...Good ridence..

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

I see that Chris Christie has a legislature bill on his desk which has legalized same-sex marriage in N.J. All Democrats minus four voted for, all Republicans against. Republicans lost to a Democratic majority in that state's legislature. Christie says he'll veto it. He thinks this decision should be left up to the voters in that state in a referendum vote like Prop 8 in California. Christie thinks the people are smart enough to make the right decision in their own state? This can't be! Calling all unelected Federal judges... please report for duty!

jimt 1 year, 3 months ago

One of the intents of the 14th Amendment was to insure that recently freed slaves and all other blacks, as a class, were to be afforded equal protection in all states. That this is so can be found in the Congressional Record of the time, in the Legislative Records of the individuals states that voted for or against ratification.

Among the rights blacks were afforded was the right to marry. Prior to the Civil War (err, forgot where I was for a second, I mean "The War of Northern Aggression.") slaves could not legally marry. No, the 14th Amendment does not specifically mention marriage. It doesn't mention a lot of possible actions people might seek to do that they could not do prior to the Amendment. Constitutional Amendments are broad statement of intent, often loosely (and sometimes deliberately muddled for political reasons, e.g. The Second Amendment), worded to obtain the necessary 2/3 in Congress).

For example: "The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction." "In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from juries (Strauder v. West Virginia, 1880) or discriminating against Chinese Americans in the regulation of laundry businesses (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886), as violations of the Equal Protection Clause." Source: Wikipedia.

You'll note in both cases blacks and Chinese Americans were treated as a "class," or if you prefer, every single individual black and every single Chinese American were covered by the Court's ruling. Either way you look at it, I still hold to my belief that gays will eventually be treated as a class and the Equal Protection Clause will be the root of the argument before Courts that gays have the right to marry one another. Time will tell.

Nice try though.

jimt 1 year, 3 months ago

Cutler with regard to New Jersey's state legislature voting to approve gay marriage and Governor Christie's veto of the legislation: "He (Christie) thinks this decision should be left up to the voters in that state in a referendum vote like Prop 8 in California. Christie thinks the people are smart enough to make the right decision in their own state? This can't be! Calling all unelected Federal judges... please report for duty!"

Geoff, let's say the State of What-a-matta-u passes a law, via a state referendum that requires all followers of a certain religion or all individuals of a certain race to pay a higher property tax rate than all other people. Let's then say that that State's Supreme Court upholds the new law, notwithstanding the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause on the grounds that the law has no Federal implications, all such monies raised will be raised totally within the State and spent totally within the State, and the law only deals with people living in the State who belong to the specified religion or the specified race. How, in your opinion, should the U.S. Supreme Court rule when the law is challenged by its opponents on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

Jim, you've beat this horse dead. Some of us think the people still have a role to play in America. I get it, you don't think so. We're not enlightened or bright enough to make any decisions for ourselves, lest govenment tell how to think, act and vote. That's fine, you're not alone. It's just that the rest of us are going to resist you, just like our founders resisted George 3.

moonchild7 1 year, 3 months ago

The U.S. Constitution begins: "WE THE PEOPLE...." NOT We the Dogs, or WE the Birds, or We the Fish, or We the White Men. The definition of people is: "Humans considered as a group or individuals in indefinite numbers." But then the founders created divisions of "THE PEOPLE" by dividing them into racial groups, property ownership groups and sexual groups in order to make CERTAIN how and by whom the new country was to be run. We've been trying to "figure it out"ever since but the answer has always been there. WE THE PEOPLE, as in HUMAN BEINGS. Not heterosexual people, or gay people or black people or blue eyed people or blond haired people, etc. JUST PEOPLE!!! So, one man can marry one woman or another man because they are PEOPLE!!! That's it. PEOPLE can marry PEOPLE according to our Constitution and therefore to have been denied this RIGHT of one human being, being able to marry another human being of the same sex has been unconstitutional.

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

Moon, see you're on your one seat module. Are you going or coming? The Constitution made no pronouncements on marriage, so you're probably landing on the lunar surface about now.

Courseaire 1 year, 3 months ago

That's the problem - I see all these people as individuals, not a class and therefore entitled to the same rights as me - no special treament. That being said, I still see marriage as between a man and a woman only, sorry.

geoffcutler 1 year, 3 months ago

"I still fail to see where the 14th amendment applies to marriage and where it would trump the male/female union and support gay marriage." Coursaire.

The question that's bogged the Pilot blogs.

moonchild7 1 year, 3 months ago

There seems to be a problem in seeing the difference between how LAWS treat marriage and how RELIGIONS treat marriage The "New" definition of marriage is: "A legal status that allows couples to receive many benefits from the federal and state governments that single people do not." In both instances marriage is a social union or legal contract. U.S. Code defines marriage as being between a man and woman. NCGS 51-1 talks about "....consent of a male and female..." Now,let's go back in history a bit and try to "remember" all of the instances where people of color, and people who were illiterate , and people who didn't own property, and female people and native american people, etc., etc., etc., were DENIED the SAME RIGHTS as all of those WHITE MEN. 14th Amendment: "No state shall deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." Men who marry women and vise versa get an awfully lot of "BENNIES" just from that LEGAL piece of paper saying that they are married that two men or two women(ALL PEOPLE)don't. DON'T being the persuasive word. Churches/Religions can still DENY two persons of the same sex from marrying for as long as they want. The Government has no say in that what-so-ever because there are no LEGAL ramifications. Been here on EARTH all day, might go for a ride tomorrow.

Thatcher 1 year, 3 months ago

MC7-- There is no way anyone could ever argue with that.

Comments No Longer Accepted

Column Targeted Only One Side

More like this story

Comments

May events