Readers of the Los Angeles Times could not miss the huge headline on the top of the front page on Wednesday (6/18/08): "Hundreds married on historic day" (print edition). In addition to the enormous headline, a whopping nine photos accompanied the Times's coverage of the first full day of legalized gay marriage in California.
One reader saw a clear case of bias by the Times. Here's his letter to the editor in yesterday's paper (6/20/08):
Re "Hundreds married on historic day," June 18
The only thing missing from this headline is the exclamation point. But the real tipoff was the picture of two women kissing on the front page. It was inappropriate for many reasons, but mostly because it demonstrates a case study in advocacy journalism.
The Times should learn to contain its enthusiasm for gay marriage and respect that 60% of Californians voted against it. We have nothing against gay people and their rights to live their lives as they wish, but we consider marriage a sacred institution, not to be trifled with at the whim of those who choose different types of relationships. You do your readers a disservice with this type of reporting.
Paul Derouin
El Segundo
Well said, sir.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama is looking for proHomosexual Church
June 21, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Daniel BakerCalifornia may give him alot of options. I wonder how he feels about bigamy since it was a realized Dream of his Father.
Obama's Real Religion
Both December 7th, 1941 and
June 21, 2008 - 16:14 ET by robert108Both December 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 are "historic days" as well, but that doesn't mean we wish they hadn't happened.
I'll be damned!!
June 21, 2008 - 19:54 ET by jefflebowskiSo will they!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Polygamy, incest,
June 21, 2008 - 20:47 ET by mulerider24Polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc... I have yet to get a coherent answer from the pro-gay marriage camp regarding any of these forms of marriage. If someone would be honest and say they would just rather be on the other side of "prejudice" (with us knuckle-dragging Christians) then that would be fine. But to simply move the imaginary line over one notch to include homosexuals and leave out the other aforementioned groups... well... that would be down right hateful.
Oh dear, are we going to go
June 22, 2008 - 01:39 ET by Cureboy675Oh dear, are we going to go through this...again?
Let me try to remember what I typed the last 100 times. Lets see: Polygamy...Gays aren't looking to marry 10 guys at the same time. They're looking to be legally committed to one individual, just like the straight people. Bestiality...Find me a dog that can sign a marriage license and we'll talk about it. Incest...Find me five couples out of the entire human population (a planet with 6 billion people, mind you) where it is a father/daughter, mother/son, grandma/nephew or whatever, that is perfectly proud of being known as a couple and is ready and willing to fight every court in the country for their right to marry...Then I'll be ready to talk about them as well. Until then, I plan to leave it in the "hypothetical but ultimately unrealistic" category
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Your thinking...
June 22, 2008 - 08:01 ET by ontheright...and statements are fundamentally flawed.
It seems you think that everyone around you believes the way you do. Fortunately and thankfully - you are outnumbered about 3 to 1. We, the "silent majority" don't approve of the life-style and are sick and tired of having the "legal committment" forced on us and our children.
Get a clue. The majority in this country does not "approve" of the gay lifestyle and the "in your face" attitude that comes along with it.
You will have to type your tripe a thousand or even a million more times here, because you are in the minority - believe it, or not.
I agree with you. You can't
June 22, 2008 - 17:38 ET by mjgI agree with you. You can't turn the news on without seeing this. I know now the mainstream media has lost it's objectivity in everything.
Well you and your silent
June 22, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Cureboy675Well you and your silent majority aren't making much of an impact I would say. I mean aside from winning a few court cases. But you can't do anything from keeping two guys or two girls from living together. You can't really do anything from keeping two guys or two girls from kissing on the television. You could sequester your children, I suppose. Good luck with that.
But you do play your part. You go to a website you know that has 98% of its memberships as conversatives and you voice your outrage to a bunch of people who already agree with you. Rather daring, I must say.
As more and more young people get older, the tide will turn. 100 years from now, most states will have repealed their "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman" amendments. Your silent majority (not sure where you get your 3 to 1 number, but if was from a local church poll, I'm not too impressed) will shrink. I have no doubt about that.
Actually I'm curious about this silent majority. All these companies in America that extend benefits to same-sex couples...I'm surprised your silent majority boycott on these companies hasn't made an impact. The silent majority in Massachusetts...How come they haven't done anything about the fact that same-sex marriages have been going on for years now?
I never said that I thought everybody believed the way I do. However, I also don't claim to have this silent majority that hasn't done much besides signing the occassional petition.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
You're proving my point by
June 22, 2008 - 10:05 ET by mulerider24You're proving my point by your narrow focus. My point is once you start watering down the definition of marriage you run the risk of unintended consequences. Gays may not want multiple spouses, but I'm pretty sure Islam allows up to four wives. Are you comfortable with that or are you simply looking at it from a homosexual perspective?
And, for the incest and bestiality case, you commonly do what most do and switch the argument. Now it's a popularity contest and those groups should be negated because there's not enough of them. Do you care to make the same argument in regards to straight vs. gay marriages. If holding that same principle then I believe there are more straight people so we should exclude homosexuals from the discussion.
Are you o.k. with this happy couple moving next door:
http://www.news.com....
I realize I come across as a neanderthal, but this is the slippery slope we must address when making changes to the definition of marriage.
Oh for crying out loud. I
June 22, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Cureboy675Oh for crying out loud. I switch the argument around? Please, show me ONE case...Just one is all I ask where an animal has walked into a Clerk's office and asked for a marriage license. That bestiality argument is so ridiculous, I don't even know how you manage to say it and keep a straight face.
As for the incest marriage. That's great. You managed to find the *one* couple on the face of the Earth that is proud of that relationship. Google is great that way. But still, I'm not sure how the analogy is relevant. First of all, their relationship is against the law. I think maybe they need to worry about not going to jail first before they start thinking about marriage.
And again, you found one of the rare few instances of this on this planet where they think their relationship is great. Compare that to the 500,000 same-sex couples in the United States alone. Put another way: There are 10000 times as many same-sex couples in the state of Indiana alone as there are proud incestous couples on the entire planet.
I'm all for popularity contests. But this is like judging a beauty contest between Brooke Shields at 19 and Bette Davis as she appeared in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane"
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
(yawn)
June 22, 2008 - 19:03 ET by Free Stinker(yawn)
Well said.
June 22, 2008 - 19:09 ET by Cureboy675Well said.
This time you were boring &
June 22, 2008 - 19:12 ET by Free StinkerThis time you were boring & brief.
Also, in regards to the
June 22, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Cureboy675Also, in regards to the Islam thing about allowing four wives. That is a religious belief. We can't start allowing religious beliefs to control the legal definition of marriage. If that were the case, then that should mean nobody would be allowed to get divorced, right? Too many religions conflict on their own definition of marriage to make it realistic for all of them to be legal.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
We can't start allowing
June 22, 2008 - 19:14 ET by Free StinkerWe can't start allowing religious beliefs to control the legal definition of marriage.
So, what should control the legal definition of marriage?
SCOTUS? Majority vote? Flip-a-coin?
You know its funny that you
June 22, 2008 - 21:52 ET by Cureboy675You know its funny that you mention the US Supreme Court. Because, and this goes for every state Supreme Court as well, I wonder why people are so anxious and so desperate to amend all the Constitutions to limit marriage to one man and one woman. The only answer I can come up with is that people are terrified that these Supreme Courts will eventually say that its unconstitutional to limit marriage in such a way. So the only remedy is to amend the Constitution to keep it from being unconstitutional.
I know. I know. People always say, "Its those damned liberal activist judges". But in all 50 states? And the United States Supreme Court? The marxist liberal agenda has managed to plant that many of their liberal activist judges so that they form a majority of every Supreme Court?? Wow, that is impressive.
Luckily for you, in most states, its pretty easy to amend the Constitution. Rile people up with the notion that a same-sex marriage will somehow ruin their straight marriage and they rush right out to the polls on election day and amend the Constitution. (The plus side of that is, its just as easy to repeal those amendments when the time comes).
So yes, I say go with the Supreme Court. If we allowed a public majority vote on everything, we'd have 95 mph speed limits and we wouldn't be paying any taxes, and we sure as heck wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
so cureboy
June 22, 2008 - 22:13 ET byyour bottom line is that the courts should determine the law?? And here i thought the laws were made by the legislature, silly me. Presently in California, the whole issue IS caused by judicial activism, which you no doubt support fully. This really exposes your true 'democratic' nature does it not? Hypocrite is a more realistic word. Prop 22 was passed over-whelmingly in this state because the voters know that judges 'see' law that isn't there. The only reason these laws are needed are because of activist judges.
The democratic process has taken a huge blow and you love it, because you don't truly support democracy now do you?
What an elistist 'i know better than the dumb-ass masses' piece of scum you are.
Support our Troops
You see. I don't feel the
June 22, 2008 - 22:52 ET by Cureboy675You see. I don't feel the need to call somebody names (like "piece of scum") while I'm debating them. But, hey, who am I to stop you from letting you feel better about yourself.
Did I say the courts should decide the law? Nope. I was given two choices in that scenario: Supreme Court or majority of votes. I do think courts should interpret the law. Sometimes they interpret in a way that you don't like and sometimes they interpret in a way that I don't like.
Strange. Because when the Supreme Court put an end to the Florida recounts, many people said "That was a just decision". And yet when the Supreme Court (with pretty much the same judicial make-up) decided to grant some Constitutional rights to Gitmo prisoners, those same people said, "Just a bunch of liberal activists".
The Supreme Court will *Never* put out a ruling that everybody thinks is right or just.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
well cureboy
June 23, 2008 - 19:09 ET bydo you have a different description for someone who praises a gestapo court legislating in direct oppositiion to the will of the populace?
Not all rulings are equal and your examples are not relevant.
Support our Troops
Thank you for beating me to
June 23, 2008 - 10:34 ET by mulerider24Thank you for beating me to the punch on that one, botg. I doubt he sees the irony in his statements pertaining to the courts. His argument is all over the map, as is usually the case with the pro side of this issue.
My exercise is quite simple. I'm applying the same standards homosexuals use when stating their cases as to why gay marriage should be legal. I wish just once a person would simply say, "Yes, I have no problem moving the 'prejudice line' one spot over for the sake of my cause," instead of making one's self look so foolish.
So what have we gathered? He likes majority rule, except when his view is in the minority. He believes checks and balances are when the courts reinterpret the legislative branch, not adhere to their laws. He wore a lot of black makeup in the 80s. Have I missed anything?
And what's great is we don't even have to play the "what if" card, England is serving as a perfect case study for this issue:
http://www.telegraph...
The naive "Islam is a religion; that won't happen to us" argument is about as child-like as one can get. That defense won't fly once CAIR and the ACLU start their myriad of lawsuits after gay marriage is legalized. And speaking of irony, how often do homosexuals and followers of a religion that stone them to death end up on the same side of an issue?
I fully admit bestiality is an obscure footnote in this debate. Once again, you're missing my point on the slippery slope. Besides, if the courts will allow a "x" to serve as someone's signature, what's to stop a California judge from recognizing a sheep's hoof as legally binding? "Four legs good... two legs bad!"
Cureboy, you're making me regret that I paid good money to go see your favorite band when they came through Dallas.
Oh dear, oh dear. What is
June 23, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Cureboy675Oh dear, oh dear. What is all over the map about it? You want me to be honest: If the daddy and his daughter in Australia want to get married (I mean aside from the fact that their relationship is currently against the law...But for the sake of the argument I'll say its not) why not? If they are two consenting adults who want the same legal protection as every other couple, who am I to argue? Even though I might find it gross and inappropriate. I mean, I would have no grounds to keep them from moving in my neighborhood. I would have no grounds to keep them kissing in their living room. So why should I be allowed to prevent them from having legal protection as a couple? Just because I'm uncomfortable. So there. There's my answer to the incredibly hypothetical question. If it ever becomes a world-wide epidemic, I promise to return here and let you know how terribly wrong I was.
But I've never thought the Constitution was all about making people feel comfortable. There's a 50 year old woman in my neighborhood who insists on doing her gardening in a bathing suit that is two sizes too small. And as uncomfortable as I might be to see that, I just have to deal with it. By the way...You know what *I* think would be refreshing? If people simply said "I'm just uncomfortable with two guys getting married". Because at least that's honest, instead of this whole distraction effort to make it all about "this could open the door to somebody marrying their Bluetick Coonhound".
And I'm not even going to get into the whole bestiality thing anymore. Because its just ridiculous.
As for the whole "this could open the whole Islam four wives door". You want me to say I'm prejudiced about it? Okay I'll say it. I'm prejudiced about it. Most gays want to be married to one person and just one person. Just like most straights want to be married to one person and just one person. I really don't see how expanding marriage from "two committed consenting adults, but they have to be of opposite sex" to "two committed consenting adults regardless of their sex" could be referenced in an argument that marriage should be "four or five consenting adults regardless of their sex". I don't think its the same thing. I don't think the analogy applies. If that puts me "all over the map". Well then, I guess I'm all over the map.
About the Supreme Court. Um...Isn't a big part of Supreme Court to basicially interpret (or re-interpret) laws made by legislative bodies. If not, then you really are privy to some information that has escaped thousands of lawyers. You know the type: The ones that, for example, make pleas before the Supreme Court to review whether Captial Punishment is Constitutional. Don't these silly, whack-a-doo, numb-skull lawyers know that something like the death penalty was already decided by a legistlative body?
And, hey, don't let me stop you from spending money on The Cure. Saw them four times on this last tour. Nothing better. Not much black make-up in the 80s, though. That was before my time.
Well, at least you’re
June 23, 2008 - 15:25 ET by mulerider24Well, at least you’re making a little more sense now. In case I haven’t made my point by now, I think it’s impossible to argue from the pro side without simultaneously using the same hypocritical arguments we knuckle draggers are accused of using on the flipside. There are numerous externalities and unintended consequences involved with this issue that most flippantly neglect. The numerous economic and social repercussions involved with the “If it feels good, do it” battle cry keeps us all vested in this discussion.
As you stated above: As more and more young people get older, the tide will turn. 100 years from now, most states will have repealed their "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman" amendments.
Isn't this basically what's at the heart of the progressive movement - a gradual erosion of these “archaic” values? So for you to flippantly say incest and bestiality is ridiculous, I'm pretty sure that's what people said about homosexuality just 30 years ago, not to mention 100 years. Your whimsical thinking that this “progress” will simply stop at homosexuality defies the unstoppable inertia behind such a movement. Thankfully, one of the big networks will lead the way with a “Will and Grace” style sitcom that glamorizes incestuous partners narrowly avoiding exposing their secret to their Bible-thumping neighbors. I’m sure it will make for great television.
And for the record, I don’t enter into this discussion lightly. Not only is my brother gay, but my first cousin was featured as a guest on NBC’s “To Catch a Predator.” Let’s just say HE was there to play pool with a 13 year old boy. My family is a walking case study on the externalities of this issue. It sure makes for an interesting Thanksgiving though.
Your family sounds about as
June 23, 2008 - 16:00 ET by Cureboy675Your family sounds about as much fun as mine. I have an aunt (I was raised thinking she was my aunt)...Who is actually my aunt, my cousin and my half-sister all at the same time. And, no, there wasn't any incest going on...But there was an adoption involved. That's always a fun riddle to drop on people.
Honestly, I have never been too much concerned about what people thought about me. If that were the case, I would have been one of those pathetic closet cases who lives a lie and marries some poor woman (who he is essentially using and will never really love) and goes on these secret journeys to airport bathrooms or adult bookstores to get the occasional "encounter with a man" and is terrified that someday, somebody might find out.
But all I want is, when I find somebody worthwhile that I want to spend the rest of my life with, is being able to have the exact same legal protections and priveledges as any straight couple in the same situation. I'm not stuck on labels. If you don't want to call it a marriage, that's fine. If you want to call it a civil union, a domestic partnership, or if you want to call it Chicken Chow Mein, I don't give a damn what you want to call it. As long as we have the exact same legal rights and benefits. I'm not sure why that is too much to ask. And I'd like a little ceremony and a kick-ass party to go with it. Everybody likes a party when its an open bar.
And I'm not out to change anybody's religious beliefs. Actually, I don't believe in religion (I believe in God, but I don't believe in religion, if that makes any sense. Is there a category for that...Is that Agnostic?). But I would never support any movement to force a certain church or a certain religion to perform a same-sex ceremony. Everybody has their right to believe what they want to believe.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
With all the hyperbole and
June 23, 2008 - 16:41 ET by mulerider24With all the hyperbole and rhetoric out of the way, I really don't think our camps are that far apart. I have no issue with leveling the playing field on estate planning and other basic legal protections. Whether you call that some combination of domestic partnership and/or civil union, the name is irrelevant.
The majority of libertarians/conservatives I run with share a similar view. I may be speaking out of turn, but based on my casual observance of comments on this site I would hold that same assumption of NB membership (however, I doubt they would want me as an official spokesperson).
I believe "deist" is the word you're looking for in regards to your religious labeling. We'll save that issue for another day.
mulerider
June 23, 2008 - 19:39 ET byyou are correct---you aren't an official spokesman ;^ )
speaking only for myself (i'm no spokesman either), i would make the point that marriage is and has been historically a joining of two people who (in the majority of cases) have children and raise families. I support the rule of law and feel that legislating according to the exception of law is foolishness. Thus marriage and the legal protections it provides should be reserved for a man and woman only. That being said should there be legislation for domestic partners which provides legal protection allowing for being able to make medical decisions, power of attorney, visiting rights etcetera? Absolutely.
Support our Troops
I think we see eye to eye on
June 23, 2008 - 20:58 ET by mulerider24I think we see eye to eye on this one, botg. I'm trying to avoid all the minutia and details behind domestic partnership since there are hundreds of variations. But from the financial viewpoint, I see no issues in granting basic rights of asset transfer and other common rights associated with the settling of one's estate. POAs and medical decision making correlate with that process as well. Over all, like I said earlier, usually the two camps aren't as far away as one might think once emotions are negated from the argument.
And you know, I would
June 23, 2008 - 21:08 ET by Cureboy675And you know, I would absolutely agree to that idea. The idea that all the legal benefits of marriage should only be available to people who want to raise a family. But then that opens you up to a whole bunch of gray area. Because then, senior citizens (or people past their child bearing years) shouldn't be allowed legal marital privledges. Or what about people who simply can't have children? Or what about people who adopt, should they count? What about people who have children from previous relationships (something that could just as easily happen in a same-sex relationship)? Or should it only apply to creating new children within a marriage?
What about a straight couple who simply flat out refuses to have any children? At the very least, they should be excluded, right? Or should they?
That is my only issue with that argument...That it creates its own slippery slope.
cureboy
June 23, 2008 - 19:28 ET byto answer your question about the SCOTUS. There are two basic philosophies in play:
Constructionist----original intent
Living-breathing-document----interpret based on 'our' viewpoint
Support our Troops
So yes, I say go with the
June 22, 2008 - 22:04 ET by Free StinkerSo yes, I say go with the Supreme Court.
I'll try to remember this when they make a ruling you do not like.
Free... Definately not
June 22, 2008 - 22:00 ET by Clear thinkerFree...
Definately not flip-a-coin. Gays are fond of getting head and some tail.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
June 22, 2008 - 22:45 ET by Cureboy675A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Woooooo. Ha ha ha ha ha (wiping tears) Wooooo. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!
Reminds me of the good old days of the cafeteria in the 7th Grade. Thanks for the flashback.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Thank you Paul Derouin, you
June 21, 2008 - 22:21 ET by bigtimerThank you Paul Derouin, you speak for a lot of us out here...
I am sick to death of these pictures being show on television also...ad nauseum...at times like this...they force this on people unless you can get to the clicker or burn the paper.
I resent the msm of all venues showing all of us how the same sex kisses.
Agenda...which is getting tiresome.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Objectivity
June 22, 2008 - 14:43 ET by thelahunginjeetThe LA Times left its objectivity in El Segundo.
THE LA TIMES IS GAY !?!? I did not know that.
June 22, 2008 - 17:42 ET byIt's been nearly 5 years since an old man sped his car thru a
crowded Santa Monica farmers market, killing 10 people
and injuing 63. The LATimes covered the story
extensively for some time (plus current developments),
including many photos.
Does that mean the LA Times advocated driving at hi speeds thru
crowds of people?
If preserving the sanctity of marriage is so important, please get
your priorities straight. 1st, work to get a Constitutional
Amendment passed to ban divorce.
Mr Deroroin: "We have nothing against gay people"
Of course you DO. You don't like seeing them kissing
and you're against them marrying.
"and their rights to live their lives as they wish"-Mr Douiran Some gays wish to get
married. Some gays wish to express the same amount of public
affection as heterosexuals. It's
called love, sorry it's "inappropriate" to you, but Get It
Over It..
I understand, and to some extent, respect being opposed to gay
marriage. I believe prejudice towards gays is wrong. I don't see any
problem with gay marriage.
who said the LA TIMES is gay?!?!?!?
June 22, 2008 - 18:05 ET bydid you make that up???????
Support our Troops
If you can't take a joke , let alone understand one...........
June 23, 2008 - 21:58 ET by"Explaining a joke is a lot like dissecting a frog. It gets messy and the subject dies anyway." -- Garrison Keilor
TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 23, 2008 - 22:00 ET by R D HelmThe truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
LOL RD...Calm down...we
June 23, 2008 - 22:05 ET by bigtimerLOL RD...Calm down...we know.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
LOL-Sorry, bt. My patience with trolls is a little short tonight
June 23, 2008 - 22:11 ET by R D HelmThe truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
→ Abe
June 23, 2008 - 22:04 ET by Cool ArrowI think what is being asked is; "Are you that creative, or did you plagiarize someone else's thoughts and present them as your own"
If it's your own, I'm wowed by a liberal's fledgeling logic.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
i probally could take ya,
June 23, 2008 - 22:35 ET byi probally could take ya, but understand ya now that would make me a joke too............
Support our Troops
Support The Troops
August 19, 2008 - 21:35 ET by Edwardhttp://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3553
Troop Haters Among Us, American veterans are the largest single group discriminated against. “If you'll believe in me, I'll believe in you. Is that a bargain?” is from Alice In Wonderland. Did you know that American veterans are the largest single group of American citizens discriminated against? Why aren’t veterans protected against discrimination? Health care, home loans and home purchases are the three areas veterans are discriminated against the most in. Since I started this Among Us series, I get a wide range of stories from people. Some of these people are angry. Others are crying. Some are perplexed. Others are frustrated. Some are desperate. Others are in shock. Enough time has gone by that I am now getting information on a person or business from more than one source. Some I have personal knowledge of. It is way past time veterans also are a State and Federally protected class of American citizen. Certain classes of people are Federally protected against discrimination. Classes such as race, nationality, ethnicity, marital status, age, familial status, disability, etc. in loans, leasing and selling of houses in Fair Housing in Housing and Urban Development, in employment such as in the Equal Employment Opportunity, and access as in the American With Disabilities Act.The Reno-Tahoe area has many good things going for it. Another one of them is the regional VA Medical Center. As a disabled Navy Viet Nam vet, when I lived in the Bay Area I used to go to the San Francisco VA. It had excellent care. The VA hospital here is also excellent. When the VA Hospital is overwhelmed, as it often is with the massive influx of younger veterans from The supercilious War On Terror, it out-sources us. It gives us vouchers to pay for our medical care. The reason is that the VA is a health care plan – one exclusively for veterans. The intent of the VA is that a veteran gets health care outside the VA and their health insurance covering them is VA. No different from other health care insurance providers such as Kaiser, Blue Cross, Hometown Health, etc. Great idea except the private sector refuses to treat veterans with VA insurance. Such as Ed Angelini. Melody Cote was one of the people at Dr. Angelini’s office that hung up on veterans with a VA voucher. One of those veterans was me. She is now a Realtor. Her husband, Jack Cote, is formally of RemCor Realty . Both are now with Coldwell Banker Village Realty. Dr. Angelini, Mrs. Cote was quick to send us to war and certainly enjoy the daily benefits of living in a free society. Yet, they denied their services to veterans. Services for which they advertise they do, will be paid to do by the VA, yet they refuse to provide their service solely because the patient seeking their service is a veteran.Same story for a veteran seeking to use their GI Bill to purchase their home. I have also received several complaints about Realtors and loan officers that will not work with a veteran wanting to buy their home with a VA insured home loan. I myself had the same problem with a Realtor named Danny Podesto. I called Senator Harry Reid and spoke with a Susan Lisagor for Senator Reid to sponsor legislation to add veterans to the protected list so veterans can’t be discriminated against.I want American veterans immediately added to the protected class of citizen for discrimination. We have State and Federal laws to protect against discrimination. It is way past time veterans also are a State and Federally protected class of American citizen. The Salvation Army (a Hero Among Us) is the only store I’ve ever found that gives me a Veteran’s discount upon presentation of my Veterans ID.Others (Troop-Haters Among Us) that I have received stories that have denied services to veterans solely because of the veterans’ VA insurance or the use of a Veterans ID.NO pharmacy in town out side of the VA pharmacy.Doctors: Dr. Terance Cochrane, Eyetech Visioncare, Dr. Thomas Komadina, Sierra Eye Associates, Dr. Geoffrey Cecchi, Family Eyecare Associates, Dr. Michael Fischer, Dr. Hum, Dr. Denis Humphreys, Dr. Stanley Plecha, Dr. Tyson Kales, Dr. Evan Pritchett, Dr. Christine Siebert, Dr. William Durant, Dr. Bud Schonder, Dr. Michael Stanko.Realtors: Rose Newman with Prudential Nevada Realty, Carl Jorgensen with Coldwell Banker Village Realty, David Morris with RE/MAX, Donna Clark with Dickson Realty, Greg Cook with RemCor, Dana Haley with Keller Williams,w Veena Ranganath with Coldwell Banker Plummer, Corey Carter with Keller Williams, Linda Hartman with Century 21, Chris Harris with Coldwell Banker Village Realty, Michael Robinson with Chase, Rodley Moser with Dickson Realty, Jonathan Wornardt with Coldwell Banker Village Realty.Loan Officers: Brent Harte with CTX Mortgage, Kevin Anderson with Countrywide, Gina Nolte with Indymac, Sheryl Christensen with Countrywide.Banks: Bank of America refuses to accept a Veterans' ID. That also happened to me. Many of the stories I got about this discrimination were from elderly and/or disabled veterans. They do not drive so their only ID is their Veterans ID.“If you'll believe in me, I'll believe in you. Is that a bargain?” If these businesses will believe in and support us veterans, then I’ll believe in and support them. Until then, to stop the discrimination against veterans, I will not use them. I wrote this article. I tell others about the discrimination. I ask that you do not use those that discriminate against veterans, and that you contact your local and Federal representatives telling them to sponsor and support legislation adding veterans to the protected classes. Veterans served so that every American citizen enjoys the benefits of a free society. However, the veterans do not get respect, or the benefits we paid to get. If you enjoy your freedom, thank and support a vet. If not, get the hell out of America. Copyright © 2008 Craig BEd
Troll,
June 23, 2008 - 22:23 ET by RESTLESS 1err, I mean Abe. Why do you suppose that the gay lobby is trying so hard to make homosexuality normal? It isn't natural. The cause of it may be natural, but that doesn't mean homosexuality in and of itself is natural. When will society be allowed to have a real debate on this and scientists allowed to do real research? If a scientist were to come out tomorrow and announce that he/she had found the cause of homosexuality had a cure, what do you think the reaction would be? That person would be castigated and riciculed out of existence, and those "true" homosexuals that might want to be cured, would have no chance. That is the reason I am so against gay marriage. They want give and take, as long as those opposed do the giving, and they do the taking.
It amazes me that some will go to such lengths as rejecting God, or maybe even worse, peverting His message, just so they won't have to deal with the reality that something may be wrong with them. I'm not saying that gays can't be good, meaningful assets to society. I just don't think they look at things realistically.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Deleted reply, Mule can't
June 23, 2008 - 10:17 ET by mulerider24Deleted reply, Mule can't figure this Internet thing out.
Bigamists Among Us
August 19, 2008 - 21:31 ET by Edwardhttp://reno.broowaha..., Bigamy is a felony. On February 16, 1991, James K. Olson married Morgan Olson in South Lake Tahoe with a California Confidential Marriage Certificate . Mr. Olson signed it certifying his prior husband and wife relationship with Mrs. Olson, which had gone back to February 1982. According to that Confidential Marriage Certificate Mr. Olson was previously married once before, so this wife was his second one. Or did Mr. Olson lie on this Confidential Marriage Certificate? Mr. Olson has admitted in both California and Nevada courts that he reconciled with the Reno Mrs. Olson in July 1996.
“On June 14, 2000, Jim twice forged his wife’s (Morgan) name on the purchase of a car when he signed “J. Morgan Olson” with his “JKO” initials next to it.” In 2000, Mr. Olson forged the Reno Mrs. Olson’s married name in his purchase of a car in San Rafael, California.
Mr. Olson got a Nevada Living Trust amendment notarized in October 2000 in Marin County, California that the Reno Mrs. Olson is his wife, in compliance with the Marin County, California 1996 MSA.
Mr. Olson had several years of Reno homeowners insurance with the Reno Mrs. Olson as his wife.
Mr. Olson has had for several years a Nevada Living Trust with the Reno Mrs. Olson as his wife, in compliance with the Marin County, California 1996 MSA.
Mr. Olson claims he is also married to a California Mrs. Olson since 2004.
Mr. Olson’s 1995 attorney prepared an August 10, 1995 Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) for the Marin County, California court. It confirms there was no final hearing, the box wasn’t filled in for a remarry date, the lack of a standard clause about reconciling, Mr. Olson was to pay Mrs. Olson $15,000, and that the case was sealed.
The court had left these issues unresolved as it knew Mr. Olson would again reconcile. Judge Michael Dufficy, the same judge in Mr. Olson’s last three divorce filings, recognized that Mr. Olson’s credibility was gone as Mr. Olson kept making the same complaints and allegations then (as now) but was sleeping with Mrs. Olson the whole time and kept reconciling with her. So in the fourth divorce when Mrs. Olson said she was moving to Reno to get away from the drama, where she wanted to buy a house, the judge gave her permission to do so. That in matters relating to her husband Jim Olson, for the convenience of the court and her so she wouldn’t have to keep coming back to the court for the court’s signature (loan applications, offers, counters, counters-to-counters, inspections, tax returns, etc.) she could operate as a single person as Mr. Olson adamantly refused to sign anything.
Mrs. Olson bought 13870 Mt. Babcock, Reno, NV 89506 in July 1995. That was before the MSA, and before the August 10, 1995, Marin court hearing. The Quit Claim clause in the MSA had that Mr. Olson was supposed to Quit Claim his community property interest of that property to Mrs. Olson. Mr. Olson refused and that clause was crossed out at his insistence. Cora Lancelle, Mrs. Olson’s attorney, dryly asked “but why not, is he again reconciling?” Mr. Olson’s attorney said, “Oh no Mr. Olson really wants a divorce this time.” Ms. Lancelle sarcastically said “But Helen, that’s what he said the previous three times while continuing to sleep with her the whole time.” Mrs. Olson said “no big deal as Jim will soon reconcile with me anyway making it a point not worth arguing over” and agreed to the cross out of the Quit Claim clause.
“As Mrs. Olson was walking out of that August 10, 1995 court hearing, Ms. Lancelle gave up trying not to laugh. Mr. Olson’s attorney was glowering at her and Mrs. Olson. Mr. Olson was looking at the floor kicking it with his foot. Judge Dufficy was trying not to laugh. Judge Dufficy called out “good luck in your new home in Reno and especially with Jim.””
Since Mr. Olson refused to sign a Quit Claim and crossed out that section in the MSA, he retained a community property interest in that house. His attorney then even commented on it in court.
Mr. Olson showed up in Reno in September 1995 and resumed his physical, emotional and financial relationship with Mrs. Olson, who never wanted a divorce.
Mr. Olson never paid Mrs. Olson for the community asset division in the MSA. Mr. Olson has admitted in several court papers that he reconciled with Mrs. Olson in Reno, Nevada in July 1996. Mr. Olson told the Reno Mrs. Olson he had dismissed his fourth Marin divorce filing. He continued to act married to her through a series of behaviors and conduct for the next 10 ½ years.
He wore his wedding ring. He introduced and held himself out as her husband and she as his wife.
Shortly after his reconciliation, Mr. Olson obtained homeowners insurance on their Reno home at 13870 Mt. Babcock, Reno, in the name of James and Morgan Olson, husband and wife. He certified that property as his primary residence.
Mr. Olson then funded a Nevada Living Trust together with Mrs. Olson with them as equal co-trustees. It held title to all their Reno houses and bank accounts. That trust is still in existence today.
In summer 2000, Mr. Olson forged the Reno Mrs. Olson’s married name in his purchase of a car in San Rafael, California.
Mr. Olson had a reconciliation acknowledgment notarized in October 2000 in Marin by a Marin notary acknowledging his July 1996 reconciliation and reaffirmation of his February 16, 2001 wedding vows with Mrs. Olson.
In April 2002, the Olsons bought 5242 Echo Ave in Reno as a rental and Mr. Olson obtained a landlord’s policy on it with him as the primary and his wife as the secondary insured. They still own that property today. According to Farmers Insurance April 29, 2002 print date:
Primary Insured James K Olson, PO Box 8401, Reno NV 89507
Policy Type Lnlrd Prot
Property Address 5242 Echo Ave Reno NV 89506
In early October 2006, Mrs. Olson mailed Mr. Olson, at his request, $20,000 out of a home equity account.
In late October 2006, Mrs. Olson gets a phone call from a woman that “Jim Olson had just died in California.” Mr. Olson, in violation of the July 12, 1996 Marin County, California court judgment, surfaces and immediately claims a remarry to another. He had still failed to pay the Reno Mrs. Olson for the community assets ordered in that judgement.
According to the Reno Police report, after the Reno Mrs. Olson changed its locks, Mr. Olson then broke into and ransacked their then Reno home at 12260 Camel Rock Dr. It was in a desperate effort to retrieve and destroy the original documents of his reconciliation, their Nevada Living Trust, and his love letters. Attorney Jill Whitbeck has those originals.
Mr. Olson then filed in Marin Court CV070655 that it determine his marital status with the Reno Mrs. Olson. That part of the case was dismissed because the proper venue is in Family Law Court, and in Family Law Court in Nevada as Nevada has jurisdiction over them with their Nevada governed Living Trust, Reno, Nevada homeowners insurance on their Reno properties, and Reno witnesses etc. Mr. Olson’s story had become rather hysterical in its presentation of its acerbic and churlish allegations.
In early 2007, attorney Schoonover claims to have written Mrs. Olson April 2, 2002 at their 13870 Mt. Babcock, Reno address (although she never saw it until their first Reno hearing five years later) “You have Mr. Olson’s home address. If there is anything you need to communicate to him, contact him there, not at work.” This writing is the FIRST evidence that Mr. Olson was attempting to keep his husband and wife life with the Reno Mrs. Olson a secret from his work in Marin County, California.
Four witnesses then testified in Reno court as to Mr. Olson continuing to see Mrs. Olson in Reno representing himself as her husband through September 2006.
Divorce is not a handy vehicle for the summary disposal of old and used wives. Which is what Mr. Olson smugly alleges he did July 12, 1996, divorce the Reno Mrs. Olson, while talking outside the other side of his mouth, his admission that he reconciled his marriage with her in Reno in July 1996.
Reno attorney Jill Whitbeck pointed out in Mrs. Olson’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Mrs. Olson’s divorce on Page 7 Line 28 “. . . clearly there exists a dispute as to assets and debts obtained during the course of their reconciliation.” The Olson’s MSA/July 12, 1996 “divorce” is in question due to its omissions, contradictions and discrepancies. The Olsons husband and wife reconciliation went to October 2006 as clearly proved (preponderance of the evidence) with four current four independent witnesses, their Reno homeowners and landlord’s insurance, and their Nevada governed Living Trust. The Reno judge found “Mr. Olson not credible.”
In the Marin Court CV 070655 filing Mr. Olson claims “Olson is spending his time with Alexandra while he is married to his second wife.” Yes, Mr. Olson was doing exactly that as the Reno Mrs. Olson is his second wife assuming he did not lie on their marriage certificate and he’s had other marriages.
The Reno Mrs. Olson remains mysteriously MIA since July 2007.
Sources are California and Nevada court public documents, MSA, Nevada Living Trust, love letters, four witnesses testimony in Reno court, San Rafael car purchase documents, photographs, Farmers Insurance documents, Washoe County public records, February 16, 1991 Marriage Certificate.
Further sources and further readings: Washoe District Court, Marin County (California) Superior Court, Reno Police Department reports, Twin Cities (California) Police reports, Sausalito (California) Police reports, Marin (County California) General Hospital medical reports, Now You Call It Madness (But I Call It Love , A List of Questions I Promise Not To Pose , Cheaters Among Us, Olson , California’s Legal Secret Marriage Racket , Get All Those Instructors You Can – Or Maybe No t, Bigamists Among Us, Olson, Flip Flop RERs Among Us, James K. Olson .
http://sf.broowaha.c..., http://reno.broowaha...,
http://sf.broowaha.c...,
http://reno.broowaha...,
http://reno.broowaha...,
http://sf.broowaha.c...,
http://reno.broowaha...,
http://reno.broowaha...,
Ed