WaPo-Published Express Tabloid Trumpets Obama Shift on 'Indefensible Marriage Act'
"Indefensible Marriage Act" blares the cover page headline for the Feb. 24 Express tabloid, a free publication of the Washington Post available around the D.C. metro area.
"In a major victory for gay rights, President Obama says the U.S. will no longer defend the federal law banning same-sex marriages," notes the caption for the photo depicting a hand holding both a miniature American flag and a miniature gay rights rainbow flag. On page 13 a subheading approvingly labels the move a "landmark call" by the Obama administration.
[see cover page image below page break]
"This major turn should be a final nail in the coffin for the different treatment of gay and non-gay people by the federal government," Suzanne Goldberg director of Columbia University's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law gushed. Express editors featured that quote in bold just below the body of the 12-paragraph story.
But although the cover story headline on page 13 described Obama's move as a "Divisive Decision," Express staffers only got around to conservative opposition in the final paragraph, in which Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel chastised the president for "stir[ring] up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."
Of course the Express failed to quote any legal or constitutional scholars who would find fault with the rationale of the Obama/Holder Justice Department.
After all, while the Obama administration is claiming the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is so obviously unconstitutional that it cannot be plausibly defended in court, the same administration will still enforce the law. By that logic, since President Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, President Obama would be enforcing an act of Congress he thought unconstitutional.
It's also unclear how hard, if at all, President Obama will lobby Congress to repeal DOMA.
A non-biased reporter critically examining these issues could provide readers with a full, balanced picture of the controversy.
Unfortunately the Express was much more interested in wearing its bias on its sleeve.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Victory or Failure of Duty?
Submitted by libBuster on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 5:59pm.
So it is a major victory when a President eschews his constitutional duty to enforce a law?
Pretty much
Submitted by GW on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 6:17pm.
The Administration doesn't have to violate its conscience, even though it's a violation of the Constitution for the Executive Branch to interpret the law. But, there are no conscience protections for health care providers.
This is grounds for impeachment
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 6:18pm.
Presidents do not get to pick and choose which laws are unconstitutional, nor which court orders they will or will not abide by - not even community organizers pretending to be the POTUS.
That is what the judiciary system is for.
Our founding document is becoming more irrelevant as each day passes with this clown in charge.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Not likely.
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 6:27pm.
Derelection of duty is misfeasance. That's not high crimes or misdemeanors.
However, have no fear, Obama is in contempt of Court, Judge Feldman's Court in New Orleans. That is a misdemeanor.
NL,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 6:30pm.
He is also thumbing his nose at two seperate court orders.
He has no repect for the rule of law - not even when it comes to the Constitution.
What do you think the dems would have done had GWB decided that Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
How long will it be now
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 6:56pm.
How long will it be now before Barack comes clean about the true relationship between him and his man servent Reggie Love.
The two of them spent Barack's birthday alone, after dinner with Oprah, at the Obama's Chicago residence.
Michelle was missing in action, probably her birthday gift to B.
The president doesn't want anyone to ask, because he's afraid he would tell. Now only time will.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Again I say - the scheme here
Submitted by Slyrr on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 8:02pm.
Again I say - the scheme here is to use the gay issue as pretense for destorying freedom of religion.
If the gay community get some kind of constitutional amendment, like 'It is now illegal to discriminate against gays in any way', then gays would take copies of that amendment and barge into temples and synagogues all over the country saying 'You HAVE to change your doctrine!'
Never mind that fact that most gays are atheists. They have to disbelieve in God or they'd never be able to rationalize their fornications and whoredoms. But for some reason, a lot of them still want to be 'married' by churches that told them gay is a sin. Why? Sour grapes. It's not enough for them to live in sin. They want to force every church in the country to embrace homosexuality, and force churches to change their doctrine at the point of a government bayonet.
On the plus side - when a conservative becomes President, he can just take that Gay amendment and say, "I'm not going to enforce this!" Thank you for showing that we can just refuse to obey laws we don't like - Barry-boy.
Slyrr
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 8:14pm.
You've got it right. We have one pro gay person here who has told me that religions that teach immorality of gay behaviors are discriminatory. I believe that was the word.
We've already seen the left try to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, and repeal the conscience act for health care workers.
It's a matter of making themselves feel good by bringing everyone else down to their level.
Pandering
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 9:13pm.
Anyone that believes that the Messiah is not aware of his poll numbers and diminishing chance of being reelected should donate $10,000.00 dollars to the save Bernie Madoff fund.
Wrong interpretation of the headline
Submitted by Icarus on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 10:25pm.
"Indefensible Marriage Act" is referring to the fact the Obama administration finds the act indefensible. The headline itself isn't making a judgment on the act.
Where you could take objection to Express has nothing to do with political bias, but rather the idea of making puns or trying to be clever in headlines. I hate newspapers that do that. It smacks of unprofessionalism.
EDIT: Also, it should be noted that Express didn't "trumpet" this news any less than it trumpets the news on its front page everyday.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_D5v5YxlU7fc/TK87IWWbckI/AAAAAAAAA_k/vQcAI0VfBTM/s4...
It's a very "trumpet"-y paper.
Indefensible?
Submitted by Tim Graham on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 7:29am.
The Post might argue that they were merely describing how Team Obama felt about it. But anyone who follows the Post knows that's also how everyone at the Post feels about it. Can you imagine walking past one of those yellow Express boxes and seeing a headline like "Unconstitutional ObamaCare"? Well, a judge in Florida said it was.
As for the counter-example, I don't think that matches today's front page at all.
You just assume that your
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 8:08am.
You just assume that your interpretation of the headline is the correct one.
Obama doesn't find the DOMA "indefensible." He simply chooses not to defend it any more, for political purposes. I'm thinking the newspaper chose to put their own judgment of the act in their headline.
The only thing missing from your argument is that famous liberal preamble "The fact of the matter is..."
birdman---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 10:58pm.
typing out "trumpet"-y solidifies your place in the pantheon of professional liberals forever.
MD
Awesome. Since there is
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 6:04pm.
Awesome.
Since there is not a single argument against gay marriage that manages to avoid sliding into the realm of fallacy and poppycock, DOMA is indeed "indefensible." WaPo's position is not bias, it's common sense.
You go Binky Braveheart. You go girl.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 10:57pm.
Hey, don't forget the new one. Now that homosexuals are allowed in the military, don't forget the new grievance. The military won't allowed transgender and transexuals to enlist. There is always one more right that must be corrected for the perpetually aggrieved.
So you stand out there in the rain marching with your Code Pink sign and your pink t-shirt and matching pink panties. You got something new to whine about.
Nevermind that the name marriage is already taken. After all, the name male is taken but you allow the description for yourself. That is next. Sissy whiner trolls have rights too.
You come here to a site you hate with people you hate and put on the whinies. Man, we sure do love to listen to you whine. Tell us again how you opposed a war we won Grandpa. Tell us the story again.Oh, and don't forget to whine about my style too. I dared to call you out for the little urine soaked diaper troll you are. That is just wrong. You is a nice troll.Rilly. Rilly Rilly Nice. Not whiny. Honext.
Well, JasonC---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 7:01pm.
good to see that you still avoid bias at all costs.Well he did avoid the use of
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 7:09pm.
Well he did avoid the use of the word flummery.
A Rex Stout fan
I dislike bias as much as
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:45pm.
I dislike bias as much as anybody. But this is not an issue of bias. There is simply no way to object to gay marriage without betraying homophobic tendencies, latent or otherwise. This is not the case with other big controversial issues. There are legitimate arguments to be made against "Obamacare." There are legitimate arguments to be made against the teachers in Wisconsin. Or in favor of invading a sovereign nation. Even in favor of maintaining DADT.
But if you can present an argument against gay marriage about which I can't immediately point out a simple and obvious fallacy, you will be the first.
Because anti-gay marriage positions have no logical, argumentative merit, and are instead clearly based on deep-seated reactionary dislike for the very idea of homosexuality, there is no good reason for news outlets to accord them any respect or "equal time." You might as well ask why the MSM doesn't devote equal time to the fringe lunatics who think that 9/11 was a conspiracy or that schools should be deintegrated.
Go back to hiding you whiney Binky loving baby.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:03pm.
The name is taken. Call it something else. It is copyrighted. It is registered. The name MARRIAGE is already taken.
Just like the name SissyBoy is taken. YOU CAN'T USE IT. You had to settle for JasonC.
The only deep-seated reactionary dislike here is for you.
Just like I can't come up with a new sport tomorrow and call it baseball or football, you can't have the name marriage. IT IS A UNION OF A MAN AND WOMAN.
The. Friggin'. Name. Is. Already. In. Use.
But yeah, just like the little Binky Sucking Baby you are, you call me a hater, and a reactionary, and a lunatic, and compare me to 9/11 truthers. Ok you snitbag little whiney pissy pants baby just because I said THE NAME IS TAKEN. YOU CAN'T USE IT.
Snit.
Alrighty, and Sporty gets the
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:16pm.
Alrighty, and Sporty gets the ball rolling, albeit with a breathtakingly malformed idea of the fixity of words and their definitions.
See, by your sterling logic, baseball ceased to be baseball when the Negro League was dissolved and the MLB was integrated. Pro football ceased to be football when two-point conversions were admitted into regular play. Small adjustments to what is permissible in an activity or institution does not make said activity or institution something else entirely.
100 years ago, women couldn't legally marry without daddy's permission and, in most places, white women couldn't legally marry black men. Not so long ago, women were also considered the legal property of their husbands.
The fact that these horrendous aspects of matrimony were excised from the law has not made it necessary to call marriage by another name. Why should the marriage of two men or two women do so?
And finally, if you think that you, the almighty citizen voter, should have any say in whether two consenting adults can wed (regardless of the compatability of their nether parts), then please explain what your compelling vested interest is in the issue. Aside from your commmitment to maintaining definitions, of course.
Well then, since you want to go back 100 years....
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:25pm.
I now concede the point, JasonC. Looks like we can steal names because someone has a wild hair up his.... Wait. Oh dear. Sorry JasonC. Oh dear, wow, I, oopsies.... My face is so red.
What does "stealing names"
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:36pm.
What does "stealing names" have to do with anything?
Someone with a big ol' Binky in his hand is acting obtuse.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:43pm.
Whatever JasonC. I already conceded the point JasonC. We are now modifying definitions just to please JasonC. Yes, JasonC, marriage now includes any buddying up for any reason JasonC. Hey, I share a cubicle at work with another guy JasonC. New definition, we're married! Thanks JasonC. I understand how it works now JasonC.
Ok. You can pop that Binky back in now. NO. NOT THERE. IDIOT.
Why does Binky Lie and change my argument?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 6:10pm.
The Vet: ...I can't come up with a new sport tomorrow and call it baseball or football.
JasonC: See, by your sterling logic, baseball ceased to be baseball when the Negro League was dissolved...
I said come up with a sport name TOMORROW. What the hezmona is this horsepoo about baseball stopping being baseball when..... HUH?
Hey, JasonC, the name NON SEQUITUR is already taken you little whining Brent Bozell hating JasonC.
.Hey, I am kinda starting to warm up to this whole doubling up on definitions thing. Take a hike you nasty little vermin like JasonC.
Do any of you conservatives
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 2:13pm.
Do any of you conservatives who have actual points to make find this guy embarrassing?
I didn't lie or change your argument. Your argument was that the word Marriage already has a definition and that it specifically names a man and woman. My rebuttal is that words, especially those that describe complex institutions or processes, do not have fixed definitions. I don't believe I've ever suggested that legalizing gay marriage would involve a redefining of the word. But what I don't understand is why so many people think that means the end of marriage, period. All of the good things about marriage didn't change when the law was modulated so that wives were no longer considered property. Nor did the entirety of the game of football become corrupted when "Pro Football" came to include the possibility of 2-point conversions.
It's a pretty straightforward point. If you have a rebuttal that doesn't read like the ramblings of someone in a locked ward, I'll reply to it.
Whoopsies. Looks like someone wants me to talk how he wants.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:40pm.
I argue points MY WAY. I don't follow a little whiney snit that tells me how to act. And since Brent Bozell hating diaper trolls think they can dismiss all arguments as having no logical, argumentative merit, and are instead clearly based on deep-seated reactionary dislike for the very idea of homosexuality. That means, guess what, I am free to insult you in any way I want. You have alreaady DISMISSED ALL REBUTTALS.
And who said WORD little Binky sucking bottlebaby? I said NAME. Once again, you dishonestly try to change the argument.
Binky Braveheart: Your argument was that the word Marriage...
I said NAME.
name: 1. a : a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing.
NOT WORD.
distinctive designation such as marriage being between a man and a woman.
NAME. NAME. NAME. So pack sand you little JasonC. You DO change the argument.Hi, sociopath. You were the
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:54pm.
Hi, sociopath.
You were the one who harped, in your inimitably obsessive way, on my screen name. Which, for all intents and purposes on NB, constitutes a proper name.
You are dead in the water on the infantry analogy. You have been owned, for the thousandth time, because, also for the thousandth time, you do not stick with the terms of the argument.
The definition of what exactly constitutes an infantry unit has changed while the basic idea remained consistent. Likewise, the basic idea of marriage has remained consistent even as specific aspects of it - wifely ownership, noninterracial couplings only - have changed.
While words do indeed "name" things, it was you, not I, who pounced on the distinction between the definitions of words and the immutability of names. We're done. Anyone who follows these exchanges can see that you lost and are insane.
Wow. A troll declaring victory. Hmmm. That never happens.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 8:32pm.
We're done.
Good. Maybe you will shut up and go away for another month.
Binky declares victory! An infantryman is a soldier on foot. But because they carry updated weapons now, Binky gonna declare champeenz! Winner! Rewards nah! Money!
Yeah, Binky the JasonC, you declare victory and wander off. As long as you keep your fat trap shut, I really really really don't care.
Infrantry carried spears in ancient times. Infantry carry automatic weapons now. But yeah, THERE YOU GO BINKY. Definition changed! U winneez! Ponies! Ownerz! Not foot soldiers nah. Binky winnertatez.
Uh, Binky? Yo Binky that sez I changed the argument. Your gay buddies took a proper name like Santorum and, WHAT? Proper Name? and changed it to a common noun with the same definition as the one now assigned to you. Which is exactly what I did. But yeah, you declare winneez now, OK?
Putz.
Finally, It was YOU that changed what I said. It was YOU that dismisses all arguments against you in your first post. It is you that does not understand the definition of an infantryman has not changed and are now trying to prematurely declare victory. It was YOU that can't come here and argue anything honestly without insulting everyone here. So pack sand and ride on sissy troll.
Ride on.
Waiter! Waiter! Champaign for Binky!
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 8:28pm.
Waiter! Table six! Your best champaign for the celebrating Binky.
The Vet: Infantry does, did, and will always refer to a soldier ON FOOT.
Binky Braveheart: "Your cited definition specifically shows... the basic idea...remains the same..."
Binky Braveheart: ...the basic idea remained consistent.
Champaign for Binky the Baby Bottle Master! A round for the hou.... Wait a tick. What's this?
The Vet: Infantry does, did, and will always refer to a soldier ON FOOT
Google: define: infantry
an army unit consisting of soldiers who fight on foot; "there came ten thousand horsemen and as many fully-armed foot"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Infantrymen are soldiers who are specifically trained for the role of fighting on foot to engage the enemy face to face and have historically borne the brunt of the casualties of combat in wars. As the oldest branch of combat arms they are the backbone of armies. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry
A dismounted fighting man. During the bulk of the Middle Ages, the role of infantry was considered to be the role of the common man, a distinction is retains to a degree even in modern warfare. ...
www.chronique.com/Library/Glossaries/glossary-KCT/gloss_i.htm
group of men fighting on foot
www.ket.org/civilwar/vocab.html
A branch of the military in which soldiers traveled and fought on foot.
civilwar.org/education/history/glossary.html
a branch of an army whose soldiers are organized, trained and equipped to fight on foot.
www.lib.mq.edu.au/digital/lema/glossaries/militaryterms.html
+++
Infantry ---
1. The branch of an army made up of units trained to fight on foot.
2. Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot: The general ordered his infantry to attack.
3. A unit, such as a regiment, of such soldiers:
+++
The Vet: Infantry does, did, and will always refer to a soldier ON FOOT
Not at all, JasonC---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 8:45pm.
The Vet does not embarass us, but we truly do enjoy watching him kick liberal troll ass.
Almost as much as we enjoy the liberal troll denials that The Vet put the boot to their butt.
Fascinating examples of living in a dream world.
MD
JasonC
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:17pm.
So your argument is that since you can't come up with a reasonable argument against gay marriage, there isn't one?
OK, how about concerns about potentially negative long term effects that the acceptance of gay marriage might have on the fundamental social unit within human society - the family?
What about the fact that once marriage is defined to include homosexual couples, it becomes difficult to justify not allowing other forms of marriage such as polygamy or marriage between siblings?
Those are just off the top of my head.
Explain how either of those is rooted in homophobic tendencies.
And for the record, I'm not expressing my opinion here one way or the other - but to simply dismiss the opposing side like you have is disingenuous.
OK, how about concerns about
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:32pm.
OK, how about concerns about potentially negative long term effects that the acceptance of gay marriage might have on the fundamental social unit within human society - the family?
There is not a shred of credible evidence that children raised in same sex households have any sort of problems particular to the gender of their parents. To suggest that gay marriage ought to be made illegal because children should be raised with a mother and father is to a) Make very narrow assumptions about gender roles and their "naturalness" and b) Imply that you would also make illegal the raising of children in a single-parent household. The notion that a mother-father parental situation is ALWAYS and by definition superior to any other is absurd.
What about the fact that once marriage is defined to include homosexual couples, it becomes difficult to justify not allowing other forms of marriage such as polygamy or marriage between siblings?
First of all, this is a textbook example of slippery slope argumentation, so there's your fallacy. Second, while I agree that incest marriage is thorny (since a child could be essentially brainwashed from birth to submit to an older family members whims), I could not care less about polygamist marriages. It doesn't affect me or anyone else in a material enough way to justify its banning. To fully explain my position, the litmus test for marriage legitimacy is the ability to give consent. If other laws or definitions of consent not necessarily related to marriage per se make this impossible, then a marriage should be considered invalid. This is why the classic "people will want to marry animals or inanimate objects or children" line of reasoning is so absurd. Marriage requires consent of all parties, and animals and object and children cannot give it - this has been established in areas other than marriage, and so gay marriage would not set a precedent that would make such marriages more likely to happen. (I know you didn't make the animal/object/children argument yourself, which I take as a sign that you possess intelligence; just covering my bases.)
JasonC
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:42pm.
Funny - you didn't simply dismiss those two arguments by saying 'homophobe". You actually offered counterarguments - and someone holding to those views could easily offer counters to your counterarguments.
So I guess there are legitimate arguments against gay marriage - you just happen to not agree with them.
And by the way, I never said those were my arguments - and simply calling something a "slippery slope" argument doesn't make it so. It's a fallacy when the implied consequences of an action or decision don't necessarily or reasonably follow from them.
Sorry for the lag in reply;
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 2:08pm.
Sorry for the lag in reply; something came up last night out of the blue.
OK but so I think that there is a bit of slippery slope going on in your claim. And you're right, it's not always a fallacy, but the point is that by invoking polygamy and incest marriage - not that I can think of any way in which we have a material reason to prohibit them either, distasteful though they may seem - you're not arguing for some innate reason that gay marriage is problematic in and of itself, you're arguing that its being established could lead to demands for different but worse versions of it. This is not an anti-gay marriage argument, it's a "What will those weird people whose beliefs of what constitutes family differs from mine want next?"
And no, I did not dismiss those arguments by saying "homophobe." This was my original point. That the only argumentatively valid way to advocate an anti-gay marriage position is to come out and say "I think homosexuality is gross and those people shouldn't have marriage rights." If someone were to say this, my position would be dead in the water, because what am I supposed to do, convince him or her that homosexuality isn't gross? The fact is, though, that very few people are going to make such an offensive claim, and so they fall back on attempts to argue against it using red herrings about polygamy and vague claims about corroding family values (as if heterosexuals have done such a bang-up job keeping the family unit harmonious). These are the fallacious arguments, and so all I'm doing is pointing out why that is.
JasonC
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:37pm.
Again - not my claim - a possible claim.
You say that there's a bit of a slippery slope to that claim and yet you acknowledge that you can't think of why polygamy and incest marriage should be prohibited. That seems to undermine your assertion. Wouldn't it follow that if we made gay marriage legal then there wouldn't be much legal justification for these other types of marriage to not become legal as well?
But that aside, I agree that this particular argument isn't really an argument against any particular aspect of gay marriage - it's basically just way of asserting that it - and those other types of marriage - is simply unacceptable.
But I think your use of "homophobic tendencies" to describe the motive behind even this type of argument is more an emotional response on your part than an accurate reflection of the other side's view. "phobic" implies an irrational hatred or fear of something. Finding something "gross" isn't, I think, necessarily a reflection of that (though it can be). I think eating tripe is gross, but I don't have an irrational hatred or fear of it or of those who do (which would include my father).
It's also harder to argue homophobia with regard to the second argument. Even though you dismiss it outright (which is never a good thing to do), I would be willing to bet that you can find academic arguments by sociologists and psychologists that point to potential negative long term affects which might result from a fundamental redefinition of marriage. I don't work in that area of research (do you?) so I'm not willing to dismiss those arguments out of hand since my ignorance doesn't put me in a position to do so.
And either way, you don't seem to be dismissing them as being rooted in homophobia.
And for the record, I never mentioned the idea of corroding family values or gender roles in relation to this argument - you did. I would be willing to bet that the arguments against gay marriage in this context extend far beyond these things you bring up. But like I said, I don't work in these fields so I'm sort of guessing here.
(And for some reason - as an aside - I suddenly find myself thinking of the arguments for anthropomorphic global warming - would you dismiss those out of hand as vague or speculative?)
Look, my point is that there are arguments against gay marriage that are not predicated on an irrational hatred of gays. Fundamentally, by saying that all such arguments are ultimately rooted in homophobia, you are making an appeal to motive which is a form of logical fallacy.
Edit - typo
Thank goodness, a reasonable
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:58pm.
Thank goodness, a reasonable and rational response. Unlike DaVet's ramblings, this will actually take time and brainpower to respond to. I have to sign off now, but I will address it soon. Thank you for posting something thoughful.
Dang you Merriam-Webster!
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:20pm.
Dang you to heel! Anti-gay, no logical havin', argumentive, dip sitted reactionaries, dislikin', 9/11 lovin', no good reasonins, fringe lunee ticks Merriam Friggin' Weebster.
Don't you know that name JasonC is up fer grabs?
marriage 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
Too bad they tried to give that name to Senator Santorum. Otherwise we could call it JasonC. Since you are so quick to give away names to outside parties. Right JasonC? Or can we now call it JasonC now that you are so quick to double up the definitions of names that are already taken.
Idiot Binky Braveheart tries to shut down all discussion by insulting everyone here. Up yours Binky Braveheart the Baby Bottle Master.
And whoosh, JWF misses the
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:34pm.
And whoosh, JWF misses the point.
I'm not disagreeing about marriage's current definition. I'm pointing out that that doesn't mean that its definition is inalterable.
Which, um, was pretty much the point of my post.
Whooshies. Binky Braveheart pretends not to understand.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:47pm.
I said the NAME IS TAKEN. It is not yours to alter JasonC. You don't own it. You can't alter it. JasonC. So you keep pretending I iz convused. 'K?
I doubt he understands
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 7:19pm.
Because the objective is to undermine Folks of Faith.
I do understand that the "Name" "Lipozoon" is available though.
And since when are the
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 2:16pm.
And since when are the beliefs of "folks of faith" more important than those of folks of non- or different faith? Especially considering that, by definition, perspectives based on "faith" are backed up only by personal, immaterial conviction, rather than empirical or logical claims?
Nonetheless, I would argue that the fight for gay marriage is not designed to offend you and yours, but to establish basic equality with regard to a civil institution. Any offense is incidental.
Oh yes it is designed to offend.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:20pm.
You dismissed all arguments out of hand from the get-go.
The beliefs of "folks of faith" ARE important. Once the law is passed that marriage is between any two peoples. Churches can be SUED for refusing to marry same sex couples based upon their religious faith.
But whatever, you make it all about empirical or logical claims now. You is not trying to expand the argument now, is you? Not dishonest at all. Izzitz?
Hey, it is raining. Make sure those code pink panties of yours don't get wet and bleed out the color, 'K? Hoped you used permanent ink on that cardboard sign you are carrying decrying why the military won't allow transgenders or JasonCs to enlist.
whining binky sucking JasonC.
Well now that you mention it
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:39pm.
And since when are the beliefs of "folks of faith" more important than those of folks of non- or different faith?
You can beleive anything you want Jason, it;s when you want to turn them into special Rights for Gay's is where you go wrong.
Fact is, no-one cares about civil unions for Gays, it's when you force them on those of faith you find it an issue. I knew you didnt understand it. Because like I said, it's about agenda, not marriage/civil unions. It's about undermining Folks of Faith.
Call your unions 'NOKIDLEFTBEHIND" and I bet the issue dissolves. But we cant have that, right?
I'll address both posts at
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:43pm.
I'll address both posts at once.
Since the only coherent, albeit wrong, assertion in Vet's post is that churches will be sued if they refuse to marry people, we'll begin with that. Marriage equality is being pursued as a legal definition. As it stands now, no religious institution or even individual pastor/priest/rabbi is required by law to perform their faith-based version of the marriage ceremony. I could contact a local minister right now and tell him I want to get married to a woman. If, after meeting us, he felt we were not entering into matrimony for the proper, sacred reasons, he would be well within his rights to decline to perform the ceremony. The argument is for gay couples to be recognized as legally married and to have the same encompassing rights as anyone else. Whether any given private institution presides over the proceedings is not relevant. Aside from your fear that such lawsuits will occur, do you have any credible source to demonstrate that this might happen or that gay rights leaders are planning on it?
How are these "special" rights? Heterosexuals have taken them for granted for millenia. Are gays asking for Super-Marriage? Special implies that their marriage rights would exceed those of heterosexuals. And yes, you can base your opposition to gay marriage on religion all you want - cherrypicking of Leviticus notwithstanding - and attempt to persuade lawmakers and other people of your position via scriptural rhetoric. But that doesn't make it hold up as an argument. To base an argument on a position of faith is actually quite the opposite of argument, as it takes as a given (the righteousness and infallibility of scripture) something that is not inherently and demonstrably righteous and infallible. I couldn't start randomly making arguments about social policy and back them up with "well, this is what happened in Harry Potter," because basing arguments on one single book that I happen to dig would be absurd.
Awwww, Binky thinks Veet wron-geez. Veet full pooiez.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 5:12pm.
Once again, Binky can't argue honestly.
Binky Braveheart: As it stands now, no religious institution or even individual pastor/priest/rabbi is required by law...
It is not about REQUIRING someone to perform a marriage. It is about DISCRIMINATION when they won't perform something that is legal.
But you go on now and tell everyone what a big bad word bully scatmonster the Veet is because he won't play nice with you. You floppy plastic bag full of JasonC.
Hhmm,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 5:56pm.
All those words, to completely make my arguement.
How are these "special" rights?
Really, from a group that already has "hatecrime" special rights/powers. Amazing, truly amazing
Why do the Gays protest at Churches instead of the Black community, they both are against Gay Marriage by about the same poll numbers?
And why would Hetro's want the Right to Marry the same sex?
BTW "wholehoppers" is still available.
Maybe so, mandrake---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 7:19pm.
but I have started dog-earing JasonC's posts.Wow, good for me, huh?
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:46pm.
Wow, good for me, huh?
It is good for you, JasonC---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 6:56pm.
because with both The Vet and hydro knocking huge chunks of your personal views, opinion, and yes, bias, off the pedestal your argument rests upon, you have your keyboard full enough without me harping at you.
MD
Hydro made some good points.
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 2:23pm.
Hydro made some good points. DaVet, though? Really? His one and only argument is that because the word means something according to the dictionary, it must always mean that and nothing else. An "argument" that, in order to be uttered with a straight face, requires an alarming amount of ignorance concerning the evolution of words. It also takes as a given that I'm unaware that gay marriage requires a small tweaking of the legal and semantic definition of the word, and that is just not the case.
Let's take, for instance, the word "infantry." Let's think about what it meant to be an infantryman in King Edward's military in the 13th century and what it means to be an infantryman in the modern U.S. military. Same basic idea, right? But a lot of differences made necessary by the passage of time, the role of a military, and the introduction of various technologies. This does not mean that we need a new word for "Infantry." It just means that the word has evolved. Vet's argument rests on a sort of semantic prescriptivism that simply does not fly in reality.
(allow me to anticipate Sporty's reply: Teh binky thinks he can use examples from the military even though he's a binky-loving Bozell-hating war-opposer, go change a diaper binky, blah blah etc. psycho)
There it is again, LYING about what I said.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:36pm.
I said the name was taken. NAME. You deliberately change it to word and then you whine about my arguing style. What a pathetic whining little JasonC you are.
And your pathetic example of infantry is another dishonest attempt to change the argument.
Infantry does, did, and will always refer to a soldier ON FOOT. Stupid Lying Sissy. It does not matter what weapon they carry. It refers to a foot soldier. Stay away from the military even in your examples little sissy that proudly displays her girl scout badge for opposing a war we won.
in·fan·try /ˈɪnfəntri/ –noun, plural -tries.
1.soldiers or military units that fight on foot, in modern times typically with rifles, machine guns, grenades, mortars, etc., as weapons.
2.a branch of an army composed of such soldiers.
Stupid JasonC.
In fact, however, it comes from French infanterie, a word the French borrowed from Old Italian infanteria, which was a collection of infante "youth, foot soldier."
HAS NOT CHANGED A BIT FROM THE ORIGINAL.
Stupid JasonC.
Um, last I checked,
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:29pm.
Um, last I checked, "marriage" is a word, not a proper name.
And regarding my infantry example, you've made my point for me. Your cited definition specifically shows, through the phrase "in modern times," how while the basic idea (as I pointed out in the original example and as you rightly remark is that it's a unit of foot soldiers) remains the same, specifics change over time.
Gee, vulgarity in a tagline. Nice.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:36pm.
Did you write that all by yourself or was it a class assignment and you just picked your favorite?
Actually, I have been meaning
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:47pm.
Actually, I have been meaning to get rid of it; The Poster Formally Known as CL3X pointed out its historical inaccuracy. I do like the sentiment, and could not care less about the vulgarity. Ironic that you pick on censored vulgarity in my tag and apparently remain unoffended by the hundreds of scatological retorts that JWF flings around here. Moral relativism and double standards from a conservative, schocking.
Anyway, do you have anything substantive to add to the actual conversation?
Poor butt hurt trollie. Veet Sucks!
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:56pm.
Poor butt hurt trollie is on the receiving end of the meanie Veet's word bullying. Awwwwwww.
What can anyone add to the conversation? NOTHING according to Binky Braveheart. NOTHING. He dismissed ALL arguments with his opening post.
Binky the poor butt hurt JasonC: ...there is not a single argument against gay marriage...
YOU ALREADY TOLD US RIGHT FROM THE START WE HAVE NO ARGUMENTS.
Suck on the Binky now. You iz important trollies. OK? Since we have no arguments, that must mean all we have is mocking the sissytroll that insults us and dismisses everything we say.
JasonC
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 9:18pm.
Anyway, do you have anything substantive to add to the actual conversation?
Do you?
This from the seasoned NB lib knucklehead who comes on and endlessly whines and lectures us all about why we can't just change the meaning of -- or add on new meanings to -- a word in the English dictionary.
- Shy Grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
If I remember correctly, he stole it from a teenie stoner mag.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:48pm.
They have to set out rules for teenie/college stoners that don't know how to interact with people much as the JasonC does not know how to argue his point honestly. He has to be told that changing what people say and argue is a basic dishonesty when arguing.
Actually, it's explicitly an
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:57pm.
Actually, it's explicitly an anti-stoner magazine. But the rest of your assessment is more or less accurate.
I do like use of the word "stole," despite the fact that it was in quotation marks. That's stealing, is it? Mr. Veteran of 1,000 Psychic Wars? You came up with that right?
Still changing what I said.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 5:23pm.
Did I say you were a floppy plastic bag of JasonC for stealing it? Did I pass judgement on you sissytroll? Here we go again with Binky focusing on some minutea when the major points walk by.
Oh, Veeties is so wrong to say stealies to trollie. Boxom baddies! Word Bullies! Power meaniez!
Yes. I PROPERLY USED THE WORD. And yes I stole my tagline. Sissy that whines because Veet sez stole.
Now. Let's see about the rest of my post about the sissytroll that whines because I said stoliez.
Me: ...how to interact with people much as the JasonC does not know how to argue his point honestly. He has to be told that changing what people say and argue is a basic dishonesty when arguing.
Friggin' sissy trolls get butt hurt because I said stole. Phweet. I say he can't honestly argue what was said. Finez word bulliz. Finez.
LIE. Try to change what I said AGAIN.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:44pm.
Binky the dishonest LIAR: His one and only argument is that because the word...
Binky the dishonest LIAR: Your argument was that the word...
I SAID you changed the word from my claim the name was taken to the definition of a word.
Up yours with your straw man argument. CHANGING THE ARGUMENT AGAIN. Who said it was a proper name? WHO? You inflate what people said and then knock it down. YOU LIE.
Now you can't even admit you flubbed on infantry. You now try to claim victory even though you frelled it again. Yes, little Binky the JasonC, the definition of FOOT SOLDIER did change because the definition gave an EXAMPLE of what they carry nowadays. You iz not dishonext in making the definition SOLELY dependent on the EXAMPLE iz you? No, dang Veet lies about trollies. Dang you Veetz. Trollie win. Yay.
So yeah, little trollie. You misrepresent what I say over and over again. But conservatives should be ashamed of me. Yeah, that is how it works. Stupid Veet, changing what Binky said, oh wait, no that is backwards.
It is that Veet. Conservaxiz need to hate him. Binky the Baby Bottle Master sez so.
JasonC, In the world history of "marriage" name me a time
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 6:37pm.
when marriage meant anything OTHER than a union of a human male to a human female?
What you are yappin about is SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
It's like Community Reinvestment Act
3 words that must be forever coupled.
English is a wonderful language spoken in cockpits and nuclear power planets...
Time for you to invent a new word for "holey santorum". heck maybe you can win a #1 hit in here or on youtube, skys the limit show your best bent...
You Didn't Build That.
JasonC
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 9:12pm.
His one and only argument is that because the word means something according to the dictionary, it must always mean that and nothing else.
OMO, you are such a relentlessly agenda-driven poo brain.
That, um, is the only one he and any of us need.
Translated (although your blather doesn't really need it for the majority of us who read and see right through you):
A) Hydro makes many good points.
B) The Vet makes one air-tight good point.
And yet you just have to fight this stupid fight for the gays. Wait, I'm sorry.... for the tangerines. I just decided to update the meaning of "tangerines", adding that it also means gay people.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Waiter! Waiter! Over here. At Binky's table.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 9:29pm.
Waiter. We are on a limited budget (roll eyes. secretly point to Binky). Please bring your finest bottle of Champaign that does not go over $8.50.
Binky Braveheart: Your argument was that the word Marriage already has a definition and that it specifically names a man and woman.
Holy "Shub-Niggurath", the Black Goat with a Thousand Young! Is that what I said boys and girls?
BINKY LIES. LIES THROUGH HIS CROOKED YELLOW PUTRID TEETH.
I said the name is taken. I did not say it already has a definition. Everything has a definition for the love of Shub-Niggurath. Are you that retarded? I posted the definition of marriage in one of my posts. IT DON'T MAKE IT MY ARGUMENT. LYING LITTLE SNIT. My argument HAS ALWAYS BEEN the name is taken. It already has an owner and it ain't you. You can't have it. "Don't call it marriage" It. Is. Not. Yours. To. Change.
Frelling turd Binky changes the argument of others EVERY SINGLE TIME
Binky Braveheart: Your argument was that the word Marriage already has a definition and that it specifically names a man and woman.
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 9:57pm. Nevermind that the name marriage is already taken.
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:03pm. The name MARRIAGE is already taken.
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:03pm. ...you can't have the name marriage. IT IS A UNION OF A MAN AND WOMAN.
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:03pm. The. Friggin'. Name. Is. Already. In. Use.
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:03pm. THE NAME IS TAKEN. YOU CAN'T USE IT.
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:25pm. Looks like we can steal names...
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:47pm I said the NAME IS TAKEN. It is not yours to alter JasonC. You don't own it. You can't alter it. JasonC. So you keep pretending I iz convused. 'K?