Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Thank you. That's very thoughtful.

Throat-clearing "harumph"...short wait for noise to die down.

"Expose", in this case referred to, meant and means to reveal inconsistency, extremism and submerging of principle below party/ideological fealty.

"Dangerous", in the case quoted, meant and means the consequences for liberty and democracy that follow from those things I would wish to expose. Qing Lai, Red Guard activist from a small town in Shangshon province is only as dangerous as his philosophy is dangerous.

Let's consider "leftists and liberals and secularists" running lose in American universities and brainwashing American children into unAmerican ideas and values. It's a theme promoted by foxfyre and others, and of course, by David Horowitz. Such individuals ought to be watched, documented, and purged.

From a commentary in today's Chicago Tribune ("A handsome, but cranky, coot"):



And this includes that some might still not see this:

Of course the thing the writer doesn't seem to see is:
1) There have been no shifting rationales; only shifting objectives as cirucmstances have change
2) Nobody ever claimed a Sept 11 and Iraq connection - there has been claim of a connection with Iraq and the War on Terror however. Most people can see the difference between the two.
3) The evidence of 'no viable weapons of mass destruction' is still out, but that does not change the fact that everybody in the Bush administration, everybody in the Clinton administration, everybody in the U.S. Congress, virtually everybody in the U.N. and heads of states in all free nations of the world believed there was WMD at the time the invasion was launched. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the sanctions to have continued beyond the 12 years they had already been in place.

And finally, and mostly importantly, other than the freedom to write any damn fool thing any writer wants to write, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread.

foxfyre turns on the taperecorder and presses "play"


http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm

I'd rather play my own tapes of what I have learned and believe than be a Leftwing parrot.

Please, foxfyre, Don't be so harsh! You know when you have stents in your heart and have suffered a massive heart attack, there are other ways in which to get information rather than turning the pages in a book!

You are trotting out Jeff Gannon, the gay male prostitute who was a shill for the administration in the Whitehouse Press Corp, again?

Do you want to attack the messenger instead of the substance of the post?

ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT IS NOT TRUE THAT 44 STATES HAVE LAWS THAT RESTRICT MARRIAGE TO ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN as the article says?

Very well- Here's another article that says much the same thing_

You won't be able to rebut this one either!!!













Marriage and the States Posted: April 30, 2004



State laws traditionally govern who can marry and, in turn, how a marriage can be ended. An individual's marital status, in turn, is key to how he or she fits into the federal matrix of benefits, parental rights and financial standings.

Recent moves by state courts and legislatures to further define whether marriage can extend to same-sex couples has inspired new questions about how states regulate the institution in the future, and what role the federal government should play in such regulation.

In early 2004, President Bush said he supported amending the U.S. Constitution to ban marriages between same-sex couples.

The president said he would like to see an amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman, as husband and wife" but also added that states should have the right to outline "legal arrangements other than marriage."

The growing collision of state and federal regulations over the definition of marriage may ultimately lead the U.S. Supreme Court to evaluate the varying stances on marriage and how they should apply to the gay community.

Basics of marriage and American law
American law and its core marriage regulations are largely grounded in British common law. Those traditions viewed marriage as a voluntary contract between a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage also confirmed the legitimacy of the couple's children.

In the mid-1800s, laws and statutes regarding personal property and women's rights were changed to give both partners more equal legal footing.

Many state-level marriage regulations are administrative, such as requiring a minimum age or requiring blood tests to apply for a marriage license. Other state-specific regulations prohibit relatives from marrying each other.

Once an individual is married, there are certain legal steps or circumstances that must occur for the union to be dissolved or for that person to remarry. These include death, divorce and annulment.

The legal and financial implications of state marriage laws have been amended and added as society has changed over time -- including a large number of states that have moved to prohibit a person from marrying someone of the same sex.

One of the most significant changes at the federal level was the 1996 passage of the Defense of Marriage Act. Under DOMA, states would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. The act defined marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

On the heels of DOMA's passage, 38 states went on to pass their own "marriage protection" statutes that define marriage as occurring between one man and one woman, and denying recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other states.

The ramifications of a same-sex couple not being able to legally marry are more than symbolic -- some 1,049 federal laws include marital status as a factor, according to a 1997 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office.

The types of rights and benefits for married couples that are denied to same-sex couples include property rights, health care benefits, child custody, immigration, inheritance and hospital visitation.

Some states have also adopted additional "covenant marriage" legislation, which goes a step further in solidifying the bonds of marriage. Covenant marriage is an option for those who do not believe in swift no-fault divorce or wish to demonstrate a stronger level of commitment to their marriage bond. Generally, couples who choose to enter a covenant marriage must attend premarital counseling and may only divorce after two years of separation or being able to prove specific circumstances for the split, such as abuse or adultery.

Louisiana was one of the first states to pass a covenant marriage law in 1997. A little over 1 percent of couples married in the state from 1998-2002 opted for the provision, according to media reports.

Court battles over state same-sex marriage laws
As states have sought to define their rules on same-sex unions, legal battles over whether homosexual couples can be refused a marriage license have largely played out in the state courts and legislatures over the last decade.

State courts in Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont were among the first to weigh in on the issue of whether their states had the right to refuse marriage certificates to gay couples. To date, no American court has ever ordered the issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

In the 1993 case Baehr v. Lewin, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that statutes prohibiting a person from marrying someone of the same sex might violate the state constitution.

As the case moved through the court system, the Hawaii Legislature proposed an amendment to the state constitution to give the legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. Voters in Hawaii approved the marriage amendment during November 1998 elections.

The Hawaii legislature went on to enact a law recognizing "reciprocal beneficiary" relationships that would allow couples who cannot marry to register as reciprocal beneficiaries and receive some of the benefits afforded married couples.

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled in the 1999 case State v. Baker that the state constitution allowed same-sex couples to obtain the same benefits as married couples. The state legislature went on to enact a law giving same-sex couples virtually all the same rights and protections as married couples.

Vermont is currently the only state that grants same-sex couples the same state-granted rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples, although the state terms their partnerships "civil unions" instead of marriages.

Some federal benefits, such as Social Security and Medicaid, remain unavailable as DOMA dictates.

Benefits granted to same-sex couples according to state
Hawaii, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey are currently the only other states to formally recognize "domestic partnerships" allowing same sex couples to apply for some of the state-run benefits afforded to the married.

Each of these states is unique in terms of what state benefits same-sex couples can apply for if they meet the domestic partnership criteria. Hawaii, for example, offers multiple benefits for partners of state employees but does not offer property division or alimony rights as a marriage would. Simply filing a declaration with the proper authorities can terminate a reciprocal beneficiary relationship in the state.

New Jersey, the state that has passed the most recent domestic partnership law, allows same-sex couples to claim joint status for state taxes and may claim some medical insurance and pension benefits if their partner works for the state.

New Jersey and California have similar criteria to qualify for a domestic partnership: Same-sex couples must share a common residence and be in a committed relationship of "mutual caring." An opposite-sex couple over age 62 can also apply for domestic partnership status.

Massachusetts has taken a critical role in the legal debate over whether states can allow same-sex couples to marry. After seven couples sued for the right to wed, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that barring same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional.

In a subsequent February 2004 decision, the court ruled 4-3 to give the state legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws to accommodate gay couples. Legislators are considering an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage but could permit civil unions.

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the ruling.

In February 2004, San Francisco decided to strike out on its own, and began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Same-sex couples flocked to City Hall, waiting in long lines in the hopes of obtaining a license.

"We are reading the direct language within the state constitution, and we directed our county clerk to do the right thing and extend the privilege that's extended to my wife and myself and millions of us across the country to same-sex couples," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told CNN in mid-February.

San Francisco issued over 4,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples between Feb. 11 and March 11, when the California Supreme Court ordered City Hall to stop. The issue continues to play out in a lawsuit currently in the California Superior Court.

California has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country at 1.4 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to an Associated Press analysis of the 2000 census. In Massachusetts, same-sex partners occupy 1.3 percent of coupled households. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent.

Lawmakers' role in the debate
The White House's decision to support a constitutional amendment comes after most state legislatures have sought to better define their laws on marriage and its parameters.

In most states, lawmakers are considering proposed amendments to their constitutions that would define existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage and deny recognition of unions that may be allowed elsewhere in the country.

In Alabama, for example, a constitutional amendment is pending action in the House of Representatives but some lawmakers want to delay putting it on the ballot until 2006, to avoid its potentially polarizing role in the 2004 presidential election.

In Indiana, a proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage passed in the Senate, but Democratic Speaker Patrick Bauer shelved the measure in the House, prompting House Republicans to walk out.

Most states continue to consider legislative proposals, with varying levels of debate and attention.

Some members of the U.S. Congress have pointed to the battles in the state-level courts and the decisions of individual judges as part of the need for a U.S. constitutional amendment.

"Why is an amendment necessary? Two words: activist judges. The only way to save laws deemed unconstitutional by activist judges is a constitutional amendment," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said during a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Law in March 2004

Copied from today's Albuquerque Journal, page E 1:




Complete text of U.S. District Judge Robert Brack's order as pdf-data.

Well score one for common sense finally!!! I would feel better about the ruling if the court had ordered the Plaintiffs to pay the court costs of the City of Las Cruces but that's one of many tort reforms we still need to make in this country.

Meanwhile the insanity goes on. I don't there there has yet been a ruling in the case for the Village of Tijeras (a tiny little burg 8 miles east of Albuquerque).

Saturday, November 11, 2006


Send To a Friend
Print This Article


October 24, 2005
How Many ACLU Lawyers Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?
By John Leo

The "tiny cross" people at the American Civil Liberties Union are at it again. These are the folks with extra-keen eyes and powerful magnifying glasses who examine the official seals of towns and counties, looking for miniature crosses that ACLU lawyers like to trumpet as grave threats to separation of church and state.
This time around, the folks with the magnifying glasses are leaning on the village of Tijeras, N.M., whose seal contains a conquistador's helmet and sword, a scroll, a desert plant, a fairly large religious symbol (the Native American zia) and a quite small Christian cross. "Tiny cross" inspectors are not permitted to fret about large non-Christian religious symbols, only undersized Christian ones, so the ACLU filed suit to get the cross removed.

The cross is obviously not an endorsement of religion, any more than the conquistador helmet and sword are endorsements of Spanish warfare. The courts have ruled, not always consistently, that crosses, as historical references in such seals and logos, are permissible. But the ACLU, these days, is strongly committed to seeing church-state crises everywhere, and thus pushes things way too far.

Last year the ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County eliminate from its seal a microscopic cross representing the missions that settled the state of California. Under threat of expensive litigation, the county complied. The cross was about one-sixth the size of a not-very-big image of a cow tucked away on the lower right segment of the seal, and maybe a hundredth of the size of a pagan god (Pomona, goddess of fruit) who dominated the seal. Pomona survived the religious purge. She is not the sort of god that the ACLU worries about, whereas the flyspeck-sized cross was a threat to unravel separation of church and state, as we know it. What will happen if the ACLU learns that Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Sacramento, San Francisco, St. Louis and Corpus Christi actually have religious names? We shudder to think.

The campaign to remove all traces of religion from public institutions, and in fact from the entire public square, is now far advanced. Part of that extremist campaign is to squelch private expression in and around public schools. Students have been punished for reading the Bible outside of class, for assembling after school to talk about religion, for thanking God or Jesus in a valedictory speech, and for bowing their heads (and therefore presumed to be praying privately) before lunch.

Another fairly common school crisis comes when a class is asked to write an essay or draw a picture of someone they regard as a hero. Mao Tse-tung or Vlad the Impaler will bring no rebuke, but if the hero is Jesus or Moses, watch out.

Last week the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York accepted the case of Antonio Peck, who, as a kindergartner in 1999, had his drawing censored from a class wall display because of church-state concerns. Along with the rest of his class, Antonio was told to draw a picture to illustrate his understanding of the environment. He drew a man with upraised arms, wearing a robe. When asked, the boy said the man was Jesus, who was "the only way to save the world." The trial will decide whether the school was guilty of viewpoint censorship.

In Tennessee, the Knox County board of education is being sued for refusing to allow a 10-year-old to read his Bible during recess. The school argued that recess is not free time and that the school can forbid the reading of religious material during that period. The Phoenix-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which defends religious liberties cases, supported the student.

After ADF intervened, a school in Torrance, Calif., backed down from its decision not to allow a student on a dance team to perform to religious music. ADF also defended students who had been forbidden by their schools to participate in the national Sept. 21 "See You at the Pole" prayer and religious event on school grounds. ADF argued that religious expression cannot be treated differently from any other constitutionally protected expression.

As if to prove that church-state objections can be found on the right as well as on the left, the band director at C.D. Hylton High School in Virginia pulled the song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" by the Charlie Daniels Band after a conservative objected. He wondered why the school should be allowed to sing about the devil when they are not allowed to sing about God.

Next week: The ACLU sues to ban deviled eggs from the school cafeteria.
SOURCE

"People have suggested that if plaintiffs have these complaints, they should leave. No they should not," Brack wrote. "This is the United States of America. As concerned citizens and parents, plaintiffs have every right to raise their concerns in this court."

I didn't comment on whether the Plaintiff should leave. I commented on whether the Plaintiff should pay.

La Cuces Sun-News

And if he loses that one, and I hope with all my heart that he does, he should have to pay the defendant's court costs there too.

Well, you might be right: the Jewish community - Weinbaum is a prominent member of it - is collecting money for these cases since months already.

BtW. this plaintiff is not supported mainly by ACLU but by JewsOnFirst.org "the Jewish response to attacks on the First Amendment by the Christian right".

He must be a miserably unhappy human being with a lot of time on his hands. None of my Jewish friends understand how the presence of a cross, Christian or otherwise, harms them in any way any more than the presence of a Minorah or Star of david harms their Christian friends. Until all this stupid anti-Christian stuff started some time back, Jewish kids had fun singing Christian Christmas carols and the Christian kids enjoyed learning some Jewish songs.

I feel sorry for anyone with that much anger and hatred, but he should still have to pay the court costs of the defendant especially in a suit like this in which he can prove no personal damages whatsoever.

Meanwhile the ACLU has to use their money on something and don't care who gets hurt. And if they prevail in the suit, they can collect tens or sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars from the U.S. taypayer.

That is just plain wrong.

No idea - seems, there are quite some Jews who joined this organisation.